I understand that, but you miss my point. You have 3 guys in a car, everyone is moving around, and you can't see hands. They are most likely hiding drugs, but you can't be sure, because they haven't put their hands in plain site. They might be grabbing a gun from under the seat. Now you aren't allowed to shoot them for that, but you can tase one for resisting, but which one? Maybe the guy you select is stuffing the dope, and the one NEXT to him is going for the gun. You can't discharge another set of Taser prongs as quickly as you might think. In a prudent mans mind, EVEY situation IS the last resort, because much like driving and texting, you look away for a nanosecond, and you just lost an eternity of time, in a life or death situation. That's why I suggest a dog for EVERY car, and always a 2 person team. And as I said earlier in this thread, this needs to be fixed at the judicial level first. Judges need to be harsher, lawyers need to stop making deals, and politicians need to pass laws that force judges to hand down minimum sentences that are far harsher. No more third chances, or fourth chances. Divert funding used for luxuries, and pork barrel spending, and build a couple more Alcatraz islands, and stop locking up petty bullshit. Save the space so scumbags can sit and rot, instead of littering our streets with their filth, and making the cops jobs harder, and more dangerous.
I understand your point, which is to act against the worst possible scenario, regardless of what the scenario we are dealing with actually is.
Doing what you suggest creates an environment of fear and division, which causes everyone subjected to those environments of fear and division to spread fear and division like the coronavirus - causing more of it, which causes violence back and forth like a forest fire out of control.
Look at the only examples we have, which is world history, are there any examples in world history where police states are successful and long lived? I can't think of any.
Your example about the car with people in it is a perfect example of bad police culture creating environments of fear and division - because traffic stops do not have to be that way at all.
First off, starting with traffic stops, traffic stops are by default invasions of privacy and also infringements of the right against illegal search and seizure as well as infringements against the right to be unlawfully detained - courts rule that if there are reasonable grounds to initiate the traffic stop in question then the traffic stop becomes a legal infringement on those rights, if no reasonable grounds can be proven then the stops remain illegal.
The burden of proof is on the state to prove they're actions are not illegal - as it should be in free countries.
Going back to you car example, today we live in a police culture environment that assumes that any interactions with police could escalate - that is the first target of change.
If somehow the bad police culture could change from what we have now where some people expect police to intrude and give them problems, whereas others like
@bubb and
@gmase and
@El Diablo Blanco etc expect that because they are meek and well mannered to the police that they'll never be any trouble because police never act inappropriately towards them but maybe police act inappropriately to others - bad police interactions are dramatically less likely to occur.
Your example of expecting police to be like robots is a good one too, because that is exactly the standard that government agents have to achieve - because robots do not act with malice.
So, getting back to your car example, when a cop initiates a traffic stop, the people being stopped can either comply with the stop or not - any thoughts and suspicions by the cops about hiding drugs or guns or whatever is already misconduct, because that is the definition of fear clouding reasonable judgment - either the cops have reasonable grounds to believe a crime had or will take place, or they do not, anything in between that is suspicion and fear and also unreasonable.
Before the car is stopped, the cops must according to law already have a lawful purpose, lawful purposes according to the courts does not include a fishing expedition searching for evidence - so before the cops approach the car they either know(not suspect) there is danger in the car or they don't know, anything in between automatically is categorized by the courts as unreasonable suspicion.
Now if the traffic stop is to give a ticket, the cop approach the car in a friendly demeanor without his hand on his gun etc, and the people in the car will not be afraid of the cops demeanor - cop write them the ticket and everyone leaves alive.
Now if as you say the cop is stopping the car because he wants to know what is inside the car and is afraid of what's inside the car, that is illegal unless he had already obtained a search warrant to search the vehicle and arrest the people inside.
Or if you say the cops stopped the vehicle to issue a ticket but at the same time was suspicious of what's inside the vehicle - that is called dual intent, and is also illegal without a search warrant.
Finally if you say the cops have reasonable grounds to believe drugs or guns are inside the vehicle, then the cops should not stop the vehicle and instead simply follow the vehicle at a safe distance until the search warrant is obtained and they have back up cops arrive to help with the traffic stop.
In all cases, what you describe as a suspicious cop approaching any vehicle he wants ready to draw his weapon because he's scared of what might happen to him, is not lawful - and those are the bad cops that promote bad police culture, who all should be replaced with better cops who don't promote fear division.
Finally, the harsher penalties and death penalties and not letting criminals out of jail theories just simply do not work - I challenge you or anyone to point to anywhere in world history where the harshest penalties created the best societies.
Just looking at our world today, the countries with the harshest penalties and longest jail sentence and most population in jail is america and Russia and China followed by other dictatorships which don't have the safest societies to live in.
Whereas, the liberal democracies in the world such as Denmark and Iceland etc have the safest societies.
It's pretty easy to see which society I'd choose to live in, whether I'm a criminal or not.
One last point, america did not always have jails and police like today, in the wild west era less people than today were jailed and hanged - because keeping people warehoused in jails is too expensive(tax dollars) and not worth it.
Think of all the people in jail today who are waiting to be executed or are waiting to be released that have friends and families that care for them - as the years go by that number grows exponentially, so as time goes by there are always more not less people that have negative interactions with police simply by having some relations that are jailed or mistreated.
So in the future it will no longer be the minority that has had bad experiences with pig culture, it will soon be the majority - just like it is no longer the minority that rejected trump, it is the majority, and that majority is growing.
If complacent people don't start to realize what I've explained above, countries like america will continue towards more fear and division and more towards civil war.
Because in the past in america
the majority in government was able to oppress the minority with similar mistreatments such as bad police culture and police misconduct etc, but over time the more people that get mistreated grows until the mistreated are no longer the minority, and it is the minority in government mistreating the majority populace - that is the direction of america today.
