"Off duty" cops speeding abuses

[mcolford]

This may be a shock to you so brace yourself: Life's not fair.

 

[JettaKnight]

Almost everyone speeds, doesn't matter what their profession is. People just get more butthurt when cops do it. I guess you'd rather me drive the speed limit and stop you for passing me than me setting the pace and giving you a little leeway?

I hate that! Go as fast as you want and don't bother me.

 

[stephen87]

Provide your own balloon, and its done.

He's gotta provide his own balloon too? He's already providing his own hot air.

 

[BE Mike]

Wonderful, a special class of citizenship.......and exempt from yet another law.

I have a high regard for the boys and girls in blue, but I agree with you. Privilege in public office shouldn't be tolerated. I don't have respect for anyone who, because of their position, thinks that they deserve special treatment under the law.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Just wanting to get the group consensus... Is there any amount of speeding by a LEO whether off duty or on duty not on a run that is acceptable? Or should the posted speed limit be strictly followed by them?

One law or no law. Arrange the details however you like, but they should be the same for everyone and clearly communicated (i.e., not the standard arrangement of letting traffic run wild for 6 months and then start writing tickets like mad for +5 and act like they have no idea what we're talking about when we point out that the accepted level of conformity/non-conformity has been between +10 and +15 as has commonly been done by the Camaro and Mustang crews.).

It's clear that if the police did 55 on 465, traffic would come to a standstill.

Then a bad law needs changed, not blanket immunity with the intention of an element of salutary neglect for the rest of us, subject to change without warning.

The concern is when an off duty or officer not on a priority run exceeds the speed limit by 20-30+.

Under such circumstances, they should be held to the same standard as everyone else.


I'd say the "police" speed limit would be +10mph the flow of traffic.

Again, one law or no law.

This may be a shock to you so brace yourself: Life's not fair.

That doesn't mean we have to passively accept this type of horses**t.

.

 

[mcolford]

He's gotta provide his own balloon too? He's already providing his own hot air.

Yeah. The dept. will provide him a car from the motor pool. Any extra goodies have to supplied by himself. Otheriwse the tax payers are picking up the bill, and if you all cant deal with him speeding, you would lose it buying a hot air balloon!

 

[Indy317]

Another thing that makes me mad is the whole stay in the left lane thing. They do know that is illegal in indiana? Cop or civilian.

What is your basis that this action is illegal?

 

[85t5mcss]

I made it to the second page and just couldn't read any more. Most drivers speed. Cops speed, I speed, my employees speed. Going the speed limit is obstructing the flow of traffic. Keep it reasonable and not reckless and I am happy.

Can't believe I posted in this thread. But since I did, it is aggravating when a cruiser is doing the speed limit on the interstate and they are in the left lane. Traffic gets backed up. I will still pass when given the opportunity. It's just the way it is. Cop doing 65-70MPH on I-465 is going with the flow. Let it go man.

 

[Indy317]

Wonderful, a special class of citizenship.......and exempt from yet another law.

You do know that people don't have to be born into the job. The job is open to more or less everyone. One should feel free to apply to the plethora of LEO jobs around the state if the handful of law exemptions are really worth that much.

 

[Solitaire]

Wonderful, a special class of citizenship.......and exempt from yet another law.

The President gets his own airplane. Firefighters get to sleep on duty. Most government workers get Columbus Day off. And cops can pretty much speed when they want to.

None of this really bothers me. Mama taught me early that life isn't fair. If little things like this made me as miserable as some on this board, I think breakfast would be bacon, eggs and Ativan every morning.

Geez.

 

[Ted]

What's the alternative? Everyone drives the speed limit? That's not going to fly.

And why not?

This may be a shock to you so brace yourself: Life's not fair.

Really? How about consequences for one's actions?

You do know that people don't have to be born into the job. The job is open to more or less everyone. One should feel free to apply to the plethora of LEO jobs around the state if the handful of law exemptions are really worth that much.

And this has to do with the OP how?

The President gets his own airplane. Firefighters get to sleep on duty. Most government workers get Columbus Day off. And cops can pretty much speed when they want to.

So violating the law in now a fringe benefit, or a necessary part of the job?

What ever happened to a nation of laws, and not of men?

Why are Illinois non-LEO politicians permitted to carry a handgun for self defense, but not Illinois citizens? Why does LEOSA allow LEOs to carry with little restriction across state lines, but but a LTCH holder is prohibited from doing so? Life may not be fair, but an entire war was fought well 200 years ago, over such types of issues.

Accept it for what is is, of course, until the cop running late for his coffee and donuts.....plows into your kid's car at 110mph.

 

[Solitaire]

What ever happened to a nation of laws, and not of men?

Why are Illinois non-LEO politicians permitted to carry a handgun for self defense, but not Illinois citizens? Why does LEOSA allow LEOs to carry with little restriction across state lines, but but a LTCH holder is prohibited from doing so? Life may not be fair, but an entire war was fought well 200 years ago, over such types of issues.

Accept it for what is is, of course, until the cop running late for his coffee and donuts.....plows into your kid's car at 110mph.

There never has been a "nation of laws and not men." To think such a thing ever existed is so much wet dreaming. The founding fathers had their vices and failings just like any other men. Crack a history book or something, will ya?

Oh, by the way...gun control existed in the US as far back as the early 1800's. A lot of good that war did to put an end to man's inherent desire to control other men. The only thing the war did was change who was in control.

Unlike you, I understand that it is the extremely rare case when a cop is driving too fast for conditions and actually crashes and injures/kills someone because of it. I'm sure that "you're next" in your mind, but I tend to see things as they really are. (ie: rationally) When it happens, the cop can answer for his/her negligence. This may come as a shock to you, but I've actually managed to drive for almost 30 years without being killed by a speeding police car.

But keep the drama up. How boring would a gun forum be without anti-cop rants and dreams of an 18th century utopia that never existed? I'll continue to enjoy reading, until after the election day of course. Everyone knows that after Obama is reelected, the nation will collapse and we will all have to "bug out."

If we are not killed by high velocity, donut laden Dodge Chargers first, of course.

 

[IndyDave1776]

There never has been a "nation of laws and not men." To think such a thing ever existed is so much wet dreaming. The founding fathers had their vices and failings just like any other men. Crack a history book or something, will ya?

Oh, by the way...gun control existed in the US as far back as the early 1800's. A lot of good that war did to put an end to man's inherent desire to control other men. The only thing the war did was change who was in control.

Unlike you, I understand that it is the extremely rare case when a cop is driving too fast for conditions and actually crashes and injures/kills someone because of it. I'm sure that "you're next" in your mind, but I tend to see things as they really are. (ie: rationally) When it happens, the cop can answer for his/her negligence. This may come as a shock to you, but I've actually managed to drive for almost 30 years without being killed by a speeding police car.

But keep the drama up. How boring would a gun forum be without anti-cop rants and dreams of an 18th century utopia that never existed? I'll continue to enjoy reading, until after the election day of course. Everyone knows that after Obama is reelected, the nation will collapse and we will all have to "bug out."

If we are not killed by high velocity, donut laden Dodge Chargers first, of course.

It would seem that you have offered several correct answers that do not address the point at issue. In theory, the republic is designed to institute rule of law rather than rule of the whim of man, be it an autocrat, a group of oligarchs, or the feckless glorified mob rule of democracy. While it is not perfect and is subject to corruption just as any other form of government, one absolutely critical point is that we do not treat malfeasance in office as an acceptable pattern of behavior. As soon as we do that, we have surrendered ourselves to subjugation by a ruling class which is no longer responsible to us, but rather we are subject to it. This is the problem with accepting two different sets of law, one for the 'special ones' and another for the rest of us.

I am only familiar with one incident of someone being killed by a reckless cop. The decedent attempted to cross a highway, which she could have safely done all things being equal as there was no oncoming traffic so far as she could see at the time. The state trooper came around a curve and struck the driver's side of her car at such a speed that the engine of his Caprice (yes, it has been a while back) was shoved into the passenger compartment and the bumper was very near the firewall, much to my shock as I drove past shortly after the incident. The trooper was transferred to another county and that was the end of it--after all he (claimed he) was chasing a speeder! I am sure that it made the decedent's family feel so much better knowing that he was doing his best to rid the universe of the scourge of traffic violators who (unlike him) were not harming anyone, assuming for the sake of the argument he was telling the truth.

 

[Solitaire]

It would seem that you have offered several correct answers that do not address the point at issue. In theory, the republic is designed to institute rule of law rather than rule of the whim of man, be it an autocrat, a group of oligarchs, or the feckless glorified mob rule of democracy. While it is not perfect and is subject to corruption just as any other form of government, one absolutely critical point is that we do not treat malfeasance in office as an acceptable pattern of behavior. As soon as we do that, we have surrendered ourselves to subjugation by a ruling class which is no longer responsible to us, but rather we are subject to it. This is the problem with accepting two different sets of law, one for the 'special ones' and another for the rest of us.

I don't think that we submit to 2 different sets of laws. We submit to the application of the law to differing circumstances. Equal and rigid application of laws is impossible in reality, thus the mountains of case law on the book since the establishment of the first courts in this country.

I don't consider such petty things like driving a little over the speed limit as malfeasance, so long as the driving does not endanger others. I believe that Indiana Code provides that, even when a police officer is driving with lights and sirens, he/she is still responsible for driving with "due regard" for other motorists. Rather than throwing a hissy fit every time a cop passes me on I-465, I'll reserve my concern for the truly reckless cop, which is a rarity.

Speeding and recklessness are 2 different things. Speeding is so petty, it was decriminalized into an infraction a long, long time ago. It's a long way from petty nonsense to subjugation in my book.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't think that we submit to 2 different sets of laws. We submit to the application of the law to differing circumstances. Equal and rigid application of laws is impossible in reality, thus the mountains of case law on the book since the establishment of the first courts in this country.

I don't consider such petty things like driving a little over the speed limit as malfeasance, so long as the driving does not endanger others. I believe that Indiana Code provides that, even when a police officer is driving with lights and sirens, he/she is still responsible for driving with "due regard" for other motorists. Rather than throwing a hissy fit every time a cop passes me on I-465, I'll reserve my concern for the truly reckless cop, which is a rarity.

Speeding and recklessness are 2 different things. Speeding is so petty, it was decriminalized into an infraction a long, long time ago. It's a long way from petty nonsense to subjugation in my book.

It is. Adhering to the notion that two different standards are right and proper is the first step through that door. Likewise, a little bit of cancer won't kill you, so do you let it go untreated until you are filled with it? I think not.

 

[Solitaire]

It is. Adhering to the notion that two different standards are right and proper is the first step through that door. Likewise, a little bit of cancer won't kill you, so do you let it go untreated until you are filled with it? I think not.

Would you advocate for strict enforcement of every written law, no matter what the circumstances, on every citizen, regardless of the situation?

 

[Tommy2Tone]

What is your basis that this action is illegal?

IC 9-21-8-2
Roadways; use of right half; exceptions; traveling at reduced speeds
Sec. 2. (a) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway except as follows:
(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing overtaking and passing.
(2) When the right half of a roadway is closed to traffic under construction or repair.
(3) Upon a roadway divided into three (3) marked lanes for traffic under the rules applicable to a roadway divided into three (3) marked lanes.
(4) Upon a roadway designated and signposted for one-way traffic.
(b) Upon all roadways, a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions then existing shall be driven:
(1) in the right-hand lane then available for traffic; or
(2) as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway;
except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.9.

If you read further and read the rules for (3) marked lanes, they are not referring to a highway or interstate, in my reading of it at least.

Indiana Code 9-21-8

 

[Denny347]

Sorry but a cop is held to a hire standard, Especially when driving a police car. So the everyone speeds line is bs.

Another thing that makes me mad is the whole stay in the left lane thing. They do know that is illegal in indiana? Cop or civilian.

Other than cops that break laws, I love em.

Good Lord, it may be annoying but I have never (nor anticipate ever) stopping a car for that. Seems like a license plate light stop is a better stopping charge than that.

 

[GBuck]

I posted in this thread.

 

[bobzilla]

Speeding like a normal person I have no problem with. 5-10 over the limit? no biggie because the speed limits are set arbitrarily low IMO.

What I DO have a problem with is Mr. Officer tailgating, weaving 3 lanes and then accelerating past everyone he can while closing in on triple digits. That's not speeding, that's reckless driving. THAT I see weekly. That is what really pisses me off. The tailgating more than anything else. I've almost been rearended by multiple off duty officers that felt their need to go faster was more important than anyone else's safety.

for the record, I get just as pissed when a civi does the same thing.