Moved from General Questions to IMHO.
samclem, moderator
Why didn’t you just ask him to write you the speeding ticket at the time? Your beef seems to be getting a ticket for something you didn’t do, it doesn’t seem to matter that he attempted to save you money and points on your license.
By the way, this happens frequently in court as well. DA’s offer deals to defendants if they plead guilty to lesser crimes. No one argues “Hey, I actually committed premeditated murder, it wasn’t manslaughter!”
Okay, well, I guess I did ask…just wasn’t what I expected to hear. No contest it is.
Since so many have brought it up, what would you expect the downstream impact of 2 points to be? Forbes claims 11 percent, but I’ve also heard that you get a pass on the first one (accident or tickets).
What I don’t get is assuming he could get out of the ticket because he didn’t do the violation then why should he have to pay anything? He didn’t plea bargain the ticket and agree to the lesser violation.
Depends on your state, your insurance company, etc… I’ve seen numbers that suggest between 10%-16% (per year for three years BTW).
Integrity? He (almost) admits that he may deserve a citation for speeding.
This is what I don’t get. An officer does someone a favor and you think they should drag him into court to fight the lower offence?
My instinct (and I have not yet read the thread, so maybe I am wrong) is that since the fine is higher, you could fight it and have it dismissed. That is what I would do. Or maybe ask the Dope…
Edit - If the officer explained to me EXACTLY why he was doing it, and explained that it was for my benefit, I’d be 100% fine with it, of course. My above response is because it seems that the OP discovered the discrepancy after the fact.
Giving someone a break does not have a deep legal meaning. It is not in any of your law books. Writing someone a seatbelt ticket even though they were wearing one so you can save them some money is not taught in law school. You are over thinking it.
This might be a bit of a hijack, but is this strictly legal for a cop to do? If so, why on earth would you do it? The only rationale I can think of is that you’re trying to be nice to the person, but when you’re on duty, we’re not paying you to be nice.
If you want to be nice, clock out and buy them a bouquet of roses. When you’re on the clock, why would a cop pull someone over for an offense and then not follow through on it?
It just seems weird to me.
Enforcing traffic violations is part of the job. When I was on the road I had to write tickets or I was not doing my job. Some enforcement can be accomplished by giving warnings. When I could I would write for a lesser offense rather than a ticket that could cost hundreds if not thousands in the end. And the goal of enforcement and deterrence was achieved. It’s called compassion. We are allowed to have it.
According to your OP, the LEO did not give you a ticket for “accident due to inattention.” He gave you a ticket for “inattention.” If you had caused an accident, the ticket would quite likely have been for something else besides “inattention.”
If you’re doing someone a favor by being willing to write a ticket for a lesser offense, but not explaining what you’re doing, then what you’re really doing is amusing yourself by giving a distressed offender a pop quiz about the cost of various offenses, or the contents of your mind at any given time. The reason you don’t give people breaks isn’t that they’re ungrateful… it’s that even smug police officers eventually tire of playing games that they always win.
Most people understand immediately what the officer is doing and why. The OP is pretty far outside the mainstream here, and it’s a bit confusing why he remains unsure of the officer’s intentions.
Yes Loach, what kind of monster are you, “playing games” with drivers by saving them hundreds or thousands of dollars? Does it give you some sort of thrill to let drivers off with a “warning”? It makes you feel like a big man, doesn’t it, to decide the fate of a driver with a wave of your all powerful hand.
Quit being such a jerk, you should give out as many of the biggest tickets the law allows for every offence you see. We don’t need your charity, I know I would rather get a ticket for doing 71 in a 55, instead of letting you feed your ego by giving me a ticket for 69 in a 55, or “failure to obey a sign” :rolleyes:
Dammit, I was using my cell phone too, make with the ticket, buddy.
Completely missing the point.
As was stated, he WAS inattentive: to his speedometer. So he did indeed earn the ticket.
I’m not trying to be a jerk here; I’m really trying to figure out the logic.
First, you say if you’re not writing tickets, you’re not doing your job. Then you say that the goal of enforcement and deterrence are achieved by writing lesser tickets.
I’m really wondering. Is it your place to figure out what the penalty ought to be for an offense? Because it looks to me as though the state has decided that the penalty for speeding 70 in a 55 zone (for example) ought to be a $250 ticket and four points on the license, but you’ve decided as an individual that the penalty should really be $80 and 2 points on the license, i.e., the penalty for doing 64 in a 55 zone, so you’re writing a false ticket in order to assign the penalty that you think should be assigned instead of the penalty the state thinks should be assigned.
Is that correct?
If so, what makes you more qualified than the state to decide the correct penalty? In doing so, are you really doing your job?
Maybe the driver was polite, courteous, produced all the right paperwork, and said he was just trying to make it home on time for his kid’s soccer game.
Or maybe she had big tits.
I think most of us can understand a little compassion now and again. You, however, will probably get the full ticket.
If all we wanted was tickets to be given out we could set up traffic cameras everywhere. Cops aren’t automatic ticket machines, we expect them to use their experience, discretion, and judgement to do what is best for the situation. Cops don’t ticket every offense they see. If you want zero tolerance you would be changing the relationship between the public and law enforcement.
Which is why I’m asking the question the way I am. Cops have the discretion to do what is best for the situation. Is it explicitly part of their allowed discretion to write a ticket for a different offense?
If so, that seems silly and bureaucratic. If we want them to have the discretion to fine people less, then let’s given them the discretion to write a ticket for the correct offense but then let them decide how much the person ought to pay for the offense.
But the way Loach is describing it, it sounds as though cops AREN’T given that discretion, but a lot of them take it on themselves to have that discretion by exploiting a loophole, i.e., writing a ticket for an offense that didn’t occur.
Leaffan, your comment about how I’ll get the full ticket is pitiful and stupid. I’m trying to figure out how the system works and why it works that way. Grow up.
I’m not really sure what to say if you can’t see how having discretion is a good thing. Around here there is usually an uproar over mandatory sentencing and non-decretionary practices like red light cameras. Often when pulling someone over there are multiple offenses including paperwork problems. Often I could write people 3-4 tickets during one stop. Should it be mandatory for me to write all of them to each one? I don’t see your logic.
I personally do not write for anything that does not happen. Too many people are like the OP and somehow thing you are trying to scam them or like Saint Cad and try to screw you in court after you try to be nice to them. So I personally will either give a warning, write a ticket for a lesser ofense which did occur or write the major offense and let them plea bargain in court. Too many people are out to screw you so it doesn’t pay to be too nice.