Where do I post about A$$HOLE cops?? I hope here...

Kill Whitey!!!! Oh what?! Wrong thread?.... damn....








Disclaimer: I am white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBear

Kill Whitey!!!! Oh what?! Wrong thread?.... damn....








Disclaimer: I am white.

---

burn the witch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thane

Alright, I'll bite.

I know Cops have "good moods" and "bad moods",
but in what other profession does your "bad mood" come coupled with the power to fine people with a gun on your hip?

If you're gonna be a cop, that's awesome, I appreciate what you do.

But you at that point you are called to set your "mood" aside, and do what you swore to do. To Protect and Serve.

---

Which is exactly what the officer did. You, and some others, just don't agree with the outcome.

Nowhere in the OP did the poster actually give any evidence the officer did anything other than write the ticket. Period. The OP got a ticket and he thinks it was wrong, even though he admits to the wrongdoing - with what many would consider mitigating circumstances. But I really don't see where that warrants calling the officer an asshole. The OP didn't say the officer did anything other than write the ticket. I simply used the "good mood/bad mood" statement to illustrate the officer, like the rest of us, is a human being. You can't take that 100% out of the equation no matter how nice it would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thane

What I have a problem with is all these "victimless" crimes. Where's the defendant? And why can't i cross-examine them? If no person, property, or other entity was harmed, how can there be a crime?

---

Uh...the defendant is the one charged. Who said anything about victimless crimes, dude? That's generally something along the lines of prostitution or gambling. It's also off topic here. But "victimless crimes" are really misnamed...society in general can be a victim of certain behaviors. That's why when you get charged with a crime it's the "criminal vs State of Colorado".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thane

Can you explain to me how the police officer's action in the OP's scenario protected or served anyone? Except the department of revenue of course.

---

Yep. I'm willing to bet it has forever changed the behavior of the OP. The OP admitted that moving back into the through lanes on the interstate would have been dangerous. He'll probably never make the same mistake on that exit again. 1 less dangerous driver at that particular intersection. You've been served.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thane

How can I be a "criminal" and then by paying a small "fine" all the sudden everything is OK and the crime goes away?

That sounds like a bribe to me.

---

Uh...a traffic infraction such as this is not a criminal offense. That's why it's called an "infraction". Seems like you need to brush up on your definitions a little bit before you attempt to make a lame argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thane

I mean if it's for our "protection" why does the DEPARMENT OF REVENUE run Driver's Licensing and Motor Vehicle registration? To protect us?

No, they do it to make money, and they use traffic cops as their enforcement arm.

THATS what I have a problem with.

---

Are you serious? Really? You don't believe the state traffic laws and regs are in place for protection of motorists in general? I'm not even going to explain this. Just think about what you've written here.

I'll give you a hint: DoR, in terms of the traffic laws and regulations, only regulates motor vehicle laws the state legislature has passed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thane

I mean look at all the "traffic cams" being installed.

Mailing people tickets based on camera pictures?

Where's the due process in that?

---

No one has taken away your "due process". You don't have to pay the fine. You can still go to court and challenge the ticket. Please explain how that violates your "due process" protections. I'm really interested to hear this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thane

And somehow I am unpatriotic or have a "bad attitude" because I disagree with LEO policy?

The day we stopped questioning this government is the day this country started going down hill.

---

OK...now I'll bite. Where did anyone mention you are unpatriotic because you disagree with a policy?

Sounds like you're just slightly immature and need to grow up a little bit. It also sounds like you've heard some of these things discussed before and you're just regurgitating some talking points rather than really thinking about them.

Furthermore, no one here (unless they're a TPD officer) really knows why this officer did what he did. Higher-ups often mandate to street-level officers a particular task to be undertaken:

• Go to a particular intersection and write stop sign violations
• Go to a particular location and conduct radar enforcement - sometimes a speed threshold is mandated. On my dept it was often 6 mph over the limit
• Go to a school zone and enforce speed...zero tolerance

You don't know that this officer wasn't acting on orders from above because of numerous complaints or some other reason...maybe a councilman was cut-off at that intersection and was pissed and jumped square into the police chief's s**t about the unsafe conditions there. Then the chief went to the division commander and he went to the watch commander and he went to the shift supervisor and he went to that officer...and the OP screwed up and got the ticket.

Some of you don't like cops...I get that. Some do. But anyone who complains about some chickenshit ticket and calls the cop an asshole - after admitting the violation that got him the ticket - isn't immune from complaints back in their direction.

Freedom to speak and bitch about stuff is a two-way street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

Where do I post about A$$HOLE people? I hope here...

You have the nerve to title your thread the way you did and later on ask "why all the hate"? Whatever... You got confused and screwed up. It wasn't the crime of the century. The officer wrote you a ticket for exactly the offense you committed. That's his job. Sure, he can use discretion to either write the ticket or not. He used his discretion and chose to write the ticket. Now you have options, too. Instead of dealing with it like an adult you have to come here - instead of court - call the guy an asshole and then whine about being confused and how you shouldn't have got the ticket. Sorry...if writing you a ticket for something you admit to doing makes him an asshole, whining about it here makes you just as much of an asshole.

And to some of you others... It's really no wonder you don't get along with cops considering your piss poor attitudes. It's also no wonder many cops have the attitude towards people that they do.

They're no different than anyone else...they have good moods and bad moods. A small minority of cops have issues that probably makes them unsuited for the job and it makes life miserable for the majority of others. But that can be said of people in general.

---

Well Said!!!!!

I love how society feels that cops can't have bad days too. Who knows what body that guy just scraped off the road before contacting you!!!

I also have to wonder...I know the 'offender' claims to have been polite to the officer but I wonder what the officer would say about the person's politeness. Should an officer write an attitude ticket, no, but if you have an attitude after you clearly did something wrong you are probably more likely to get a ticket.

Also just wanted to say that I agree with Baily Guns, when you start your post with "Asshole Cops" I think you are gonna get a lot of people attacking you. What do you do for a living? Should I start my post with, "Where do I post about Asshole (place your job here)....?

OK, last post from me, the OP...

Let me clear up something, the Officer did not do anything wrong, he did not harass me, he was not mean about it, he basically said only what he needed to... can I have your Lic, Ins, did not ask for Reg, etc...

I whip out the A-hole word because he could have simply let me off with a warning. I guess if there was a quota or mandate from above he might not have had a choice per say but I still feel he could have choose not to, and given the infraction I think he should have.

Him hearing me say 2 things, I am new to the area, and I was confused by the signage, "I think/feel" also being it was such a minor violation of which no accident was caused and nobody was put in danger warranted a simple warning. I would not forget the exit not because of the citation, but the pretty lights.

To answer the $$ amount of the violation, I don't know yet. I guess it gets mailed to me, I guess depending on the amount and if it has points attached or not will be the final determining factor to fight or not.

Lastly, I do not mean to sound like a whiner! I just know being like I said earlier I have 2 family members that are LEO, that he had options. I also know there are LEOs on this forum... and maybe if one of you read this, and remember who you pulled over for such a minor violation, could be like me a former military (USN 91-94), and might not be such a bad guy, and if after you pull me over and you determine all paperwork is legal and up to date, and I am sober, and has a good driving record, and that really nothing but a simple infraction happened... someone would learn from a warning just as much as a citation... and you all would have some good PR on that reputation you seem to have and hear about from other posters even in this thread.

Have a good day, and I am out. [Beer]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

Uh...a traffic infraction such as this is not a criminal offense. That's why it's called an "infraction". Seems like you need to brush up on your definitions a little bit before you attempt to make a lame argument.

---

Semantics. If it's an "infraction" and not a crime, then why can the court impose fines and jail time if you are convicted? If it's not a crime, then why are there criminal penalties for failure to appear and answer the charges?

I agree that the OP should probably STFU and take his lumps. He did what the officer cited him for, and the officer was within his authority to write the citation. On the other hand, much of what the average traffic cop does during the day is simply generating revenue. I appreciate that cops take on a job that many, if not most, people are temperamentally unsuited for. My stepson is a deputy sheriff, and he does a helluva job. Like any other profession, police work attracts both good and bad people; unlike most, law enforcement comes with the responsibility to detach your emotions from the situation at hand and act in a purely rational manner. Some cops do this with amazing grace, others allow their emotions to govern them, and turn into badge heavy pricks. The big difference between their job and most others it that their decisions are backed by the color(if not the letter) of law, and the use of force (up to and including lethal force).

/rant

Have a nice day, officer![Flower]

BTW...I've never heard of a department having a "quota". Most let officers write as many tickets as they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

Semantics. If it's an "infraction" and not a crime, then why can the court impose fines and jail time if you are convicted? If it's not a crime, then why are there criminal penalties for failure to appear and answer the charges?

---

It's not semantics. It would be semantics if "infraction" and "criminal offense" meant the same thing and carried the same punishment. You won't be sentenced to jail for a traffic infraction. If you don't go to court, Failure to Appear after a summons is issued is a separate offense. Then it becomes criminal. Really have no argument with the rest. And FYI, I haven't been in LE for almost 10 years.

Don't do da crime is ya can't do da time.

Well said BG...