Here we go again .. And they wonder why we don't respect them ...

[HighStrung]

I hate to have break this to ya.
But!!
NO law has EVER applied to EVERYONE equally.
Look at the Tax Laws.
Look at the Health Care Laws.
Look at the Immigration Laws.
Look at any Law.
Court decisions prove every day that the Law is subject to someones discretion, be it an LEO, a Prosecutor, a Judge, or a Jury.

You couldn't have put this more honestly. Though I agree, isn't equally how it's suppose to work?

 

[Rookie]

And you never will. They don't have to schedule an appointment like us lower class citizens, they simply tell the doctor what they need and he calls it in. Meanwhile, I can call in, tell them exactly what's wrong and what I need and I'll be told I need to make an appointment.

Example, I get cold sores. When they get really bad, I need a prescription. I have to schedule an appointment so the doctor can charge my insurance just to tell me that he will call in my prescription.

 

[UncleMike]

Every profession does this. Ever see a nurse sitting in the waiting room at a doctor's office?

And you never will. They don't have to schedule an appointment like us lower class citizens, they simply tell the doctor what they need and he calls it in. Meanwhile, I can call in, tell them exactly what's wrong and what I need and I'll be told I need to make an appointment.

Example, I get cold sores. When they get really bad, I need a prescription. I have to schedule an appointment so the doctor can charge my insurance just to tell me that he will call in my prescription.

Yup!!
Never seen a Pilot or a Flight Attendant in the TSA line either!

 

[dross]

Discretion means applying the law with judgment as to the circumstances. Refusing to ever apply the law to a specific group of people is corruption, not discretion.

This is what is wrong with many police departments in a nutshell.

How about this instead: An officer gets stopped for speeding and the officer stopping him is outraged because a fellow officer who enforces the law and writes tickets to others is now breaking that very law. The officer writes him up every single time because he only tolerates fellow officers who conduct themselves impeccably.

It's not a far leap from NEVER writing a fellow officer a ticket, to covering for them when they give someone a beatdown for filming on their cell phone.

Disgusting.

 

[CarmelHP]

Discretion means applying the law with judgment as to the circumstances. Refusing to ever apply the law to a specific group of people is corruption, not discretion.

This is what is wrong with many police departments in a nutshell.

How about this instead: An officer gets stopped for speeding and the officer stopping him is outraged because a fellow officer who enforces the law and writes tickets to others is now breaking that very law. The officer writes him up every single time because he only tolerates fellow officers who conduct themselves impeccably.

It's not a far leap from NEVER writing a fellow officer a ticket, to covering for them when they give someone a beatdown for filming on their cell phone.

Disgusting.

Agreed. The N.O. incidence was one of the ugliest ever revealed. My fear is that it's more common than we realize. I just wonder what would happen if a drunk police officer plowed into, say, a group of motorcyclists, maiming and killing some of them. Would any responding officers let that slide, spoil evidence, fail to take the proper steps so that he would get off. Hopefully, nothing like that happens around here.

 

[jsharmon7]

It's not a far leap from NEVER writing a fellow officer a ticket, to covering for them when they give someone a beatdown for filming on their cell phone.

Comparing a traffic infraction to battery isn't a far leap?

 

[HighStrung]

Comparing a traffic infraction to battery isn't a far leap?

No, not really. Not when someone admits that they won't enforce laws that their fellow officers break. Who's to say that j706 feels that battery is actually a big deal? He feels that speeding isn't worthy enough to be an infraction against fellow officers, so why should battery?

 

[dross]

Comparing a traffic infraction to battery isn't a far leap?

Comparing failing to enforce the law as a matter of personal policy is not a far leap from failing to enforce another law when you think that people who film cops are jerks who deserve what they get, which is a paraphrase of what I've read on this very forum many times.

Corruption is corruption. Shoplifting a ten dollar watch isn't the same as stealing a car, but they're both stealing.

But maybe you'd give a fellow officer a pass if he stole a watch and told you he stuck it in his pocket to look at something else and forgot it was there.

 

[jsharmon7]

No, not really. Not when someone admits that they won't enforce laws that their fellow officers break. Who's to say that j706 feels that battery is actually a big deal? He feels that speeding isn't worthy enough to be an infraction against fellow officers, so why should battery?

Wow, I'll leave it to him to answer that if he wishes. If someone is stopped for speeding they may just be given a verbal warning to slow it down and then sent on their way. I can't imagine someone beating the crap out of another person and getting a verbal warning not to do it again. I can only say that some of you see the slope as much more slippery than I do I guess...

Just for fun, I have a question that will be familiar to many officers here. I'd like to get some of the group's opinion as well: If you stopped your mother/wife/pastor for speeding, would you write them a ticket?

 

[dross]

If you stopped your mother/wife/pastor for speeding, would you write them a ticket?

It's not analogous, though it might seem so at first glance.

I have no problem with an officer using discretion. Stopping your wife and then not giving her a ticket when you might not give a ticket to someone else in that situation might be reasonable.

Refusing to EVER give a ticket to a fellow officer as a matter of policy is def facto saying that the traffic laws don't apply to cops. That's corruption and it's a different matter entirely.

 

[NYFelon]

I don't write tickets at all...that is equal is it not? We are all immune...

LOL. That's one way to handle it. I'm actually not making a stink about professional courtesy. As an example, let's say you pull over a car for going 12 over in the left. The driver is an LEO, and you decide not to write a ticket. I don't have an issue with that, since I've been pulled over and left with only a warning. More on that further down the post. But If the car is going 30 over, weaving in and out of traffic, and making unsafe lane changes by cutting people off, regardless of whether or not the driver is an LEO, I think that person would at the very least be cited for speeding, and should be cited for reckless driving. That's not unreasonable, is it?

So are you saying LEO should have no discretion? Either write everyone a ticket, or write no one a ticket?

Not at all, see my response to Denny above. The issue is saying that you will under no circumstances write a cop a ticket. That smacks of "the blue wall" that officers go so far to claim does not exist. Officer's discretion is not the issue. Discretionary abuse with respect to dealings with other LEOs is. Does that make sense?

Really, so what if j706 says he will never write a speeding ticket to another officer? Perk of the job. Treat the man (or woman) with respect and you likely have a better than 50/50 chance of getting off a written warning, maybe even a verbal. A few years ago, I was in Columbus one day and didn't signal a last-minute lane change coming up to a stoplight. I was polite to her and she let me off with a warning. When I left, I saw her head for a donut shop! Now, I don't know if it was because I was polite, or if she was in a good mood because she was heading to the donut shop, but a stop doesn't automatically mean a ticket.

Ages ago, I was pulled over for doing 85 in a 55. I greeted the deputy with courtesy and respect, and had my paperwork ready when he came to the window. He asked me why I was driving like that. I replied that I was late for a job interview, which I was. I was dressed in typical office attire, and had a copy of my resume in clear sight on my passenger seat. It was clear I was being honest. He took my paperwork, and ran my license. Since it came back clean, he issued me a verbal warning and sent me on my way. Total time elapsed was less than 10 minutes.

Officer discretion isn't the issue. It's the blunt declaration that a person sworn to uphold the law will not cite a fellow officer ever, regardless of circumstance.

 

[jsharmon7]

It's not analogous, though it might seem so at first glance.

I have no problem with an officer using discretion. Stopping your wife and then not giving her a ticket when you might not give a ticket to someone else in that situation might be reasonable.

Refusing to EVER give a ticket to a fellow officer as a matter of policy is def facto saying that the traffic laws don't apply to cops. That's corruption and it's a different matter entirely.

So which traffic law would you honestly cite your wife/mother/pastor for then? Unless you're willing to write them a traffic ticket then they get a free pass as well. Keep in mind that my understanding is that we're discussing traffic infractions, not actions that fall under the misdemeanor category such as OWI, reckless driving, etc.

 

[UncleMike]

It's not analogous, though it might seem so at first glance.

I have no problem with an officer using discretion. Stopping your wife and then not giving her a ticket when you might not give a ticket to someone else in that situation might be reasonable.

Refusing to EVER give a ticket to a fellow officer as a matter of policy is def facto saying that the traffic laws don't apply to cops. That's corruption and it's a different matter entirely.

You're applying the criteria used by a single LEO to extrapolate the hypothesis that the Traffic Laws never apply to LEO's.
You need to get a narrower brush when you paint pictures like that.

 

[dross]

You're applying the criteria used by a single LEO to extrapolate the hypothesis that the Traffic Laws never apply to LEO's.
You need to get a narrower brush when you paint pictures like that.

A cop is government official. If a particular government official has a policy that the law he is sworn to enforce, and enforces against others does not apply to a certain group of people, that is corruption. It does not require that every government official refuses to enforce that law for corrupt reasons for it to be corruption. In the most corrupt departments there are some good cops, probably most are good in even the worst departments.

Now, that said, are you trying assert that he's likely the only cop in that department with that particular policy? Next you'll want me to come over there and pull your finger, UncleMike.

 

[03mustgt]

Discretion means applying the law with judgment as to the circumstances. Refusing to ever apply the law to a specific group of people is corruption, not discretion.

This is what is wrong with many police departments in a nutshell.

How about this instead: An officer gets stopped for speeding and the officer stopping him is outraged because a fellow officer who enforces the law and writes tickets to others is now breaking that very law. The officer writes him up every single time because he only tolerates fellow officers who conduct themselves impeccably.

It's not a far leap from NEVER writing a fellow officer a ticket, to covering for them when they give someone a beatdown for filming on their cell phone.

Disgusting.

What you are comparing is apples and oranges. I understand what you are trying to say, however you are comparing an infraction status to a criminal act. If you want to know my policy I cut breaks on infractions, however if things cross into the criminal realm then shame on that officer. I cut many people breaks based on the totality of the circumstances. That is my discretion!

 

[HighStrung]

.

 

[dross]

What you are comparing is apples and oranges. I understand what you are trying to say, however you are comparing an infraction status to a criminal act. If you want to know my policy I cut breaks on infractions, however if things cross into the criminal realm then shame on that officer. I cut many people breaks based on the totality of the circumstances. That is my discretion!

Would you ever write a cop a ticket for an infraction, and if so, what are the circumstances?

 

[03mustgt]

Not at all, see my response to Denny above. The issue is saying that you will under no circumstances write a cop a ticket. That smacks of "the blue wall" that officers go so far to claim does not exist. Officer's discretion is not the issue. Discretionary abuse with respect to dealings with other LEOs is. Does that make sense?

Yes, thanks for the clarification.

 

[03mustgt]

Would you ever write a cop a ticket for an infraction, and if so, what are the circumstances?

He/She would have to be putting others in danger. IE almost causes an accident. More likely a phone call to his/her dept would happen. IMO it would be more effective than a citation.

 

[UncleMike]

A cop is government official. If a particular government official has a policy that the law he is sworn to enforce, and enforces against others does not apply to a certain group of people, that is corruption. It does not require that every government official refuses to enforce that law for corrupt reasons for it to be corruption. In the most corrupt departments there are some good cops, probably most are good in even the worst departments.

Now, that said, are you trying assert that he's likely the only cop in that department with that particular policy? Next you'll want me to come over there and pull your finger, UncleMike.

Prove that he's not!!
Put up or shut up!
Making assumptions about an entire group, based on the actions of a single individual, is at best, really dumb!!
If a Black man commits a crime, I suppose you assume that all Black men are Criminals.
If a Priest abuses a child I suppose you assume that all Priests are Pedophiles.
Kinda narrow minded ain't it?
Like I said, you need to get a narrower brush!!