sudo bike

I think we're mostly in agreement, with possible minor disagreement on some things.

Depends. If a cop just walks up to me and asks some basic questions, sure, I'll go along. If I feel there is little to no problems caused to me, it helps him do his job, and it gets the encounter over with so I can continue enjoying my beer, I'm willing to answer a few questions. If I feel threatened or some other reason for not doing so, maybe not. It's hard to judge without a specific situation.

But to give you an idea, like I said, if a cop pulls me over and asks some questions, I have no problem with that. Consenting to searches I have a problem with... that's my line. I feel the consequences of that is too great for the convenience I might gain (finding something I didn't know was there, tearing up my stuff and causing a mess that they may not be liable for since I consented, etc). Others might even be OK with allowing a search of their vehicle, and as long as they know the consequences that's OK, too. We all have different levels of what we find acceptable. I'm just saying it depends on what goals you have. A parent wanting to get home after a long day with as little hassle as possible may be better off to play along and report the incident later. A concerned citizen who is out on a Saturday may want to spend the time dealing with it right then and there to try and avoid this in the future. Different goals, different actions.

I think "surrender" is a bad word. I'm not surrendering my rights here anymore than I am surrendering my Second Amendment rights: I am waiving them at that moment; that is a very important distinction. With that in mind, the answer is "As much as you want to". They are your rights to use as you see fit.

phoebeisis

Litchfield town has a population of 1300- Litchfield the county 180,000- 97% white-many are second house people from NYNY according to Wiki.

Snowjob- this is my take on it obviously-based on my judgement that middle aged white prominent citizens in affluent WHITE towns are RARELY harassed by cops-BUT OP is being targeted-I agree-he is being targeted-BUT IT HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH BEING A PEDESTRIAN OR A BIKE RIDER!

1) I don't think cop#2 pulled him over because he didn't have a flag-it was FRAP- if the cop defends the ticket he will cite FRAP.My evidence is the OP said just that-FRAP all along.
2) I think cop #2 already KNEW his name-before he stopped him(yes he targeted him).
My evidence
a) The town has just 1300 people.
b)OP is prominent citizen-works in fairly large alternative medicine practice there-married to prominent lawyer.
c)He is a middle aged guy who has been riding a TRIKE down the MIDDLE of their fair streets for months!!
d) Besides-even in a big city he would be known to the district cops-TRIKE MIDDLE OF ROAD- hard to miss!!!

Oh,I'm pretty sure he was being followed by 3 cars-Before the stop-I would have to reread his blog-The 3 cars are "proof" they knew his Martial Arts history. Simple choice-1)either Lt is a complete CS fool to call 3 cars to deal with pudgy guy on $2500 bike OR
2) they knew he had training meaning it might take numbers to inhibit a sour stop(fight).
Cops are frequently MEAN they aren't Stupid (in respect to reading people) so I go with choice #2.

My take is OP is a difficult person who was targeted because he is a difficult person riding down the middle of their streets-and giving them lip-evidence - as a younger man fight cop lose teeth etc.

It is possible he is on the outs with the local MDs-and they usually have some swing with local pols and many aren't happy losing $$$ to non traditional medicine-but in a upscale town like that the alternative meds folks have plenty of swing also.
He treats folks with chronic pain- he'll have plenty of local fans-but taking $$ from other medical providers-so enemies also-small town politics and business are mixed together.

This has very little to do with bike rights or pedestrian rights.He was targeted because of FRAP and previous run in with cops-perhaps other run ins with local folks in power. Difficult guy

Paul Barnard

I don't know that it's become a lot worse. As bad as NOLA is, I trust the PD here more than I did 30 years ago. I do know in this modern electronics era that there is exponentially more exposure. I could have a negative encounter with a cop and two hours later tens of thousands of people could be aware of it. I see that as a good thing. There is no reason whatsoever for the OP to be having the issues he is having. He appears to be a generally law abiding, contributing member of our society. So what if he gets pissy (if in fact he does) with a cop who contacts him. It's not what I do, but he is well within his right to do so.

LE training is generally not very good when it comes to teaching a sense of diplomacy and deescalation. There is only so much time you can devote to training at an academy and that training focuses on how to keep officers alive and how to keep departments from getting sued. To a lesser degree they teach the law. Little to none of that law will be bicycling law. There truly aren't enough of us to justify it.

A connundrum of sorts exists in enforcement. On one hand officers are taught to, and do indeed need to, maintain absolute control of the situation in their contacts. On the other hand, doing so is often offputting to law abiding citizens. How is a cop to know when he stops me that I am not going to turn on him. I know he can trust me absolutely, but how does he know? He doesn't.

My belief is that change is coming. It is coming slowly, but you will see a positive impact from the attention that encounters like the subject encounter get. Cops will be trained on how they can give a little without giving up control. They will be taught that allowing a person to vent is OK. It's not a threat to their authority or safety. They will be taught that it is possible, if not likely that people may know more about the law than they do. They will be taught that 100 good acts can be undone by a single negative encounter. They will be taught that there is value in winning friends and building trust with the citizens. Community policing is much more difficult today than it was in the days of the past, that just makes it that much more valuable. Training programs MUST improve. The LE community cannot survive the continued erosion of public trust.

kalliergo 

Good post, Paul.

Digital_Cowboy

Actually if I'm not mistaken, at one time, yes all males did have a civic duty to own a gun. So much so that again if I am not mistaken that there was a Congressional Mandate saying as much.

Digital_Cowboy

I think that you are probably right about that.

The point that I was trying to make with that example is that if you're sitting on your own property enjoying a cold beverage what business is it of the cop's what you're doing or why? S/he has no business in approaching you and harassing you over what you're doing or why.

Like you, if I was pulled over I would probably have little problem with answering questions. But like you I do/will not consent to searches. And you brought up some very good reasons why one shouldn't consent to a search.

Maybe forfeit would have been a better choice of words.

phoebeisis

Paul
You are right-NOPD cops are relatively more trustworthy than they were 30-40 years ago.
Video , FED intervention and integration are probably responsible for the improvement.
Of course 12 NOPD have been arrested and fired in the last 12 months or so -1/1000 so it is just relative.

Oh-I doubt the OP is telling us the whole story. At the very least he is giving off a Martial Arts "I'm ready to fight" vibe(stance- hand position- watching their movements too closely ). Cops can be jerks-but they are usually good at reading that.
-I don't think he is lying-but he doesn't know he gives off that ready to fight vibe.
And yes they were targeting him to some extent-suspect they will quit now they saw his response to incident #2-no fight,called lawyer/wife.

unterhausen

well, I think we've milked this one for as many invented facts as is humanly possible, so I'm closing it.