Thread: The loss of common courtesy?

Originally Posted by FUD

Good Grief man, you are warped! Any man who would like "Ms. MAN HIPS & toothpick legs" really needs his brain examined! . Course you're confessing to being a cop so . . . . (j/k)

Charlize Theron or C.Z. Jones might've been better choices.

I partially agree with you on this point. However, I'll give my disagreeing part of the argument first: In Ontario, it is up to the constable to charge the driver with a highway traffic act violation.

Now, I understand that various police forces like local services, opp and rcmp are under pressure to collect money for cash-strapped provinces/municipalities. They are given high quotas and the only way to reach them is by setting up an industrial style of money collection (like speed traps).

Unfortunately the awareness among the voters isn't at a very high level and if a political party pushes for changes in HTA enforcement, their competition can attack them underhandedly by saying that they want to make the roads unsafe. On a good note, they got too greedy, so a huge percentage of charged drivers is fighting their charges in courts, thus clogging up the court system and resulting in UNCONSTITUTIONALY long delays.

My problem with our local law enforcement practices lies in the fact that in 2 cases they charged me with those violations even though I had documents to PROVE MY INNOCENCE on the spot. I refuse to believe that police constables are given so little leeway by the politicians as to be forced to charge an innocent person with a violation.

I will blame the politicians for creating a system of law enforcement that allows for such behavior by the police constables. However if those constables put staying within quotas over charging innocent people, then it's also their fault.

I still operate under the assumption that it's my job to prove someone guilty. If we have resources available that will corroborate their innocence, it's my responsibility to explore it, if the situation lends itself to that opportunity. I'm lucky, though. We don't have quotas. I'd rather make one good case than fifty piddly ones...although I'll still take the piddly one. Often, they lead to bigger ones. A speeding ticket may become a drug case, or maybe the driver has a warrant for his/her arrest. You never know 'til you get there. As I've gotten older, though, I'm probably much more inclined to help folks out or give them a break...hell, I got bills to pay, too.

Oh, and charging someone with an offense is not the same as convicting them of it.

You see Joe, that makes you different from those cops that I've had dealings with. You not only review exculpatory evidence but are also willing to give a break.

I am well aware that a charge and conviction are not LEGALLY the same. However, I either have to miss 2 days of work (1 to file my notice to challenge the charge and 1 to challenge it in court) or pay a paralegal $300 to do that for me. Therefore, either way I stand to lose a lot of money, while he gets overtime pay for a safe and cushy court appearance.

I wish more constables had your honest attitude Joe, but I tend to distrust the police and I have hundreds of good reasons for it. 210 and counting.

Originally Posted by Joe Chandler

I still operate under the assumption that it's my job to prove someone guilty.

Yea, a lot of cops and detectives operate under that assumption. Unfortunately a good majority of them operate under the assumption that it's their job to prove someone guilty even when their innocent. That plus I've yet to meet a prosecutor who's out for justice and not out to win. the justice=vengance permeates society probably in part to being victimized by the justice system on so many fronts. I know first hand of too many corrupt police/prosecutors and not enough honest ones.

I'm trying sooo hard to bite my tongue here as not to offend those in law enforcement in our group. yer making it harder dagnabit!

I see no problems with expressing my disapproval when someone is being rude to me.

and this tailgating of yours accomplishes what?

tailgaiters are a menace regardless of their perceived "ability"

Being a gentleman and practicing chivalry are not macho things. They are a way of life that involves respect. And if someone chooses to disrespect me, it's their loss. I have nothing to prove to anyone, except to me. And that is the fact that I am in control of myself, my feelings and how I react. [-rtaylor]

I think this was very well said. I might have just learned something.

I was raised in Texas, and I was raised to be a Gentleman. I hold doors without expecting a "thank you", but appreciating it when it happens. I allow cars to change lanes in front of me, and hope when necessary, someone will do the same for me. I open car doors for ladies. I give up my seat to ladies and my elders. [-rtaylor]

I also was raised to hold doors for people, open the car door for women, and give my seat to others. Still, I feel that when I have stopped to hold the door for someone that is 30 feet away, that they could acknowledge it. If it makes no difference to them that I hold the door, then what am I doing? I guess this goes back to your point of you being a gentlemen regardless of the other person. Point taken.

Don't get mad because someone bumps into you or anything without saying sorry, you don't know what people are going through at the moment.[-LX_Emergency]

Again, good point. I try to remember this, but often do not. I think it is something that would do a lot to relieve ill will in general.

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

The problem is that the police does not prosecute drivers who cut people off, obstruct the flow of traffic or drive recklessly.... They don't want to gum it up with complicated cases, thus slowing down the cash-flow.

Allow me to quote from the US Dept. of Transportation website about a nice little program, with my commentary at the end:

"The Oklahoma City Police Department started their aggressive driving program September 1, 1998. They have used an extensive media campaign to advise the public about their aggressive driving campaign. The media filmed the unmarked patrol vehicles, as well as possible target locations of where the special unit would be working, but no specific locations were given. When the media blitz first started, no citations were issued the first week. Prior to officers working the aggressive driving campaign, they must attend an eight-hour class to educate them about aggressive driving behaviors that lead to crashes. There are 230 officers trained to work the Reduction of Accident and Aggressive and Inconsiderate Drivers (RAID) cars. The officers are also made aware that if they target the aggressive driving behavior, they will reduce crashes. OCPD has done research, gathered statistics from crashes and fatalities, selected ten high crash areas to target special enforcement and continually reevaluate those numbers to see if new areas are surfacing at high crash areas. They have done several speed surveys and found that after the special unit has worked a high crash area, the travel speed of motorists decreases. "

This program, coupled with week-long problem area speed enforcement by motorcycle patrol units certainly gets folks to slow down. Tickets are a revenue generator. The cheapest ticket for a moving violation in Oklahoma City is $161 plus court costs -- that's speeding up to 10 miles per hour over the limit. They go up to over $300. That's a lot of hard-earned money that I'd rather not give the city.

Additionally, the demands my employer places on us to drive a company vehicle are pretty steep. Mandatory driver safety training ever year. Any ticket, whether in my personal car or not, must be reported to my supervisor no later than the next business day. Any call to our employer regarding the unsafe operation of the vehicles or speeding results in a no questions asked discplinary action, which can include termination.

I've had many an inconsiderate driver that I'd love to give a piece of my mind, but the risk vs. reward simply doesn't add up. Last year a man was killed with a handgun during a road rage incident, all because he was driving too slowly (but within posted speed limits). It's very selfish of me to jeopardize my life, my family's life, my income should I become disabled or dead, just to verbally and/or physically engage some dickhead over his bad driving habits and lack of manners.

I don't posses a concealed carry permit mainly due to legal issues surrounding my martial arts background, which would also demand a lawyer of Johnny Cochran's caliber to defend me for beating the piss out of some asshole who desperately needs it, even if he swung first. It's best to learn to enjoy life. I feel sorry for these poor bastards whose lives are so hurried they have little option but ill behavior and a lack of manners; I doubt their skills of disrespect cease when they exit their vehicle.

Originally Posted by FUD

Yea, a lot of cops and detectives operate under that assumption. Unfortunately a good majority of them operate under the assumption that it's their job to prove someone guilty even when their innocent. That plus I've yet to meet a prosecutor who's out for justice and not out to win. the justice=vengance permeates society probably in part to being victimized by the justice system on so many fronts. I know first hand of too many corrupt police/prosecutors and not enough honest ones.

I'm trying sooo hard to bite my tongue here as not to offend those in law enforcement in our group. yer making it harder dagnabit!

Feel free to say what you will. That's what a place like this is for. When I say I operate under the assumption that it's my job to prove someone guilty, I should have said I'll be 100% sure the evidence points to that particular person before I bother them. The simple fact is, I'm only speaking from a police point of view, not a prosecutor's...they're politicians, for the most part, and I've already made my feelings about them rather clear. My A.D.A. is a gutless coward, and his boss (the D.A.) should be in prison, IMO. As for your statement that "a good majority of them (police/detectives) operate under the assumption that it's their job to prove someone guilty even when their innocent."...I respect your position, but I'll have to call bullshit on that one. Most are honest and hardworking, but you never hear about them. It's always the bad ones who grab headlines...it's them you always hear people complaining about. And if a man (or woman) is willing to railroad an innocent person (and that doesn't happen nearly so much as TV leads you to believe), they deserve whatever prison sentence the person they railroaded would have gotten. Crooks, thieves, and liars have no business in law enforcement. We have them, much like any other profession, but I firmly believe they should be rooted out and made to pay. I will not lie for another officer, and I will not go along when they're out of line. Every officer I work with feels the same. I'm sure it's different in different places, but I daresay it's certainly not "a good majority". But often, since the general public doesn't understand what is going on, they assume the officer is wrong. I dunno...I can understand some of the antipathy towards law enforcement; it's just that I know I'm honest, as are the guys I work with, and I treat the people I serve with as much respect as their behavior dictates they deserve, and I hate to see the good ones lumped in with the bad.

They sure as hell don't do it here in Ontario. Our tickets aren't that expensive but if you get nailed twice for going 5km over (that's about 3 miles) the speed limit, your insurance goes up as high as 50%. The insurance is mandatory and the prices are set by the insurance institute, which is owned and operated by the insurance industry. It's the same criminal racket as price-setting by the gas retailers. Therefore, people here are fighting any ticket no matter how minor it is, the courts are clogged and the wait times are so long that it's unconstitutional, so people are getting their cases dismissed on constitutional grounds. I think the police and the insurance companies just killed the cow for the milk.
Eventually they'll have to back off minor offenders, focus on prosecuting truly dangerous drivers and thus make the roads safer without getting honest law-obiding citizens all worked up.
As for weapons, I don't know how they came into this discussion, but my take is that they are fun toys as long as they are only handled by responsible people and crooks and/or idiots would have zero access to them. I just don't see it happening any time soon or at any other point in time.

Btw Kyle, do you have any issues with your company going "Big Brother" on you? Employers in Canada still don't have that much power (until the Conservatives reinstate slavery) and it would raise a big outcry here. Actually I'm not 100% sure on that count b/c someone could always start crying "oh would you PLEASE think of the children?" and saying "if you don't support your company in placing cameras inside your house, you are a criminal who has something to hide and support terrorism and child molestation". I'm sorry for the digression but I am STRONGLY opposed to my privacy being slowly suffocated by the government and corporate interests. The one that has me scared is the introduction of biometric identification for immigration purposes at one of our airports. The justification was "to expedite the process". If it becomes a major initiative and then they make it so that it takes 5 hours to go through passport controll unless you give them your retinal scan/voiceprint/fingerprint/dna, I will do whatever it takes to kill that initiative on constitutional grounds. In my line of work, we handle confidential personal data, but we have a heavy onus on privacy. So if one of my subordinates sees a grow-op or a meth lab (while on the job) and reports it to the police, not only can he end up in jail for 6 months, but I'll make sure he gets sentenced to the maximum amount of time and that he gets the additional fine of $1000. Then I'll show up at the parole hearing to make sure he/she doesn't get out early. It's time to draw a line and tell both the governments and the corporations "no more".