No break for cops caught on camera

[jsharmon7]

I do feel it to be slightly hypocritical for the enforcers of this system to be complaining about how unfair it is as they continue to force all of us to be abused by it.

I can't say that I could morally perform a job where I felt I was forcing people into a system that is unjust.

If there wasn't sufficient time given for the accused to fight the ticket, then it should definitely be changed. Cop, lawyer, doctor, construction worker, salesclerk, etc. all deserve the equal opportunity to fight any charges brought against them. I'm not sure how the police officers themselves are forcing anyone into an unjust system though. Are you arguing only that the insufficient time is unjust, or the whole idea of enforcing traffic laws is unjust?

 

[Benny]

I think few to none here are "anti-all-LEOs", but a few are "anti-bad-LEOs". But again, I fail to see how any reasonable, good person could say that people not liking bad officers is "bull-crap".

There are more than a few anti-all-LEOs, otherwise when they(/we) read about these isolated incidences people wouldn't paint ALL LEOs with a broad brush.

I post in the corrupt LEO threads more often than not and you will see me point out how much of a piece of that officer is, but you'll never see me say things like "they" or "them" when referring to him/her. If you don't see people posting crap like "this is why we don't respect them" then you are only seeing what you want to see. It's in EVERY cop thread.

Also, I sure as well hope we are ALL anti-bad-LEO. That would be quite the argument to see if someone wasn't.

 

[jsharmon7]

I don't agree with the speed limits being a "speed tax." a "speed tax" would be a special licence plate that you pay extra for that allows you to go 10 MPH over the posted speed limit with immunity.
I think speeding tickets are a fine for violating a law put in place. I think the laws they are fines for are unjust, and I practice civil disobedience whenever prudent, but they are laws none the less. I think they are reasonable in school zones and around hospitals and fire stations. other than that, as fast as you feel comfortable is ok. if you wreck your car, its your loss. if you wreck someone else's car, its your fault. if you cause bodily injury or death, you pay the consequences.

I see this brought up a lot on INGO, but it only works in a perfect world. Would you be okay with someone driving 105 mph through your neighborhood where your kids play? I mean, no harm no foul until your child is dead, right? I'd rather police officers try to catch dangerous behavior before it turns into a deadly accident. Being proactive isn't a bad thing.

 

[Denny347]

I just want to take a moment to point out to all the LEO's and the anti-LEO's this thread and this statement. I want you to fully appreciate the position that it puts the staff into.

The next time I hear a complaint about why any particular LEO thread was or was not locked I'm going to point back to this statement. Regardless of what we do, we are going to anger one side or the other. It is literally not possible for us to make everyone happy. If we try to stop the LEO bashing, then we're "oppressive" and "censoring". If we let the thread go then we are "anti-LEO" and we "condone this sort of $@!# on INGO".

VUPDBlue is right:

As a proud IMPD LEO, I grow weary of posts about bad LEO's then find myself getting lumped with them. I will always defend my honor and the honor of those I know follow my same path. The mods work hard and this is their world here and we are guests. As such I would NEVER make a post which paints ANY group with a broad brush because I know it will also get locked. Why would I disparage an entire group in which I am a member (gun owners). After all, we all have that in common since this is a GUN BOARD first and foremost. Do not forget that WE as LEO's are just as human as non-LEO's and can succumb to the same shortcummings that ALL humans have. I for one appreciate what the mods do (for free) and do my best to NOT make their jobs any harder. Thanks to all the mods. You really do a good job, even if under-appreciated.

 

[steveh_131]

If there wasn't sufficient time given for the accused to fight the ticket, then it should definitely be changed. Cop, lawyer, doctor, construction worker, salesclerk, etc. all deserve the equal opportunity to fight any charges brought against them. I'm not sure how the police officers themselves are forcing anyone into an unjust system though. Are you arguing only that the insufficient time is unjust, or the whole idea of enforcing traffic laws is unjust?

I would argue that both are unjust.

First of all, these officers believed that they should be allowed to drive in a manner that is legally considered unsafe. The must have believed this because they chose to drive that way.

Secondly, they believe that the system is unfair in not allowing enough time to fight the tickets. They must have believed this as well because they chose to sue the department.

Yet they choose to remain in a career that requires them to put people in the same situation that they considered unjust for themselves.

How is this not hypocritical?

 

[UncleMike]

Do you have anything constructive or useful to add to this discussion?

You're almost a caricature of yourself at this point.

Man!!
You kids sure get testy when you're confronted with the facts.
Did you learn that in School, or are your Parents to blame for your spoiled nature?
GROW UP AND LEARN TO APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE GOT INSTEAD OF WHINING ABOUT YOUR PERCEIVED OPPRESSIONS.

(My apologies to the younger people who aren't spoiled brats.)

 

[steveh_131]

I'd rather police officers try to catch dangerous behavior before it turns into a deadly accident. Being proactive isn't a bad thing.

I'd rather police officers try to find dangerous weapons via warrantless home searches before they turn into deadly accidents. Being proactive isn't a bad thing.

Right?

Criminalizing things based on their potential outcome has never been a good strategy.

 

[steveh_131]

Man!!
You kids sure get testy when you're confronted with the facts.
Did you learn that in School, or are your Parents to blame for your spoiled nature?
GROW UP AND LEARN TO APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE GOT INSTEAD OF WHINING ABOUT YOUR PERCEIVED OPPRESSIONS.

(My apologies to the younger people who aren't spoiled brats.)

You haven't supplied any facts to confront me with.

 

[UncleMike]

You haven't supplied any facts to confront me with.

Sooo.....
Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points I take it.
OK.
Here are the facts as I've presented them to you.

"You live in the greatest free country in the entire history of the World and all you can do id b**ch about how oppressed you are."

Now.
You point out the error in my statement and we'll continue the lesson.
P.S.
Take your time! I'm retired and have all night to wait on your snappy comeback.

 

[jsharmon7]

I would argue that both are unjust.

First of all, these officers believed that they should be allowed to drive in a manner that is legally considered unsafe. The must have believed this because they chose to drive that way.

Secondly, they believe that the system is unfair in not allowing enough time to fight the tickets. They must have believed this as well because they chose to sue the department.

Yet they choose to remain in a career that requires them to put people in the same situation that they considered unjust for themselves.

How is this not hypocritical?

So citizens who drive in an unsafe manner do so because they think they are above the law? The article doesn't say that they are fighting the tickets because they think they should be able to drive however they want, they are fighting the tickets because they didn't get enough time to confront the charges against them. That applies to everyone. The officers have nothing to do with court dates, that "system" is not theirs. The problem is the court system that didn't give people enough time to fight their charges. Fix that problem and move on. If these officers are then given enough time to fight the charge, and they lose, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

I'd rather police officers try to find dangerous weapons via warrantless home searches before they turn into deadly accidents. Being proactive isn't a bad thing.

Right?

Criminalizing things based on their potential outcome has never been a good strategy.

I think you're a little confused here. I'm arguing dangerous behavior, not objects. Your argument is akin to "guns are bad" and mine is that "people behaving foolishly with guns is bad." See the difference? It's like saying that people should be allowed to shoot guns into crowds of people so long as they don't actually hit anyone.

 

[steveh_131]

Sooo.....
Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points I take it.
OK.
Here are the facts as I've presented them to you.

"You live in the greatest free country in the entire history of the World and all you can do id b**ch about how oppressed you are."

Now.
You point out the error in my statement and we'll continue the lesson.
P.S.
Take your time! I'm retired and have all night to wait on your snappy comeback.

Definition of FACT

5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality

 

[steveh_131]

So citizens who drive in an unsafe manner do so because they think they are above the law? The article doesn't say that they are fighting the tickets because they think they should be able to drive however they want, they are fighting the tickets because they didn't get enough time to confront the charges against them. That applies to everyone. The officers have nothing to do with court dates, that "system" is not theirs. The problem is the court system that didn't give people enough time to fight their charges. Fix that problem and move on. If these officers are then given enough time to fight the charge, and they lose, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

The tickets came from speed cameras. These officers were speeding. Since they were speeding and they chose to fight it, they must have thought traffic laws shouldn't apply to them.

I think you're a little confused here. I'm arguing dangerous behavior, not objects.

Owning a gun could be a dangerous behavior.

None of this changes the concept that criminalizing behaviors based on potential outcomes has never been a successful strategy.

 

[jsharmon7]

The tickets came from speed cameras. These officers were speeding. Since they were speeding and they chose to fight it, they must have thought traffic laws shouldn't apply to them.




Owning a gun could be a dangerous behavior.

None of this changes the concept that criminalizing behaviors based on potential outcomes has never been a successful strategy.

Is this the best you can do? So anyone who chooses to fight a ticket does it because they don't think traffic laws should apply to them? And are you really arguing that gun ownership is "dangerous behavior?" You hate cops and this thread was solely intended to push your agenda. Fail.

 

[96firephoenix]

I see this brought up a lot on INGO, but it only works in a perfect world. Would you be okay with someone driving 105 mph through your neighborhood where your kids play? I mean, no harm no foul until your child is dead, right? I'd rather police officers try to catch dangerous behavior before it turns into a deadly accident. Being proactive isn't a bad thing.

"in a neighborhood" would be another area where speed limits are reasonable, but main roads and highways should not.

anyone who is going to be going 105 through a neighborhood is a maniac.

 

[steveh_131]

Is this the best you can do? So anyone who chooses to fight a ticket does it because they don't think traffic laws should apply to them?

Why else wouldn't you simply pay the fine for an obviously deserved ticket and move on?

And are you really arguing that gun ownership is "dangerous behavior?" You hate cops and this thread was solely intended to push your agenda. Fail.

Gun ownership has the potential for a deadly accident.

Driving over the speed limit has the potential for a deadly accident.

No, I don't think we should criminalize either of them based on their potential outcomes.

 

[UncleMike]

Definition of FACT

5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality

The following is from
The Oxford Online Dictionary.
I'll quote it since it's a free reference source.
fact:
"a thing that is indisputably the case:"

Source: definition of fact from Oxford Dictionaries Online

I've presented the "facts" as defined by a reputable source.
Where'd you get your definition?

Wiki Leaks??

 

[steveh_131]

Source: definition of fact from Oxford Dictionaries Online

I've presented the "facts" as defined by a reputable source.
Where'd you get your definition?

Wiki Leaks??

Facts - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

First of all, this being the greatest and most free country in the entire history of the world is hardly a fact, it is quite disputable and it is also completely irrelevant to this discussion.

And the idea that I am "*****ing" about being "oppressed"...well, that may be true.

The oppressed tend to ***** on occasion. The oppressors also tend to accuse them of whining. It's kind of a trend.

 

[UncleMike]

Facts - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

First of all, this being the greatest and most free country in the entire history of the world is hardly a fact, it is quite disputable and it is also completely irrelevant to this discussion.

And the idea that I am "*****ing" about being "oppressed"...well, that may be true.

The oppressed tend to ***** on occasion. The oppressors also tend to accuse them of whining. It's kind of a trend.

You DO realize that in a free country you have the ability to emigrate to a different location?
Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Russia, to name just a few of the more "liberal" locations.
They will give you a taste of REAL oppression!!
BTW
You might want to avoid certain Middle Eastern countries since they have pretty strict rules about something as mundane as choosing your own Religion.

 

[steveh_131]

You DO realize that in a free country you have the ability to emigrate to a different location?
Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Russia, to name just a few of the more "liberal" locations.
They will give you a taste of REAL oppression!!
BTW
You might want to avoid certain Middle Eastern countries since they have pretty strict rules about something as mundane as choosing your own Religion.

It never occurred to me that I should fight oppression by moving somewhere more oppressive.

Did you learn this in cop school?

 

[public servant]