So 100s of cops have done their jobs?
back
3 comments
> "For the first eight or nine years I was the most pulled-over man in America," he said. "It was constant."
> Often officers simply wanted photographs.
> Other times they invented reasons to start a conversation.
> His favorite stop happened in a small mountain town in West Virginia.
> A traffic light turned red. Braithwaite stopped. The light turned green and he made a leisurely turn through the intersection.
> A few moments later, flashing lights appeared behind him.
> A police officer marched up to the banana and delivered the news.
> "'The reason I pulled you over, that light back there, you peeled out.'"
Their job is to take advantage of their authority to have fun at the expense of the time of citizens?
I'll happily live in a world where this is the extent of police authority abuse.
If you tolerate small abuses, and let people get accustomed to abusing their power in small meaningless ways, the abuses will only grow.
> ... the abuses will only grow.
SCOTUS made race-based Kavanaugh Stops legal. Stipping a banana on wheels is a much lower bar
I can assure you, pulling over the banana stand is not the road to death camps. The death camps are.
Roads don’t start at their end.
And it didn’t start there in Germany, either banana cars or death camps.
Eh, most roads start where other roads end or meet. The wheel turns, regardless.
Maybe not death camps, but it is inextricably tied to real abuses. I don't see how you ban "driving while black" stops without also banning these.
You also can’t ban these without making it impossible to stop 99% of real issues either.
A giant banana car is the definition of unusual behavior, after all.
"Unusual" behavior should not be justification for any police interaction.
Society doesn't benefit from policing "Weird".
The problem isn't the severity of the infraction, it's the lack of respect for the rule of law, and an institutionalized acceptance of that practice.
The prioritization of a respect for authority over a respect for the rule of law is notoriously problematic in small town america in very real ways.
If only.
Sounds like a fun way to make a lot of friends in law enforcement :)
Right, there's definitely not a bunch of pressure from the fact that they can throw you in jail for basically anything and probably get away with shooting you if they really wanted that would get in the way of a real meaningful relationship...
More like 100s of cops have abused their authority to harass a middle aged artist.
At even just 10 minutes a stop, that is over 30 hours of this poor man's life he has spent staring at the berries and cherries just because some entitled cop thought he deserved a photo op.
> harass a middle aged artist
This man is driving a homemade banana car across the continent specifically because he wants the attention it garners. It's the whole point.
Wanting to attract attention and wanting to be constantly interrupted by law enforcement are not the same thing. This is the "well if she didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't have worn that skirt!" argument, and it doesn't look any better here.
He said that he enjoys it. Why not just let him have fun in his banana car if he wants to? HN commenters seem to be the only people upset about this. He specifically said that he enjoys the banter and photo-ops with the police.
Because no one is allowed to have fun, obviously.
Yeah, the attention of armed people with the authority to order him around. See how ridiculous that sounds?
I would advise you not drive a homemade fruit car around your town if you are this terrified of the attention it will bring. He clearly said in the article that he enjoys the encounters. He is doing this on purpose.
I got a lot of attention on a trip of mine. People would walk up to me at gas stations to ask about mt my trip and it was super cool.
However we interacted as equals and I was free to refuse the conversation or end it when I wanted. I was free to set boundaries.
I would not feel the same if stopped by cops.
Him enjoying the attention doesn't make the actions of the police right or just.
He enjoys the attention, they are abusing their authority, Both things are true.
> they are abusing their authority
It's perfectly reasonable to question whether that vehicle is street legal when it passes by on the road. It would be my first thought. It looks like it's mounted on a boat trailer chassis, and the windshield appears to have questionable effectiveness at high speeds. Pulling him over to ask about it seems like they are doing their jobs. Especially when I am also a driver on the same road.
Is it legally reasonable? Does the local law make "that looks funny, might not be street legal" a primary traffic offense?
You seem to have misunderstood the reason this country was founded in the first place.
Attracting attention does not vindicate others in violating that person's rights.
Yea, he should be driving the state sponsored crossover suv like the rest of the country.
The police are human too and often bored on shift. The world needs more whimsy!
I understand your perspective, but viewing police as solely as a potential threat is not spreading whimsy.
> but viewing police as solely as a potential threat is not spreading whimsy.
What a privileged point of view. For a lot of people police are indeed nothing but a potential threat.
The police can only stop a driver if they believe they have committed a primary traffic offense.
That's not true at all. The police can stop a vehicle for any suspicion of unlawful activity. For instance, to question a driver about the street-legal-ness of their homemade banana car. You can, however, refuse questioning and refuse any inspection of the interior of the vehicle and just ask them to cite you for what they pulled you over for.
They are required to have reasonable suspicion that the banana car is unlawful in some way. (e.g. missing required equipment, etc) Simply wanting to question the driver or get a picture for funsies is not quite enough.
It’s a goddamn banana car. This guy’s banana car is apparently legal, well constructed, and registered properly, but yes, the presence of a hand made banana car is reasonable suspicion that the car may not be up to snuff, road legal, or safe to operate around others.
That's a common misconception about what "reasonable suspicion" means.
"Reasonable suspicion of a crime" is an objective legal standard that doesn't mean the same thing as "they look suspicious" or the situation itself is "suspicious" -- it means that the officer thinks that a specific articulable crime has, is, or is about to occur. They don't have to be 100% sure, and they don't even have to be correct about what the law even is, but they do have to believe a law was broken.
Being unusual by itself does not legally qualify for reasonable suspicion of a crime or infraction, because being unusual isn't a crime.
Now, the officer could be interested in the car because it is a banana, and want to stop it to take a picture of it, but they have to have suspicion of some specific violation first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whren_v._United_States
For example:
1. "Hey that banana car looks weird" > "it doesn't look like it has turn signals" > [pulls them over] > "hey do you have turn signals", "yes", "ok my bad have a nice day" = legal, because not having turn signals is an equipment violation.
2. "Hey that banana car looks weird" > [pulls them over] > "hey is this thing legal?" = illegal, because looking weird is not a crime
Interesting, I see the distinction. That said, I’m genuinely curious here (and, I’m not defending police overreach - you can browse my comments if you’re worried I’ve got any love for authoritarians) - let’s take as a given that we’ve got a societal interest in automobiles meeting safety standards, and let’s take as a given that we’ve nominated the police as the body designated to ensure that vehicles being operated on the road meet these safety standards (or at least, we’ve designated them as the on-the-ground eyes for seeking out vehicles that don’t). Let’s also assume that some of those safety standards are not immediately visible from the outside - eg, it’s difficult to tell at a glance if the frame of the banana car is a well-constructed piece of welded steel or a shopping cart.
A cop sees what is clearly a hand-made banana car driving past them in the other direction on the road. What do you feel like are the appropriate actions for that cop to take in those circumstances, with just the facts available to them at hand?
I’m not arguing that the cops we have do not regularly and aggressively abuse their power and violate the social contract, but I’m struggling to see how we would want a cop to behave in an ideal world in this circumstance that isn’t “pull over the banana car and make sure it’s safe.” From the sound of it, they’re not ticketing the banana car, they obviously haven’t impounded it, and knock wood, they haven’t shot the driver yet, but what would your expectation be for them in that situation?
> let’s take as a given that we’ve got a societal interest in automobiles meeting safety standards, and let’s take as a given that we’ve nominated the police as the body designated to ensure that vehicles being operated on the road meet these safety standards
Broadly, I agree. But there are two very distinct groups of laws that you're groping together here:
Firstly, there's federal law, which is primarily responsible for what we think a modern safe vehicle is: crash testing, airbags, backup cameras, tire pressure monitoring, antilock brakes, stability control, etc. These laws primarily apply only to new vehicle manufacturers, enter enforced against those manufactured by the federal government.
Second, there's state law. Basically, all traffic laws are under state purview, and enforcement. The safety equipment required under state law is generally extremely basic. In most states you can qualify with as little as: DOT rated tires with tread, at least two mirrors, turn signals, seat belt, headlights, tail lights, horn, a front windshield, and a functioning wiper. These are the laws that traffic police enforce.
> Let’s also assume that some of those safety standards are not immediately visible from the outside - eg, it’s difficult to tell at a glance if the frame of the banana car is a well-constructed piece of welded steel or a shopping cart.
Because state vehicle safety law is generally very basic, it usually is possible to tell from the outside whether equipment requirements are met.
Also, shopping carts are made out of welded steel. And besides, it is entirely legal to use wood in the construction of a vehicle. State law typically does not prescribe the types of materials used beyond some extreme generalities in their performance (e.g. visibility through windows, structures physically attached as opposed to being loose). Generally, state law only cares about operational safety, they don't really regulate design safety. Horrible unsafe designs that would fail a crash test are only federally illegal for manufacturers to make and sell to people.
But let's entertain your scenario for a second. Let's say that there is something about a vehicle that fails safety standards that isn't visible... legally you there's no way to pull the vehicle over for a reason that you don't know of... because you have to know of a reason to justify the stop to begin with -- you'd have to find some other reason.
Ideally, the way you'd enforces vehicle safety for these kinds of scenarios, and the way that the rest of the world handles it -- is to require vehicles to be inspected. But only 15 states have chosen to require periodic passenger vehicle inspections.
> A cop sees what is clearly a hand-made banana car driving past them in the other direction on the road. What do you feel like are the appropriate actions for that cop to take in those circumstances, with just the facts available to them at hand?
They should do everything that their state law enables them to do, including:
* visually confirming the existence of required equipment: lamps, windscreen, signals, road tires, etc.
* confirming the display of any credentials required by their state: inspections stickers (if applicable), registration stickers (if applicable), license plate (believe it or not... if applicable), etc.
... and if they don't meet these requirements, or they break other rules of traffic operation, initiate a stop and investigate further.
IANAL, and would like to believe that what you say is true, but I think in most jurisdictions "reasonable suspicion" that the vehicle was not street legal would float as justification for a stop.
There is no "street legal" statute, so it would have to be for something specific like an improperly displayed license plate, that one example in the article alludes to.
But other examples in the article like "Often officers simply wanted photographs." would not be a legal reason.
Now, in practice, this is a very easy standard to meet, because even if an officer wants to pull someone over arbitrarily, they can simply follow someone until they make a very minor infraction like crossing a line improperly, exceeding the speed limit by 1mph, rolling a stop, or failing to signal... but they still have to do it.
No? Not even close. If the police "smell weed" they can stop you. If the police believe you have active warrants they can stop you. If the police believe you have committed a criminal act of any kind, they may stop you
I'm speaking about a traffic stop specifically, I am aware other crimes exist.
your statement was "The police can only stop a driver". This is completely false. It is based off the belief of the officer, not fact or reality.
> It is based off the belief of the officer, not fact or reality.
A belief that they have violated some law. They cannot do it for these reasons, from the article:
> Often officers simply wanted photographs.
> Other times they invented reasons to start a conversation.