toedtoes wrote:
JRscooby wrote:
Deb and Ed M wrote:
But an AG stop isn't about police enforcement - it's about protecting an area from invaders you surely don't know that you are transporting. Why on Earth would you not let someone find a pest that can create havoc in an environment?
Yes, but the uniform asks me, "Are you carrying fruits, veggies, or plants?" No. At that point, maybe tell me of the harm that could come from my fruit, fine. But "Can I come in and look?" Would translate in my mind to YOU ARE LYING! If uniform thinks they need to see for themselves, ask it inspect, don't ask what I have.
And this is what it comes down to: "they think I'm lying". People take that as a personal insult and get an attitude about it. Then the whole thing goes south.
In reality, it was NOT a personal attack. The inspector doesn't know the OP or anyone going through that checkpoint. They are simply making a quick judgment call as to which vehicle is most likely carrying a problem. An RV from across the country - far more likely to be carrying infected fruit than a compact car from in-state. So, they question the answer.
Years ago, I got stopped after a night out with friends. I had missed a turn and made an illegal u-turn. The officer asked me if I had been drinking. I said no, but my friends had and she's about to throw up. He had me "walk the line". Did I take it personally and get all mad? No, I did as he asked and passed the test and he let me go with a war ning. I could look beyond the "accusation" that I was lying and realize that it wasn't that off to think I could be lying. And if I had been drinking, I would have most likely BEEN LYING about not drinking.
Singularly, in the OP's situation, the inspector asked the question, then considered the odds that this person could be lying and decided it was enough of a chance to ask to look inside.
There was nothing more sinister than that.
Toedtoes.....well said "People take that as a personal insult and get an attitude about it. Then the whole thing goes south."
and often the reason why deadly force is perceived to be the only option to ensure that the Officer gets home to their family at the end of their shift.
In many instances, had calmer less belligerent attitude been utilized by the perpetrator, the Officer would have followed suit and the entire incident would have ended differently.
The time to argue or give 'attitude' is not at the place of the incident. Everyone has a chance to challenge the actions of the Officer in court, at the Officer's supervisor's office, on at another place and time than the place of the traffic stop. EVERY traffic stop has the potential to turn ugly. A more neutral place other than the place of the traffic stop is better for all parties involved and allows for calmer and cooler decisions to be made by all evolved where emotions are less of a determining factor.
By not giving attitude at the scene if you 'think' you have been wronged, you may loose the battle, but you will win the war in the end by not becoming a statistic that ends up with a headstone. If you feel you are 'wronged' the place to challenge that is in court, at the Officer's Supervisor's desk, or in the media if you so choose. Key note: you will be around to make that challenge on neutral ground rather than be in the ground.
Cooler calmer and more respectful heads prevail! More people involved will be home to their families after the 'incident' with a story to tell and an ax to grind, if they so choose, in a more controlled environment.
Safe travels,
Lakeside
