Michigan illegally harassing CVs?

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
you sound like you just hate cops
No .... what he sounds like is someone who is not particularly inclined to slobberingly worship cops and fawn over them ... uncritically coming up with all sorts of possibilities all why the encroachment of the police state is just oh so swell and really quite an "ok thing" ......

Some folks get a woodie whenever they see a uniform .... da pol-lice can do no wrong .......

I suspect Amonger ain't one of 'em ...... you however, I ain't quite so sure about ..... :rolleyes:
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Officer friendly is not there anymore because people have lost the the fine art of acting civil towards police officers. The police are always 1 mistake away from a lawsuit for thier actions. If the american people would wake up and realize that life is not like the Jerry Springer show........ things might change.

I have far more faith in our cops than I do for the average jerks who had the cop sent thier way due to thier own bad behavior.

You need to put yourself in a cops shoes before you go off like this. Cops are screwed by thier own departments, lawyers, civil groups, and Joe public. I can see why some of them become jaded.

It's their job to leave that attitude at home. They can come up with a million excuses for a bad attitude but right or wrong that should not affect how they perform their job. They still work for us and we deserve to be treated with respect unless we give them a reason to do otherwise.
 

skyraider

Veteran Expediter
US Navy
Ok,, is everyone done here,,its been enlightening ,,I think. I buying , Logans,,,i 40 11pm tonite ...amen hurry..:D
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Officer friendly is not there anymore because people have lost the the fine art of acting civil towards police officers. The police are always 1 mistake away from a lawsuit for thier actions. If the american people would wake up and realize that life is not like the Jerry Springer show........ things might change.

I have far more faith in our cops than I do for the average jerks who had the cop sent thier way due to thier own bad behavior.

You need to put yourself in a cops shoes before you go off like this. Cops are screwed by thier own departments, lawyers, civil groups, and Joe public. I can see why some of them become jaded.
No, it's the opposite. The cops have changed. Not entirely on their own. Both the federal gummint and the local governments have changed the roles they expect cops to perform. They've been militarized. It's hard to be Officer Friendly when your employer recruits for Officer Pitbull, trains recruits to become Officer Pitbull, and rewards Officer Pitbull while not rewarding Officer Friendly.

It's a lot like trucking. The customers and dispatchers say GO GO GO, and safety and the law are saying NO NO NO, and the drivers are caught in the middle. The GO GO GO guys cover more miles, make more, and are rewarded with even more. But it's still the responsibility of the driver to behave legally, isn't it?

So if the cops are caught in a similar dilemma, I feel for them, and I'm not just saying that. But in the end, the People are their boss, and I expect them to respect everybody's rights and treat the public respectfully. If they feel they can't do that and fulfill what their municipality wants, there's always barber college. The Bill of Rights comes FIRST.

As for politeness, many cops object to being called anything but "Officer." I've heard cops "correct" someone for calling them something more familiar (like in this video: YouTube - Baltimore Cop & Skaters, which is described thusly:
A Baltimore police officer was suspended yesterday after a YouTube video surfaced on the Internet showing him berating and manhandling a teenage skateboarder at the Inner Harbor.
On the video, the officer, Salvatore Rivieri, puts the boy in a headlock, pushes him to the ground, questions his upbringing, threatens to “smack” him and repeatedly accuses the youngster of showing disrespect because the youth refers to the officer as “man” and “dude.”
At one point, Rivieri, a 17-year veteran of the force, says:
“Obviously, your parents don’t put a foot in your butt quite enough, because you don’t understand the meaning of respect. First of all, you better learn how to speak. I’m not ‘man.’ I’m not ‘dude,’ I am Officer Rivieri. The sooner you learn that, the longer you are going to live in this world. Because you go around doing this kind of stuff and somebody is going to kill you."

Also thusly:

"Just what the hell is the matter with the police in this country?"

I'm asked that question constantly, and can't adequately answer it despite the fact that I've studied this issue for literally decades -- including for a stretch waaaaaaaay back in my teen years when I seriously considered a career in law enforcement. I can diagnose the issue in political, demographic, and ideological terms; I describe the insidious influence of federal subsidies, regulations, and blackmail (in the form of litigation, consent decrees, and the like); I can sermonize about the unhappy results when unchecked power is combined with the results of Original Sin....


And even then, I still find myself unable even to begin to explain spectacles like this, or to witness them on video without wanting, at the very least, to track down this power-intoxicated punk-a$$ bully and beat the snot out of him:

Officer Rivieri presents an impressive recital of pseudo-tough-guy mannerisms -- from the affected "Command Voice," to the comically theatrical flaring of non-existent lats, to the swagger-waddle (call it a "swaddle") of supposed authority, to the criminal assault on a skinny, terrified kid. I'm forced to agree with him in one respect, though: He's not a man, nor any part thereof.
)

So here's the thing in regard to familiarity and politeness: Again, the cops aren't our masters; we're their (and it's "their," not "thier") masters. So I don't have to be polite to him. I should, and I have and will continue to do so as long as they respect my rights and treat me respectfully. But when it comes down to it, I can call him anything that doesn't constitute a threat. I couldn't call him "the soon-to-be-late Officer Smith" or something like that. But I can call him <deleted> or <deleted> or <deleted> or all sorts of things that would make Jesus sad. And if I do, he'll smile and keep a civil tongue in his head and continue to call me Sir. I am his boss, not the other way around.

I've never done that. I've never had personal interactions with cops that made me want to. But I'd have done so to Officer Rivieri.

Stated another way, Fred can't go into Mr. Slate's office and tell him he's a dunderhead, but Mr. Slate can call Flintstone into his office and tell him he's a screwup, and it's incumbent on Fred to smile and promise to do better.
 

bobwg

Expert Expediter
Please, please, please tell me you don't and won't serve on a jury. Please. You're not paying attention to the facts and assertions that are in play. I plainly never said or implied that every cop was bad, and in fact, plainly stated that some act heroically. My assertion is and has been that cops have changed fundamentally from public servants to exalted beings with extra rights, something they were never intended to be.

P.S. "Loose" is the opposite of tight; lose is the opposite of win.

Sorry about the mistake with the word lose, I dont claim to be perfect like you seem to think you are and you seem to think that cops can not make mistakes and you said all or most new cops including the ones that got out of the Marines were bad, crimminal, etc.
 

bobwg

Expert Expediter
It's their job to leave that attitude at home. They can come up with a million excuses for a bad attitude but right or wrong that should not affect how they perform their job. They still work for us and we deserve to be treated with respect unless we give them a reason to do otherwise.

I guess cops can not have a bad day once in a while, I admit in 30 years i have had a few bad days
 

bobwg

Expert Expediter
Let's turn that around and ask what's wrong with the Bill of Rights? They shouldn't be in opposition, yet that's where we find ourselves.



Not quite sure where you're going with this. We can cite many examples of cops getting hurt or killed. They, including my cousins who are cops, knew it was a dangerous job when they signed up, and yet they signed up anyway. I'm all for measures, equipment, and procedures that increase their safety as long as they don't violate the Bill of Rights. But the officer's right to safety doesn't trump my or your or Turtle's right to be considered innocent until proven guilty or to be secure in our persons, papers, and effects absent probable cause, etc.



It's a little more than that, in fact, a lot more. Many times, cops show up and cuff EVERYBODY involved. Heck, they even do it in traffic incidents. There are times--I have personally witnessed them--when there's a collision involving a big truck, and the cop shows up and handcuffs the driver immediately before investigating for a single second. And the time I witnessed it, the big truck driver, who was from the same company as I, was the one who called the cops to come investigate the accident. So were my co-worker's rights violated?



I hate tyrants of all stripes, both official and privateer, whether it's a murderous cop like Meade or a mugger or rapist. I admire honest cops who obey the Bill of Rights and make sacrifices for the citizens. Which kind they are is up to them.

As for your co worker did you watch every second from the time the cop arrived up to the time when the cop cuffed him/her did the cop say why he cuffed the co worker? I have seen people get cuffed too and the ones I have seen get cuffed are the ones that are yelling and moving around etc and the officer says calm down so we can talk and the person refuses to calm down and so the person get s put in hand cuffs til they calm down or the have a some sort of report from someone and this person matchs the report and the officer tell s them just putting hand cuffs on for their safety and the cops til we check things out and if everything ok take the cuffs off. but since I was not there and cannot hear the cops side of what happened with your co worker I will not say he did any thing wrong just because you say he was wrong
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I guess cops can not have a bad day once in a while, I admit in 30 years i have had a few bad days
Not unreasonable to have a bad day occasionally - we're all human - but having a bad day is an entirely different thing than allowing oneself to repeatedly engage in a pattern of what essentially constitutes criminal conduct ....
 

bobwg

Expert Expediter
No .... what he sounds like is someone who is not particularly inclined to slobberingly worship cops and fawn over them ... uncritically coming up with all sorts of possibilities all why the encroachment of the police state is just oh so swell and really quite an "ok thing" ......

Some folks get a woodie whenever they see a uniform .... da pol-lice can do no wrong .......

I suspect Amonger ain't one of 'em ...... you however, I ain't quite so sure about ..... :rolleyes:

I do not worship cops I agree there are some bad cops and some bad military people but I will not say the whole group like Monger who says most of the new cops in the last what was it 30 years? or the Marines which Monger also said was a bad group and as far as poor Rlent having a few bad experiences with cops maybe it was your attitude
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
First I think this thread now needs to be in the soup box.

Second I don't know what the reasoning is with the OP but we work in a regulated industry, hence NOT someone just going out for a ride with the wife and brats.

This is what I get from three legal professionals who specialize in this industry.

When YOU lease with a carrier, you follow the same requirements (application going back 10 years, DOT phsyical, CDL, etc.. ) as one would with a truck because it is both federally and state mandated. YOU are a driver with that carrier FIRST, not a vehicle, and as such you fall within those same regulations that the state see fits. You are not forced to do this work, you are not forced to take drug tests, or get physicals - it is a trade off to allow you to work in this industry. READ your contract, they are using you as a driver, not you as a vehicle.

IF a state wants to step up enforcement of their commercial vehicle laws, they have every right to do so, including asking questions to driver of suspesision vehicles. There is an assumption that the vehicle that looks like a commercial vehicle is in fact one and treated as such until discovered not to be one. They have an obligation to the citizens of the state to ensure the laws are followed, not to ensure that someone isn't asked questions or a discovery of illegal operations doesn't happen.

That was repeated three times by three different people.

Furthermore, as much as I would like to beleive that there is a problem within our law enforemcnet community, there isn't with rouge cops. The problem sits with the attitude that we as citizens are always in control and we don't have to answer their questions. That isn't true, there are laws that were duly passed and vetted by the courts that says you have to either cooperate or charged with obstruction of justice. It seems that a lot of this questioning of authority came directly out of the 60's where people were breaking the laws and didn't give a crap what happen and to who, as long as they were free.

If you think you are their boss, try to apply that to a more important group of people, teachers and administrators in a public school. Another area is the city/county worker, either group will point out that they are in control, not the tax payer.

AND finally, if this is so bothersome to a few of you what my state is allegedly doing - don't come here.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
When YOU lease with a carrier, you follow the same requirements (application going back 10 years, DOT phsyical, CDL, etc.. ) as one would with a truck because it is both federally and state mandated. YOU are a driver with that carrier FIRST, not a vehicle, and as such you fall within those same regulations that the state see fits. You are not forced to do this work, you are not forced to take drug tests, or get physicals - it is a trade off to allow you to work in this industry. READ your contract, they are using you as a driver, not you as a vehicle.
A minor point in the context of your reply, especially with regard to state regulations, but the above is not entirely accurate. When you lease on to a carrier you are literally transferring the right to possession and/or use of goods or equipment (your truck) for a term in return for consideration. Some parts of the contract apply to the driver, and some apply to the vehicle, but it's the vehicle itself that gets leased, along with your services. That's why fleet owners lease vehicles, and not drivers, to carriers. It's why a fleet owner can replace a driver without having to sign a new contract with the carrier and get a new truck number with each new driver. It's why you can't use that vehicle in the service of another carrier (without your carrier's permission), even though you as a driver could drive a different vehicle for another carrier while still leased onto your current carrier (you could have a straight truck leased on with a carrier, and then on the weekends be an employee driving a dump truck, but your straight truck couldn't be used for that no matter who drove it). The carrier can tow your vehicle to the consignee if you break down while loaded, because they have the right to possession and use of the vehicle.

How's that for snatching this thread out of the jaws of the Soapbox? :D
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I agree and admit I could have worded it a bit different.

Here is another attempt at it.

You as a driver may have to go through the same qualification process regardless if you do or don't driver a van. This is a common practice among carriers and some of the process is required by federal and state regulations (Physical, drug Test, etc ...) but does not mean it is only those requirements that have to be met, the carrier can do background, credit and criminal checks beyond the requirement. This does not mean that you as a driver may be provide exclusive services for a specific carrier but rather you are leased to and follow the regulations and guideline of both state and federal authorities while under contract with a specific carrier carrying their freight.

This also means that you as a driver can not be substituted as with a vehicle. Meaning that you can't designate a driver in your place but can substitute a vehicle for the tool to accomplish your contractual obligation.

I know it may still sound off but you know what I'm saying and YES I think it should be moved ... still
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Yeah, I do. There are certain things the carrier is required to do by the DOT for all drivers who drive vehicles that are leased to them, for all vehicles that move under their authority, whether those drivers are CDL holders or not. A DOT physical is not one of them unless you have a CDL, but the employment history is. The carrier can still require a physical if they want to. And they can require more stringent numbers on the physical, like a lower blood pressure reading than the DOT requirements for a CDL, or neck size, if they so choose. Same with the states, who can enact stricter laws than the DOT. The 5000 pound Michigan cargo van lettering is a good example of that.

As for substituting drivers and vehicles, that depends. Any driver that is cleared and approved by a carrier can drive a vehicle for that carrier. Fleet owners substitute drivers all the time. For example, if I were in Minneapolis and got a load, then got too sick to drive it, if Moot were sitting at home shooting the usual bull with his good friend and neighbor, The Artist Formerly Known As Prince, he could drive my van and make the delivery. The line haul would be paid to the owner of the vehicle, not the driver, so we'd have to talk about that a bit, I'm sure, but it could be done. It's been done. But it would be easier to swap vehicles and put the load and the line haul onto his van.

It's actually easier to substitute a driver into a leased vehicle than it is to substitute a vehicle, since the new vehicle won't be insured for cargo, or under authority. Like, if your van breaks down and you rent a U-Haul or something, as insurance policy will have to be taken out temporarily, VIN number recorded and reported to the DOT, and DOT numbers affixed to the rented vehicle even if it means Magic Marker on cardboard and duct taped to the doors.

But like I said, in the context of your post, this is a really minor point. You still have to follow all the rules and regulations that apply to you, in addition to the policies of the carrier you are leased to.

As to your point of authority (law enforcement, not carrier), it's a good one. While taxes do pay the salaries of police officers, that hardly makes us their boss. Next time you get in trouble with the police, tell them, "I pay your salary and I'm your boss, so you do as I say," and see how far that gets you. Society has decided that its membership will respect and cooperate with authority. Those in society who think otherwise are sorely mistaken. By the same token society demands that authority be restrained, and those in authority who think otherwise are likewise sorely mistaken.

I do agree with Amonger that the frequency of Cops Behaving Badly has increased over the last few decades. Not to the outrageous level he asserts, but it's still there just the same. Today's cops are a product of today's society and today's parenting, where people don't want to take responsibility for their actions, and some think they can do whatever they want simply by virtue of the fact that they want to do it. Many cops are child-like liberals trapped in the conservatism of strict law enforcement, and sometimes that can be a really bad combination. That's when you have cops who taser a naked man running down the sidewalk because they don't want to chase him.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Same with the states, who can enact stricter laws than the DOT. The 5000 pound Michigan cargo van lettering is a good example of that.

And I don't dispute that; I'm just saying that the Bill of Rights protections against the government interfering with my right to travel and my right to be secure in my person still apply, and that there are standards that apply if they feel that I'm in violation, standards that aren't met if they pull me over because they see me driving down the road in a cargo van with out of state plates. It's fine for them to do their job, but they have to obey the law while they do.

Like, if your van breaks down and you rent a U-Haul or something, as insurance policy will have to be taken out temporarily, VIN number recorded and reported to the DOT, and DOT numbers affixed to the rented vehicle even if it means Magic Marker on cardboard and duct taped to the doors.

Are you saying that's if you have to have DOT numbers on normally? What if you aren't required to have DOT numbers on your regular CV?

As to your point of authority (law enforcement, not carrier), it's a good one. While taxes do pay the salaries of police officers, that hardly makes us their boss. Next time you get in trouble with the police, tell them, "I pay your salary and I'm your boss, so you do as I say," and see how far that gets you.

That's not what's meant by us being their boss. See my comment below the next para for what I mean.

Society has decided that its membership will respect and cooperate with authority. Those in society who think otherwise are sorely mistaken. By the same token society demands that authority be restrained, and those in authority who think otherwise are likewise sorely mistaken.

This is backwards. The origin of law enforcement began with the shire reeves (from where we get the word "sheriff") back in the jolly ol'. Society set up the shire reeves to patrol the villages at night to increase their security. Back when I wanted to be a cop, I read a book on this. I remember one of the citations for the original shire reeves. Their authorization said something to the effect of the shire reeves being set up to arrest those that walk about at night and sleepe (old English spelling) during the day. Society authorizes them, not the other way around.

Ok, second, in this country, our whole government is set up the same way. We, through the states, authorized government--all the departments and bureaus, the cops, the firemen, etc, to function. Authority flows from the bottom up, not the top down. And what our forefathers set up is a system of rules that protect us from them. I'm sure you know all this, but I don't think you're applying it.

Unlike other countries, we aren't subjects of a sovereign potentate. We are the owners of the country and we employ everybody from the president to the dog catcher's assistant. And as the owners of the country, it is our right to demand that our employees follow the rules we have set up for them.

It's like being in the military. An MP or SP or LE can arrest someone of higher rank when the situation calls for it. But you can be sure they're not allowed to throw him on the ground and call him a scumbag. He can do what he has to do, but he still has to observe the customs and courtesies and all the rules.

So, sure, our employees, the cops we've set up, can arrest us if need be, and the DOT can enforce laws, but as his boss, it is my right to demand that he observe the limitations set in place for him. And in Michigan, by stopping every cargo van without lettering, without articulable, particularized suspicion that I'm engaging in activity that makes me subject to that law, they are violating those rules. This is in part because of their need for money, in part because government has arrogated extraconstitutional powers to itself, and in part because the last 20-30 years has brought us a new breed of cop--new but not improved.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
IF a state wants to step up enforcement of their commercial vehicle laws, they have every right to do so,
And the same obligation to obey the law while they do. The Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land, and I have every right to demand they obey it.

including asking questions to driver of suspesision vehicles. There is an assumption that the vehicle that looks like a commercial vehicle is in fact one
You remember what I pointed out about assumptions, right?

and treated as such until discovered not to be one.
And you don't see anything odd or backwards about that? You don't see that as running counter to our system of jurisprudence?

They have an obligation to the citizens of the state to ensure the laws are followed, not to ensure that someone isn't asked questions or a discovery of illegal operations doesn't happen.
So if a cop plants himself on a sidewalk and decides to search everyone with brown eyes because a bank robbery suspect has brown eyes, would you have a problem with that, or would you say he has an obligation to the citizens of the state to ensure the laws are followed, not to ensure that someone isn't asked questions or a discovery of illegal operations doesn't happen?


That was repeated three times by three different people.
150 years ago in this country, it was legal for one man to own another based on their respective skin colors. How many legal opinions could you have gotten to that effect? And don't you think you might question the motives of the people confirming that?

So who were your sources on that? Was it a case of government employees confirming their own right to disregard the law?

Furthermore, as much as I would like to beleive that there is a problem within our law enforemcnet community, there isn't with rouge cops.
A stunning statement. You don't think there are rogue (rouge means red) cops out there, or that there's an increase in rogue cops?

So this incident YouTube - Video Allegedly Shows Md. Police Beating Student wasn't the fault of rogue, abusive, out of control cops, but the fault of the guy celebrating a sports victory? You know, the cops who beat this guy lied about it on their reports, not knowing it was caught on video. So glad we don't have rogue cops.

The problem sits with the attitude that we as citizens are always in control and we don't have to answer their questions.
You've never heard of the right to remain silent? :eek::eek::eek::eek:

Here's an interesting tidbit for you. I read recently of a guy, an American with valid passport, who refused to answer questions at the border when he returned. He was taken to a holding area and was told he'd sit there until he agreed to answer their questions. 45 minutes later, a supervisor showed up and agreed that he had the right to remain silent and didn't have to answer their questions. So they searched his bags and sent him on his way.

A blogger wrote of this, and there was a firestorm of comments, many of which called the guy a douche among other things, telling him he DID have to answer questions because the border is an exclusionary zone. Some further research revealed a SCOTUS decision that said the right to remain silent is applicable in every instance in which answering might lead to criminal charges. I had the website up to cut and paste from the actual SCOTUS ruling, but then my browser crashed and I don't have it up right now. But there's an interesting wrinkle for those who say we have to answer questions put to us by the DOT, regulated industry or not.

That isn't true, there are laws that were duly passed and vetted by the courts that says you have to either cooperate or charged with obstruction of justice.
Patently untrue. You cannot obstruct but you don't have to assist.

It seems that a lot of this questioning of authority came directly out of the 60's where people were breaking the laws and didn't give a crap what happen and to who, as long as they were free.
Actually, the questioning of authority started long before that. From wikipedia: "The Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution[1] are known. They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of legislative articles, and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States.
The Bill of Rights is a series of limitations on the power of the United States Federal government, protecting the natural rights of liberty and property including freedom of speech, a free press, free assembly, and free association...Most of these restrictions on the Federal government were later applied to the states by a series of legal decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868."


AND finally, if this is so bothersome to a few of you what my state is allegedly doing - don't come here.
Ah, a constitution-free zone? Nope, sorry.
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Michigan should be enforcing it's laws. They should NOT, however, be nit picking to increase revenue streams. Laws should be enforced for the sole purpose of what the law was intended for.
 

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Former troops with combat experience must never be allowed to be a cop.

20-30 years ago, what you said was likely true: the bad apples were the exception to the rule in law enforcement. A sea change has occurred, and the reverse is true now; the honest cops who know and respect the limits placed on them by the Bill of Rights are in the minority now, as this very thread demonstrates.

Wow this thread started with a third hand account of alleged police harassment. About the only thing this thread demonstrates is we all have an opinion.

I'll agree with you on one thing: it was a different world back then.

It sure was a different world back then. I'm a product of the 1950's. Most of the cops were WW II vets. Most of my male teachers were vets. My father and most of my friends fathers were vets. Many of the bad guys were vets. Whoodle Doodle the perv flasher that lived by the Minneapolis Rose Garden was probably a WW II vet.

During the 1950's and 60's a cop could beat the snot out of suspect and claim he fell down the stairs or tripped over a mole hill. Nothing to show on the nightly news.

Today with dashcams, and cameras everywhere we are being treated to more cases of cops abusing their power. But is the percentage of abuse actually increasing?

Back to the original post. If driving a motor vehicle with a valid driver's license is truly a privilege and not a right, well...
 

Hightech_Hobo

Expert Expediter
The thread seems to have turned back to common sense...

There IS a problem with "Revenue generation" via Law enforcement.

There IS a problem with cops becoming more military like...

There IS a problem for cops dealing with Bad guys with bigger guns than they have..

There is a problem for officer safety in general out there..

The biggest problem I see today is the trend to go to the far end of the spectrum on what ever subject and not acknowledge the "Other" side has legitimate points...The answer is always in the balance....Yeng and Yang
 
Top