It does not seem to me to matter whether or not the costs are fixed, you would still do the same analysis to detrmine:
whether or not it would be cost effective to utilize officers in this fashion for revenue enhancement, or any other purpose (obviously as revenue enhancer this is a non starter;)
how best to utilize officers where the potential uses are equally/less important.
There may come a time when the costs ar so prohibitive to a community that it cannot effectively provide traffic safety, a situation we would all pobably regret eventually. Who would have insurance then? Mr/s. Average citizen? S/he probably could not afford it.
You’ve again held up New Rome, OH as an “example”. Yes, it’s an example of egregious behavior by a bunch of asshats, but it fails to prove that all LEOs, and all municipalitites are cast from the same mold. Do all major league baseball players take or abuse steroids based upon the example of Barry Bonds? Do all interracial marriages end in murder based upon the example of O. J. Simpson?
“Further evidence” does not equal a cite of 1. Put more data in your tub before you thump it.
Friend catsix named “New Rome, Ohio”, and italicized the word corrupt. Oh, and bolded the word facts. Which means, unfortunately, nothing whatsoever. S/he fails to recognize that even corrupt police can function only by enforcing the law, mostly, the fact of which is what buttonjockey308 is trying, delicately, to remind us.
Okay by me: obviously competence isn’t demanded of others, in some places, any more than it is of oneself. When I feel unable to fulfill my obligations, I’ll know who to call, and when.
Pfft. What fun is that? An empty tub makes a louder clang.
Obviously there are a few cases like New Rome, but those are the exceptions, rather than the rule. They require a narrowly-defined combination of circumstances.
So, in New Rome, OH, all they did was enforce their speeding laws. Correct?
What was the problem? Just follow the posted limit and you wouldn’t get a ticket. What is “egregious” about that?
Our streets are pretty well lit here. If I was out in the countryside, I’m sure I would notice a headlight out, but with lit city streets, I didn’t notice her light was out either…
First, if you break the law, you can’t call yourself “law-abiding.” That would be like me calling myself “really sincere.”
Second, if you wouldn’t notice it until the police told you, he’s doing you a favor by pulling you over. A favor that could save your life and the life of innocent chillun!
It does refute the position of buttonjockey that tickets are never a revenue stream. In order to disprove his assertion that it is impossible for tickets to be a revenue stream, all I have to do is provide one counter example. That’s how falsification of a claim works.
Until he got dishonest and tried to claim that tickets can’t possibly make as much money for a municipality as they cost the municipality to write them with his ridiculous hypothetical numbers pulled from his ass.
He claimed that it’s not possible for tickets to be a revenue stream. New Rome is the case that falsifies the claim.
Okay 26 and 43. #26: I don’t want this thread to be another one about religion. Of course there have been documented cases of pedophiles in the Catholic Church over the last years. I’m not catholic, but I’m sure that you can cite where another minister and/or person of faith has committed a crime. I guess I must concede to you on this point, even though the phrase “church going” has a historical connotation meaning a “good person”. The times they are a changing, but that’s another thread.
Now for #43, meaning that God I am a fucking moron. Okay, well your lead in doesn’t exactly garner a spirit of debate, but I will forge on.
I have never noticed on a well-lit street a difference between having one headlight or two. Maybe I’m blind. I had an eye exam two years ago and have 20-20 uncorrected vision. Perhaps it has lapsed. I think the proper course would have been for the officer to give my wife a fixit ticket and all would have been solved. Solved without the $58 fine which is still pissing me off.
Under your definition, nobody is law abiding. I would bet that you break at least three traffic laws driving two blocks to the corner store. There are that many laws out there.
The original argument that your wife’s crime should be excused since there are drug dealers and murderers in the ghetto is ridiculous.
The same argument might be made by a robber: “Well I didn’t murder anyone. The police should be chasing murders and rapists.”.
A Weed seller:“Well I don’t sell crack. The police should be chasing cocaine sellers”.
A murderer: “Well I’m not a serial killer. I only killed one. The police should be looking for bigger fish”
While I vehemently disagree with your reasoning I must admit that the “tone” of your response forces me to reconsider my earlier use of vitriolic epithets. Consequently I apologize.
What you are advocating is some kind of double standard. Warnings for the “nice” people and tickets for everybody else.
Wouldn’t you agree that a community has a right to protect itself by enacting legislation preventing dangerous irresponsible behavior? Now I understand that you did not feel that in your particular situation your wife was causing much danger but legislation is a broad brush. Do you not see that society has determined that driving with less than one headlight can often be dangerous despite the fact that you don’t think it was in this one instance? Limits need to be placed on officer discretion to avoid the danger of selective enforcement of the laws. We create laws to protect us from danger but given the size of our community those laws are by necessity pretty broad.
Not “excused”. Simply that when there are limited police resources, they should concentrate on these more serious crimes and either leave the headlight violators alone, or issue fixit tickets…
I’m trying to think of at least one traffic law I broke today, and coming up with nothing. Which three do you think you’d break while driving 2 blocks to the corner store?
Thank you, apology accepted. And my apologies for any insult you may have felt.
I don’t feel I am advocating a double standard. I feel that a warning is sufficient for a violator of a head light infraction, or a turn signal out, or a minor speeding charge. For EVERYONE. Not just nice people, but everyone.
Now, if you are caught selling a bag of Ice to a 15 year old kid, then no warning: straight to jail.
Your argument of “selective enforcement” is very much true in this day and time, but that is for another thread.
All in all, I think there are too many laws, given the reality of modern society. I hope you don’t take this as a libertarian rant. When you have a large segment of the population commiting serious crimes, and have limited police resources, they need to concentrate on those crimes, and leave the middle class who pay the brunt of the taxes (relative to their income) mostly alone, and given the benefit of the doubt, whether that middle class is white, black, hispanic, green or purple…
I’m sure that at one point, you violated the speed limit, at least by a couple of mph. I’m sure that you didn’t signal as you were pulling away from your driveway/the curb. I would guess that at least ONE piece of equipment on your vehicle isn’t up to state specs, even if it is a tie rod that is unbeknownst to you.
Did you put your seatbelt on as you drove two blocks out of habit? Probably so, but some of us still have to remind ourselves. If it was near dawn or dusk, were your headlights properly illuminated?
Did in any moment of inattention did your left tires hit the center line? Did you come to full and complete stops at all stop signs, or did you see no traffic was coming and make a rolling stop?
Many more laws, but these were off the top of my head…
Warnings don’t mean much if there’s no threat of enforcement to back it up. I mean, what’s the cop supposed to say? “Don’t do it again, or I’ll tell you not to do it again, again?”
