Makes one wonder about LEOs

If I got the wrong travis I apologize. Promote anger did you see one of these :angry:

Casting stones, you cast one before I did. Christianity has nothing to do with this conversation. If you knew anything about christianity you would be not be using it as a word weapon. No one ever said a christian is perfect, thats the worlds perception.

Busting real criminals doesn't bring much money into the town. Neither does breaking up domestic violence calls. Good way to get hurt plus the town's workmens' comp policy takes a hit and again, there's no money in it.

Pulling over Shelbys with some illegal add-ons, easy money and no hassle for Officer Friendly.

The local cops and police chiefs I know mostly take their cues on what to enforce and how strictly from the mayor of their town. Most towns in my corner of PA need more money.

In your case you got off with a warning so I'd consider myself lucky. I had the same deal a few years ago, got pulled over for tint on my Ranger. Never mind that the cop nearly wrecked into two other cars trying to turn around to get to me. I had three days to take it off and go back to the police station and show them to avoid a ticket. Now I'd had tint on every vehicle I'd owned for over ten years without a hassle, but one day I run across a cop with a bug up his butt about tint.

Oh well, da law is da law.

OTOH, in Florida the cop cars themselves have tint.

JohnnyO, the police cars in my town have limo tint. Texas alows 25%. The tinters around here are so freaked about being busted. The lowest I found for my trac was 35% in my town. Three that I called gave me the same line. Local police sent them a letter. The letter reminded them to put their bussiness compliance sticker under the tint, on driver door. Also said that they prefer them to not use 25% tint. Nice way of say we dont care about state law.:lol: We are watching you.

Correct me if I am wrong, the lower the number the darker the tint Correct?

The law in Kali states that the front side windows must transmit at least 70% light.

If clear glass transmits 100%, why would 35% tint be not legal?

Not a tint expert.

Bill,



It is light transmission. So, here in Ohio swe are allowed 50% on the front door and unlimited everywhere else.



35% is darker than 50% because with the 35% tint lests 35% of the light that entered verses the 50% because 50% exited than entered.





Tom

I will have to agree that some laws are just, well, not stupid, but not as important. However as I have said before I disagree with those that say laws are passed just for a way to make money. Any of the "stupid" motor vehicle inspection and standards laws have an underlying reason to them mostly related to safety. My department sees absolutely zero percent of the moneys from traffic tickets, it all goes directly to the state. However the revenue from those tickets work to off set the amount of state taxes each person has to pay. Personally I prefer to let law violators help fund the state budget and therefore I pay a little bit less in taxes, if I get a ticket then I'll pay in my share. Our state Game Wardens are funding almost 100% from the revenue from fish and wildlife violations, ATV and snowmobile registrations and the like. That makes sense to me just like police departments being funded by ticket revenue.



I know that there are "immature" cops out there and also will agree that certain vehicles do without a doubt attract more attention than others. I also realize there are probably many cities/agencies who's budget is supplemented greatly by ticket revenues but again I say better to collect the funds from violations rather than increased taxes from everyone. Right now many state and local governments are looking into adding surcharges on motor vehicle tickets to help pay for fuel for the patrol cars. Here they are basing the plan on the victims fund established in the state a few years ago in which a $10 fee was added to any court fines on any charge in which there was a victim. This money is put into the states victims fund and helps pay restitution to victims of crimes when they are not reimbursed otherwise. Good idea in my opion.



My main point I was making is that there are just so many people out there that always think the police should be doing something else. Like it or not we have to take things as they come and make decisions on where to patrol, what violators to stop, and what ones to let pass. Like a referee or an umpire we can not see everything all the time and may interpret things we see differently than someone else. FYI I would never want to be an umpire or ref, they take more crap than cops do.



If I had my way the whole world of law enforcement would be different with much more focus on community policing like I think it was in the older days but unfortunately with every year we get father and father away from that and just end up running from one thing to the next "putting out fires". There has been a big change just in the 10 years since I started.

I always welcome a healthy debate and of course I am going to stand up for my profession. I do not intent to offend anyone just giving my point of view.

If I had my way the whole world of law enforcement would be different with much more focus on community policing like I think it was in the older days

Click to expand...

Firedog, something like that would be nice to have in my neighbor hood. I know though in most cases the force is stretched thin. Sometimes its the budget, sometimes it is hard to get recruits. Like you said putting out fires. I grew up here and I remember the day when they had 2 men to a car. They had plenty of cars for community and city patrol.



In no way was I putting down the proffesion. I have an cop in the family and my next door nieghbor is a Houston cop. He is a good guy. Very courtous and not boustful. BTW, he drives a '07 Mustang GT, Califonia Special with a nice sounding exhaust..

I remember one time I was driving some friends home from the bar. I was the DD for the evening. I got pulled over about a mile from my house because "I didn't use my blinker" on a turn (I know I did but w/e). He came up, asked me the usual, asked me if I'd been drinking. After I told him no, he called me a liar and said he followed me from the bar and he could smell it on my breath. After I blew a .000 on the breathalyzer twice (the first time he said it malfunctioned) he asked if he could search my vehicle. When I asked what for, he said drugs. Me and my friends are all clean, so I let him go at it and waste his time. 20min later after searching the whole interior (he left all my seats f'd up when he was done) he came back with an unopened case of beer asked who it belonged to. I told him, and after checking the ID, he gave back the beer, got in his car and left. Never said "sorry for the inconvenience" or "have a good night" or "drive safe", nothing; acted like I wasted his time for not being drunk.



Let's see, spend all these years listening to D.A.R.E. crap and fun movies in driver's ed, I get harassed for doing the right thing. I have never met a polite LEO in my city (I've never met a rude one in the next town over where I work, though that may have more to do with my job). In my town, they set up road blocks on Saturday nights til 3am on the two main roads leaving the bars downtown to "check for insurance and registration"... I don't drink and drive, and I don't appreciate being treated like a criminal and getting extra attention for being responsible... The biggest hassle is whenever I get stopped at a road block, I have to explain why I'm driving someone else's vehicle, and they seem to have a hard time believing that a 22 year old could possibly do something responsible (even when I carry around my own insurance card, and the owner of the vehicle rides shotgun, even if they're wasted). It just feels like they get mad if you're a mature adult...



That's why I don't like LEOs in my town.

Whats an HO?

Click to expand...

Don't need the answer to that--I know what a ho is. But the more pertinent question--what's a LEO? Is that like a VIRGO or an ARIES?

A LEO is, law enforcment officer...

If I had my way the whole world of law enforcement would be different with much more focus on community policing like I think it was in the older days

Click to expand...

I just read an article in yesterday's paper talking about how the high gas prices are causing many agencies around the country to move back in this direction. They're trying to get the officers out of their vehicles and spend more time walking their beats. I'm a Correctional Officer for the Sheriff's Office here and hope to be on the road within a year or so, so I'm curious to see what our agency does. I don't think it'll affect us much, due to the fact that we police such a large, mostly rural area. They also mentioned that many of the State Troopers are spending more time in stationary spots (timing traffic, etc) rather than constant driving, trying to save on fuel.

The biggest problem most LEO's have is looking at the "intent" of the law. Laws are written by lawyers and are not always real clear. Every officer should look at the "intent" of the law, especially traffic laws. I have always wanted to put together a class for LEO's to teach them this.

I had a rookie cop pull me over a week ago for not using my turn signal at a stop sign even though there was absolutely no traffic anywhere around. Now I'm a big proponent of using turn signals but using them when no one is around is like honking your horn when no one is around to hear it. I proceeded to give him a quick lesson in "intent". Of course the reason I was able to do that is because I'm a retired public servant that still holds a master peace officer license and I'm friends with his Chief. Some officers, especially rookies, love being able to intimidate people. They're not to happy when the tables are turned.

TomT,



I respectfully disagree. I don't want LEOs that try to apply the "intent" of the law. I want LEOs that deal with the "black and white" of the laws. I'd rather judges and the legal system deal with the nuance and intent.



Your example of the turning signal is a good one. People should use their signals, always, for no other reason than it then it becomes second nature and they don't have to think about or use their judgement as to when to use them.



Who wants to listen to excuses like: "I didn't think anyone was behind me", or "I thought he was too far back to be considered 'right behind me'" as reasons for people NOT using a turning signal?



Why stop at a stop sign if you can see both directions and no one is coming? Why stay stopped at a red light when you can see both directions and no one is there (at 4am)?



All are very similar situations to the one you gave. The INTENT of laws are to protect people. That I suspect we would both agree. But laws, especially traffic laws, need to be written in such a way that adhering to them requires little or no judgement...IMHO.



TJR

I had a rookie cop pull me over a week ago for not using my turn signal at a stop sign even though there was absolutely no traffic anywhere around.

Click to expand...

Doesn't that statement contradict itself? If the cop was there, then there was traffic--at least one car, the cop. In which case the turn signal should have been on.

TJR. The job of a peace officer is to protect you, not hassle you. That is why I say look at the intent of the law. Let me give you another example: In Texas they passed a law saying your license plate cannot be obscured. The intent of course is to allow LEO's to be able to ID your plate when necessary. An over-zealous cop gave my wife a ticket last year because her car had the traditional dealer frame that barely covered the top of the T in Texas. It in no way hampered the ID of the plate. You say it should be handled by a judge and it was. Never-less, it cost my wife a day off from work to go to court and get it dismissed. So you can say we still lost money because of the citation. I'm saying that it should not come to that. Our courts are overburdened enough.



BillV. The cop was a long way behind me. I saw him but did not pay any attention to him since using my turn signal had absolutely no effect on his driving.



I'm not saying I wasn't in the wrong but there are enough people out there not using turn signals properly that are causing real problems. The way the law reads, you can't give a person a ticket for one of my major pet peeves, which is using your turn signals AFTER you have already applied your brakes. That chaps my ass.

TomT said:

BillV. The cop was a long way behind me. I saw him but did not pay any attention to him since using my turn signal had absolutely no effect on his driving.

Click to expand...

That's EXACTLY what I was talking about when I gave the example excuse of:

I thought he was too far back to be considered 'right behind me!'

Click to expand...

TomT, you used a judgement call. In your opinion, based on your judgement, the driver of the car behind you wouldn't benefit from your use of a turning signal. But that's not what the traffic law regarding the use of turning signals states. The traffic law states that you should use your signal...not that you should use your signal when you think it is needed.



It is my opinion that police should enforce laws. Laws should be as "black and white" as possible, so following them and enforcing them is straightforward. By doing so, police protect and serve.



I have put a link to NY state's applicable turning signal traffic legistation. I suspect it is much the same in most all states. Note that it makes no mention of whether or not there are other cars around, and doesn't define the INTENT of the law, just what SHALL be done and HOW.



TomT also said:

I'm not saying I wasn't in the wrong but there are enough people out there not using turn signals properly that are causing real problems.

Click to expand...

That's the "Why aren't you going after the worse offenders line again!".



Also, TomT points out:

The way the law reads, you can't give a person a ticket for one of my major pet peeves, which is using your turn signals AFTER you have already applied your brakes. That chaps my ass.

Click to expand...

I don't see the issue. Brake lights warn of slowing down or an intent to stop. Turning signals applied at least 100 feet ahead of a turn (which is the NYS law) show an intent to turn. There are circumstances I am sure where people start to slow down before knowing that they are going to turn, or which way they are going to turn.



Still, NYS law section C might actually have what you are looking for:

(c) No person shall stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided herein to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give such signal.

Click to expand...

TJR

Laws should be as "black and white" as possible

Click to expand...

I got news for you. They are not. As I stated in my first post, laws are written by lawyers. Have you ever seen anything written by a lawyer that was to the point?

I don't see the issue. Brake lights warn of slowing down or an intent to stop. Turning signals applied at least 100 feet ahead of a turn (which is the NYS law) show an intent to turn. There are circumstances I am sure where people start to slow down before knowing that they are going to turn, or which way they are going to turn.

Click to expand...

Okay, since the use of turn signals is actually a fairly new law in Texas I had to check our own laws. We also have the 100' rule. It's good in theory but should really vary by posted speed limit. If they are going down a road at 50mph, and know they will be turning, shouldn't they be letting you know before they have to brake? They would need to be braking long before the 100' mark. That is just another example of reading the intent of the law because it cannot possibly spell out every scenerio. (The second law you refer to is not for the use of turn signals).



I should know better then to argue with you TJR. But let me just say that YES, I think an LEO should be able to make decisions on his own. Not saying be judge and jury, just be a peace officer first and a law enforcement officer second. There's a big difference. And it's the latter that makes cops look bad.

TomT,



I'm not arguing, just stating my opinion.



I too think that cops should use their judgement, and I am sure they do so all the time. I was once given a warning for speeding when I clearly should have been given a ticket. I was guilty. I assume the policeman used his judgement there.



I just can't understand how people can complain about cops and the intent of the law, wishing that cops would be more subjective in their enforcement of traffic laws, especially when the people doing the complaining admit and understand they broke the law.



As I said, I would rather police, especially traffic cops be much more black and white in their enforcement of laws.



Traffic laws shouldn't (IMHO) be assumed to be like the "tree in the woods that falls and no one is around to hear or see it." Did it really fall? Yes! If you break a traffic law, and no one is around or near to be put in jeopardy by the law broken, did you really break the law? Yes!



I wouldn't want to live in the world were people can fail to stop at stop signs, drive the wrong way up one way streets, drive on the wrong side of the road, cross the double yellow, not use turning signals, speed...all because "they thought" no one was around, or close to them for it to matter. For every person that MIGHT make the correct call in determining if their illegal actions jeopardize someone, there will be countless other boobs that make the wrong call and end up killing someone. Things are already unsafe enough on the road with the current laws assumed to be absolute, not subjective to the whims of the driver and the perceived traffic around them.



TJR

The whole turn signal thing could be avoided with roundabouts. :lol:

TJR. I agree. I'm just not ready for Robocop yet. I just want a cop that's intelligent enough to know what's right and whats wrong, regardless of the laws. It's unfortunate that we are not getting that caliber because it's not a job anyone wants these days. It's been over 20 years since I rode as a patrol officer and there is not enough money in the world to make me want to go back. For those that bad-mouth a police officer, I can only say, try it for a while and see what it's like.