• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Thin blue line car decal

GPP said:
. Its pretty stupid in my opinion, I dont want anyone knowing im a cop if im in my pov
Click to expand...

Neither did my dad [R.I.P.]. He never put MPA stickers on the cars, although the last one he drove to work did have an MPA sticker, but I can't remember if he stuck it on or if it came with it [used car]. Either way, by that point in his career he probably didn't care that much.

My dad's attitude was the last thing you wanted to do was identify yourself as an officer.
 
I've never understood the point of these types of stickers.

if you're a LEO, or the family member of a LEO, and you want a traffic stop "courtesy" all you have to do is ask. I'm not a LEO but a good friend is the daughter of a Boston cop. When she gets stopped, IF she wasn't doing something egregious, she was taught by her father to say "Officer, would you consider giving a break to the daughter of a law enforcement officer?" Or something similar.

The couple of times I've known that she's done this, a short conversation ensues about where her dad works etc... And no ticket results.

No stupid sticker required. And perfectly reasonable, if you ask me. If it's a minor thing, what officer wouldn't want how OWN daughter treated similarly?

Like I said, I only know about this second hand.
 
devenob said:
if your a cop you shouldn't really need one, just run your plate once a month if you really want. And yes its illegal to have a MPA sticker if you have no affiliation to it, there's a member number on them that are registered to the person they were issued to.
Click to expand...

That's technically a CJIS violation. Wait till they run an agency audit.... There'll be some explaining to do......
 
Damn, that is one ghey law. I wonder if its illegal to have an IBEW, IAFF, or other union member sticker on my car?
042.gif
. Actually, I don't want any union stickers on my car, but having a law against it is beyond ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yes, but good luck getting someone to prosecute (I think the maximum penalty is a $20 fine).

The crime is unauthorized use of a trade union emblem of symbol.
 
PeterGV said:
I've never understood the point of these types of stickers.

if you're a LEO, or the family member of a LEO, and you want a traffic stop "courtesy" all you have to do is ask. I'm not a LEO but a good friend is the daughter of a Boston cop. When she gets stopped, IF she wasn't doing something egregious, she was taught by her father to say "Officer, would you consider giving a break to the daughter of a law enforcement officer?" Or something similar.

The couple of times I've known that she's done this, a short conversation ensues about where her dad works etc... And no ticket results.

No stupid sticker required. And perfectly reasonable, if you ask me. If it's a minor thing, what officer wouldn't want how OWN daughter treated similarly?

Like I said, I only know about this second hand.
Click to expand...

The problem is it promotes "us versus them" in the Id you have connections you are inherently above the law. Would love a cop to say "no I wouldn't".
 
The problem is it promotes "us versus them" in the Id you have connections you are inherently above the law. Would love a cop to say "no I wouldn't".
Click to expand...
If you are polite, the chances of getting a "pass" on a minor moving violation in MA are excellent - better than many other states. It's probably because cops know they are writing a $2000 penalty for a simple speeding ticket, and aren't anxious to dish out that kind of pain for a minor offense unless they are on a ticket detail.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
If you are polite, the chances of getting a "pass" on a minor moving violation in MA are excellent - better than many other states. It's probably because cops know they are writing a $2000 penalty for a simple speeding ticket, and aren't anxious to dish out that kind of pain for a minor offense unless they are on a ticket detail.
Click to expand...

What you said does nothing to negate what I said: using the "I have a family member who is LEO" line to get out of something displays an "above the law, I'm part of the good ol boys club" giving some special privileges while the ret don't have it.
 
Obie1 said:
I had the great fun of driving about 800 miles over the long weekend. I noticed way more than a few of the above on cars. My question is do you guys pay any attention to these?
Click to expand...

I would never put on of these on my car, think about how you feel when you see a person with a Obama bumper sticker, that disgusting feeling is how a lot of people feel towards L/E. IF a bunch of cars are in a parking lot and one has a blue line sticker, which car would you most likely vandalize if you were shit head? ITs like open carrying to me: all it does is select my first victim if I was a criminal and was going to rob a place etc. The guy with the weapon is a threat to me so he would get it first. I guess I'm saying anonymity has its advantages,blend in look like everyone else. Dont make yourself stick out. YMMV
 
bostonasphalt2 said:
What you said does nothing to negate what I said: using the "I have a family member who is LEO" line to get out of something displays an "above the law, I'm part of the good ol boys club" giving some special privileges while the ret don't have it.
Click to expand...
I hear you. But to my mind, it's no different from any other profession. I'm in the computer biz and if somebody else in the same field asks me for a favor I'm likely to do it for them, just as a professional courtesy. Oh, I know it's not exactly the same... But that's what's going on.

And, again, I find myself in agreement with Mr Boudrie: Be polite, fess up if you know you did whatever minor thing it is, and you'll almost certainly get a pass.

i ran a stop sign entering a rotary a while back. Just looked to my left and kept on going. The problem? There was a cop on my right looking for this exact behavior. He stopped me and I said "Bet you're stopping me cuz I didn't stop at that stop sign,eh?" He said "Did you know it was there?" "Yes," I answered, "but I looked left and nobody was coming, so I just went on through." He laughed and said "you're the first person who hasn't argued with me, and tried to tell me that they DID stop, all day. Here's your license. Just please stop at that stop sign next time."
 
PeterGV said:
I hear you. But to my mind, it's no different from any other profession. I'm in the computer biz and if somebody else in the same field asks me for a favor I'm likely to do it for them, just as a professional courtesy. Oh, I know it's not exactly the same... But that's what's going on.

And, again, I find myself in agreement with Mr Boudrie: Be polite, fess up if you know you did whatever minor thing it is, and you'll almost certainly get a pass.

i ran a stop sign entering a rotary a while back. Just looked to my left and kept on going. The problem? There was a cop on my right looking for this exact behavior. He stopped me and I said "Bet you're stopping me cuz I didn't stop at that stop sign,eh?" He said "Did you know it was there?" "Yes," I answered, "but I looked left and nobody was coming, so I just went on through." He laughed and said "you're the first person who hasn't argued with me, and tried to tell me that they DID stop, all day. Here's your license. Just please stop at that stop sign next time."
Click to expand...

A favor for computer work isn't the same as two classes under the law, so no, it is not even in the same universe in terms of "sameness." Anyone who flexes the lit "police connection" to get out of something their right to go ahead and try, just as I have my right to call them pieces of shit for perpetuating a long term problem.
 
perpetuating a long term problem.
Click to expand...
The only solution would be a policy of "all drivers stopped for a violation get a citation" - which brings its own set of problems.

There is a certain amount of low-level corruption that cannot be squeezed out of the system. The MPA sticker, and the MPA "do not allow a civilian to proceed with one of these stickers intact", formalizes and puts the stamp of approval on the special privileges system and should be eliminated.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The only solution would be a policy of "all drivers stopped for a violation get a citation" - which brings its own set of problems.

There is a certain amount of low-level corruption that cannot be squeezed out of the system. The MPA sticker, and the MPA "do not allow a civilian to proceed with one of these stickers intact", formalizes and puts the stamp of approval on the special privileges system and should be eliminated.
Click to expand...

Although I can agree that a ticket can be issued, I'd like to know under what authority any LEO can LAWFULLY PREVENT a person from leaving with the sticker intact? Towing and impounding the car, arrest, unlimited detainment?

I was taught the bluff game when I joined the PD, but when the rubber meets the road, the officer must know when they are crossing into legally dangerous territory by doing so.
 
I was taught the bluff game when I joined the PD, but when the rubber meets the road, the officer must know when they are crossing into legally dangerous territory by doing so.
Click to expand...
I'll bet less than 1 in 100 drivers know how to properly, and legally, resist the bluff game.
 
I love this thread. It's fine when Joe hammer swinger gets a verbal warning on his way to work, but it's complete BS when a cop gets the same warning for the same offense.

As far as the MPA sticker, they are only trusted to identify the owner of the vehicle as an LEO if accompanied by an inspection sticker that is at least 2 years expired.
 
It's fine when Joe hammer swinger gets a verbal warning on his way to work, but it's complete BS when a cop gets the same warning for the same offense.
Click to expand...
Nope, the problem is a formalized system designed to announce "this person gets a courtesy", and an aggressive campaign to make sure the "courtesy notice" is not displayed on the vehicle of anyone not entitled to special treatment.

But, society come a long way - drunk off duty copy no longer get a ride home, and a DUI cop who causes a wreck cannot count on having the responding officers charge the person (s)he hit with a crime.

There is still some work to be done in dog protection.
 
PeterGV said:
I hear you. But to my mind, it's no different from any other profession. I'm in the computer biz and if somebody else in the same field asks me for a favor I'm likely to do it for them, just as a professional courtesy. Oh, I know it's not exactly the same... But that's what's going on.
Click to expand...

That isn't remotely close to the same thing. The job you have should not be relevant in the least when it comes to enforcement of the law. Either they should apply equally to everybody or nobody. Cutting a cop a break solely because he/she is a cop and not because you would cut anybody in the same situation a break is not how it should work in any sort of remotely fair or just society.




Rob Boudrie said:
There is a certain amount of low-level corruption that cannot be squeezed out of the system. The MPA sticker, and the MPA "do not allow a civilian to proceed with one of these stickers intact", formalizes and puts the stamp of approval on the special privileges system and should be eliminated.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Len-2A Training said:
Although I can agree that a ticket can be issued, I'd like to know under what authority any LEO can LAWFULLY PREVENT a person from leaving with the sticker intact? Towing and impounding the car, arrest, unlimited detainment?

I was taught the bluff game when I joined the PD, but when the rubber meets the road, the officer must know when they are crossing into legally dangerous territory by doing so.
Click to expand...

Rob Boudrie said:
I'll bet less than 1 in 100 drivers know how to properly, and legally, resist the bluff game.
Click to expand...

Len-2A Training said:
Intimidation and lies works against all but the most hardened knowledgeable citizen.
Click to expand...

Glad this was pointed out. Why exactly are cops being taught to 'bluff' people and why are cops attempting to 'bluff' people in the first place? I mean what legal purpose. If it is a bluff, as in they are trying to portray something as illegal, it would almost appear that one is pushing an agenda outside of the law. Is that a good thing for LAW enforcement personnel to be doing, pushing personal or political agendas? This might seem minor, but this right here is an excellent example creating distrust and disdain for cops.
 
saltydude said:
I pay attention and profile the driver especially when it's the front plate. It's definitely getting popular.
For what it's worth I work with the kid who's got the sticker. No affiliation whatsoever. Tells me that cops wave to him occasionally.
Click to expand...
On MassCops a lot of them now pay special attention to those cars, since people who have very good reasons not to get stopped by police started adding them.

...A BPBS decal in the right location on your back window is a sign in Boston that you are family.
 
Glad this was pointed out. Why exactly are cops being taught to 'bluff' people and why are cops attempting to 'bluff' people in the first place? I mean what legal purpose.
Click to expand...

"Mind if I look in the car", presented with a demeanor of authority, when there is no lawful reason to search without consent, is a bluff (implied, but not explicit). The legal purpose is to obtain admissible evidence of a crime.

Another bluff is "If you don't consent, we'll wait for the drug dog" (unless, of course, that it what will actually happen).

The way to ask that is not a bluff is "I would like to search your car, but you are under no obligation to consent, and if you do not consent, no search will take place".

Another bluff is "The suspect we arrested with you in the other room is confessing everything and telling us your part in it. Now if your only chance to tell us your side of the story before we press charges."

Yet another is telling a suspect his prints were found at a crime scene to make him feel like the gig is up and he might as well confess - when there are no such prints.

In each of these cases, the legal purpose is to catch a criminal.
 
I guess if everyone we questioned told the truth, we wouldnt have to bluff, or play good cop bad cop, or all the other stuff you see on tv or read in comic books. That whole print thing you mentioned to show that the gig (or is it jig?)is up? I saw that on " The Town" too. Ben Affleck didnt fall for it, im sure no one else would either.
Im not sure what an implied or explicit bluff is, but yes that interrogative " do you mind if I search the car" gets used alot. You dont like it? Say no. Very simple.
These tactics, bluffs, rouses, etc, all legal. The cops didnt make them legal, lawyers did. Give me a new tool to use? Ill try it out to see if it goes in the box next to the Estwing. Not for me? It gets tossed.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
"Mind if I look in the car", presented with a demeanor of authority, when there is no lawful reason to search without consent, is a bluff (implied, but not explicit). The legal purpose is to obtain admissible evidence of a crime.

Another bluff is "If you don't consent, we'll wait for the drug dog" (unless, of course, that it what will actually happen).

The way to ask that is not a bluff is "I would like to search your car, but you are under no obligation to consent, and if you do not consent, no search will take place".

Another bluff is "The suspect we arrested with you in the other room is confessing everything and telling us your part in it. Now if your only chance to tell us your side of the story before we press charges."

Yet another is telling a suspect his prints were found at a crime scene to make him feel like the gig is up and he might as well confess - when there are no such prints.

In each of these cases, the legal purpose is to catch a criminal.
Click to expand...

That is fair enough. We both know that those aren't the only reasons cops try and bluff people. If examples like those (well, the last couple) were the only reasons, there wouldn't be much issue. But when it is used for the purpose of gaining compliance outside the law, big issues. "You must stop filming or I will arrest you, it's a felony." "You must remove that sticker or you are going to jail." Things like that. Serves no legal purpose, and actual serves an illegal one. But sadly, happens all the time. And people like below seem to think it is okay. Far different from using techniques when actual investigating a crime.

GPP said:
Im not sure what an implied or explicit bluff is, but yes that interrogative " do you mind if I search the car" gets used alot. You dont like it? Say no. Very simple.
These tactics, bluffs, rouses, etc, all legal. The cops didnt make them legal, lawyers did. Give me a new tool to use? Ill try it out to see if it goes in the box next to the Estwing.
Click to expand...

I suppose thinking for yourself is just out of the question.

Interesting you are saying it is 'lawyers' who made these things legal. Shows your line or reasoning. Scary.
 
It is darn scary that cops think trying to coerce people into giving up their rights by lying to them is just another tool given to them by lawyers. Pretty darn sad too. I hope none of the LEO's here think that way.
 

Similar threads

Abandoned (?) Car on the Street
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
Drix
Drix
plate carriers, other gear
Replies
5
Views
1K
HaroldoftheRocks
H
Considering career as federal LEO...Border patrol?
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
Acushnet14
Acushnet14
Carry a taser if you have the option
Replies
8
Views
3K
Admin
Admin
Thinking of becoming a leo...
2
Replies
58
Views
15K
evalance
evalance
Back
Top Bottom