View Single Post
Old 08-28-2011, 03:15 PM   #21
hancoveguy
Senior Member
 
hancoveguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 276
Thanks: 95
Thanked 65 Times in 30 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
We can have a discussion about the police or other law enforcement people with it being bashing. Let's face it, there is a unwritten rule among LEO's that minor infractions by fellow LEO's will be ignored. HCG can you honestly say that you never pulled over someone for a minor traffic violation and gave them a little more leeway because they were a off duty LEO? Can you say that you never had the same courtesy applied to you?

Now I'm not saying this is a huge wrong, but it does clearly set up an us and them mentality, that colors interactions. One LEO explained his thought process to me. If during a traffic stop a citizen would have a 50/50 shot of getting a summons, a LEO would have a 1/99 shot and that 1% was for a real jerk.

He also explained why he though they were entitled to this professional courtesy. They are public servants, working in a dangerous job for low pay, most traffic citations are revenue driven, so why should they have to contribute this revenue.

You, he and all LEOs know that a huge percentage of traffic citations are for revenue first and safety second. In a real serious safety situation, most LEOs treat other LEOs like citizens.
Jrc..I agree there is a level of professional courtesy as there is in all professions. Do you really think that when a doctor needs a medical procedure he/she is not extended some professional courtesy from a colleague. When you work in a bakery, you get free bread. But...I categorically disagree with your and many others' blanket assumption that traffic enforcement is revenue driven. IT IS NOT! I know many many colleagues in law enforcement and none of them have ever exhibited a propensity for ticketing motorists for the purpose (even secondarily) of generating revenue. Sure at the government level maybe if not probably but at the officer level it is not. There are NO quotas as quotas have been long established as illegal (brought on not by a recipient of a ticket but rather by police unions opposed to dept mandates on tickets and the elimination of officer discretion) As stated earlier, the purpose of routine traffic enforcement is to gain the voluntary compliance of the motoring public, not to generate revenue (and certainly not to line the pockets of insurance companies with surcharges) Check your local dept's stats on tickets issued. I am certain you will find a large if not massively disproportionate number of written warnings (no fine fee or penalty) versus the money fine (citation). LEO's as you call them are people too. They have mortgages and bills and have to pay insurance bills and school tuitions so accordingly they know what it is like to get a ticket/pay a fine and they also know that based on someone's driving history and criminal record (both of which are checked prior to the issuance of a ticket 99% of the time) one can tell if the person will modify their driving accordingly based on a written warning and the infraction being brought to their attention versus the habitual traffic offender who needs a large monetary reminder of the laws of the road.

Now, I absolutely respect your opinion and the opinion of all on the forum, but there is a large faction on here that wouldn't give a cop the benefit of the doubt if their life depended on it...oddly enough, someday it might (hopefully not).

Respectfully,
HCG

BTW.. for all of you with largely negative opinions of the police. I challenge you to go to your local police dept and go on a ride along and see what the average street cop deals with in an 8 hour period. Who knows, maybe this will support your opinion , but maybe it wont Either way you owe it to yourself to see whats on the other side before passing judgement.
hancoveguy is offline