Sorry, jt, but I have to go with the consensus. Your anger seems to be in inverse proportion to the “injustice” you’ve suffered. Your wife broke a minor law and was sentenced to a small fine. That’s the way things are supposed to work. You’re just pissed off but you’re trying to discover some high sounding principle that you can invoke.
You and your claptrap car are likely to be more dangerous to me than than a dealer selling crack on a streetcorner.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
But when you have limited resources, say you have a family problem where you son and daughter are soon to be parents and your wife is a drug dealer, but on some mornings you have one cup of coffee too much:
Do you…
- Focus your resources on the family
or
- Try to eradicate coffee from the world and use the power of government to fine coffee drinkers…
My town likes #2..
[/QUOTE]
God you are a fuckin moron.
Say your kid get run over and killed by some idiot driving with only one headlight who hit them because they could not see them due to insuficient lights?
Do you…
- Never leave your house after dark
or - Convince your local government to pass a law to force idiots to have proper headlghts.
You apparently like #1 for everyone but you.
idiot.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
So, when I pull into my driveway, I don’t analyse the light pattern relflecting off of my garage door. Obviously, it should put me in the same level of local enforcement as the drug dealers downtown.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
Reason #47 why fixing cars for a living is not as much fun as it once was. The drivers now a days are idiots.
You want to talk about a bullshit ticket? I got a $300 one in the mail the other day because the credit card on my EZ-Pass account had expired, and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority was unable to collect their $1.30 toll.
It took me eight hours to sort that out - I had to go to traffic court twice! I should have just paid the damn thing.
[QUOTE=Rick]
:rolleyes:
Reason #47 why fixing cars for a living is not as much fun as it once was. The drivers now a days are idiots.
[/QUOTE]
Understood, bro. Let’s not get into that funky concept of backing up to a glass garage door to see if all your rearward facing lights work. Could be bad juju. :eek:
[QUOTE=jtgain]
Fair enough. I just meant that by “church going” she wasn’t a drug dealing murder. Perhaps you can come up with examples of church going people who are drug dealing murders.
Your argument will convince me to withdraw my example..
[/QUOTE]
Ever hear of the Mafia?
jtgain’s very sensible and not at all immature and boneheaded position (as I understand it):
-
If you’re middle-class and go to church, you shouldn’t have to pay attention to your headlights, and if you get caught, you certainly shouldn’t have to pay for it. After all, traffic safety regulations aren’t like REAL laws.
-
If the police would stop citing people for traffic violations, there would be no more drug dealers. Because that’s the reason there are so many of them. Not the massive demand for drugs.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
I just meant that by “church going” she wasn’t a drug dealing murder. Perhaps you can come up with examples of church going people who are drug dealing murders.
[/QUOTE]
You’re fucking kidding, right?
God, just when you think nobody is dense enough to raise the Jesus-makes-you-moral flag around here…
When I buy my drugs, I get them from the upper middle class suburbs. They have the best coke, god bless them.
ETA: and I try to murder someone every time i’m there. I’m trying to cut back though. Must start going to church more.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
I don’t dispute that at all. Of course it you stop people for minor traffic infractions you can nab people for bigger ones. Hell, if you entered people’s homes at random with guns drawn, I’m sure you would find even MORE drugs, illegal guns, and wanted persons.
But, I am talking about a country in which our founders envisioned that we could be free from police molestations in all but the most serious circumstances, and with warrants when it is practical.
These silly laws (headlight out, going 30 in a 25 zone) serve only to make us available to interrogation at the most minor infraction.
[/QUOTE]
I once thought much the same, until the sheer volume of criminals caught during routine traffic stops outweighed any philosophical arguments. It’s as if police weren’t allowed to pay extra attention to people carrying guns around in public out in the open: sure they should be, since a much greater percentage of them are about to carry out a massacre, even if carrying around a gun is legal most places. The percentage of traffic violators who also happen to be on the lam seems about that high.
Of course, smart criminals take great pains to avoid getting stopped by cops, but even most career criminals aren’t smart.
[QUOTE=Rick]
If you ever think you got a ticket you did not deserve, before you bitch, think about all the ones you did deserve and never got. Then smile and thank the officer.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that’s the way I’ve looked at it whenever I’ve gotten the (very rare, thank goodness) ticket for speeding. Very sensible, actually.
[QUOTE=Ludovic]
but even most career criminals aren’t smart.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know…the guys at Enron were pretty smart. Of course they didn’t live in the ghetto though.
Here is an article about the real criminals.
[QUOTE=askeptic]
But would you let your daughter marry one? (if you ain’t from the South you probably won’t get this)
[/QUOTE]
Sadly, he doesn’t need to be from the South in order to get it.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
That is the thread I was rebutting against, of sorts..
[/QUOTE]
And here was my post there: "They sometimes do. SOMETIMES. But I will bet than any county in the USA has a butt-load of arrest warrents sitting around for real criminals that they have not yet served, due to staffing shortages. So, I’ll concede there’s maybe a 1% chance that a traffic stop may find a real criminal, but there’s a 100% chance that finding the dude for the arrest warrent will lead to a real criminal.
Yes, traffic laws are “laws”. But except for DUI and similar crimes, they are not “crimes”, they are not part of the Criminal Code. They are Infractions, Code violations. Any City or County has thousands of Codes, which are generally enforced by non-gun carrying, non-sworn “civilians” like meter maids, Code Enforcement Inspectors, Health Inspectors or the like. There is no reason why we need a very expensive Police officer to write a parking ticket or a speeding ticket, especially when that PO could be out arresting and/or preventing Criminal Code violations and even Felonies. Especially when most cities have a shortage of PO’s and they are working double-overtime, which makes them careless and prone to errors in judgement. I don’t want dudes who carry guns being “more prone to errors in judgement”.
Look, I want my PD to pull over drunk drivers, racers or other drivers who pose a “clear and present danger to the public safety”. Yes, please. But not writing Carpool lane tickets or “42mph in a 35 zone” tickets."
So I agree with you, mostly.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
And here was my post there: "They sometimes do. SOMETIMES. But I will bet than any county in the USA has a butt-load of arrest warrents sitting around for real criminals that they have not yet served, due to staffing shortages. So, I’ll concede there’s maybe a 1% chance that a traffic stop may find a real criminal, but there’s a 100% chance that finding the dude for the arrest warrent will lead to a real criminal.
Yes, traffic laws are “laws”. But except for DUI and similar crimes, they are not “crimes”, they are not part of the Criminal Code. They are Infractions, Code violations. Any City or County has thousands of Codes, which are generally enforced by non-gun carrying, non-sworn “civilians” like meter maids, Code Enforcement Inspectors, Health Inspectors or the like. There is no reason why we need a very expensive Police officer to write a parking ticket or a speeding ticket, especially when that PO could be out arresting and/or preventing Criminal Code violations and even Felonies. Especially when most cities have a shortage of PO’s and they are working double-overtime, which makes them careless and prone to errors in judgement. I don’t want dudes who carry guns being “more prone to errors in judgement”.
Look, I want my PD to pull over drunk drivers, racers or other drivers who pose a “clear and present danger to the public safety”. Yes, please. But not writing Carpool lane tickets or “42mph in a 35 zone” tickets."
So I agree with you, mostly.
[/QUOTE]
How much time do you figure you save by driving in the car pool lane?
I frankly prefer the police to give safety citations befre they arrest the drug dealers. While it is true that I had my car broken in to by someone who was probably trying to get money to buy drugs at least he wasn’t driving around in the dark with one headlight putting my life in jeopardy.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
Oh, fucking 'eh SnakesLady, maybe we can find something that we can agree on someday? Maybe corpse fucking is against both of our moral compasses??? 
Anywho… yes, I agree with basic services like police presence when it comes to robbery of a home. I fail to see the connection between that and my wife getting a fucking $58 ticket for a headlight. Couldn’t she get a warning?
[/QUOTE]
I got pulled over once for a tail light, and they gave me a “fix-it ticket.” I just had to get it repaired, and then go to a sheriff’s inspection place to have it approved, and beyond all of the inconvenience, didn’t pay any fine. It seems it’s not the fault of the cops so much as the laws in your state.
You can’t generalize about police behavior because there are so many variables: the laws, the number of cops a city can hire, the particular neighborhood, what the city council has decided to “focus on,” etc.
[QUOTE=Duck Duck Goose]
When a baby walks past you with a sign saying, “Take this candy from me–please!”, you wouldn’t expect to not lift that lollipop, wouldja?
[/QUOTE]
Yuk, no! Babies are diseased, smelly, anti-social little creatures to be avoided at all costs. However if as you suggest, this baby was alone and there was nobody watching… I suppose I would take the oppurtunity to deposit the runny-nosed little bastard and his bio-hazard candy into the nearest bin and hastily continue on my way…
Aheh.
YMMV
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
Normally, I wouldn’t agree with this type of rant. But recently, in this post, Loach told me that my wife should be SO grateful to a cop for not writing her a more serious ticket, she should cheerfully pay a $150 fine for an offense she was clearly innocent of. I kind of see his side, in a way, but still, I can’t understand the attitude that people should have to pay for things they didn’t do. I don’t know if Loach’s views are representative of all police, but that sure sounds like revenue generation to me.
[/QUOTE]
Are you an idiot or do you just play one on the internet? I’m sure if your wife begged and pleaded the cop would have given her the more serious ticket. You are still complaining that she didn’t get cited for the serious moving violation and instead got a minor document charge? She drove down the shoulder to avoid traffic. A violation that many (especially those she drove around) believe should be a hanging offense. I doubt she would get much sympathy from most on this board or anywhere else for doing that. She could have deservedly received a ticket with a higher fine, points, surcharges, higher insurance costs… Instead she was given a minor violation with no points. And you are still complaining. Fucking amazing. If I was guilty of a 4 point infraction I would be grateful to get a minor ticket. I couldn’t care less if I was wearing a seatbelt or not. And when it happened to me I was quite happy with the outcome.
[QUOTE=Loach]
Are you an idiot or do you just play one on the internet? I’m sure if your wife begged and pleaded the cop would have given her the more serious ticket. You are still complaining that she didn’t get cited for the serious moving violation and instead got a minor document charge? She drove down the shoulder to avoid traffic. A violation that many (especially those she drove around) believe should be a hanging offense. I doubt she would get much sympathy from most on this board or anywhere else for doing that. She could have deservedly received a ticket with a higher fine, points, surcharges, higher insurance costs… Instead she was given a minor violation with no points. And you are still complaining. Fucking amazing. If I was guilty of a 4 point infraction I would be grateful to get a minor ticket. I couldn’t care less if I was wearing a seatbelt or not. And when it happened to me I was quite happy with the outcome.
[/QUOTE]
Try to wrap your mind around this: one can simultaneously be grateful to the cop for not writing the more serious violation, AND also not think you should have to pay for an offense you didn’t commit. Why are you trying to tie the two infractions together? One has nothing to do with the other. I said in my OP I was very grateful to him for not writing the more expensive ticket. But that was totally his discretion, and he chose not to write it because my wife had a clean record. But that does not mean that we owe him anything, especially $150 for something we didn’t do. Let me ask you this: if she had not been committing any moving violations, and ticketed solely for the registration, would it then be OK for her to argue it?
And why the constant recounting of how what my wife did was so terrible? I agree. I hate when people do that. I never defended it. She deserved that ticket, no question. He was incredibly nice to not give her that ticket. No argument whatsoever. That has absolutely zero to do with the point, which is that we should not have to pay for expired registration when it was not expired.
I would also point out that your attitude is at odds with the actual officer we are discussing, who, when my wife pointed out that he had not asked her for her registration, admitted that she was right and pulled the ticket. If he can see her side, why can’t you?
Your attitude is a little disconcerting, and one that I see all the time with police officers. You think that a cop is not to be questioned under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, even when he is clearly in the wrong. You are saying that cops are so untouchable, they are so far above any questioning, that people should pay for offenses they did not commit, just to avoid the possibility that a decision the officer made may be called into question. Scary.