AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
Figures. Wusses.
Figures. Wusses.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Cops writing cops..."Professional Courtesy?"
- Thread starter Superlite27
- Start date
mzbk2l
Regular Member
imported post
Personally, I don't have a huge problem with it, and I'm not a cop. I've been ticketed about 20 times out of about 30 stops, but some of those were multiple tickets on a single stop, so I'd say that even I get a free pass about 50% of the time.
I think in ANY field of work, you tend to help people in your line of work out however you can. When I worked at GM testing new concept vehicles years before production, I had access to a lot of information, and the people who developed it. If someone I knew ran into a problem with their vehicle, I could often get information a dealer could not get, or get a factory engineer involved in the case. Would the general public have access to that kind of help? Nope.
I've been working in Iraq now for about 3-1/2 years. Several people I know have come over here to work. Since I make the assignments for the 1,400 people we have here, I know where the good sites are. Do I hook up the people I know by sending them to nice bases? Yep.
Does the guy in the donut shop probably bring home donuts fresher than the ones the general public can buy when the bakery opens the next morning? Yep. Does the guy who owns the garage fix his friend's car for free? Yep. Do cops let other cops out of speeding tickets? Yep.
So what?
Personally, I don't have a huge problem with it, and I'm not a cop. I've been ticketed about 20 times out of about 30 stops, but some of those were multiple tickets on a single stop, so I'd say that even I get a free pass about 50% of the time.
I think in ANY field of work, you tend to help people in your line of work out however you can. When I worked at GM testing new concept vehicles years before production, I had access to a lot of information, and the people who developed it. If someone I knew ran into a problem with their vehicle, I could often get information a dealer could not get, or get a factory engineer involved in the case. Would the general public have access to that kind of help? Nope.
I've been working in Iraq now for about 3-1/2 years. Several people I know have come over here to work. Since I make the assignments for the 1,400 people we have here, I know where the good sites are. Do I hook up the people I know by sending them to nice bases? Yep.
Does the guy in the donut shop probably bring home donuts fresher than the ones the general public can buy when the bakery opens the next morning? Yep. Does the guy who owns the garage fix his friend's car for free? Yep. Do cops let other cops out of speeding tickets? Yep.
So what?
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
One of those is a violation of law?
One of those is a violation of law?
FogRider
Regular Member
imported post
DreQo wrote:
DreQo wrote:
While you may (and more than likely do) deserve the punishment, a little forgiveness and a warning to knock it off is appreciated. Does a chronic speeder deserve a warning? No, but his record is going to get pulled up, and a ticket will more than likely be issued. I have been caught speeding four times, and every time I honestly didn't notice how much I was speeding (I knew I was over, but didn't realize it was 15+), and I appreciated the cop giving me a warning, as I really don't go that fast 99% of the time.
imported post
FogRider wrote:
I do understand that warnings are nice, I've gotten one or two of them as well. The problem is giving warnings creates a huge gray area. There's no limit to how many warnings one person can get, especially since not all warnings are official. The LEO might just tell the cute big-boobedbimbo to "be more careful" next time. The concept of law ispretty simple. If a law says you can't do something, and you do it, then you're wrong and should be punished. There's no gray are there.
Lets consider a hypothetical situation where a first speeding offense resulted in a loss of license, period. No exceptions, no warnings. Would you let yourself not notice that you were speeding anymore? Lord knows I wouldn't.
FogRider wrote:
I do understand that warnings are nice, I've gotten one or two of them as well. The problem is giving warnings creates a huge gray area. There's no limit to how many warnings one person can get, especially since not all warnings are official. The LEO might just tell the cute big-boobedbimbo to "be more careful" next time. The concept of law ispretty simple. If a law says you can't do something, and you do it, then you're wrong and should be punished. There's no gray are there.
Lets consider a hypothetical situation where a first speeding offense resulted in a loss of license, period. No exceptions, no warnings. Would you let yourself not notice that you were speeding anymore? Lord knows I wouldn't.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
mzbk2l wrote:
We wrote the statute covering shall issue requirements. The state cops squooze their anti-freedom tactics thru that loopho'e, to deny renewal for excessive traffic violations (not citations) for more than five violations in a renewal period.
Personal anecdote (is not a datum) my last line of duty contact initiated by LEO was in 1977.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$
mzbk2l wrote:
'So what'? In South Carolina you would be denied renewal of your permit.
We wrote the statute covering shall issue requirements. The state cops squooze their anti-freedom tactics thru that loopho'e, to deny renewal for excessive traffic violations (not citations) for more than five violations in a renewal period.
Personal anecdote (is not a datum) my last line of duty contact initiated by LEO was in 1977.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$
massltca
Regular Member
imported post
mzbk2l wrote:
mzbk2l wrote:
So what?, because they are citizens like the rest of us and are subject to the same laws. The guy who owns the garage fixing his friend's car for free is a vastly different situation. Cops who break the law need to be held to the same standard as the rest of us if not higher because of their position of authority. :banghead:
massltca
Regular Member
imported post
DreQo wrote:
DreQo wrote:
I don't have a problem with cops giving warnings because speeding is a revenue generating enterprise. There is a big difference between going fast and driving recklessly. If someone is merely going a little fast the officer should have the discretion to give a warning or a ticket. If a person is driving recklessly then then penalty should be a ticket. The law is not always black and white and that is as it should be, justice tempered with mercy.
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
I find it interesting that there isn't more comparison between speeding laws and gun control laws. To preface, I understand that keeping and bearing arms is a right whereas driving on public roads is a priviledge, but I still believe a comparison is warranted in these days where "rights" rarely, if ever, factor into politics.
First, both speeding and carrying a firearm are victimless acts. Just like a person can be reckless in carrying a firearm, a person can be reckless in speeding. If speeding were so much of a danger, then, given the number of citations handed out every day, our roads should be littered with the carnage of speed-related accidents. But that, in fact, in not the case, just like how the streets aren't littered with the bodies of all the people killed by people who carry firearms. Secondly, the opponants of each rely on fear and misinformation to promote their agenda against peaceable citizens... both are seen as inherently dangerous when, as I've stated, neither is. Thirdly, both rely on individual responsbility and judgement, characteristics that our politicians like to believe that the general public do not possess. And finally, the police are granted almost unquestioningly the right to do both and abuse both, regardless of the situation.
I support a rational person's decision to disregard speed limits and drive at a safe speed. If that means driving at 15mph past a crowded playground where the limit is 35mph, or if that means driving at 115mph through a 55mph zone down a straight stretch of dry, empty, 4-lane highway with vast medians and runoffs with a car that than handle that speed steadily, I can't see a problem with either. But then I would also support a friend's decision to illegally conceal a firearm for protection because he lives in an area that either bans carry altogether or bans carry for his age group.
Which brings it all back to the issue of, one again, how police have a monopoly on breaking the law without consequences. While speeding should not be illegal (and "reckless driving" should be applied correctly), as long as it still is, police should be held to the same standards as the second class of people. Just like how in jurisdictions where the people are judged to be too incompetent or evil to carry firearms, the police should not be allowed to carry firearms either...
I find it interesting that there isn't more comparison between speeding laws and gun control laws. To preface, I understand that keeping and bearing arms is a right whereas driving on public roads is a priviledge, but I still believe a comparison is warranted in these days where "rights" rarely, if ever, factor into politics.
First, both speeding and carrying a firearm are victimless acts. Just like a person can be reckless in carrying a firearm, a person can be reckless in speeding. If speeding were so much of a danger, then, given the number of citations handed out every day, our roads should be littered with the carnage of speed-related accidents. But that, in fact, in not the case, just like how the streets aren't littered with the bodies of all the people killed by people who carry firearms. Secondly, the opponants of each rely on fear and misinformation to promote their agenda against peaceable citizens... both are seen as inherently dangerous when, as I've stated, neither is. Thirdly, both rely on individual responsbility and judgement, characteristics that our politicians like to believe that the general public do not possess. And finally, the police are granted almost unquestioningly the right to do both and abuse both, regardless of the situation.
I support a rational person's decision to disregard speed limits and drive at a safe speed. If that means driving at 15mph past a crowded playground where the limit is 35mph, or if that means driving at 115mph through a 55mph zone down a straight stretch of dry, empty, 4-lane highway with vast medians and runoffs with a car that than handle that speed steadily, I can't see a problem with either. But then I would also support a friend's decision to illegally conceal a firearm for protection because he lives in an area that either bans carry altogether or bans carry for his age group.
Which brings it all back to the issue of, one again, how police have a monopoly on breaking the law without consequences. While speeding should not be illegal (and "reckless driving" should be applied correctly), as long as it still is, police should be held to the same standards as the second class of people. Just like how in jurisdictions where the people are judged to be too incompetent or evil to carry firearms, the police should not be allowed to carry firearms either...
openryan
State Researcher
imported post
imperialism2024 wrote:
But, I liked it -- good comparison, and logic.
imperialism2024 wrote:
I laughed when I started reading this, thinking how are you going to compare these?
But, I liked it -- good comparison, and logic.
ilbob
Campaign Veteran
imported post
cops are human and tend to have all the foibles that the rest of us do. one of them is an inability to apply the rules equally to everyone. we are all that way. didn't your boss ever let you or one of your co-workers off the hook for something they should have been punished for?
granted, it is a little different when it is a violation of the law, rather than a mere rules some company is supposed to enforce.
i for one do not want cops giving out tickets for doing 66 in a 65. they already spend far more of their time making revenue stops than they should be. until all theviolent offendersare in jail, we should be reducing the amount of policeresources spent on revenue stops, and concentrate it on violent offenders.
cops are human and tend to have all the foibles that the rest of us do. one of them is an inability to apply the rules equally to everyone. we are all that way. didn't your boss ever let you or one of your co-workers off the hook for something they should have been punished for?
granted, it is a little different when it is a violation of the law, rather than a mere rules some company is supposed to enforce.
i for one do not want cops giving out tickets for doing 66 in a 65. they already spend far more of their time making revenue stops than they should be. until all theviolent offendersare in jail, we should be reducing the amount of policeresources spent on revenue stops, and concentrate it on violent offenders.
massltca
Regular Member
imported post
openryan wrote:
openryan wrote:
+1
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
Earlier this year, I had a confrontation with one of New Jersey's finest that went something along the lines of this:
Me: Good morning, officer.
LEO: Where are you going so quickly?
Me: Oh, my friend and I are just going to New York City for the day. [Why else would I be in New Jersey?]
LEO: New York, mhm. Do you know how fast you were going?
Me: I know that I was travelling at a safe speed, officer [I knew about how fast I was going, but wasn't going to admit that...]
LEO: You were going 86 in a 65! You're trying to tell me that's safe?!
Me: Well, officer, if that's the speed that you say I was going, I still believe it was safe given the conditions: it's a bright day with high visibility, the road is dry, and there is minimal traffic. If any one of those conditions were worse, then no, 86 in a 65 wouldn't have been a safe speed. Hell, if this road were wet and there was a lot of traffic, even 65 wouldn't have been a safe speed. But no, officer, I don't feel I was doing anything unsafe or wrong given the conditions this morning.
LEO: *blank stare*
After which he constructed a story about how I was racing a car that wasn't there, but then just wrote me a ticket for 86 in a 65... Though it was interesting to see the look on his face, as it seemed like something clicked regarding how arbitrary speed limits are. Kind of like the look that people get when they truly realize that guns don't just start randomly shooting people. I still got the ticket though.
Earlier this year, I had a confrontation with one of New Jersey's finest that went something along the lines of this:
Me: Good morning, officer.
LEO: Where are you going so quickly?
Me: Oh, my friend and I are just going to New York City for the day. [Why else would I be in New Jersey?]
LEO: New York, mhm. Do you know how fast you were going?
Me: I know that I was travelling at a safe speed, officer [I knew about how fast I was going, but wasn't going to admit that...]
LEO: You were going 86 in a 65! You're trying to tell me that's safe?!
Me: Well, officer, if that's the speed that you say I was going, I still believe it was safe given the conditions: it's a bright day with high visibility, the road is dry, and there is minimal traffic. If any one of those conditions were worse, then no, 86 in a 65 wouldn't have been a safe speed. Hell, if this road were wet and there was a lot of traffic, even 65 wouldn't have been a safe speed. But no, officer, I don't feel I was doing anything unsafe or wrong given the conditions this morning.
LEO: *blank stare*
After which he constructed a story about how I was racing a car that wasn't there, but then just wrote me a ticket for 86 in a 65... Though it was interesting to see the look on his face, as it seemed like something clicked regarding how arbitrary speed limits are. Kind of like the look that people get when they truly realize that guns don't just start randomly shooting people. I still got the ticket though.
mzbk2l
Regular Member
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
BTW, those stops were spread out over many years. I like cars that seem to be magnets for cops.
I did lose my license for a brief period once when I was 20 or 21, and I've paid higher insurance rates for nearly 20 years. If those are the costs of my habit, so be it.
Doug Huffman wrote:
Luckily, Arizona licenses only need renewal on your 65th birthday. I have 30 years left before I need to trouble myself with that little detail.
BTW, those stops were spread out over many years. I like cars that seem to be magnets for cops.
I did lose my license for a brief period once when I was 20 or 21, and I've paid higher insurance rates for nearly 20 years. If those are the costs of my habit, so be it.mzbk2l
Regular Member
imported post
massltca wrote:
So what if they do the same for each other? Sounds to me like they are holding themselves to the same standard to which they hold me.....
massltca wrote:
OK, and my first example states that they give ME, a common civilian, a free pass approximately 50% of the time I am caught breaking the law.
So what if they do the same for each other? Sounds to me like they are holding themselves to the same standard to which they hold me.....
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
Negatory, collection-of-letters-with-no-vowels.
The discussion here is giving someone a free pass on speeding and other traffic violations because BECAUSE they are a cop, and for that reason alone.
Negatory, collection-of-letters-with-no-vowels.
The discussion here is giving someone a free pass on speeding and other traffic violations because BECAUSE they are a cop, and for that reason alone.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
The issue is not if the cop cuts you slack and not write a ticket. Meaning, writing a ticket for anyone.
The issue is the arrogance of a cop believing that he/she should have a free pass. I'm better than my fellow citizen because I have a badge. How dare you write me a ticket, I'm one of you. Us against them attitude.
I fight every ticket I get. Not that I get stopped that often. But the last cop that wrote me a ticket got fired. He then became a security guard and within a year was arrested for receiving stolen property.
It happened to be a big screen TV from the store that he worked at. No receipt.
PS. I win 99 percent of the time. And there is no law that says “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Ignorance of the law is an excuse. And no, I will not tell you why. Why, because cops participate in our discussions on this site and I am selfish.
I mean it in a nice way. You don't give your opponent your play book.
The issue is not if the cop cuts you slack and not write a ticket. Meaning, writing a ticket for anyone.
The issue is the arrogance of a cop believing that he/she should have a free pass. I'm better than my fellow citizen because I have a badge. How dare you write me a ticket, I'm one of you. Us against them attitude.
I fight every ticket I get. Not that I get stopped that often. But the last cop that wrote me a ticket got fired. He then became a security guard and within a year was arrested for receiving stolen property.
It happened to be a big screen TV from the store that he worked at. No receipt.
PS. I win 99 percent of the time. And there is no law that says “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Ignorance of the law is an excuse. And no, I will not tell you why. Why, because cops participate in our discussions on this site and I am selfish.
I mean it in a nice way. You don't give your opponent your play book.
openryan
State Researcher
imported post
color of law wrote:
To for it to be mathamatically possible for you to have won 99% of your tickets you would have had to have at least 100 tickets...and you said you dont get stopped that often, so either you are 1000 years old or you lied...
color of law wrote:
What was the officers name?
To for it to be mathamatically possible for you to have won 99% of your tickets you would have had to have at least 100 tickets...and you said you dont get stopped that often, so either you are 1000 years old or you lied...
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
First, 99 percent is a figure of speech.
Second, the officer's name is Mark Wooten, Elmwood Place police. This officer had been harassing a lot of people and a lot of complaints were made. The village kept ignoring the complaints. He gave me a ticket for making a legal U-turn (U-turns, for the most part, are legal in Ohio). I requested the cops bond and oath of office. They could not produce it. I pushed the issue with the village prosecutor and they drop the case. The cop's wife, in the middle of this, then filed a domestic violence complaint and the cop was fired. And, as I said in my earlier post, he was convicted of receiving stolen property. The police chief was convicted of viewing child porn on the computer at the police station. This town has a great police department!!!!! tung in cheek
I tell people to be careful out there. Because some of them have guns and some have guns and a badges.
I have gotten tickets for going down one way streets the right way. I have gotten tickets for going through stop signs that don't exist. The cops usually don't show-up in court and the case is dismissed.
When I get a ticket I file lots of paperwork in the court. If I am going to loose, they are going to have to work for it.
I had a judge suspend my license for no insurance, appealed to the appeals court and won. Judges can only recommend suspension to the BMV. The BMV must suspend.
Court is a substitution for war and there are no rules in war. Please don't take this out of context. Being a paralegal has its advantages. You have to know how to object. Failure to object timely is fatal.
First, 99 percent is a figure of speech.
Second, the officer's name is Mark Wooten, Elmwood Place police. This officer had been harassing a lot of people and a lot of complaints were made. The village kept ignoring the complaints. He gave me a ticket for making a legal U-turn (U-turns, for the most part, are legal in Ohio). I requested the cops bond and oath of office. They could not produce it. I pushed the issue with the village prosecutor and they drop the case. The cop's wife, in the middle of this, then filed a domestic violence complaint and the cop was fired. And, as I said in my earlier post, he was convicted of receiving stolen property. The police chief was convicted of viewing child porn on the computer at the police station. This town has a great police department!!!!! tung in cheek
I tell people to be careful out there. Because some of them have guns and some have guns and a badges.
I have gotten tickets for going down one way streets the right way. I have gotten tickets for going through stop signs that don't exist. The cops usually don't show-up in court and the case is dismissed.
When I get a ticket I file lots of paperwork in the court. If I am going to loose, they are going to have to work for it.
I had a judge suspend my license for no insurance, appealed to the appeals court and won. Judges can only recommend suspension to the BMV. The BMV must suspend.
Court is a substitution for war and there are no rules in war. Please don't take this out of context. Being a paralegal has its advantages. You have to know how to object. Failure to object timely is fatal.
imported post
Cops are supposed to obey the law first then enforce the law. I always make sure I am following the rules myself then I go out telling people. Those with too much ego ends up telling others that they got the power and no one cant do s**t to them. Thats totally wrong. There are bad cops out there. Some are in the force for money, honor/status, help out the community( often times doesnt get award)
Cops are supposed to obey the law first then enforce the law. I always make sure I am following the rules myself then I go out telling people. Those with too much ego ends up telling others that they got the power and no one cant do s**t to them. Thats totally wrong. There are bad cops out there. Some are in the force for money, honor/status, help out the community( often times doesnt get award)