[zamadatix]

Opting in to getting attention shouldn't imply anything one way or the other about how often you get pulled over. In the real world it does, because the police are a collection of humans and will misuse powers they are able to, but that has no bearing on what's supposed to be right or wrong - it's just the realistic expectation you'll have to deal with.

[eru]

Well, especially in a democracy what's supposed to be right or wrong is heavily influenced by what the general public wants and accepts.

[zamadatix]

What the public wants is part of that picture, sure, but what the public accepts is a different thing than either right/wrong altogether. Namely "what you can realistically get away with".

[eru]

I agree in the abstract. But the abstract doesn't say anything concretely about what the exact powers of (traffic) cops should be.

For example, your average cop in the UK, traffic or otherwise, doesn't carry a gun. Bobbies can get guns, but it's enough of a bureaucratic hassle that they seldom bother. The absence of guns makes a lot of the tension disappear that I read about in American encounters with low enforcement.

In Germany, police routinely carry guns, but also approximately no one is afraid they might get shot as a result of making the wrong move at a routine traffic stop. (Partially that's because every shot fired comes with lots and lots of red tape. Even warning shots. If the police officer actually hits a person, they get the police equivalent of a court martial. And that's mandatory, even when it's obvious they were doing the Right Thing. Just like a captain in the Royal Navy got a court martial, when their ship sank for any reason.

I say 'partially', because I suspect culture has a lot to do with it.)