I don’t know that I’d exactly call it corruption - but in my view, you shouldn’t treat someone with a PBA card, hospital ID or military ID differently than you treat the person without those cards. Why should two people be treated differently simply because one works at a hospital or knows a police officer?
You can call it a “conversation starter” if you want - but that’s not really what it is. It’s a request for you to treat the holder more leniently than you would have if he or she didn’t have the card. It’s when you do that that people have a problem. People have been very clear that they don’t have a problem with police officers using their discretion in deciding whether or not to give someone a break - they have a problem with the courtesy card or hospital/military/police/government employee ID being a factor in how to exercise that discretion.
I didn’t respond when you posted this, but I do find your list a bit confounding. I can understand doctors, nurses, hospital personnel, firefighters, EMTs and paramedics if they are on their way to work in an emergency or need to attend to patients. But why do they get breaks on their days off? And why teachers, clergy or military?
People who rely on driving to feed their family? I agree with that. Does that include outside salesmen, realtors, appraisers, home inspectors, Uber/Lyft drivers? This category is pretty huge. I actually get old people and kids learning to drive more than most of the rest.
I know you are in NJ, and you really don’t have many “regular” people carrying guns in your state, but would you extend courtesy to drivers who have a firearm carry permit? Concealed carriers have been known to stop and help cops who are being assaulted on the side of the road.
Not trying to pick a fight, but I agree with doreen and telemark above: giving people a break because of who they know just isn’t right. Base your discretion on how they respond during a stop, or they are speeding because of unusual circumstances, or the fact that the roads are dry and it’s daylight, but not because they know a cop.
The LEO is being asked to show leniency on a someone not because of what they did,n or how they conducted themselves after being pulled over, nor the conditions of the infraction, but because of a relationship with a fellow officer. It is a (granted, pretty small) perk granted to the friends and families of people who enforce the law. It’s a perk not offered to the people who through no fault of their own don’t know any police officers.
To people on the outside of the police family, it’s a reason not to trust that you will be treated fairly by the law.
…a “conversation starter?” Really? You need a card to be able to start a conversation?
If you give someone a break because they have military ID, or if you give them a break because they have hospital ID, I’m gonna have to assume that you would also give somebody a break if you caught them “driving while black?” Why would you give someone in the military a break? I honestly don’t get it. (And reported for a move *back *to Great Debates, because I sense a debate breaking out.)
I don’t think his list is unreasonable. It’s based (I surmise) in part on the people on the front line with him, such as hospital personnel or firefighters, on people who often work hand in hand with the police even if you don’t know it, like educators, on people who are learning and could benefit from a lesson without the consequences of a ticket, on people who would be harmed by a ticket beyond the seriousness of the event in question, and so on. Regardless of how he came up with his list, he stated quite clearly that serious crimes are treated seriously, no matter who you are.
…so are black people on the list? And if not, then why not? In America they disproportionately are “harmed by a ticket beyond the seriousness of the event in question” all the time. They could benefit with “a lesson without the consequences of a ticket” much more than someone in the military, or a teacher, or somebody who just happens to be related to someone who is in the police.
And “not serious” crimes might be treated 'seriously" if you aren’t on his approved list of people. I don’t think that’s right.
I can see discretion being useful, if it’s a first time, or there’s a situation where it’s understandable (some sort of emergency) and such.
But being based on who you know is the definition of corruption. And the police should never be above the law. If they’re doing their job, fine. But, if not, they should get the full force.
And if there are any cops who would hold a grudge against you for enforcing the law and would treat you differently to try and punish you, then they should be removed from the force.
You talk like it’s normal someone to retaliate against you for doing your job. It is not. And that is exactly the sort of thing that makes people think all cops are bastards: even you are worried about these bad cops.
And, to be honest, it feels like ethics 101 to me. That cops fail it scares me.
This post has really been bothering me. What you seem to be saying is that you’d include me in your list of “go easy” because you know I’m a lawyer, so why am I raising a stink?
But that’s exactly why this strikes me as a form of corruption. “Hey, you’re in the club. So what’re you complaining about?”
I’m complaining because as a lawyer, I think the law should be fairly applied to all, based on their conduct, not who they know or what they do. Getting special treatment from LEO because I’m a lawyer is the antithesis of that principle.
And no, I’m not saying the “courtesy” cards are bad, but it’s okay to go easy on someone with a military ID, or the others on your list.
Why should someone with military ID get off easy? The law doesn’t apply to the military as strictly as it does to civilians?
Use discretion based on manner of driving, past record, how close to the line to dangerous driving, sure. The purpose of road safety laws is to protect anyone using the roads, and if you think someone’s technically violated the law but it’s pretty close to the line, sure, use your discretion to give a warning.
But giving a warning instead of a ticket because the driver is on your personal list of good guys? Nope.
Which is a big problem with it. It adds to the perception that law officers aren’t fair and to the perception that the police think certain people to be above the law.
And if the Legislature built those factors into the highway traffic act, I’d not have a problem with it.
Let the elected representatives pass a law that expressly states that certain people get leniency from the police because they’re a cop, or they’re married to a cop, or their parent is a cop, or they’re on the favoured list of occupations.
Think it would pass the Legislature?
If it wouldn’t pass the Legislature, how can a public official unilaterally change the law based on her or his own personal views of who is a “good guy” who deserves a break?
What if a police officer posted their own personal “good guy” list:
• anyone with an Anti-Fa sticker on their car;
• anyone with a “Black Lives Matter” sticker;
• anyone with a “Question Authority” bumper sticker;
• any Wiccan (“my other car is a broom” bumper sticker);
• and no special preference for other religious officials and people with military ID?
And if asked, the officer said that in his opinion those are the people who he thinks do the most good in society, so they should get a break?
Any probs with that personal list from an officer as to who gets out of a ticket? Officer’s discretion, right? So, shouldn’t be a problem.
Or is it only okay if the officer’s “good guy” list matches your own personal views?
Do we want each public official to add on special terms to the performance of their legal duties under statutes, based on their own personal “good guy” list?