If cops are about safety....
- Thread starter garyt27
- Start date
Cops Are Special ...... just ask itsrequired
garyt27
INAFJ
Cops don't make the law, they just enforce it. If you want to get bent about something, think about our legislators - both state and federal - who make these nanny traffic laws, then promptly run out and break them.
Cops are not the problem, they are just the most accessible target for wrath. Like bitching out a waitress because your food is improperly cooked, or the restrooms are dirty. It's stupid and only stupid people do it.
Cops are not the problem, they are just the most accessible target for wrath. Like bitching out a waitress because your food is improperly cooked, or the restrooms are dirty. It's stupid and only stupid people do it.
That in no way accounts for the travelers around them. This is a LAME excuse.
The LAW says cops are allowed to break the law??
Cops absolutely have control and responsibility over their own personal behavior decisions. Speeding is a choice. Cops choose to do it. They are not bound by law to speed. How silly.
Is English your first language?
Sweet 16
^^8^^
I disagree. Because police are charged with enforcing laws, they are bound to uphold them as well and *should* be setting the example, which they often don't where speed is concerned. Why should they be exempt unless they are responding to a call or are in pursuit, in which case they should use lights and siren. :shrug:
I have no problem passing a cop and have done so on many occasions. If a cop is doing 57 and I want to go 60 I will pass them and they have never pulled me over. I probably just jinxed myself and will now get a ticket on my way home.
Pete
Repete
It is the hypocrisy that makes them the target. I live down the road from one of the MSP's favorite speed trap. 9 times out of 10 they run through that area 10 over, not a care in the world. On the 10th time they are sitting there with radar flagging down cars for doing exactly what they did the day before, and the day before that, and the day before that hooking you up with a $150 ticket and points.
If the law is so ridiculous and unbendable that they cannot obey it themselves why would they sit there and enforce it with the purpose of fleecing people who are just going to work?
Because it's their job. What, they're supposed to refuse to run radar when assigned?
"No, I'm sorry Captain, but I cannot in good conscience run radar. How about if you put me in the McGruff suit for the fair instead?"
DEEKAYPEE8569
Well-Known Member
Because they can. They also know, if you choose to fight the ticket, it means you have to take time off from work, and possibly have to pay legal fees if you choose to get a lawyer; which is almost fruitless, because the argument on the LEO's behalf will be something like, 'well maybe the officer was heading to a call.'
Then what? You have either burned a day of leave; or taken a day without pay and possibly paid a lawyer just to find out nothing was done to your benefit.
Do you guys honestly think cops enjoy running radar? If so, you should sit around listening to them bitch about it some time.
Railroad
Routinely Derailed
I agree with all you said, but would add that judgment (commonsense) on the part of both LEO and "civilian" would reduce the incidence of incidents (like that play on words?). Problem is that (in my opinion) the reduction in citations and fines would negatively impact federal and state funding levels.
kwillia
n/a
Pete
Repete
No not at all. You run radar with your car positioned so everyone can see it, not in a driveway around a blind curve. Might even leave the lights flashing so everyone can see. If you see someone 8 over you give them a warning with a smilie face drawn on it. You go out and get weavers, run radar in congested areas where people ego 20 over. You know actually contribute to safety and punishing wrong doers instead of being the hidden revenue arm of the governors office sticking it to people from a hidden location.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
I watched a state cop do well over 65mph with his sirens and lights on coming down Rt.4 the other day.
Lights and sirens for a good few miles, until he got by all the traffic. The lights and sirens went off. The call probably ended, right? Afterall, he did stop at a stop light.
Then, it was off to the races after that. I was doing 60, and he was pulling away, big time. He eventually sped off into the sunset, never to be seen again.
Anyway,
Maybe someone could explain something to me. If speeding is as bad as everyone makes it out to be, why is the justice system so lenient for speeders? How come people can just send in money, and they'll get points, but for any other crime, it's not like that. What other crime can you get caught doing it, but are permitted to avoid criminal penalities by mailing a hundred bucks to your local mayor’s court. Why do we, as a society, treat speeding differently? Could it be a recognition by the justice system of the fact that nearly everyone exceeds the artificially low speed limits in the US?
It’s not usually necessary to murder people to catch a murderer, nor is it necessary to rape innocent bystanders to punish a rapist. If your car was stolen, you would not expect the policeman taking your report to arrive in a stolen car. And yet we generally accept the idea that a police officer will break the speed limit in order to catch speeders. Even more interestingly, we accept that it will be “necessary” to break the speed limit by considerably more than the original offender did.
To put it in perpesctive, if a driver is doing 50 in a 40 and passes a stationary cop in a Crown Vic “Police Interceptor”, that cop will need at least ten seconds to pull out and accelerate to 50 miles per hour. At that point, he is at least 400' behind the speeder, probably more. If he wants to catch that speeder within 3 or so minutes and stay within his jurisdiction, he needs to step it up to 55 or 60 mph. He’s now doing half again the speed limit and possibly represents a greater threat to the public welfare than the original offender, wouldn't you say?
This wouldn’t be a problem if cops didn’t crash, but they do. All the time, as a matter of fact. NHTSA states that over 3,000 people have died in police chases during the past decade. In 2001, for example, 365 people were killed, including 140 who were in no way involved with the chase.
If we, as a society, are not willing to risk innocent lives to catch bank robbers or fleeing felons, why should we endure a similar risk simply to tax motorists who are often traveling at a speed which is entirely reasonable and appropriate for the conditions? Speed limits could still be enforced through cameras, automated devices, and the old Ohio Highway Patrol standby of having a cop call ahead to another cop up the road who waves the motorist over to receive a ticket. If this increases the cost of speeding enforcement, perhaps it will inspire municipalities, and the citizens of those municipalities, to more closely consider whether their police are best serving the public by serving as roadside tax collectors.
We allow politicians to pass laws, "even if it saves one life", but allow police to needlessly speed. Putting innocent lives in danger.
http://www.pulitzer.org/files/2013/public-service/01day1.pdf
Lights and sirens for a good few miles, until he got by all the traffic. The lights and sirens went off. The call probably ended, right? Afterall, he did stop at a stop light.
Then, it was off to the races after that. I was doing 60, and he was pulling away, big time. He eventually sped off into the sunset, never to be seen again.
Anyway,
Maybe someone could explain something to me. If speeding is as bad as everyone makes it out to be, why is the justice system so lenient for speeders? How come people can just send in money, and they'll get points, but for any other crime, it's not like that. What other crime can you get caught doing it, but are permitted to avoid criminal penalities by mailing a hundred bucks to your local mayor’s court. Why do we, as a society, treat speeding differently? Could it be a recognition by the justice system of the fact that nearly everyone exceeds the artificially low speed limits in the US?
It’s not usually necessary to murder people to catch a murderer, nor is it necessary to rape innocent bystanders to punish a rapist. If your car was stolen, you would not expect the policeman taking your report to arrive in a stolen car. And yet we generally accept the idea that a police officer will break the speed limit in order to catch speeders. Even more interestingly, we accept that it will be “necessary” to break the speed limit by considerably more than the original offender did.
To put it in perpesctive, if a driver is doing 50 in a 40 and passes a stationary cop in a Crown Vic “Police Interceptor”, that cop will need at least ten seconds to pull out and accelerate to 50 miles per hour. At that point, he is at least 400' behind the speeder, probably more. If he wants to catch that speeder within 3 or so minutes and stay within his jurisdiction, he needs to step it up to 55 or 60 mph. He’s now doing half again the speed limit and possibly represents a greater threat to the public welfare than the original offender, wouldn't you say?
This wouldn’t be a problem if cops didn’t crash, but they do. All the time, as a matter of fact. NHTSA states that over 3,000 people have died in police chases during the past decade. In 2001, for example, 365 people were killed, including 140 who were in no way involved with the chase.
If we, as a society, are not willing to risk innocent lives to catch bank robbers or fleeing felons, why should we endure a similar risk simply to tax motorists who are often traveling at a speed which is entirely reasonable and appropriate for the conditions? Speed limits could still be enforced through cameras, automated devices, and the old Ohio Highway Patrol standby of having a cop call ahead to another cop up the road who waves the motorist over to receive a ticket. If this increases the cost of speeding enforcement, perhaps it will inspire municipalities, and the citizens of those municipalities, to more closely consider whether their police are best serving the public by serving as roadside tax collectors.
We allow politicians to pass laws, "even if it saves one life", but allow police to needlessly speed. Putting innocent lives in danger.
http://www.pulitzer.org/files/2013/public-service/01day1.pdf
Last edited: