NYPD Arrests Cyclist for Uncovering Obscured License Plate, Lets Driver Go
jalopnik.com
jalopnik.com
Let's call a spade a spade: the NYPD are the single worst offenders in almost all type of traffic and parking offenses (including obscured license plates). There are entire watchdog groups dedicated to documenting traffic-related NYPD abuses of power.
This is also why it's pointless to report violations, because 311 just sends it to the police, who take no action.
The US actually scores very poorly for a major developed democracy, I don’t know why you’d say it ranks highly.
Here's a poster from 1887: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Citizen_asking_Mayor...
I think this should be revisited in the next contract negotiation.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7gxa4/pba-card-police-court...
That's an expensive little piece of plastic
I understand the rationale that these indirectly target people of lower economic background, but is this sort of policy going to improve all this? Should we get our laws and standards down to the lowest common denominator? I'd love to hear balanced and convincing counter arguments, because the compassion card isn't quite convincing as is.
Are more people harmed in the process of police enforcing traffic laws (unlawful violence, egregious or excessive citation, etc.) than are harmed because of behavior enabled or exacerbated by unenforced traffic laws (running red lights, speeding, driving with lights off which result in property damage, injury, or death, or unlicensed vehicles used in other crimes, etc.).
Either way there is a social justice argument to be made, and I'm surprised I haven't heard a strong voice for enforcement, because my intuition is that more people are harmed in more broad economic terms when traffic violations are allowed to proliferate than those who would be harmed by interactions with police which run foul. It's just that when someone innocent gets unjustly murdered during a police interaction, it's such a horrific and newsworthy event and kind of distracts from regular, daily injustices (including traffic deaths). In a way kind of like mass shootings vs more regular low-grade gun violence.
Seems like a mischaracterization to me. I have heard reducing pre-textual stops such as turning too wide or improper signal use, etc. Haven’t seen anything about not enforcing speed limits or allowing people to drive without a license plate.
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/dont-roll-down-your-wind...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwSJJQqNBJs
"where she was approached by 3 males with guns who surrounded her vehicle and forced her out at gunpoint.
We're approaching 5400 car thefts so far this year in Toronto. That's a 50% increase from last year."
Btw, this is in a very nice, wealthy neighborhood.
Called 911.
"Is this an emergency?"
"No this happened ten minutes ago in front of our house."
"Then you need to report it through the online crime reporting system" [click]
Um, ok. [report, report, report]
[next day]
Email from OPD says, report rejected because this kind of crime must be reported to an officer in person.
Called OPD.
"We'll send an officer"
[24 hours later]
Call again
"We'll send an officer"
[24 hours later]
[voicemail] This is officer XXX, I'm standing in front of your house, can you talk now? Here is my number (510) 555-4321, call me any time.
(I couldn't talk to him because I was away from my house)
[call the officer at the number he gave]
"The voice mail box at 555-4321 has not been set up, please try again later."
On and on. I finally gave up, which I think is the result they're shooting for. Talking to neighbors, I'm clearly not the only one with this experience. I'm a stupidity-over-malice kind of person but at this point I feel malicious compliance or malicious incompetence is not out of the question.
What were you hoping for the police to do in that situation? Do you have any number you can call to have a social worker take a report and look into the matter?
Nobody is making you drive. If you think you can get away with evading tolls and red lights, you shouldn’t be surprised if someone breaks that shit off your car. You deserve it. You want a lawless society, you might just get one.
You can always take the advice being offered here to vote, vote away the tolls and red light cameras if you don’t like them.
Problem solves itself, the vast militarization of our police force is justified, everyone happy.
If just one symbol is obscured, they could get the subset of plates that match on the other letters and numbers and then narrow it down by make and model, from the photo.
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are already being used in real time to detect stolen vehicles and vehicles associated with crime.
> Law enforcement agencies will often pre-load a list of license plates that the ALPR system is actively looking for—such as stolen vehicles and vehicles associated with outstanding warrants. Police officers can also create their own hotlists. If the ALPR camera scans a plate on the list, the system sends an alert to the officer in the squad car (if it's a mobile reader) or the agency (if it's a fixed reader). Some hotlists include low-level misdemeanors and traffic offenses. Some agencies use these hotlists to generate revenue by stopping citation scofflaws.
https://www.eff.org/pages/automated-license-plate-readers-al...
Police response times can be quick, for example, 5-10 minutes in Saratoga, CA.
> Response times will vary depending on current circumstances and the nature of the license plate match but are generally expected to occur within 5 to 10 minutes.
https://www.saratoga.ca.us/521/Automated-License-Plate-Reade...
Nope. No. Don't.
It's bad to obscure your license plate. It's bad to vandalize other people's cars.
Both of these are true.
Drivers of HN sleep.
>Person flicks a bit of plastic obscuring a license plate:
WTF thats a REdLine stop that vandal!!!
You can't grant yourself a pass to damage another person's property because of what you feel they intended to use it for, because of what you believe its value should be, because you don't like that they own or use cars, or because you have linked them to casually slaughtering countless people, the ruination of cities and destruction of society.
There are very limited circumstances in which you may take the law into your own hands. Being angry is not one of them.
And a lot of people think they have the correct ethics and idea of what is needed to keep communities safe, and believe they should be able to take the law into their own hands. I don't know if you'd be very happy with the outcome of everybody actually doing that.
I'm going to rip it off, doing my civil duty, right? Not like there are any laws preventing me from doing it it.
Get off your high horse.
It is. It definitely is.
I get that it's annoying to see someone getting away with something. But that doesn't make it your right to address it however you see fit.
The point I'm trying to get across is that even though the other guy is wrong, that doesn't make it alright for you to do whatever you want in response.
The lawyer is doxxing the guy too. People really need to get a perspective on this kind of thing.
But by all means, do it anyway. I certainly wouldn't lift a finger to stop you.
Driving with an obscured license plate is illegal and could get someone in real trouble. Obviously nobody would want to intentionally break that law. By removing such an unintentional obstruction they are doing the owner of the vehicle a favor - provided it doesn't damage the car itself, of course.
Similarly, if you see someone throwing trash out of their car, picking it up and depositing it in a trash can does not count as theft. Removing a third-party sticker from a traffic sign does not count as damaging it.
> Obviously nobody would want to intentionally break that law.
Did they ask for help? No. Are you damaging the car? Yes. Are you intruding on others rights? Also yes.
Stop being so self-righteous.
You aren't an authority, nor has anyone asked you to be. This is no different than MOB mentality whre you think you have some kind of authority.
We have a government for a reason, to handle this kind of stuff. These people want more oversight, but at the same time, they don't want it???
Don't go around breaking other people's property because you don't like what they have. It's illegal.
Why do you get to decide what is right and wrong without a court of law? I thought we outlawed that ages ago.
That seems like a wild stretch... I guess you mean people with obscured plates feel more free to speed and/or drive dangerously, which will eventually lead to accidents and deaths?
That's rather attenuated to justify vandalizing someone's car. But even to the extent that's true, snapping off plastic bits obscuring license plates does nothing to help. The driver will either be unaware the bit was snapped off, in which case they will drive just as dangerously as before, or they will notice, and can simply replace the obscuring plastic piece, and continue to drive as dangerously as before.
It's a dangerous path to invent arbitrary moral justifications to do whatever you want. Let's say someone sees you pulling pieces off other people's cars. They might decide they have a moral right and duty to punish you. Say, subdue you and chop a finger off -- your just desert for laying a finger on other people's property. Does that sound good to you?
Except it has nothing to do with vandalism. Vandalism is when you do damage to something, not when you're removing a bit of scotch tape, (nor when you spill tomato soup on a window, by the way).
In fact, small, easily reversible and non-damaging modifications to objects/buildings as a form of protest are actually protected by free speech laws in almost every democracy.
Mate, we are all just trying to get somewhere safely.
Still hope the underlying root cause gets addressed.
"This presumably City employee..."
Laws do not apply to the ruling class; laws apply to the working class.
OTOH Ukrainians park their cars everywhere in Czechia (CZ received most UA economic migrants per capita in world) without paid parking or straight up in illegal locations knowing there is no way to enforce fines outside EU and anyone being loud about it will be automatically labeled Putin lover
I have little sympathy for the driver, but it does seem like the cyclist should have reported the driver to the police rather than taking the law into their own hands.
If the issue is a person removing a piece of tape covering a license plate, then really nothing happened. The citizen unobscured state property which is supposed to be visible. It would be like removing a sticker from a speed limit sign, or picking up litter.
If it's some other piece of plastic attached to the car itself, well IMO that's what courts are for. That cyclist goes before a judge and maybe some technical reading of the law interprets what he did as tampering with the vehicle. Another completely reasonable interpretation though is that the cyclist was making the shared roadway that the car was on safer for everyone else.
No, I'd say it's more of an act of civil disobedience meant to draw attention to the casually corrupt practices of the NYPD. The driver is likely affiliated with government or the police department. Officers have been found doing it themselves.
Didn't the driver call the police though?
You mean like with the license plate number?
Story says cyclist is a lawyer, so this was just job research.
It's not his property, leave it alone. This isn't any different than someone damaging your car because they disagree with something being displayed on it, or lack there of.
You can't "both sides" and pretend to be neutral when your argument equates two incredibly different scenarios.
What gives you the right to touch their car?
Maybe some other statute comes into play, buy criminal mischief doesn't seem fitting unless he, say, snapped it off.
What right did he have to do that? Not his car or property, nor his job.
If I don't agree with the ruling of some judgement around banks, I don't go around breaking their windows and ATMs, right?
That's damage, regardless. If I go around and draw a very nice stick figure on a painting, versus throwing paint on it, are both not damaging?
Not his property, not his right.
And I never said otherwise. Which is why I opened my original post with a question about what actually happened.
Yes, both cases you mention are damaging something. A better example might be - is a person who draws on a sidewalk with sidewalk chalk damaging it?
If someone moves my trashcan on the street 2' to the right so they can park where it was, have they damaged it?
Can you cite any laws, legal analysis, or newspaper in any US jurisdiction that describes moving a trashcan a short distance as criminal mischief, or any other crime?
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/readingpa/latest/readi...
Isn't it? That depends on whether, in that jurisdiction, the license plate is considered the vehicle registrant's property.
If that plate is the property of the state, and it is illegal for it to be covered by any sort of decal, then it's possible to regard the citizens as having the right to remove it.
If I see someone speeding, should I jump in the road and tell them to slow down? If I see someone parked illegally, should I slash their tires? It makes no sense.
No.
Can I go and randomly fix potholes on public roads? Also, no. For anything public you also require permissions.Two wrongs dont make a right. Please, inform your self before these comments. Thank you.
If there is a tree fallen on my property, are you going to come and remove it, or do you expect me to do it?
I've lived in Europe. People love to be up and all about it, thinking they have the authority to do anything they want. We're in a civilized society here where we let the proper authorities take care of issues.
Go to the authorities. Thats why they are there. If you dont like it, take it up with them.
What is socially acceptable is not what is morally right, or wrong. Hundreds of years ago we tried witches based on assumptions.
But quite frankly this bicyclist is in the wrong here. In general, if you are going to put your hands on other people, or their stuff, you better be prepared to explain how doing so was necessary and that you had no alternative.
The only thing in danger here is city revenue (it's not like the fines were improving the driver's driving). This sort of busy-body vigilantism is tedious.
How many of those 375,000 people a day is the NYPD arresting?
[1] https://www.curbed.com/2022/04/nypd-fare-evasion-arrest-incr...
He was prepared—he took photographs. The police reportedly ignored them.
I could understand if both the driver and the cyclist were arrested (although I'd be very disappointed if the cyclist was actually charged), but arresting the cyclist and not the driver is nuts! Obscuring your license plate should be treated as a serious crime.
I agree that leaving the driver off the hook is nuts.
That's just crazy vindictive, unless that was a company car.
> if you are going to put your hands on other people, or their stuff
Serious question: whose property is a license plate in NYC?
> it's not like the fines were improving the driver's driving
The belief that one is operating with impunity can plausibly influence their behavior.
From what I understand, the driver was a government employee. Flagrant violation of the law should be grounds for dismissal for any government employee.
There's something like 9 deaths resulting from hit 'n' runs by cars with obscured plates just like this one, in NYC right now this past year. You could not be further from correct. Do you live in NYC? Do you have insight into how unsafe the streets are because of this exact conduct? Doesn't seem like.
There were roughly 200 vehicle fatalities and 200,000 collisions for all of NYC in 2018. Numbers always benefit from context.
> Do you have insight into how unsafe the streets are because of this exact conduct?
Not because of this conduct. Dangerous driving may correlate with this conduct (and honestly covered plates should probably result in the car being forfeited) but it doesn't cause collisions.
Again, if you are putting your hands on other people or their stuff, you should be prepared to explain why it was necessary for you to take that action
How do you know? You are in the mind of the people that drive like this? You have reason to believe that the fact that they can avoid repercussions does not leave them feeling entitled to undertake such conduct? Must be amazing to have such wisdom.
The reality is that you are being obtuse and a bad neighbor.
Look, there's no mind-reading involved. What I am saying is that covering your license plate is clearly not the same as (for example) using your phone while driving - which clearly does casually related to traffic collisions.
You are correct that someone who covers their plates might feel free to take more risks, but it could just as well be that this person would be a terrible driver regardless.
You make a lot of assertions, should I expect you to substantiate any of them?
>Look, there's no mind-reading involved. What I am saying is that covering your license plate is clearly not the same as (for example) using your phone while driving - which clearly does casually related to traffic collisions.
Says who? You did a study? So you are giving up mind-reading for just outright conjecture, okay!
>You are correct that someone who covers their plates might feel free to take more risks, but it could just as well be that this person would be a terrible driver regardless.
They aren't mutually exclusive. You don't really seem to get it.
If you disagree, then make an argument. Don't pester people with questions.
> Says who? You did a study? So you are giving up mind-reading for just outright conjecture, okay!
Isolated demand for rigor. You asserted without evidence that obscuring plates cause accidents, yet demand evidence when I make the common knowledge observation that texting while driving leads to accidents.
Look, this is an internet forum, not an academic journal. If your only response is to demand empirical evidence there isn't anywhere for this conversation to go.
> They aren't mutually exclusive. You don't really seem to get it.
I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, just providing an alternative explanation. In the case of the driver from the article, given that he had already racked up thousands of dollars in fines before obscuring his plated, it is hard for me to imagine that he would feel anymore emboldened after. It sounds to me like he was just a bad driver.
The questions are the argument. They are the problems in your position that you have not answered that would be required for them to work. I don't need to offer up another alternatively entirely to make the cogent point that your assertion fails. This is just common sense. I have no idea why this needs to be explained to you.
>Isolated demand for rigor. You asserted without evidence that obscuring plates cause accidents, yet demand evidence when I make the common knowledge observation that texting while driving leads to accidents.
Well you dismissed my point just as readily... it's obnoxious, isn't it?
> Look, this is an internet forum, not an academic journal
Weird point from the guy demanding a sort of rigor about this whole situation that is so beyond the application of common sense I'm left a little bit confused as to what point you'd ever think you were making that wasn't merely academic.