Policing Debate (Moved from the Confessional Thread)

[DwnWthVwls]

Originally Posted by fiddler

That's the system for you. Either you work with the system to fight the system, or you stay quiet and you do the system's work for it.

I noticed how you did not respond to the warning v. ticket comment that I made. You are saying that you don't get to pick and choose, which I agree with. But, by the letter of the law, if you are going 36 in a 35 you have broken the law and deserve a ticket. Which I assume you don't want THAT running around being enforced - granted there are some towns & such that DO enforce it that harshly. It's generally hated.

From my understanding warnings go on your record, so it's reasonable for a first time offender to get a warning before a ticket.

As for the whole speeding thing, if you don't agree that 1 mph over is a good enough reason to pull someone over then don't do it. Just be consistent.

I've never blamed a cop for enforcing the law, I got caught I own it. I get my chance to argue in court if it's worth the hassle. The only time I've ever given a cop an attitude was after my car got smashed by a drunk driver (while parked in front of my house) and the scumbag told me to lie to get more money out of the driver. I called him out for being a douche, and then dealt with a different officer for the rest of the night.

[fiddler]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

From my understanding warnings go on your record, so it's reasonable for a first time offender to get a warning before a ticket.

As for the whole speeding thing, if you don't agree that 1 mph over is a good enough reason to pull someone over then don't do it. Just be consistent.

I've never blamed a cop for enforcing the law, I got caught I own it. I get my chance to argue in court if it's worth the hassle. The only time I've ever given a cop an attitude was after my car got smashed by a drunk driver (while parked in front of my house) and the scumbag told me to lie to get more money out of the driver. I called him out for being a douche, and then dealt with a different officer for the rest of the night.

Warnings depend on the state. In some they drop off after a set amount of time and it's like it never happened. We always have to enforce the law even if we don't agree with it. But it doesn't mean that e can't make a judgement call and perhaps not enforce it to the letter of the law. I think you simply misunderstood what I was saying. I'd still bust you for the drugs. I might not slams your face into the hood ofa car but you'd get busted. I'd try to help you too. That's
what I was saying the difference was b

I so would have reported that cop.

[DwnWthVwls]

Originally Posted by fiddler

Warnings depend on the state. In some they drop off after a set amount of time and it's like it never happened. But that's what I'm saying, if we don't get to pick and choose what laws to enforce or not to, it means that we are enforcing the law to the letter. One mph means a ticket. Not a warning.

I so would have reported that cop.

Idk how it is where you are but in NJ a warning is an official piece of paper that they hand you. It's still part of the law, it's not picking and choosing, it's a lesser punishment for first time offenders.

Can't speak for all of NJ, but that's how my speeding warning worked.

[fiddler]

Originally Posted by Plankton

St. Charles, Illinois is notorious for that. It really boils down to the judicial level in most of those cases though.

Yeah there's a couple of towns like that around here, mostly ran by idiots. I love driving through them in uniform and in my cruiser because I go as fast as I want and they can't touch me. Ooops.

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Idk how it is where you are but in NJ a warning is an official piece of paper that they hand you. It's still part of the law, it's not picking and choosing, it's a lesser punishment for first time offenders.

Can't speak for all of NJ, but that's how my speeding warning worked.

Great. So, let me hit you with this. I pull up behind you, and blue light you for your taillights being out. Pretty minor thing, not a big deal. I get up to your car window and you've got a crack pipe that's got some crack in your cup holder - in plain sight. If simply ignore it and go on about my business tell you to fix your taillights and that's it - I've ignored a law. I've chosen what law I wanted to enforce. However, if I enforce that law, there's actually two ways I can go about it: I can one bust you for possession of drug paraphernalia or I can bust you for that and the amount of crack in the pipe. After all, you're in possession of both. And according to the law, you're liable for both the pipe AND the crack inside of it. (I know, generally people don't ride around with crack actually in the pipe - I know the whole circumstance is purely stacked and coincidental). How is THAT choice any different from just choosing what laws to enforce all together? At that point I'm not simply interrupting the law, I'm ignoring a completely separate law. So is that really all that better than just ignoring the crack pipe all together?

Point is you say we shouldn't pick and choose what laws to enforce - which we shouldn't - but then if this happened to you and you only got charged for the one and not both, would you stand up and say something about it? Or would you be grateful for not getting busted for both?

[Plankton]

Originally Posted by fiddler

Yeah there's a couple of towns like that around here, mostly ran by idiots. I love driving through them in uniform and in my cruiser because I go as fast as I want and they can't touch me. Ooops.

Aww, now you gone done it. Duck and cover.