Continuation of the Toll Thread, Traffic violations

[Back To Reality]

Response to TrueBlue.

http://www.600cc.org/forum/f6/express-way-tolls-avoid-pay-19811/index2.html#post255423

I didn’t write anything suggesting that you discussed giving preference to a driver based on appearance, but I’m not sure how that disqualifies me from bringing it up. I live, you know, in the real world. Along that vein, I never said anything about playing stupid or denying the obvious. See? Two can play that irrelevant game. I stated that a driver should never be tricked into incriminating themselves, and that belief, I add, is based more on the function of the Constitution, and not so much on the function of the police.

Look, I know we’ll never see eye to eye on this and my intention isn’t to bash officers or make an enemy, but here’s what you can’t deny, and that is our perception of how we are treated by many police officers (and I don’t think it’s improper to display some constructive criticism…believe me, I don’t think for a moment that the system is even remotely functional or equitable). Anyway, I’ve gotten tickets before; I’ve never demonstrated any drama during the process. If you recall, I mentioned that the police officer admitted that I was very courteous and cooperative when I got my last ticket on my bike. It’s the way I’ve conducted myself for every traffic stop.

I don’t ultimately protest being pulled over for a traffic violation (even though I think issuing speeding tickets is hypocrisy akin to a cokehead cop working for the DEA). What I do protest is inconsistent behavior that is exhibited by the person issuing the ticket at the time of the stop. Here’s a newsflash…speeding isn’t a mistake. Nearly 100% of the time it’s intentional, no matter who is doing it. The only mistake any driver makes is speeding near a patrol car. So for that reason, the philosophy of recognizing “mistakes” is a flawed philosophy that can only be explained one way; the bias of the officer.

I live in Atlanta. My last residence was just outside Philly, and my job routinely took me into Baltimore and DC, so I share a newsflash for you; on highways like that, more people are exceeding the speed limit than are adhering to it. We both know it…we all know it. And that observation leads me to my next point in respond to your “feeling” that “the general motorist” would disagree with my philosophy about consistency in the practice of issuing tickets. I happen to think that anyone who gets a ticket would disagree enthusiastically with your philosophy of letting some drivers off with a warning, but then ticketing them for subjective (and clearly flawed) opinions about “mistakes.” Of course those violators who didn’t get a ticket would agree with you…until they changed categories and joined the ranks of those who got a ticket.

I agree that there is no reason for an officer to lie about the reason why they stopped someone, but that comment, like others you’ve said, simply opens up more challenges. First, it doesn’t mean an officer won’t lie. Second, if there is no need to lie, then there should be no problem with showing the evidence to the driver. Finally, I don’t see in any rational world why the information that you use to execute the traffic ticket should not be accessible to the driver…that, I feel, is a gross violation of due process.

Then I ask…the officer who escorted me on my request to her cruiser to take note of the device and it’s reading…do you think she acting improperly? Did she pose a danger to us? If so, why didn’t the mere act of pulling me over constitute a danger hazard that was likely not even worth the risk just to issue me a ticket? I’m seeing more flawed logic here. Remarkably flawed. Either it’s safe to be along the highway or it’s not. You can’t say it’s at least safe enough for us to be there as long as I am disqualified from seeing the same evidence you are. It makes no sense, but it’s too unsafe for me to walk on the passenger side of the vehicles away from traffic to visualize the evidence. Using arguments like that to stack the deck should require some empirical evidence.

And for the record, I never said you issued tickets based on “cleavage scores.” The research, however, indicates that male officers exhibit a bias in favor of female drivers when issuing traffic citations. Not my opinion…it’s fact.

It’s Confirmed … Hot Girls Are Less Likely To Receive A Speeding Ticket Confessions Of A Traffic Lawyer

 

[TrueBlue]

I know that I am not going to change your mind, just as you wont change mine, but I think its always beneficial and important to have discussions on opposing view points. It will be up to the other forum members to make their own decisions based on the facts we provide

I stated that a driver should never be tricked into incriminating themselves, and that belief, I add, is based more on the function of the Constitution, and not so much on the function of the police.

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't trick anyone into doing or saying anything. In fact I never ask the typical "do you know why I stopped you?" After I get the documents I will tell the person exactly why I stopped them. If they choose to say nothing, deny it, or explain why they commited the violation is completely up to them. If they say nothing or deny it then thats just fine with me. But if perhaps they have a valid reason I am certainly willing to listen. Legally does their excuse give them just cause for breaking the law? No, but thanks to that wonderful thing called discretion if I feel a verbal warning will suffice then I can exercise my ability to do so. You don't have to agree with it, and you don't have to like it, but thats the way it is.

And that observation leads me to my next point in respond to your “feeling” that “the general motorist” would disagree with my philosophy about consistency in the practice of issuing tickets. I happen to think that anyone who gets a ticket would disagree enthusiastically with your philosophy of letting some drivers off with a warning, but then ticketing them for subjective (and clearly flawed) opinions about “mistakes.” Of course those violators who didn’t get a ticket would agree with you…until they changed categories and joined the ranks of those who got a ticket.

Perhaps your right.... or perhaps not ... we'll leave that up to the other members of the forums to figure out and let us know.

Second, if there is no need to lie, then there should be no problem with showing the evidence to the driver.

I gave two very valid reasons for this. If they used a hand held radar device then I don't see a major problem with showing the driver. By if the radar unit is mounted in the Police vehicle then I dont think its a smart decision for both Officer and Motorist safety.

Then I ask…the officer who escorted me on my request to her cruiser to take note of the device and it’s reading…do you think she acting improperly?

That was her decision to make, I can only provide the reasons for why I would not do such a thing. As far as Officer safety goes, there is no reason to have occupants up and walking around with you outside their vehicle. It also makes no sense for the safety of the motorist to have them get out and walk back to the Patrol car. Here are a few videos that explain very obviously why its a bad idea .....

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NbkDcZx_K4&feature=related"]YouTube- Dash Cam Crashes[/ame]

The only safe place for anyone to be in any of those videos would be seated in the vehicle, which is exactly where they are going to remain if I have them stopped.

 

[dart1963]

TrueBlue, an officer of the law... in some way shape or form! Thanks... I know you don't hear that enough:thumbup:

I can only offer this, my own experience in the few times I've been caught speeding.

I will, to the best of my ability, follow the speed limits, I don't always agree with them (most are written for cars built in the 1940's), but I do try to abide.
When caught speeding (the two times in my 20yrs driving), I've admitted to and offered my apologies for doing so. I do not give the officer a hard time, I don't play stupid, I don't give the "sorry, I'm smarter than you and plead the fifth so I can beat you in court"...

If I can bide some time and draw a side note on my "officer" duties, I'll explain why... I work in IT... you know, the guy who blocks you from visiting certain websites at work! I don't need/want a run-around about why sites are blocked, they just are.... if you have a legit work-related reason for needing the site, then by all means, we allow it, it is not personal, I feel awkward when I get asked "why did YOU block it"... I offer the "it's the software, not ""ME""" if that makes any sense... (we all have jobs to do)

 

[TigerGenetics]

To be fair here, Reality was talking about being on his bike when he got pulled over. I understand, True, the need to keep the motorist in their vehicle, but when/if a motorcyclist is pulled over, they are exposed regardless to the dangers of other motorists "rubber-necking". Reality stated he went to the passenger side of the police cruiser, and I am assuming here he was pulled over on the right hand side, so that would keep him a little better shielded from stupid drivers. By being by the cruiser opposite the traffic side he was actually probably safer than if he had been made to stay by his bike. Just playing Devil's advocate here as I can see both points of view.

 

[Back To Reality]

I was going to point out that particular issue, but I took a self-imposed 24+ hour break from the forum given the tone of some of the replies, and I thank TG for pointing it out.

I also wanted to mention something (actually, a couple things) about the video that was shared, something that sort of reinforces a previous comment I made.

First, not all those scenarios were traffic stops. There were a few traffic accidents, and having worked in public safety for 16 years (I worked at the fire dept for six years, and on Lifeflight for eight years), I think it's important to point out that the dynamics on the scene of a traffic accident are much different than a traffic stop. The process by which a traffic accident occurs is just that...an accident. I think few of them are planned or purposefully executed.

A traffic stop, OTOH, is a purposeful action. The LEO can choose to execute the stop, or they can simply ignore it. The only way these incident happen at a traffic stop is if the officer first chooses to make a traffic stop. Recalling a previous comment I made about this issue, it's either safe or unsafe on the scene of a traffic stop (I go with "unsafe" after working highway crashes for years). Escorting a driver or rider to the passenger side of the cruiser to see the device and reading is really no more or less dangerous than letting them stand there next to their bike or sit in the driver seat of their car.

In fact, I'll refer to the video; out of about 17 crashes involving vehicle-to-vehicle contact (some of the incidents were standing LEO being struck), 65% of the time, it was the civilian car experiencing the primary contact, not the LEO car...suggesting to me that LEO actually places people at greater risk by conducting a traffic stop...I think that fits the idea I previously floated.

And you are mostly right...there is little chance you will change my mind unless you share something more compelling. I am open-minded, however; for example, I may be a conservative at my core and in my behaviors, but I oppose any conservative tendencies to legislate morality...which means while I think some behaviors are fundamentally wrong (i.e. prostitution, cannabis), I believe that individuals are responsible for their own behavior, and the it's not the responsiblity of the gov't to tell people they can't inhale or pay for sex...and etc.

What I think you need to recognize is that most of our perceptions of LEO are based on real life experiences, while yours is based on the fact that you are a police officer who has been tasked to enforce many laws which may have unethical content, or demand that you behave in an unethical manner (i.e. speed enforcement by officers who speed). I was never a police officer, but my freshman major in college was criminal justice. As you can expect, most of my profs were former and current LEO. After hearing hours of stories and observing their behavior, it only took me those two semesters to learn that I could never be a part of that process in good conscience, and I changed my major.

That said, the process of improvement lies with LEO, which is troubling since you've admitted that you won't change your mind. The people aren't the change agents in this process...we obviously face remarkable limitations, and the legal process is (typically) our only recourse. Because of this, I find it remarkably more troubling to assemble this close-mindedness with comments which reveal that it annoys you when people pursue reasonable action to protect and exonerate themselves, and such actions of self-preservation taken by civilians will somehow result in escalating penalties. That is just painful and maddening to read!

In closing, I point out that the reason for refusing to allow someone to see a car-mounted device is flawed, because there is no evidence to prove otherwise. A simple solution I propose is this; no hard-mounted speed-detection devices, and I don't care how inconvenient it may be to do the job with hand-held devices, it's remarkably more inconvenient for a driver to get a ticket, and to fight a ticket when they are faced with a lack of access to the evidence, especially when they are faced with an officer who is annoyed about someone who wants to see the evidence, and whereupon the officer obstructs or escalates their penalty.

Lord Acton warned us that power corrupts, and I feel the philosophy of modern law enforcement increasingly exemplifies this behavior. Dacher Keltner described that the experience of having power leads to behaviors which block out respect or concerns for social norms; "you become impulsive and insensitive, which is a bad combination."

LEO has a position of power, and here is what a study published last year revealed; people in positions of power are not only MORE JUDGEMENTAL, they also routinely exercise MORAL HYPOCRISY, essentially justifying that it's OK for them to misbehave even while they criticize others for the same behavior.

Of course the evidence doesn't mean it's acceptable to behave that way.