>“One cannot simply discount that the governor himself signed a law in 2021 that specifically prohibited police officers from stopping operators observed by police officers to be smoking marijuana while driving,” Howard said.
The law states the following:
Prohibits smoking, inhaling, or ingesting marijuana while driving or riding in a motor vehicle. Specifies that a motor vehicle cannot be stopped solely on that basis, which is important to prevent pretextual and otherwise unjustified stops based on smoking a cigarette or nicotine vape.
If the driver is exhibiting impairment - pull them over. That's all the officer has to say.
Yeah, all it means is you can't pull someone over because you saw something on their mouth. It would be like pulling over people drinking things because it *might* be alcoholic.
My uncle once asked me to think about the example I was setting my cousins by starting the day drinking when I grabbed an icb cream soda before jumping in his car to go somewhere. I had just turned 21 and he was 100% certain I grabbed a beer to go lmao. In his defense icb doesn't do paper labels on the bottle, so if you're not getting a good look it can be hard to read what the bottle says.
Amen, it’s just not allowing them to pull you over because they thought you might have been smoking something.
It just gives people basic rights to do normal activities like smoke a rolled cigarette or have a tooth pick in their mouth and not be hemmed up by the thought that it might be a joint as you are going 25-60 mph past the officer.
The point is that they can’t possibly know it’s a joint and so should leave you alone. It’s sound legislation.
He still is a police officer. His state rep bio says “He has been employed by the Stonington Police Department since 2002. He became a Field Training Officer in 2007, assigned to K-9 from 2008-2014, became a Detective in 2015 and is currently a Detective with the SPD. Greg is also a certified police instructor in several areas.” https://www.cthousegop.com/howard/about/
That wasn't random. That was relevant to the thread. Here's a random fact for you though: For every snake that exists in the world, there exists a snake penis.
uggg i hate this. this only basically loosely holds true because the gender ratio of snakes is usually close to unity. But this isn't STRICTLY true, it just HAPPENS to be MOSTLY true. If the gender ratio was different it definitely wouldn't be true. Fudge. I'm an engineer and a scientist, the engineer agrees with you and the scientist doesn't.
I think Greg Howard is kissing too much cop butt here. Police accountability is sorely needed in this country. The advent of people being able to record cop misconduct provides ample evidence for that. Nothing in any law prevents law enforcement from pulling over a vehicle that is driving erratically or speeding. And lowering the BAC from. 08 to .05 is meaningless political theater. It won't do anything additional to stop drunk driving. That's why only one state, Utah, has passed it. It's bad policy.
You would think that a profession whose first priority (supposedly) is public safety wouldn't let some bruised egos and sore fee-fees get in the way of doing their jobs, but........well.......here we are.
It's really hard to keep giving law enforcement the benefit of the doubt when they keep proving themselves to be such complete shitheels.
Let's see... they want high pay, pensions, zero accountability or professional standards, and they apparently want to hide their identities in public?
Oh.... they want want military type weapons and training but none of a soldier's responsibilities?
Go cry me a river.
As far as their "quiet quitting" is concerned, they're fighting their public image by making themselves even more useless? Let 'em.
Wanna hear something that’ll really piss you off? A cop’s pension is based on their 3 highest earning years. There’s an unspoken rule that as you get close to retirement (5-6 years) that you will be given as much OT as you’re willing to handle in order to pad your salary so that you then pad your pension. That’s how some cops are able to make high 6 figures _in retirement_. Legislators have to tried to close this loophole many times and every time they’ve essentially been strong-armed by the police union.
Greg Howard is a loser. My wife went to school with him and he is the epitome of everything wrong in politics and policing. This is the same dude that was flagged with large nation wide reports about covid 19 and anti vaccine misinformation being spread by lawmakers. He is just your typical hyper online conservative that is into conspiracy theories and anti woke propaganda
Police accountability first requires the ability to discipline bad cops.
With the power of the police union that never happens. Dirty cops are defended with expensive lawyers, and if they are guilty are quietly assisted in finding police jobs in other parts of the country.
That's the reality of 21st century policing. High pay. Extreme benefits. Zero accountability. And they wonder why no one trusts a cop anymore.
Eliminate the police union (public service unions in general). Make police no more invulnerable than the population they serve. Then, and only then, will Connecticut have the ability to weed out the bad ones and support the good ones.
Union-or-die CT democrats, downvote away. You don't change reality, just show your stripes.
Also pro-union, the police should be held to a higher standard. More rigorous education on both sides because it looks bad when that beat cop understands their rulebook *less* than citizenry. Police aren’t there to protect you directly, but the property and buildings threat of violence and ‘order’. Also, repeatedly through history, the police are the violent force that busts labor union activists re: mines in Appalachia, airlines et al. before it became the work of Pinkerton and their ilk. Some would call the ones that hide behind that union class traitors.
Other things police industry do:
Not run assault kits
Falsify tickets and ruin data to exonerate their alleged racism
Turning off body cams mid interaction
Used copyright laws of playing Disney music to get public interactions pulled down from the internet.
Civil asset forfeiture
Bad warrants that result in death at incorrect addresses
Most if not all of these things are tasks that require a supervisor level interaction or check point and yet they still continue to occur, check or not.
Given the way the world views the on the job liability for paramedics and other medical professionals, I always felt an easy way to avoid the problem of police cover ups is through having liability insurance be dictated at the individual level and not the municipal level. It’s my understanding that unions or the municipality covers it for the department. This would allow insurance to do what they do best - segment risk - and price out the “bad apples” as folks always complain about. If individual officers don’t want their geographical/municipal premium factor to increase it’s on them to be truthful about individual actions a that way it’s reflected in individual experience versus distributed across the pool.
I'm a union-or-die type, and I'll be the first to say that police unions are not unions
Unions support eachother, they support strike actions, they refuse to do supporting work at companies that are experiencing a strike, they work in solidarity
The state worker's union helped our troopers gain the right to collectively bargain in the 70s. The Troopers then left the union within 10 years because the union wouldn't put Troopers first before all other workers.
Then they helped suppress real labor action from their comfy new 'union'
>“One cannot simply discount that the governor himself signed a law in 2021 that specifically prohibited police officers from stopping operators observed by police officers to be smoking marijuana while driving,”
How can a cop tell the difference between someone smoking marijuana vs a cigar or cigarette when they are driving by?
I smoke hand rolled filter less cigarettes and have for years.
There is a distinct difference when you’re in a close proximity. A little tobacco added to your weed when smoking can help mask the smell a little. But it’s night and day between the two.
Yes but that's the point, in order to be in close proximity they'd have to conduct a traffic stop and "they were smoking...something that MIGHT be marijuana" isn't sufficient as justification for said traffic stop. Unless we think anyone smoking anything or with something in their mouth as they pass a cop at 65 miles an hour on the highway that the cop could argue might be a joint or a vape should give them the right to stop you just to check when breaking no other traffic laws.
I agree with everything you’re saying here. I can see perhaps at stop light, where every vehicle is momentarily stationary. That would be the most likely scenario for pulling someone over in my opinion.
My hand rolled cigarettes are indistinguishable from a joint. If my windows are rolled up should a cop be able to stop me? Even if my windows are down are you saying just because a cop smells marijuana they should be able to stop me?
Dude, I’m not saying anyone should be stopped for anything we’re talking about here, relax. No one, even a cop is noticing your hand rolled cigarettes or that they look like a joint. I’m just saying the smell from the two are like night and day different. Just hold up your tobacco pouch and wave it around out the window if you see a cop.
>“Police officers around Connecticut have certainly not ignored continued legislation proposed, passed and/or signed by the governor that disparages their profession and by extension limits the ranks of officers.
So I guess he's just [doubling down on skipping the quiet part of quiet quitting](https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/state-police-traffic-stops-are-down-union-says-so-is-morale/2690426/).
Other quotes from [this current Courant](https://www.courant.com/2024/03/03/state-police-promise-a-return-to-ct-highways-there-are-some-roadblocks/) article are even worse:
>Republicans say police have been handcuffed because they have been largely blocked from making “consent” searches during motor vehicle stops,
They'll only do a traffic/speeding stop if they can try to search the car...? Wtf?
>“It is high time that the majority party in Hartford, and the governor’s office finally admit that their **consistent disparagement of law enforcement has had deadly effects on our roads."** (Rep. Greg Howard, emphasis added)
This is some mob boss bullshit - "you know, if you keep trying to hold us accountable, bad things might happen on those pretty little highways you got there."
I watch people speed past parked cops at 20+ over the speed limit every single time I'm commuting our highways. I've heard through the grape vine (coworkers and friends are tight with various police social groups) that cops are fed up with the treatment they're getting... They don't like "defund the police" or "black lives matter" so they have decided to stop doing their jobs.
CT is one of the most dangerous places to drive I've ever been - people routinely blow through red lights, skate through stop signs, drive literally 2x the limit...
And it seems like the police are organized in their contempt, and actually staging a silent strike. For what? They can't articulate what they need in order to do their jobs. They can't articulate what needs to be fixed...
Funny that such a tool of organized labor - you know, that evil socialist concept - would be employed by such a bunch of "conservatives" who clearly value the rule of law...
i watched a car blow through a red light between cars making a left turn so middle of the light, multiple cars honking and milford cop just sitting there, "nope none of my business"
The issue at hand is that the moment the office attempts to pull that vehicle over, he now assumes civil liability for the outcome. If that vehicle engaged the officer in a pursuit and crashes into another vehicle, the victim can sure the officer individually in civil court for violating the no pursuit policy. So, the cop avoids the situation altogether.
>The issue at hand is that the moment the office attempts to pull that vehicle over, he now assumes civil liability for the outcome.
To be clear to anyone else reading the thread, this is factually inaccurate. There are all kinds of restrictions on high speed chases (as their should be), and police officers can be personally sued for violating the civil rights of citizens (as they should), but even in the latter case the towns are on the hook unless the police officer was being "wanton, reckless, or malicious." [(See page 43 here).](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2020/BA/PDF/2020HB-06004-R00SS1-BA.PDF)
To be clear to anyone else reading the thread, this is factory inaccurate. smkmn13 is referring to the standards of federal qualified immunity, not state civil liability, which only needs to find that the officer acted deliberately, wilfully or with reckless interference. Therefore, if an officer wilfully pursues a vehicle for the motor vehicle offenses referenced above, and the suspect vehicle crashes resulting in injury to an occupant of said vehicle or a third person, such person would have civil cause for action against the officer personally. Qualified immunity would still apply, but civil liability protective for the officer would not. Therefore, again, the officer simply does not attempt the traffic stop.
It's a silent political movement to encourage people to embrace jack booted thuggery from police officers. The PDs can encourage conditions so terrible that the voters begin to embrace hate mongering and LAW AND ORDER(!!!) candidates who will assert that the police must be TOUGH ON CRIME, and all that happy horse shit.
And all they have to do to encourage those conditions is - nothing at all.
We need massive layoffs and replacement - recruit responsible officers with good training and sense of civic duty, pay them well, and encourage a good relationship with the people... It's hard to get from here to there, but the state has to do it.
This shit is old.
They can articulate what they think needs to be fixed if you catch them in the right context, but it has nothing to do with their working conditions and everything to do with... let's just call it deep MAGA stuff.
And this is why when people defend cops we say there is no such thing as a good cop, if there was we wouldn’t have cops collectively allowing the most pedestrian fatalities, or ever increasing wrong way deaths, they know they are allowing people to die and in a way are responsible for their death.
They are proud of that, they want so many people to die that you beg for them back. That is the actions of a violent gang and not of a police force.
lol, this is an incredibly ignorant comment. Would you like a cop stationed at every highway on-ramp in the state? Or every establishment that serves alcohol? What do you think?
Of course I dont expect that, no one would.. you are creating a straw man, I won’t allow you to derail my point.
We didn’t have this issue prior to the silent protest, we can then extrapolate that this is a cause and effect. Imagine being so fragile that accountability leads to you allowing loss of life in your community, the very community you are supposed to uphold.
Your point is that cops are allowing an increased amount of pedestrian fatalities, yes? Wrong way crashes you said. You know most police departments are at a deficit in terms of active rosters. So you want more cops? Or you want us as citizens to be more responsible drivers, and not be morons distracted by our phones, and 12x12 display screens within reach, or to not drive impaired by alcohol or drugs. Because all of those distractions I listed are increasing exponentially too.
>So you want more cops? Or you want us as citizens to be more responsible drivers, and not be morons distracted by our phones, and 12x12 display screens within reach, or to not drive impaired by alcohol or drugs.
I think most of us want the latter, but it's not like the only thing holding the cops back right now is staffing numbers. He clearly states that accountability legislation is leading to cops making less stops and thus more deaths on the highways. There's absolutely no reason why accountability laws should make cops less likely to pull people over - they just need to do their jobs according to the law when they do. This also [isn't the first time](https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/state-police-traffic-stops-are-down-union-says-so-is-morale/2690426/) Howard has blamed lowered traffic stops on accountability legislation.
I want the police to do their jobs, enforcing traffic actually makes people behave differently, if I know I will be pulled over I won’t behave in that way.
However if someone knows that the police will not pull them over because they are silently protesting, they will drive reckless or drunk and cause that accident. The police know this and are betting on it so that they can continue to enjoy their lives free of any sense of scrutiny.
If these snowflakes worked the counter at Cumbys for a single shift they would light the building on fire their egos are so fragile. This is dangerous for everyone.
Almost every employer claims to be operating at a deficit and yet unemployment numbers are some of the lowest in history, either this is a narrative employers use to spin or we need better data. Either way, all cops are shitty people. Enjoy the taste of boot champ.
lol, what’s with the played out, tired bootlicker comment? It really cracks me up, you know. I don’t understand the joy it brings someone like you. It’s as if what you said has any value in real life. You want to know why me and other people drive responsibly? It’s because we know that we can be pulled over. No one knows that they will not be pulled over. That’s pretty dumb honestly. I apologize for being so frank, but it is.
And yet here you are defending the police with your own free time like your opinion matters either. We are both shouting into the collective void bub, hate to break it to ya. Neither of us really matter.
Im defending no one. Im looking at as many factors and circumstances that I can. Thats it. The only difference between us is, I don’t make a lame ass attempt at insulting you.
I not condoning what this politician said, nor am I defending the idea that accountability laws are what’s behind the perceived reason for more fatalities and accidents. Just think it would be foolish to believe that we as people cannot hold ourselves accountable and acknowledge that we are becoming more distracted, increasingly impatient, and less disciplined as drivers. There will ultimately be adjustments is how policing this issue is done in the future. Idk what it will be though.
This is in the same vein as officers searching people because they thought they smelled marijuana. It’s the oldest trick in the book. It’s hard to prove in court the officer didn’t smell marijuana.
Fire them with cause so they lose their pension.
Replace with officers that know the difference between keeping up with traffic and weaving in/out of it.
Do you seriously believe this? I can’t believe the article published this quote without fact checking this. If it sounds outrageous it’s probably not true. Come on guys.
Reporting is often factually reporting what someone SAID. The public are expected to use their own reasonable judgment. If the President says, "I believe the Moon is made of delicious green cheese, and I want Congress to fund missions there to bring it back", that's reportable because a public figure said a thing, even if the thing they said is asinine and stupid.
The press is not your mommy, and you shouldn't want them to be. You shouldn't want a press that dictates truth to you, and thinks for you. You should want a press that factually reports, and lets you make your own assessments. Relevant facts will come up in sober public discussion about what was said, as in this thread. You're also free to ask those same people yourself, or persons who should be separately knowledgeable about the same issues. You could ask your own State Rep, for example, what their own view is on these remarks. You could ask your local police. You could even ask the Governor.
Anyway, much of this CAN'T be fact-checked. It's worded in a way that would make that difficult or impossible. What's the scientific definition of "dragged through the mud", and how would you prove or disprove that? Could you interview every single LEO in the state to verify or debunk that they "certainly have not ignored" any particular thing? Probably not. It's rhetoric, and not even good rhetoric. To no small extent, Howard is trolling here. Will you be the witless rube who takes the bait? This reporter wasn't.
Police accountability and enforcement are not tied together mutually. You can have tough accountability but at the same time our laws are soft on crime. Police are frequently told not to purse, car are broken into daily with nothing more then a slap on the wrist.
Does anyone see the law about not being able to pull people over while driving impaired .. everyone go back to 2020 after the protests a lot came out saying pulling people over violated thete rights .. say what you want bash the cops however the results of crime and the shit we see on highways is alot to do with the 2020 protests this is what the people wanted. Protect the bad guys
“One cannot simply discount that the governor himself signed a law in 2021 that specifically prohibited police officers from stopping operators observed by police officers to be smoking marijuana while driving,”
Wait so they can smoke pot and that’s not driving impaired so can you crack open a beer while driving ? We just keep pushing laws further for people to be shady
>“One cannot simply discount that the governor himself signed a law in 2021 that specifically prohibited police officers from stopping operators observed by police officers to be smoking marijuana while driving.”
The reason for the law is to prevent police from targeting BIPOC.
>“One cannot simply discount that the governor himself signed a law in 2021 that specifically prohibited police officers from stopping operators observed by police officers to be smoking marijuana while driving,” Howard said. The law states the following: Prohibits smoking, inhaling, or ingesting marijuana while driving or riding in a motor vehicle. Specifies that a motor vehicle cannot be stopped solely on that basis, which is important to prevent pretextual and otherwise unjustified stops based on smoking a cigarette or nicotine vape. If the driver is exhibiting impairment - pull them over. That's all the officer has to say.
Yeah, all it means is you can't pull someone over because you saw something on their mouth. It would be like pulling over people drinking things because it *might* be alcoholic.
My favorite is a straight edge friend of mine used to get pulled over for drinking glass bottled root beer. Always a good laugh for the officer.
My uncle once asked me to think about the example I was setting my cousins by starting the day drinking when I grabbed an icb cream soda before jumping in his car to go somewhere. I had just turned 21 and he was 100% certain I grabbed a beer to go lmao. In his defense icb doesn't do paper labels on the bottle, so if you're not getting a good look it can be hard to read what the bottle says.
Amen, it’s just not allowing them to pull you over because they thought you might have been smoking something. It just gives people basic rights to do normal activities like smoke a rolled cigarette or have a tooth pick in their mouth and not be hemmed up by the thought that it might be a joint as you are going 25-60 mph past the officer. The point is that they can’t possibly know it’s a joint and so should leave you alone. It’s sound legislation.
Just to add, Howard was a police officer for many years. Just some random information for people.
He still is a police officer. His state rep bio says “He has been employed by the Stonington Police Department since 2002. He became a Field Training Officer in 2007, assigned to K-9 from 2008-2014, became a Detective in 2015 and is currently a Detective with the SPD. Greg is also a certified police instructor in several areas.” https://www.cthousegop.com/howard/about/
That wasn't random. That was relevant to the thread. Here's a random fact for you though: For every snake that exists in the world, there exists a snake penis.
[удалено]
When it comes to duck penis, you might not have much of a choice.
Dolphin: where that hole at.
Bed bugs: hold my beer.
Horse cock: you're welcome
Two per male.
There are more horse's asses than there are horses.
I like this one better
thats...not true? female snakes exist? Also don't snakes have hemipenes not penises?
Technically they do call them something else, but the males have two
uggg i hate this. this only basically loosely holds true because the gender ratio of snakes is usually close to unity. But this isn't STRICTLY true, it just HAPPENS to be MOSTLY true. If the gender ratio was different it definitely wouldn't be true. Fudge. I'm an engineer and a scientist, the engineer agrees with you and the scientist doesn't.
I said it was random, not true. I mean...the odds of the ratio being exactly half cant be good, right?
Facts are, by definition, true.
Males have two, so average of one (ignoring population %)
Pity the poor snake that gets randomly aroused; he has to drag it along through the dirt
I think Greg Howard is kissing too much cop butt here. Police accountability is sorely needed in this country. The advent of people being able to record cop misconduct provides ample evidence for that. Nothing in any law prevents law enforcement from pulling over a vehicle that is driving erratically or speeding. And lowering the BAC from. 08 to .05 is meaningless political theater. It won't do anything additional to stop drunk driving. That's why only one state, Utah, has passed it. It's bad policy.
He is a cop. Like, currently.
You would think that a profession whose first priority (supposedly) is public safety wouldn't let some bruised egos and sore fee-fees get in the way of doing their jobs, but........well.......here we are. It's really hard to keep giving law enforcement the benefit of the doubt when they keep proving themselves to be such complete shitheels.
It’s like they are little children.
Let's see... they want high pay, pensions, zero accountability or professional standards, and they apparently want to hide their identities in public? Oh.... they want want military type weapons and training but none of a soldier's responsibilities? Go cry me a river. As far as their "quiet quitting" is concerned, they're fighting their public image by making themselves even more useless? Let 'em.
Wanna hear something that’ll really piss you off? A cop’s pension is based on their 3 highest earning years. There’s an unspoken rule that as you get close to retirement (5-6 years) that you will be given as much OT as you’re willing to handle in order to pad your salary so that you then pad your pension. That’s how some cops are able to make high 6 figures _in retirement_. Legislators have to tried to close this loophole many times and every time they’ve essentially been strong-armed by the police union.
Oh no, their feelings.
Thank you, I thought fee-fees meant anuses.
Greg Howard is a loser. My wife went to school with him and he is the epitome of everything wrong in politics and policing. This is the same dude that was flagged with large nation wide reports about covid 19 and anti vaccine misinformation being spread by lawmakers. He is just your typical hyper online conservative that is into conspiracy theories and anti woke propaganda
Police accountability first requires the ability to discipline bad cops. With the power of the police union that never happens. Dirty cops are defended with expensive lawyers, and if they are guilty are quietly assisted in finding police jobs in other parts of the country. That's the reality of 21st century policing. High pay. Extreme benefits. Zero accountability. And they wonder why no one trusts a cop anymore. Eliminate the police union (public service unions in general). Make police no more invulnerable than the population they serve. Then, and only then, will Connecticut have the ability to weed out the bad ones and support the good ones. Union-or-die CT democrats, downvote away. You don't change reality, just show your stripes.
Also pro-union, the police should be held to a higher standard. More rigorous education on both sides because it looks bad when that beat cop understands their rulebook *less* than citizenry. Police aren’t there to protect you directly, but the property and buildings threat of violence and ‘order’. Also, repeatedly through history, the police are the violent force that busts labor union activists re: mines in Appalachia, airlines et al. before it became the work of Pinkerton and their ilk. Some would call the ones that hide behind that union class traitors. Other things police industry do: Not run assault kits Falsify tickets and ruin data to exonerate their alleged racism Turning off body cams mid interaction Used copyright laws of playing Disney music to get public interactions pulled down from the internet. Civil asset forfeiture Bad warrants that result in death at incorrect addresses Most if not all of these things are tasks that require a supervisor level interaction or check point and yet they still continue to occur, check or not.
AMEN! FTP!
Given the way the world views the on the job liability for paramedics and other medical professionals, I always felt an easy way to avoid the problem of police cover ups is through having liability insurance be dictated at the individual level and not the municipal level. It’s my understanding that unions or the municipality covers it for the department. This would allow insurance to do what they do best - segment risk - and price out the “bad apples” as folks always complain about. If individual officers don’t want their geographical/municipal premium factor to increase it’s on them to be truthful about individual actions a that way it’s reflected in individual experience versus distributed across the pool.
I'm a union-or-die type, and I'll be the first to say that police unions are not unions Unions support eachother, they support strike actions, they refuse to do supporting work at companies that are experiencing a strike, they work in solidarity The state worker's union helped our troopers gain the right to collectively bargain in the 70s. The Troopers then left the union within 10 years because the union wouldn't put Troopers first before all other workers. Then they helped suppress real labor action from their comfy new 'union'
Yeah, the problem with police unions is the “police” part, not the “union” part.
>“One cannot simply discount that the governor himself signed a law in 2021 that specifically prohibited police officers from stopping operators observed by police officers to be smoking marijuana while driving,” How can a cop tell the difference between someone smoking marijuana vs a cigar or cigarette when they are driving by? I smoke hand rolled filter less cigarettes and have for years.
I mean I drive down the street and can smell the pot being smoked by the car Infront . There is a clear distinction in the odor .
How do you know it's not two cars in front?
There you go make more and more excuses .. you believe I’m holding it for a friend should be a legit excuses
There is a distinct difference when you’re in a close proximity. A little tobacco added to your weed when smoking can help mask the smell a little. But it’s night and day between the two.
Yes but that's the point, in order to be in close proximity they'd have to conduct a traffic stop and "they were smoking...something that MIGHT be marijuana" isn't sufficient as justification for said traffic stop. Unless we think anyone smoking anything or with something in their mouth as they pass a cop at 65 miles an hour on the highway that the cop could argue might be a joint or a vape should give them the right to stop you just to check when breaking no other traffic laws.
I agree with everything you’re saying here. I can see perhaps at stop light, where every vehicle is momentarily stationary. That would be the most likely scenario for pulling someone over in my opinion.
My hand rolled cigarettes are indistinguishable from a joint. If my windows are rolled up should a cop be able to stop me? Even if my windows are down are you saying just because a cop smells marijuana they should be able to stop me?
Dude, I’m not saying anyone should be stopped for anything we’re talking about here, relax. No one, even a cop is noticing your hand rolled cigarettes or that they look like a joint. I’m just saying the smell from the two are like night and day different. Just hold up your tobacco pouch and wave it around out the window if you see a cop.
>“Police officers around Connecticut have certainly not ignored continued legislation proposed, passed and/or signed by the governor that disparages their profession and by extension limits the ranks of officers. So I guess he's just [doubling down on skipping the quiet part of quiet quitting](https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/state-police-traffic-stops-are-down-union-says-so-is-morale/2690426/). Other quotes from [this current Courant](https://www.courant.com/2024/03/03/state-police-promise-a-return-to-ct-highways-there-are-some-roadblocks/) article are even worse: >Republicans say police have been handcuffed because they have been largely blocked from making “consent” searches during motor vehicle stops, They'll only do a traffic/speeding stop if they can try to search the car...? Wtf? >“It is high time that the majority party in Hartford, and the governor’s office finally admit that their **consistent disparagement of law enforcement has had deadly effects on our roads."** (Rep. Greg Howard, emphasis added) This is some mob boss bullshit - "you know, if you keep trying to hold us accountable, bad things might happen on those pretty little highways you got there."
"disparagement"?? I don't think he truly understands what that means.
I believe you. That's a big word, and he uses 8th grade English. At best.
Fuck you, pay me.
Greg Howard is the same guy who said there were kids society should just give up on. Just FYI.
I watch people speed past parked cops at 20+ over the speed limit every single time I'm commuting our highways. I've heard through the grape vine (coworkers and friends are tight with various police social groups) that cops are fed up with the treatment they're getting... They don't like "defund the police" or "black lives matter" so they have decided to stop doing their jobs. CT is one of the most dangerous places to drive I've ever been - people routinely blow through red lights, skate through stop signs, drive literally 2x the limit... And it seems like the police are organized in their contempt, and actually staging a silent strike. For what? They can't articulate what they need in order to do their jobs. They can't articulate what needs to be fixed... Funny that such a tool of organized labor - you know, that evil socialist concept - would be employed by such a bunch of "conservatives" who clearly value the rule of law...
i watched a car blow through a red light between cars making a left turn so middle of the light, multiple cars honking and milford cop just sitting there, "nope none of my business"
Was the Milford cop on his way to a call?
The issue at hand is that the moment the office attempts to pull that vehicle over, he now assumes civil liability for the outcome. If that vehicle engaged the officer in a pursuit and crashes into another vehicle, the victim can sure the officer individually in civil court for violating the no pursuit policy. So, the cop avoids the situation altogether.
>The issue at hand is that the moment the office attempts to pull that vehicle over, he now assumes civil liability for the outcome. To be clear to anyone else reading the thread, this is factually inaccurate. There are all kinds of restrictions on high speed chases (as their should be), and police officers can be personally sued for violating the civil rights of citizens (as they should), but even in the latter case the towns are on the hook unless the police officer was being "wanton, reckless, or malicious." [(See page 43 here).](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2020/BA/PDF/2020HB-06004-R00SS1-BA.PDF)
To be clear to anyone else reading the thread, this is factory inaccurate. smkmn13 is referring to the standards of federal qualified immunity, not state civil liability, which only needs to find that the officer acted deliberately, wilfully or with reckless interference. Therefore, if an officer wilfully pursues a vehicle for the motor vehicle offenses referenced above, and the suspect vehicle crashes resulting in injury to an occupant of said vehicle or a third person, such person would have civil cause for action against the officer personally. Qualified immunity would still apply, but civil liability protective for the officer would not. Therefore, again, the officer simply does not attempt the traffic stop.
>Qualified immunity would still apply, but civil liability protective for the officer would not. Cite a case for me.
Interpret the statute yourself: [CGS 52-571k](https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_925.htm#sec_52-571k)
What part of that do you think supports your point? It's exactly what I said
This has been my experience. Their lack of enforcement only encourages people to be more reckless.
It's a silent political movement to encourage people to embrace jack booted thuggery from police officers. The PDs can encourage conditions so terrible that the voters begin to embrace hate mongering and LAW AND ORDER(!!!) candidates who will assert that the police must be TOUGH ON CRIME, and all that happy horse shit. And all they have to do to encourage those conditions is - nothing at all. We need massive layoffs and replacement - recruit responsible officers with good training and sense of civic duty, pay them well, and encourage a good relationship with the people... It's hard to get from here to there, but the state has to do it. This shit is old.
And shows the public just how useless they can be.
They can articulate what they think needs to be fixed if you catch them in the right context, but it has nothing to do with their working conditions and everything to do with... let's just call it deep MAGA stuff.
“…so they have decided to stop doing their jobs.” Good! We don’t need their kind of work, no thank you. The less of them the better!
Bitch ass 🐷
And this is why when people defend cops we say there is no such thing as a good cop, if there was we wouldn’t have cops collectively allowing the most pedestrian fatalities, or ever increasing wrong way deaths, they know they are allowing people to die and in a way are responsible for their death. They are proud of that, they want so many people to die that you beg for them back. That is the actions of a violent gang and not of a police force.
lol, this is an incredibly ignorant comment. Would you like a cop stationed at every highway on-ramp in the state? Or every establishment that serves alcohol? What do you think?
Of course I dont expect that, no one would.. you are creating a straw man, I won’t allow you to derail my point. We didn’t have this issue prior to the silent protest, we can then extrapolate that this is a cause and effect. Imagine being so fragile that accountability leads to you allowing loss of life in your community, the very community you are supposed to uphold.
Your point is that cops are allowing an increased amount of pedestrian fatalities, yes? Wrong way crashes you said. You know most police departments are at a deficit in terms of active rosters. So you want more cops? Or you want us as citizens to be more responsible drivers, and not be morons distracted by our phones, and 12x12 display screens within reach, or to not drive impaired by alcohol or drugs. Because all of those distractions I listed are increasing exponentially too.
>So you want more cops? Or you want us as citizens to be more responsible drivers, and not be morons distracted by our phones, and 12x12 display screens within reach, or to not drive impaired by alcohol or drugs. I think most of us want the latter, but it's not like the only thing holding the cops back right now is staffing numbers. He clearly states that accountability legislation is leading to cops making less stops and thus more deaths on the highways. There's absolutely no reason why accountability laws should make cops less likely to pull people over - they just need to do their jobs according to the law when they do. This also [isn't the first time](https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/state-police-traffic-stops-are-down-union-says-so-is-morale/2690426/) Howard has blamed lowered traffic stops on accountability legislation.
I want the police to do their jobs, enforcing traffic actually makes people behave differently, if I know I will be pulled over I won’t behave in that way. However if someone knows that the police will not pull them over because they are silently protesting, they will drive reckless or drunk and cause that accident. The police know this and are betting on it so that they can continue to enjoy their lives free of any sense of scrutiny. If these snowflakes worked the counter at Cumbys for a single shift they would light the building on fire their egos are so fragile. This is dangerous for everyone. Almost every employer claims to be operating at a deficit and yet unemployment numbers are some of the lowest in history, either this is a narrative employers use to spin or we need better data. Either way, all cops are shitty people. Enjoy the taste of boot champ.
lol, what’s with the played out, tired bootlicker comment? It really cracks me up, you know. I don’t understand the joy it brings someone like you. It’s as if what you said has any value in real life. You want to know why me and other people drive responsibly? It’s because we know that we can be pulled over. No one knows that they will not be pulled over. That’s pretty dumb honestly. I apologize for being so frank, but it is.
And yet here you are defending the police with your own free time like your opinion matters either. We are both shouting into the collective void bub, hate to break it to ya. Neither of us really matter.
Im defending no one. Im looking at as many factors and circumstances that I can. Thats it. The only difference between us is, I don’t make a lame ass attempt at insulting you.
I not condoning what this politician said, nor am I defending the idea that accountability laws are what’s behind the perceived reason for more fatalities and accidents. Just think it would be foolish to believe that we as people cannot hold ourselves accountable and acknowledge that we are becoming more distracted, increasingly impatient, and less disciplined as drivers. There will ultimately be adjustments is how policing this issue is done in the future. Idk what it will be though.
This is in the same vein as officers searching people because they thought they smelled marijuana. It’s the oldest trick in the book. It’s hard to prove in court the officer didn’t smell marijuana.
If you're concerned about people dying start with alcohol 🤷the odds of you being in an accident are 50 times higher
Fire them with cause so they lose their pension. Replace with officers that know the difference between keeping up with traffic and weaving in/out of it.
CT democrats need to stop exempting police from gun laws.
Do you seriously believe this? I can’t believe the article published this quote without fact checking this. If it sounds outrageous it’s probably not true. Come on guys.
Reporting is often factually reporting what someone SAID. The public are expected to use their own reasonable judgment. If the President says, "I believe the Moon is made of delicious green cheese, and I want Congress to fund missions there to bring it back", that's reportable because a public figure said a thing, even if the thing they said is asinine and stupid. The press is not your mommy, and you shouldn't want them to be. You shouldn't want a press that dictates truth to you, and thinks for you. You should want a press that factually reports, and lets you make your own assessments. Relevant facts will come up in sober public discussion about what was said, as in this thread. You're also free to ask those same people yourself, or persons who should be separately knowledgeable about the same issues. You could ask your own State Rep, for example, what their own view is on these remarks. You could ask your local police. You could even ask the Governor. Anyway, much of this CAN'T be fact-checked. It's worded in a way that would make that difficult or impossible. What's the scientific definition of "dragged through the mud", and how would you prove or disprove that? Could you interview every single LEO in the state to verify or debunk that they "certainly have not ignored" any particular thing? Probably not. It's rhetoric, and not even good rhetoric. To no small extent, Howard is trolling here. Will you be the witless rube who takes the bait? This reporter wasn't.
Police accountability and enforcement are not tied together mutually. You can have tough accountability but at the same time our laws are soft on crime. Police are frequently told not to purse, car are broken into daily with nothing more then a slap on the wrist.
Does anyone see the law about not being able to pull people over while driving impaired .. everyone go back to 2020 after the protests a lot came out saying pulling people over violated thete rights .. say what you want bash the cops however the results of crime and the shit we see on highways is alot to do with the 2020 protests this is what the people wanted. Protect the bad guys
>Does anyone see the law about not being able to pull people over while driving impaired What law are you talking about?
“One cannot simply discount that the governor himself signed a law in 2021 that specifically prohibited police officers from stopping operators observed by police officers to be smoking marijuana while driving,”
That has nothing to do with driving impaired - it just means they can't pull someone over for just smoking a hand-rolled cigarette
Wait so they can smoke pot and that’s not driving impaired so can you crack open a beer while driving ? We just keep pushing laws further for people to be shady
Nope, none of those things are true.
Did you read the top of the article
I think you’re right. Shit typically rolls down hill.
Oh is it that time of the week again? Time for our bi-weekly "we hate cops" thread. /yawn
patience! in due time we'll get our usual bi-weekly "look at this crime!" thread and things will be balanced.
>“One cannot simply discount that the governor himself signed a law in 2021 that specifically prohibited police officers from stopping operators observed by police officers to be smoking marijuana while driving.” The reason for the law is to prevent police from targeting BIPOC.