so i got pulled over yesterday on my way to the outlet mall in michigan city

[rambone]

Rambone on Radar Detectors

Just going to throw this out there.

Perhaps people have cop detectors because they don't want a confrontation with cops. Maybe it has nothing to do with being a habitual speeder, getting away with crimes against humanity, purposely endangering the public, or concern about paying your fair share of roadside taxes.

What do you mean Rambone? I mean that getting pulled over entails a lot more than speeding tickets.

Maybe those people want to be aware when they are being scoped out with radar, so that they can be 100% inside the lines, at the speed-limit, and thereby avoiding any chance of a confrontation.

Avoid the confrontation... avoid getting the third degree about where you are going, what you are carrying on your hip, can I search your car, etc. And avoid being disarmed and proned out at gunpoint for the other guy's safety. Yeah, I know it doesn't happen every time. But it happens.

Of course you may have a burnt out license plate bulb and get pulled over anyways. The device at least makes sure you are not caught off guard.

I don't have one. But maybe I should.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I must be doing my job incorrectly because I can't remember in 14.5 years on the job ever pulling someone over for speeding that had a radar detector in their car. So much for me giving someone a ticket just for having one. I'm going to have to try harder!

 

[Hotdoger]

Trained professionals...

Yea what was his name Bisard ?

 

[shibumiseeker]

I must be doing my job incorrectly because I can't remember in 14.5 years on the job ever pulling someone over for speeding that had a radar detector in their car. So much for me giving someone a ticket just for having one. I'm going to have to try harder!

They have become less prevalent over the last two decades I've noticed. I wonder how many people you've pulled over for speeding hid the detector so's not to influence your decision to warn or ticket

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

They have become less prevalent over the last two decades I've noticed. I wonder how many people you've pulled over for speeding hid the detector so's not to influence your decision to warn or ticket

I'm sure there have been a few.

 

[lashicoN]

I must be doing my job incorrectly because I can't remember in 14.5 years on the job ever pulling someone over for speeding that had a radar detector in their car. So much for me giving someone a ticket just for having one. I'm going to have to try harder!

Your colleague, j706, likes to "burn" citizens and has already said he hands out tickets just because people have radar detectors.

The dirt bags in your profession more than cancel out your good deeds. Not that not writing a ticket for having a radar detector is really a good deed...it's sort of like bragging about how many people you didn't punch in the face today.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

it's sort of like bragging about how many people you didn't punch in the face today.

I haven't punched anyone in the face since October 2008. Again, I must not be doing my job correctly.

 

[dross]

I haven't punched anyone in the face since October 2008. Again, I must not be doing my job correctly.

Why not? You finally learned that kidney punches don't leave marks?

 

[public servant]

Why not? You finally learned that kidney punches don't leave marks?

And you don't skin your knuckles up if you wear leather gloves.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

And you don't skin your knuckles up if you wear leather gloves.

Two words: phone book

 

[public servant]

Two words: phone book

 

[dross]

And you don't skin your knuckles up if you wear leather gloves.

Two words: phone book

It's nice to see you guys loosening up your jackboots and enjoying yourselves with a little thug humor.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

It's nice to see you guys loosening up your jackboots and enjoying yourselves with a little thug humor.

Just because we joke about it doesn't mean we do it.

 

[dross]

Just because we joke about it doesn't mean we do it.

Of course it doesn't. Doesn't mean you DON'T do it, either.

 

[public servant]

It's nice to see you guys loosening up your jackboots and enjoying yourselves with a little thug humor.

Frank's looking to supplement his income with a few stand-up comedy routines.

Me? I'm just a dick.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Of course it doesn't. Doesn't mean you DON'T do it, either.

If i did I sure as hell wouldn't post it on INGO!

 

[E5RANGER375]

I'm sorry but that reasoning is b.s. By saying that you are implying that the fleeing driver wouldn't normally flee had the LEO not continued to try to get them to stop, and that the officer is forcing them to flee. I'm sorry, but its the fleeing driver that makes that decision for whatever reason and trying to blame the cop for it is assinine.

well you only quoted the part of my post that you wanted to to make your point, which is not at all what I meant or said.
The cop isnt to blame that the guy was breaking the law in the first place, but if the guy wasnt already going 100mph and now he is and the reason is he doesnt wanna get caught by the police then YES the police are a factor in his decision. that doesnt mean he shouldnt face even more charges, but it does mean that if the police can back off and he reduces his speed it was worth it. plus i doubt you all are gonna lose the guy. im sorry but unless your chasing a kidnapper who still knows where the victim is, I do not support you or any other cop driving 100mph on our streets. sorry. thats deadly force, so in my opinion it should only be used to save a life in immediate danger, not further endanger them. you and I dont have to agree on this Frank but at least quote me fully

 

[PatriotPride]

well you only quoted the part of my post that you wanted to to make your point, which is not at all what I meant or said.
The cop isnt to blame that the guy was breaking the law in the first place, but if the guy wasnt already going 100mph and now he is and the reason is he doesnt wanna get caught by the police then YES the police are a factor in his decision. that doesnt mean he shouldnt face even more charges, but it does mean that if the police can back off and he reduces his speed it was worth it. plus i doubt you all are gonna lose the guy. im sorry but unless your chasing a kidnapper who still knows where the victim is, I do not support you or any other cop driving 100mph on our streets. sorry. thats deadly force, so in my opinion it should only be used to save a life in immediate danger, not further endanger them. you and I dont have to agree on this Frank but at least quote me fully

Agreed. I'm pleased that there are a number of Departments in my area who have "no pursuit" policies---it's a safety issue. Civilian Safety.

 

[finity]

Believe it or not I generally agree with the cops on this one.ops

Radar detectors were pretty much poplularized as a way to get one step ahead of the cops & allow you to beat the speeding ticket you would have probably gotten if it wasn't for the detector.

I'm sure there are SOME people out there who use them to remind themselves to slow down but there's no way you'll convince me that those are in the majority or even a sizable minority.

I know why I bought one a long time ago & it wasn't to help me drive the speed limit. (For the JBT's here, I got rid of it a long time ago, too. I in no way admit to being a habitual speeder. )

To compare a radar detector to a firearm is very counter-productive to the image we gun-owners are trying to foster in society. Saying that is like saying that "guns were originally designed only to allow people to break the law with impunity, & the great majority of gun-owners still use them for that purpose, but there are a few people who simply use them for self-defense, so why mess with people with guns?" Neither of which is true for guns but it is true for radar detectors.

There are many variables that go into the "officer discretion" equation. Seeing someone with a radar detector is just one for some. Some of them will give tickets to everyone who drives a sports car. Some will give tickets based on history. Some will give tickets based on your attitude.

Not that I necessarily agree with all those reasons, it's just the way it is. As long as the reason for the stop & the ticket are valid & your rights remain fully intact then if a cop wants to give you the ticket FOR ANY REASON AT ALL then you don't have the right to complain. You knowingly broke the law. Accept it.

If a cop that doesn't like to give tickets has the authority to use discretion & not give you a ticket when you realistically deserved one then that is so much the better.

As to high speed chases:

E5ranger375 has it right.

Unless there is reason to believe that the person is an imminent threat to the officer's or the public's safety (the same standard used for use of DF) then those chases shouldn't be allowed.

The cop isn't necessarily to "blame" for the possible subsequent loss of life but as trained professionals they should know better than to "push" the person into a fairly" common response to being chased, especially by cops after the commission of a crime. They are unecessarily setting up the conditions for the injury to occur. They should hold some responsibility.

There are many examples of things some departments do (or not) to make things safer for themselves, society & the criminal while still allowing for them to enforce the laws. One right off the top of my head is not allowing "no knocks" or picking up the person after they leave their house or work so as to not set-off their "need" to protect their "castle".

That should be the standard just like it should be the standard to not allow HSC's except only in extreme cases.

 

[rugertoter]

Hmm...what does one say to a thread like this? Oh yea, duh.