PO'd at police

[Bedlam]

:laughing::laughing: Good one Dave. SO TRUE, If you dont like strip bars dont go inside lol
:thumbsup:

 

[two_bit_score]

No we disagree. Officer do not always have discretion. I listed why this might be the case. Also I mentioned why the officer might have chosen to have written a citation instead of a warning. The latter is within his discretion but there are danged good reasons for the officer to just right the citation.

Calling the officer in question "chicken shid" is just low class.

Later,
Dan

Well, we do disagree.

Actually, in the particular post you qoute from I didn't say the officer in question was 'chicken shid'. Although he may have been.

The officer was very inexperienced in my opinion or he was 'chickin shid' in this case. Maybe he thought he had to make some 'chicken shid' supervisor happy. Maybe he just didn't believe the OP about the insurance being in force.

There are a lot of 'chicken shid' tickets written everyday. Probably more than legit tickets.

If you feel that an officer doesn't ALWAYS have discretion on writing a ticket that is your personal opinion but it's incorrect.

And ANY officer that feels he ALWAYS must write a citation and can never write a warning ticket or even give a verbal warning is "chicken shid". Because he is going to make some stops that in good judgement require the exercise of his professional discretion and if he can't properly apply that discretion, really, not only is he 'chicken shid' he's probably got deeper seated problems that should eleminate him from being in law enforcement.

 

[charlz]

Seems pretty clear cut to me: you got caught, time to pay up. Show your proof of insurance, pay your seat belt fine and go about your business. Not worth getting PO'd over and going in front of the judge and complaining isn't going to do anything.



I had my own fun adventure one time. CA had just changed the state law that the default speed limit was 65 and not 55, any piece of freeway not signed was 65mph. I jump on the freeway early in the morning, not really paying attention just going with the flow and get pulled over for 75 in a 55. Don't really think about it until later, hey isn't that section 65 now? Do some research, yep, that section is not signed (I actually got on the freeway at the beginning of it and no signs for several miles) should be 65. Between my citation date and my court date I had moved from CA to NV. I decided to appear in court versus taking care of it by mail to see if I can get the ticket reduced. I have print outs of the new CA vehicle codes from the Internet.

I sit around for a while until it is my turn, you get to make a statement (excuse) if you wish and then enter a plea. Guilty you pay up, not guilty you get a court date. I bring up the whole law change thing and ask for a reduction. The Judge isn't up to speed on the new laws and doesn't have a copy of the new codes and is using an old, well thumbed, paper book version of the law. Says the law is 55, I say no, the law is 65 as of a week or more before my citation. We go back and forth with him trying to cite different vehicle codes that say I viloated a 55mph speed limit. I shoot him down on a few as either being changed or not relavent. I make it clear more than once that I am looking for a simple reduction. This is making him PO'ed.

Being SoCal there a more than a couple non-English speakers in the courtroom so their translator is trying to tell them what is going on. Talking in his court room just makes the Judge more PO'ed. He is highly suspicious of my Internet printouts (mid-90's)(should have bought the book) and declines to reduce my ticket. He sites that he is siding with the officer, if he said 55 then it's 55. I plead guilty with the request that since I no longer live in state can I take traffic school by mail? Yes.

So, I still pay the fine, pay an extra little fee to take traffic school to keep the infraction off my record. I get the traffic school booklet AND the test sheet together in the mail. Naturally I read the booklet and don't refer back to it while taking my 'test'

Two weeks later I am back in LA following the same route onto the same freeway and there are 65mph signs right at the beginning of the freeway. :laughing:

Moral of my story? It is all rigged against you. The officer on the side of the road _IS_ judging you, they default to his judgement if there are any questions.

They still get your money, you get to keep it off your record, everybody is happy(?).:confused2:

 

[dave1949]

:laughing::laughing: Good one Dave. SO TRUE, If you dont like strip bars dont go inside lol
:thumbsup:

Well, yeah, I was thinking along those lines. Sort of rubs me wrong when someone feels they have to classify as 'trash' people having a discussion.

I don't see much in the way of 'cop hating' in this thread. I do see folks venting a bit about the traffic enforcement system the cop are the everyday face of.

All the posters here offer any help they can when someone has a tractor/house/barn/animal/family/crop/etc. issue. We also shoot the breeze a fair amount
Dave.

 

[two_bit_score]

charlz, you make a good point with the story. The 'system' is completely against the citizen who doesn't want to just 'pay up' when told to do so.

 

[MossRoad]

Watch the language and acronyms in the posts, folks.

 

[two_bit_score]

Watch the language and acronyms in the posts, folks.

Point well taken. "Feather legged" will be used in the future, if necessary.

 

[MossRoad]

charlz, you make a good point with the story. The 'system' is completely against the citizen who doesn't want to just 'pay up' when told to do so.

That's because most people that are guilty do not want to admit it. They want to whine and moan to everyone that will listen and the people that work in the system probably get tired of hearing it day in and day out.

The original poster was ticketed properly for the seat belt and was given the opportunity to get the proof of insurance ticket canceled. Was the cop supposed to wait for him by the side of the road to go home and get the proof of insurance? Perhaps the cop should have followed him to his house? I don't think so. And what is so hard about opening your mail and putting the insurance card in your glove box twice a year? You forget, you get a ticket with the chance to overturn it if you really did just forget it. Nothing unfair about that and certainly no reason to be mad at the police. He should be mad at himself if anything; more like embarrassed. :confused2:

 

[MossRoad]

Point well taken. "Feather legged" will be used in the future, if necessary.

"You feather legged..." just doesn't sound too mean, does it? :laughing:

 

[two_bit_score]

In "certain circles" it is understood to have the same meaning though............

 

[two_bit_score]

That's because most people that are guilty do not want to admit it. They want to whine and moan to everyone that will listen and the people that work in the system probably get tired of hearing it day in and day out.

The original poster was ticketed properly for the seat belt and was given the opportunity to get the proof of insurance ticket canceled. Was the cop supposed to wait for him by the side of the road to go home and get the proof of insurance? Perhaps the cop should have followed him to his house? I don't think so. And what is so hard about opening your mail and putting the insurance card in your glove box twice a year? You forget, you get a ticket with the chance to overturn it if you really did just forget it. Nothing unfair about that and certainly no reason to be mad at the police. He should be mad at himself if anything; more like embarrassed. :confused2:

In my first post in this thread I stated that it was the OP's 'fault' if you will about getting the tickets. They were both avoidable on his part. I still hold that opinion.

The discussion took on other nuianced tracks that brought out some great points on both sides about the conduct of cops, generally, and this officer in particular.

Your questions are on point and I'd like to respond to one of them. Keep in mind that I still think that the OP could have avoided the problem by taking care of business as he should have, knowing the law requires wearing a seat belt and having insurance. And showing proof of insurance will save you from getting a ticket for 'no insurance'.

>>Was the cop supposed to wait for him by the side of the road to go home and get the proof of insurance? Perhaps the cop should have followed him to his house?<< This all depends. Yes, the cop was within his 'discretion' to write a ticket. But, he wasn't required to. Now, he may have done so because he felt the OP was not truthful about having it or the OP had an attitude. Most likely he was just being a normal cop and doing what they do if they are working traffic. They live and die by their 'numbers' so he wanted to rack up all that he could and the OP was a good 'duck'.

Now, as to what he 'could' have done. If he believed the OP could have had insurance he could have exercised his discretion to write a warning ticket. He HAS this discretionary authority. Warning tickets are written everyday, everywhere by experienced, knowledgable cops who have the ability to exercise the discretion they are given. If anyone wants to argue that point they should post a link to a law from that state that says there is no discretion available to traffic cops in tickets or specifically in insurance tickets.

The other thing that could have been done, and has been done numerous times I know of is, the cop could have written a ticket, had the OP go get his current card and then nol prossed the ticket. With a copy of the insurance card attached I can't see where any reasonable department brass would have had an issue with it.

 

[brin]

That's because most people that are guilty do not want to admit it. They want to whine and moan to everyone that will listen and the people that work in the system probably get tired of hearing it day in and day out.

The original poster was ticketed properly for the seat belt and was given the opportunity to get the proof of insurance ticket canceled. Was the cop supposed to wait for him by the side of the road to go home and get the proof of insurance? Perhaps the cop should have followed him to his house? I don't think so. And what is so hard about opening your mail and putting the insurance card in your glove box twice a year? You forget, you get a ticket with the chance to overturn it if you really did just forget it. Nothing unfair about that and certainly no reason to be mad at the police. He should be mad at himself if anything; more like embarrassed. :confused2:

Moss - Come on now, the OP showed the cop his past insurance coverage and explained he had failed to put the new ins. card in his glove box. The cop could have and should have given him a warning on both the insurance card and seat belt..Just a verbal warning would have done the trick. He could have checked him out on his on board computer as well. This is a revenue generator and would have cost him a day of work..Common sense has become uncommon sense in our society. I suggest it is not a matter of who's fault it is..the point is : is the law officer there to help folks and protect or is he there to make money for the city / county etc. ?

 

[two_bit_score]

Moss - Come on now, Common sense has become uncommon sense in our society. I suggest it is not a matter of who's fault it is..the point is : is the law officer there to help folks and protect or is he there to make money for the city / county etc. ?

Increasingly, in this day and time, de facto if not de jure, some traffic cops are there to generate revenue.

For the entity that employs them as well as for themselves. The officer who wrote the ticket will get paid overtime if the OP contests the ticket and the officer 'gets to go to court'. This motivation on the part of the officer hasn't been brought up yet in this thread but for some it's a distinct motivation.
Occasionally, they even involve other 'brothers' in the citation or arrest solely for the purpose of 'spreading the wealth'.

 

[Nissan197]

I am sure some jurisdictions have quotas that have to be met. I am sure there are also some that a misd. traffic violation is a mandatory ticket and officers only have discretion for infractions. I am in the same line of work and I have given tickets and plenty of warnings. In Kansas if you have no proof of insurance or a suspended DL you are not supposed to drive away and have to find a ride. Not all officers practice this, but if something did happen where the driver was involved in a wreck and really did not have insurance or a DL .........be very bad for the officer.

 

[Arky217]

"I'm for the insurance on the license myself. Insure the driver not the vehicle. You can add comprehensive to vehicles. Seems the only people to use the mag strip on my license, is wal-mart when I get my hunting and fishing "license"."

This is one of the most sane statements in this thread.

When was the last time you saw a vehicle start up of it's own accord and go out on the road and cause an accident ?

Yet, we have liability insurance on vehicles, not on people !

As far as the liability insurance goes, it's as if the vehicles are responsible, not the persons driving them !


The following is somewhat off the subject, but it was an accident I witnessed that came to mind when reading this thread and thought some might enjoy the humor it it:

A new small pickup was the first vehicle stopped at a red light. I was right behind it. Across the intersection, the first vehicle stopped at the light was an old, large pickup.
The small pickup had it's left turn signal on, indicating that the driver wanted to make a left turn when the light turned green.
The light turned green. Both pickups begin to enter the intersection. The driver of the small pickup (for some reason known only to himself) decides that he is not going to wait for the large pickup to go through the intersection, but that he is going to make his left turn first.
Well, the small pickup driver didn't quite make it. The large pickup screeched to a stop, but the small pickup continued it's left turn raking the entire side of his new pickup against the bumper of the old large pickup.
The humor in it (at least to me) was that the small pickup had a sticker on the rear bumper that read, "Yes, as a matter of fact, I do own the road !"

 

[Bird]

I know that we all fail to know and/or understand the details and workings of professions other than our own, but you'd be hard pressed to find more misinformation and mistaken beliefs about law enforcement anywhere in the world than in this thread. Unbelievable!

 

[tallyho8]

Some people are complaining about the police giving tickets for infractions saying "it is just a way to generate revenue".

Well the police department has to have enough revenue to operate and if they don't "generate revenue" from those who break the laws, then they will have to generate the revenue by raising taxes on those of us who do not break the laws.

Personally, I would prefer for the lawbreakers to pay. And if they don't want to pay then they can just stop breaking the laws.

 

[MossRoad]

Moss - Come on now, the OP showed the cop his past insurance coverage and explained he had failed to put the new ins. card in his glove box. The cop could have and should have given him a warning on both the insurance card and seat belt..Just a verbal warning would have done the trick. He could have checked him out on his on board computer as well. This is a revenue generator and would have cost him a day of work..Common sense has become uncommon sense in our society. I suggest it is not a matter of who's fault it is..the point is : is the law officer there to help folks and protect or is he there to make money for the city / county etc. ?

The seat belt was the primary offense. Then he discovered the secondary offense of no proof of insurance. Sure, he had all of his past insurance stubs in there and the cop could have let him slide with a warning ticket on the insurance. In essence, however, the cop DID let him slide on the insurance ticket because the cop knew that IF he really did have insurance and could prove it, he would not have to pay the insurance ticket. The original poster is 100% at fault and really has no reason to be mad at the police. Common sense says if you screw up you pay the price, learn a lesson, let it slide like water off a duck's back and go on with your life! Now would be a good time if you had kids to tell them "Daddy screwed up and the police man was just doing his job."

 

[MossRoad]

....
The other thing that could have been done, and has been done numerous times I know of is, the cop could have written a ticket, had the OP go get his current card and then nol prossed the ticket. With a copy of the insurance card attached I can't see where any reasonable department brass would have had an issue with it.

That's pretty much what the cop did... he could take his proof of insurance in with the ticket and it would have been nullified.

 

[brin]

I know that we all fail to know and/or understand the details and workings of professions other than our own, but you'd be hard pressed to find more misinformation and mistaken beliefs about law enforcement anywhere in the world than in this thread. Unbelievable!

Bird ..maybe things have changed in the last 35 yrs or so but back when I was a police officer, we were expected to use our common sense and even got harassed and teased by fellow officers for writing up citations for minor violations. Now that was then and I have been out of it a long time..So if this is the new world and there is no officer discretion allowed anymore then everyone be very careful. Even though I was in law enforcement I worry about a police state. I remember being a student at the Traffic Institute back in the 60's and probable cause to make a stop was being discussed and one student suggested maybe roadblocks would be a good idea to stop and check drivers and all the police officer / students laughed along with the instructor, who said it would never happen..LOL.....Road blocks are now common and so is stop and frisk which back then was unheard of.

It is important, I suggest to be mindful of your freedoms lest the slip away...just like the frog that is put in cool water and slowly boils to death on the stove ..