Just a couple of questions I thought I'd toss around:

In any of the United States is it illegal for a driver or his passengers to
verbally contradict, argue with, or insult a police officer during a traffic
stop?

While the officer is back at his car validating the driver's government
documentation, can a passenger open his door, step out, and simply walk away
without saying a word, and expect not to be physically accosted by that
officer or his associates?

Thank you.

- Floyd.

To the best of my knowledge, it isn't illegal to contradict, argue with, or
insult a police officer, so long as you are not hindering or obstructing his
investigation of the traffic offense that was committed. I wouldn't say that
it's a good idea, though, as you may wind up with more than one ticket.

As far as anyone opening a car door during a traffic stop or walking away, I
wouldn't advise it. The officer conducting the traffic stop doesn't know why
the door is being opened or why anyone is getting out of the car. As far as
the officer knows, the person doing so may be getting out to cause some type
of bodily harm to the officer or to flee. If an officer tells you (or
anybody else in the car) to remain seated in the vehicle, then just do it.
Failure to do so may be construed as failure to obey a lawful command by a
law enforcement officer, or possibly obstruction of an investigation. Either
way, if the officer tells you to stay in or get back in the vehicle, just do
it. Otherwise you or one of your passengers may wind up in jail.

Remember, we don't know you or your passengers. You could be on the way home
from church or on the way home from killing someone. We have no way of
knowing, and you have to try and understand that. We take as many
precautions as we can to make sure that we go home to our families at the
end of our shift. If I'm on a traffic stop and someone gets out of the car,
I advise them on the PA system to get back in the car. If they start walking
towards my car, I put my car in reverse and start backing up and tell them
again to get back in the car. You could be walking towards me to ask
directions or cocking the .45 caliber in your coat pocket. I have no way of
knowing, and I'm not going to give anyone the benefit of the doubt when it
comes to my well being.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

"Floyd Baumer" <FloydBaumer@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qRQMa.4076$5h.1941669@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net ... Just a couple of questions I thought I'd toss around: In any of the United States is it illegal for a driver or his passengers
to verbally contradict, argue with, or insult a police officer during a
traffic stop? While the officer is back at his car validating the driver's government documentation, can a passenger open his door, step out, and simply walk
away without saying a word, and expect not to be physically accosted by that officer or his associates? Thank you. - Floyd.

"Floyd Baumer" <FloydBaumer@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qRQMa.4076$5h.1941669@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net ... Just a couple of questions I thought I'd toss around: In any of the United States is it illegal for a driver or his passengers
to verbally contradict, argue with, or insult a police officer during a
traffic stop?

It's not illegal until it becomes unsafe for the cop. And, it depends on
the type of insult; whether or not it tends to incite an immediate breach of
the peace.
While the officer is back at his car validating the driver's government documentation, can a passenger open his door, step out, and simply walk
away without saying a word, and expect not to be physically accosted by that officer or his associates?

You should expect to be verbally accosted first, then physically accosted if
you don't respond to the verbal part. A person, including all passengers,
during a traffic stop are detained and are not free to leave until released
by the cop. The vehicle is detained, including everything in it.

There aren't really any clear cut answers to these questions. It all
depends on the circumstances of the stop.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

"Floyd Baumer" <FloydBaumer@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<qRQMa.4076$5h.1941669@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>... Just a couple of questions I thought I'd toss around: In any of the United States is it illegal for a driver or his passengers to verbally contradict, argue with, or insult a police officer during a traffic stop? While the officer is back at his car validating the driver's government documentation, can a passenger open his door, step out, and simply walk away without saying a word, and expect not to be physically accosted by that officer or his associates?

Neither of those is illegal *per se*, but you can bet that in every
jurisdiction, you'll be *told to do otherwise* and your failure to
comply will result in at least a charge of failing to obey the
reasonable orders of an officer ('obstructing', or the equivalent)
and, at worst, your death.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; drove that)

"swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:b7YMa.287$ic1.9624@twister.tampabay.rr.com... To the best of my knowledge, it isn't illegal to contradict, argue with,
or insult a police officer, so long as you are not hindering or obstructing
his investigation of the traffic offense that was committed. I wouldn't say
that it's a good idea, though, as you may wind up with more than one ticket.

I certainly agree that's true on a practical level, but is it really right
for officers to make charges based on their personal opinions of the driver
(an all too common practice, I think), rather than the actual offenses they
observed being committed?

As far as anyone opening a car door during a traffic stop or walking away,
I wouldn't advise it. The officer conducting the traffic stop doesn't know
why the door is being opened or why anyone is getting out of the car. As far
as the officer knows, the person doing so may be getting out to cause some
type of bodily harm to the officer or to flee. If an officer tells you (or anybody else in the car) to remain seated in the vehicle, then just do it. Failure to do so may be construed as failure to obey a lawful command by a law enforcement officer, or possibly obstruction of an investigation.

That's a bit of a stretch. From what I understand, an officer only has the
power to order a citizen to comply with a written law (e.g. a cop can tell
you to move your car away from the fire hydrant because it's illegally
parked and then arrest you if you don't, but he can't order you around if
you are not breaking any laws. The only exception I can think of is if
you're driving a car and he's standing in an intersection doing traffic
control, but that's a different matter).

Either way, if the officer tells you to stay in or get back in the vehicle, just
do it. Otherwise you or one of your passengers may wind up in jail.

Yeah, I know that's the safest way to go. However, I was specifically
referring to the passenger. Hypothetical situation: Let's say a car get's
pulled over simply for running a stop sign. One of the passengers (for the
sake of argument, let's say he really hasn't committed any crime and doesn't
have anything to hide) is in a hurry and get's impatient waiting for the cop
to process the incident, figures he only lives a few blocks away anyhow,
decides not to put up with anymore of the B.S., throws open the door, steps
out and tries to walk the rest of the way home. What then?

Remember, we don't know you or your passengers. You could be on the way
home from church or on the way home from killing someone. We have no way of knowing, and you have to try and understand that. We take as many precautions as we can to make sure that we go home to our families at the end of our shift.

While I can understand your fear (despite the fact that an average cop is
better armed than most of the population), I have always found it
contemptible to impose one's personal problems on somebody else. I don't
personally blame you though, because our present socialist form of
government actually encourages this sort of thinking. Remember, a driver
and his passengers who are just minding their own business and driving home
from work (or friends, church, etc) naturally cannot understand why two or
more large scary-looking armed men are running up to them, yelling, sticking
huge flashlights into their faces, and calling over more police cars to the
scene). And here in New York, that routinely happens over minor traffic
violations. As you correctly mentioned, an officer doesn't know whether the
guy he pulled over is a family man or an armed madman ready to rub him out.
Unfortunately, this promotes a sort of "seige" mentality where the cop
assumes that every driver is a potential murderer and acts accordingly.

If I'm on a traffic stop and someone gets out of the car, I advise them on the PA system to get back in the car. If they start
walking towards my car, I put my car in reverse and start backing up and tell them again to get back in the car. You could be walking towards me to ask directions or cocking the .45 caliber in your coat pocket. I have no way
of knowing, and I'm not going to give anyone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to my well being.

That policy sounds perfectly reasonable to me, although in reality most cops
would take a far more aggressive approach. Depends on the neighborhood, I
suppose.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

Yes. You have clarified that you live in a much nicer community than I do.

- F. Baumer

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man
who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." - Winston
Churchill

"Bob Kegel" <seventy 2002 at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
news:vg8tnrhtkiq774@corp.supernews.com... "Floyd Baumer" <FloydBaumer@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:qRQMa.4076$5h.1941669@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net ... In any of the United States is it illegal for a driver or his passengers to verbally contradict, argue with, or insult a police officer during a traffic stop? Contradicting, argueing, and insulting may be Constitutionally protected exercises of free speech and officers are not surprised to get all three from persons they dertain or arrest. However, when a person who's not getting the ticket jumps in, it can rise to the point of interfering with the officer doing his job and that's illegal.

As long as the passenger is just sitting in his seat and not physically
doing anything, the officer should be perfectly free to ask the driver
questions, write out any necessary summonses and go along his way without
any problem.

If someone walks away from a vehicle stopped on a freeway he becomes a pedestrian where pedestrians are forbidden and can expect to be
"physically accosted." (I assume this means "detained.")

Agreed. People obviously shouldn't be walking along such routes. I was
actually thinking of residential streets, though I didn't specify that.

Generally speaking, the passenger is free to exit the car and leave; he's not the violator. If the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion
that the passenger is a threat to his safety, the passenger may be detained. In People v. Castellon (1999) 76 Cal. App.4 the court said, "It seems to us that police officers who make a traffic stop and are confronted with
the highly unusual (at least in California) circumstances of a passenger
exiting the car have every reason to fear for their safety."

A useless court judgement, on any practical level. No person can ever be
held responsible in a criminal court for another person's emotions.

In Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 415 (1997) the US Supreme Court declined to "hold that an officer may forcibly detain a passenger for the entire duration of the stop," saying the facts of the case did not give rise to such a question. In Castellon, the court said "[W]hether the passenger is ordered to stay in the car or exit the vehicle is a
distinction without a difference."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1268.ZS.html
All that particular case says is that an officer making a traffic stop may
order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop.
However, "Forcible Detention" is a quasi-legal concept at best, because when
a police officer stops somebody (whether he's a pedestrian, passenger, or
the driver of motor vehicle) he ultimately has only two choices - arrest you
or let you go. There really is no in-between.

- F. Baumer

"Conservative: a statesman who is enamoured of existing evils, as
distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."

"C.R. Krieger" <warp2_shadow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a8a578a8.0307031058.474d25f7@posting.google.c om... "Floyd Baumer" <FloydBaumer@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<qRQMa.4076$5h.1941669@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>... Just a couple of questions I thought I'd toss around: In any of the United States is it illegal for a driver or his passengers
to verbally contradict, argue with, or insult a police officer during a
traffic stop? While the officer is back at his car validating the driver's government documentation, can a passenger open his door, step out, and simply walk
away without saying a word, and expect not to be physically accosted by that officer or his associates? Neither of those is illegal *per se*,

I'm getting a little tired of people around here using "per se" as a
catch-all answer. Is a particular act illegal or is it not?


but you can bet that in every jurisdiction, you'll be *told to do otherwise* and your failure to comply will result in at least a charge of failing to obey the reasonable orders of an officer ('obstructing', or the equivalent) and, at worst, your death.

Geez. Can we possibly get anymore simplistic? I should hope that at the
very least, the failure of an American citizen to follow a cops instructions
should not result in his death. Even in the army, they don't kill you
simply for failing to follow orders. If the day ever comes where I end up
working for the government or serving in the military, I'll be more than
happy to salute and say "Sir, Yes Sir!!!". But as long as I'm a taxpayer
and a voter, I expect to be able to fully mind my own business without
anybody trying to order me around.

- F. Baumer

"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris
under a German flag."
--David Letterman

Floyd Baumer wrote: "C.R. Krieger" <warp2_shadow@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a8a578a8.0307031058.474d25f7@posting.google.c om... "Floyd Baumer" <FloydBaumer@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<qRQMa.4076$5h.1941669@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>... Just a couple of questions I thought I'd toss around: In any of the United States is it illegal for a driver or his passengers to verbally contradict, argue with, or insult a police officer during a traffic stop? While the officer is back at his car validating the driver's government documentation, can a passenger open his door, step out, and simply walk away without saying a word, and expect not to be physically accosted by that officer or his associates? Neither of those is illegal *per se*, I'm getting a little tired of people around here using "per se" as a catch-all answer. Is a particular act illegal or is it not? but you can bet that in every jurisdiction, you'll be *told to do otherwise* and your failure to comply will result in at least a charge of failing to obey the reasonable orders of an officer ('obstructing', or the equivalent) and, at worst, your death. Geez. Can we possibly get anymore simplistic? I should hope that at the very least, the failure of an American citizen to follow a cops instructions should not result in his death. Even in the army, they don't kill you simply for failing to follow orders. If the day ever comes where I end up working for the government or serving in the military, I'll be more than happy to salute and say "Sir, Yes Sir!!!". But as long as I'm a taxpayer and a voter, I expect to be able to fully mind my own business without anybody trying to order me around.

Good luck. That concept is as dead as the Bill of Rights. That said, I
agree with the cops on this one, it's not too much to ask that someone
just stay seated in the car during a traffic stop. Were I a cop, I'd be
concerned about my safety should a passenger get up and leave - hey,
maybe he's going to duck around the block and steal my cruiser, or
worse... just to "help" out his buddy who's getting a ticket... people
are pretty darn stupid IME.

nate

"Floyd Baumer" <FloydBaumer@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9UcNa.20265$5h.6061052@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.ne t... "Bob Kegel" <seventy 2002 at hotmail dot com> wrote in message news:vg8tnrhtkiq774@corp.supernews.com...
As long as the passenger is just sitting in his seat and not physically doing anything, the officer should be perfectly free to ask the driver questions, write out any necessary summonses and go along his way without any problem.

One would think so.
A useless court judgement [People v. Castellon (1999) 76 Cal. App.4], on
any practical level. No person can ever be held responsible in a criminal court for another person's emotions.

Sure they can. Read the laws prohibiting stalking, harassment, and unlawful
display of weapons.

Fear is more than an emotion. It's a physiological response to changes in
the enviroment that we recognize as dangerous or as precursors to danger.
All that particular case says is that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop.

Right.
However, "Forcible Detention" is a quasi-legal concept at best,

I'll let C.R. Krieger handle this one. ;^)

My suggestion for the passenger would be this: have him/her explain to the
officer that they are merely a passenger and ask the officer if it's okay
for them to get out and leave. I have let several people do just that, but
allowing anyone to get out depends on why I stopped the car and the demeanor
of the occupants. If my probable cause for making the car stop is a regular
traffic infraction, and if I have no reason to be alarmed after making
initial contact with the driver/occupants, then I would more than likely be
willing to allow the passenger(s) to exit the vehicle and go about their
business. Again, it's all in the demeanor. If someone is jumping down my
throat right off the bat calling me names and demanding to get out, then
obviously I have a cause to be alarmed and you can bet that person will stay
in the car. Also, the best time for the passenger to ask to exit the vehicle
is after the officer asks you (the driver) for your credentials. Once you
give him your license, registration, and insurance card, the officer has
what he needs and he/she will be returning to their patrol car. As earlier
discussed, we know that getting out while the officer is in his cruiser is a
"no-no," so try to have your passenger ask while the officer is up by your
car.

"Floyd Baumer" <FloydBaumer@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:l_bNa.19551$5h.5930464@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.ne t... "swatcop" <swatcop@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:b7YMa.287$ic1.9624@twister.tampabay.rr.com... To the best of my knowledge, it isn't illegal to contradict, argue with, or insult a police officer, so long as you are not hindering or obstructing his investigation of the traffic offense that was committed. I wouldn't say that it's a good idea, though, as you may wind up with more than one ticket. I certainly agree that's true on a practical level, but is it really right for officers to make charges based on their personal opinions of the
driver (an all too common practice, I think), rather than the actual offenses
they observed being committed? As far as anyone opening a car door during a traffic stop or walking
away, I wouldn't advise it. The officer conducting the traffic stop doesn't know why the door is being opened or why anyone is getting out of the car. As far as the officer knows, the person doing so may be getting out to cause some type of bodily harm to the officer or to flee. If an officer tells you (or anybody else in the car) to remain seated in the vehicle, then just do
it. Failure to do so may be construed as failure to obey a lawful command by
a law enforcement officer, or possibly obstruction of an investigation. That's a bit of a stretch. From what I understand, an officer only has
the power to order a citizen to comply with a written law (e.g. a cop can tell you to move your car away from the fire hydrant because it's illegally parked and then arrest you if you don't, but he can't order you around if you are not breaking any laws. The only exception I can think of is if you're driving a car and he's standing in an intersection doing traffic control, but that's a different matter). Either way, if the officer tells you to stay in or get back in the vehicle,
just do it. Otherwise you or one of your passengers may wind up in jail. Yeah, I know that's the safest way to go. However, I was specifically referring to the passenger. Hypothetical situation: Let's say a car
get's pulled over simply for running a stop sign. One of the passengers (for
the sake of argument, let's say he really hasn't committed any crime and
doesn't have anything to hide) is in a hurry and get's impatient waiting for the
cop to process the incident, figures he only lives a few blocks away anyhow, decides not to put up with anymore of the B.S., throws open the door,
steps out and tries to walk the rest of the way home. What then? Remember, we don't know you or your passengers. You could be on the way home from church or on the way home from killing someone. We have no way of knowing, and you have to try and understand that. We take as many precautions as we can to make sure that we go home to our families at
the end of our shift. While I can understand your fear (despite the fact that an average cop is better armed than most of the population), I have always found it contemptible to impose one's personal problems on somebody else. I don't personally blame you though, because our present socialist form of government actually encourages this sort of thinking. Remember, a driver and his passengers who are just minding their own business and driving
home from work (or friends, church, etc) naturally cannot understand why two or more large scary-looking armed men are running up to them, yelling,
sticking huge flashlights into their faces, and calling over more police cars to
the scene). And here in New York, that routinely happens over minor traffic violations. As you correctly mentioned, an officer doesn't know whether
the guy he pulled over is a family man or an armed madman ready to rub him
out. Unfortunately, this promotes a sort of "seige" mentality where the cop assumes that every driver is a potential murderer and acts accordingly. If I'm on a traffic stop and someone gets out of the car, I advise them on the PA system to get back in the car. If they start walking towards my car, I put my car in reverse and start backing up and tell
them again to get back in the car. You could be walking towards me to ask directions or cocking the .45 caliber in your coat pocket. I have no way of knowing, and I'm not going to give anyone the benefit of the doubt when
it comes to my well being. That policy sounds perfectly reasonable to me, although in reality most
cops would take a far more aggressive approach. Depends on the neighborhood, I suppose. I hope this clarifies things for you. Yes. You have clarified that you live in a much nicer community than I
do. - F. Baumer "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." - Winston Churchill

"Floyd Baumer" <FloydBaumer@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ChcNa.19885$5h.5972492@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.ne t... "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote in message news:0sZMa.42987$xg5.9416@twister.austin.rr.com... It's not illegal until it becomes unsafe for the cop. And, it depends
on the type of insult; whether or not it tends to incite an immediate
breach of the peace. Certainly when a situation becomes physically unsafe for the cop, all bets are off. But exactly how can any verbal dispute or insult constitute a breach of the peace? As I understand it, a "Breach of the Peace" has to consist of a physical act of violence against a person or his property, or the threat thereof.

We're talking nout just about physically unsafe, but potentially so. He
doesn't have to get hit before the situation becomes unsafe. Also, your
definition of a breach of the peace is not accurate. It can be and usually
is verbal only. When the person commits violence, it becomes a different
and higher charge.
You should expect to be verbally accosted first, then physically
accosted if you don't respond to the verbal part. A person, including all
passengers, during a traffic stop are detained and are not free to leave until released by the cop. The vehicle is detained, including everything in it. So if the driver of a car simply runs a stop sign, all the passengers are automatically considered criminal suspects as well?

No, they are not suspects. They are not free to leave either.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

"Floyd Baumer" <FloydBaumer@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2ldNa.20408$5h.6129910@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.ne t... "C.R. Krieger" <warp2_shadow@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a8a578a8.0307031058.474d25f7@posting.google.c om... "Floyd Baumer" <FloydBaumer@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<qRQMa.4076$5h.1941669@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>... Just a couple of questions I thought I'd toss around: In any of the United States is it illegal for a driver or his
passengers to verbally contradict, argue with, or insult a police officer during a traffic stop? While the officer is back at his car validating the driver's
government documentation, can a passenger open his door, step out, and simply
walk away without saying a word, and expect not to be physically accosted by
that officer or his associates? Neither of those is illegal *per se*, I'm getting a little tired of people around here using "per se" as a catch-all answer. Is a particular act illegal or is it not?

I think that's because the hypothetical that you've described is very broad
when in comes to the application of law. It depends on a lot of different
circumstances and there's no clear cut answer.
but you can bet that in every jurisdiction, you'll be *told to do otherwise* and your failure to comply will result in at least a charge of failing to obey the reasonable orders of an officer ('obstructing', or the equivalent) and, at worst, your death. Geez. Can we possibly get anymore simplistic? I should hope that at the very least, the failure of an American citizen to follow a cops
instructions should not result in his death. Even in the army, they don't kill you simply for failing to follow orders. If the day ever comes where I end up working for the government or serving in the military, I'll be more than happy to salute and say "Sir, Yes Sir!!!". But as long as I'm a taxpayer and a voter, I expect to be able to fully mind my own business without anybody trying to order me around.

The death of a person all depends on their actions during the situation.
They hold their life in their own hands and escalate the situation on their
own. If it comes to that, it's because the person threatened death or
serious bodily injury to the cop. Also, you may end up being ordered around
someday during a traffic stop, but it's for your safety and for the cop's.
As long as you follow direction for a few minutes you'll be on your way.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

If I am issuing a traffic citation, there was a crime commited (Not a
felony, but a crime nerver the less). While talking to the driver, checking
operator's license and vehicle registation, I am conducting an
"investigation" of said crime. SO, the passinger in the vehicle was present
when the crime occured and not free to leave the scene until the "legal
detainment" is ceased.

Just my 2 pennies.

I LIKE THIS GROUP!

"Bob Kegel" <seventy 2002 at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
news:vg8tnrhtkiq774@corp.supernews.com... "Floyd Baumer" <FloydBaumer@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:qRQMa.4076$5h.1941669@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net ... In any of the United States is it illegal for a driver or his passengers to verbally contradict, argue with, or insult a police officer during a traffic stop? Contradicting, argueing, and insulting may be Constitutionally protected exercises of free speech and officers are not surprised to get all three from persons they dertain or arrest. However, when a person who's not getting the ticket jumps in, it can rise to the point of interfering with the officer doing his job and that's illegal. While the officer is back at his car validating the driver's government documentation, can a passenger open his door, step out, and simply walk away without saying a word, and expect not to be physically accosted by that officer or his associates? Possibly. If someone walks away from a vehicle stopped on a freeway he becomes a pedestrian where pedestrians are forbidden and can expect to be
"physically accosted." (I assume this means "detained.") Generally speaking, the passenger is free to exit the car and leave; he's not the violator. If the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion
that the passenger is a threat to his safety, the passenger may be detained. In People v. Castellon (1999) 76 Cal. App.4 the court said, "It seems to us that police officers who make a traffic stop and are confronted with
the highly unusual (at least in California) circumstances of a passenger
exiting the car have every reason to fear for their safety." In Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 415 (1997) the US Supreme Court declined to "hold that an officer may forcibly detain a passenger for the entire duration of the stop," saying the facts of the case did not give rise to such a question. In Castellon, the court said "[W]hether the passenger is ordered to stay in the car or exit the vehicle is a
distinction without a difference."

"Thin Blue Line402" <thin_blue_line402@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KRwPa.41409$C83.3267930@newsread1.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net... If I am issuing a traffic citation, there was a crime commited (Not a felony, but a crime nerver the less). While talking to the driver,
checking operator's license and vehicle registation, I am conducting an "investigation" of said crime. SO, the passinger in the vehicle was
present when the crime occured and not free to leave the scene until the "legal detainment" is ceased. Just my 2 pennies. I LIKE THIS GROUP!

Just give it time. It'll start to wear on you. There are a lot more
anti-cops here than there are cops. I think the cops who come here do it
with the intention of trying to explain their side of the story, but finally
give up on trying to get their point across in here because nobody wants to
hear it. I hope you stick around, but most don't.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

"Thin Blue Line402" <thin_blue_line402@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7iCPa.41807$C83.3300614@newsread1.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net... I refuse to be run way by "anti-cops". We all know that no one likes us until they need us, right? They all say we drive too fast UNLESS we are going to help them. Then we are TOO damn slow. Stay safe all!

I couldn't have said it better myself. Good job.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

Back to the "Us" and "Them" theory.

"jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote in message
news:PiNPa.67897$hV.4306591@twister.austin.rr.com. .. "Thin Blue Line402" <thin_blue_line402@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7iCPa.41807$C83.3300614@newsread1.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net... I refuse to be run way by "anti-cops". We all know that no one likes us until they need us, right? They all say we drive too fast UNLESS we are going to help them. Then we are TOO damn slow. Stay safe all! I couldn't have said it better myself. Good job. -- jaybird I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions... Your life is not my fault. ---------

"jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote "Thin Blue Line402" <thin_blue_line402@yahoo.com> wrote in message
= I LIKE THIS GROUP! Just give it time. It'll start to wear on you. There are a lot more anti-cops here than there are cops. I think the cops who come here do it with the intention of trying to explain their side of the story, but finally give up on trying to get their point across in here because nobody wants to hear it. I hope you stick around, but most don't.

I beg to differ that nobody wants to hear. I do, and I am sure many
others. Knowing your side of the story is what many people want very
much. Does it help you in your job to read "their" sides of the
stories? Did it affect your perceptions in any way or you just got
convinced that you were always right anyhow?

Very simple examples. Do you always obey speed limits when off duty in
your private vehicle? If you pulled someone over for routine traffic
violation and find out that the driver is your colleague (off duty),
would it affect your decision to write or not to write a ticket? If
YOU are pulled over elsewhere, would you identify yourself as a police
officer having also in mind that you will avoid being ticketed? Most
people (not just cop bashers) would think that cops break the speed
limits at least as much as everyone (and everyone does it) and that
cops never give tickets to other cops. Maybe this public perception is
plain wrong.

Andrew M.

"Andrew M." <fictitious10f8@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:e1bd3e6e.0307222020.7187b207@posting.google.c om... "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote "Thin Blue Line402" <thin_blue_line402@yahoo.com> wrote in message = I LIKE THIS GROUP! Just give it time. It'll start to wear on you. There are a lot more anti-cops here than there are cops. I think the cops who come here do
it with the intention of trying to explain their side of the story, but
finally give up on trying to get their point across in here because nobody wants
to hear it. I hope you stick around, but most don't. I beg to differ that nobody wants to hear. I do, and I am sure many others. Knowing your side of the story is what many people want very much. Does it help you in your job to read "their" sides of the stories? Did it affect your perceptions in any way or you just got convinced that you were always right anyhow? Very simple examples. Do you always obey speed limits when off duty in your private vehicle? If you pulled someone over for routine traffic violation and find out that the driver is your colleague (off duty), would it affect your decision to write or not to write a ticket? If YOU are pulled over elsewhere, would you identify yourself as a police officer having also in mind that you will avoid being ticketed? Most people (not just cop bashers) would think that cops break the speed limits at least as much as everyone (and everyone does it) and that cops never give tickets to other cops. Maybe this public perception is plain wrong.

Yes, yes, and yes, but not to get out of a ticket; only to avoid being
sucked through the vent window for carrying a gun. Most cops don't give
other cops tickets, but most doctors treat other doctors, lawyers represent
other lawyers, etc... Every profession has some kind of professional
courtesy.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

> > > There are a lot more anti-cops here than there are cops. I think the cops who come here do it with the intention of trying to explain their side of the story, but finally give up on trying to get their point across in here because nobody wants to hear it. I beg to differ that nobody wants to hear. I do, and I am sure many others. Knowing your side of the story is what many people want very much. Does it help you in your job to read "their" sides of the stories? Did it affect your perceptions in any way or you just got convinced that you were always right anyhow?

You still didn't answer the questions above. If this is because you
think that as a cop you were always right in your actions and reading
"their" side of the story in this newsgroup didn't affect this
perception in any way, you just confirm one of the common stereotypes
that cops are self-righteous. Coming to the Qs you did answer:
Very simple examples. Do you always obey speed limits when off duty in your private vehicle? If you pulled someone over for routine traffic violation and find out that the driver is your colleague (off duty), would it affect your decision to write or not to write a ticket? If YOU are pulled over elsewhere, would you identify yourself as a police officer having also in mind that you will avoid being ticketed? Most people (not just cop bashers) would think that cops break the speed limits at least as much as everyone (and everyone does it) and that cops never give tickets to other cops. Maybe this public perception is plain wrong. Yes, yes, and yes, but not to get out of a ticket; only to avoid being sucked through the vent window for carrying a gun.

Well, I buy this last one. Makes perfect sense. However, I didn't say
that you would identify yourself with the purpose to avoid the ticket.
I said that when you identify yourself you "also have in mind" that by
doing so you will avoid a punishment for the crime the law says you
deserve. As for the rest of you answers:
Most cops don't give other cops tickets, but most doctors treat other doctors, lawyers represent other lawyers, etc... Every profession has some kind of professional courtesy.

Not giving tickets to cops has nothing to do with conventional
courtesy in other professions. It's the job of the doctor to treat
anyone. They should treat everyone the best they can, inlcuding other
doctors. It's the job of the cop to ticket or arrest the lawbreakers.
Unlike doctors, cops do treat the lawbreakers who happen to be their
colleagues differently. A speeder is a law-breaker, isn't he? This
kind of "courtesy" greatly affect the public perception of Police. It
is, you know, conventional to think that everyone should be equal
before the law and that same crime-same punishemnt consept should
apply.

I am glad you admit that you break at least one traffic law - the
speed limit. You probably never run red lights, at least on purpose,
you blink before changing lane and so on as most prudent drivers do.
Most prudent drivers do not obey speed limits for reasons so obvious
that they do not need to be repeated here. However, only cops get away
with it. Others sometimes win the lottery whose winners donate to the
local town and state revenue as well as insurance and lawyer's
businesses. It is OK with your own ethics code to consiously break the
law, knowing you will get away with it, and ticket others for the
same. I could understand that too. By ticketing those who drive with
safe but illegal speed you just follow the procedures not set by you.
It is not your fault that town and state needs money and set the speed
limit too low for this exact reason. But nobody blames the Police
officers for the corruption of the whole system. People blame the
system, which is obviously corrupt. Cops are just the most visible
part of this system. If the procedures were changed such that speed
limits are STRICTLY enforced and cop to cop ticketing excemtion would
be outlawed the same way as racial profiling, the speed limits would
quickly reach the natural engineering and safety based, not revenue
based, limits.
Andrew M.

"Andrew M." <fictitious10f8@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:e1bd3e6e.0307231447.1a721fbd@posting.google.c om... > There are a lot more > anti-cops here than there are cops. I think the cops who come here
do it > with the intention of trying to explain their side of the story, but finally > give up on trying to get their point across in here because nobody
wants to > hear it. I beg to differ that nobody wants to hear. I do, and I am sure many others. Knowing your side of the story is what many people want very much. Does it help you in your job to read "their" sides of the stories? Did it affect your perceptions in any way or you just got convinced that you were always right anyhow? You still didn't answer the questions above. If this is because you think that as a cop you were always right in your actions and reading "their" side of the story in this newsgroup didn't affect this perception in any way, you just confirm one of the common stereotypes that cops are self-righteous. Coming to the Qs you did answer:

Cops may come off as self-righteous only because they have to be sure of
what they're doing before they do it. A cop has to know when the elements
of an offense have been met in order to have probable cause to make an
arrest. If they don't know, they're not doing their job. In most cases, it
doesn't matter what the person's side of the story is if they're violating
the law. If there are exegent circumstances and a valid reason for doing
what they did, then that's taken into consideration before charges are
filed.
Very simple examples. Do you always obey speed limits when off duty in your private vehicle? If you pulled someone over for routine traffic violation and find out that the driver is your colleague (off duty), would it affect your decision to write or not to write a ticket? If YOU are pulled over elsewhere, would you identify yourself as a police officer having also in mind that you will avoid being ticketed? Most people (not just cop bashers) would think that cops break the speed limits at least as much as everyone (and everyone does it) and that cops never give tickets to other cops. Maybe this public perception is plain wrong. Yes, yes, and yes, but not to get out of a ticket; only to avoid being sucked through the vent window for carrying a gun. Well, I buy this last one. Makes perfect sense. However, I didn't say that you would identify yourself with the purpose to avoid the ticket. I said that when you identify yourself you "also have in mind" that by doing so you will avoid a punishment for the crime the law says you deserve. As for the rest of you answers:

No, I don't do it with that purpose in mind. If a cop feels like he needs
to write me a ticket, I'm not going to argue.
Most cops don't give other cops tickets, but most doctors treat other doctors, lawyers
represent other lawyers, etc... Every profession has some kind of professional courtesy. Not giving tickets to cops has nothing to do with conventional courtesy in other professions. It's the job of the doctor to treat anyone. They should treat everyone the best they can, inlcuding other doctors. It's the job of the cop to ticket or arrest the lawbreakers. Unlike doctors, cops do treat the lawbreakers who happen to be their colleagues differently. A speeder is a law-breaker, isn't he? This kind of "courtesy" greatly affect the public perception of Police. It is, you know, conventional to think that everyone should be equal before the law and that same crime-same punishemnt consept should apply. I am glad you admit that you break at least one traffic law - the speed limit.

There was no admission of that. Re-read the questions you asked, and my
replies.
You probably never run red lights, at least on purpose, you blink before changing lane and so on as most prudent drivers do. Most prudent drivers do not obey speed limits for reasons so obvious that they do not need to be repeated here. However, only cops get away with it. Others sometimes win the lottery whose winners donate to the local town and state revenue as well as insurance and lawyer's businesses. It is OK with your own ethics code to consiously break the law, knowing you will get away with it, and ticket others for the same.

I've never said that either. You're trying to bait me into proving a point
that you're getting to and my answers haven't supported it.
I could understand that too. By ticketing those who drive with safe but illegal speed you just follow the procedures not set by you. It is not your fault that town and state needs money and set the speed limit too low for this exact reason. But nobody blames the Police officers for the corruption of the whole system. People blame the system, which is obviously corrupt. Cops are just the most visible part of this system. If the procedures were changed such that speed limits are STRICTLY enforced and cop to cop ticketing excemtion would be outlawed the same way as racial profiling, the speed limits would quickly reach the natural engineering and safety based, not revenue based, limits. Andrew M.

Ok. I'm sure that your opinion is right in your mind, but I'm not agreeing.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

I am probably in a situation that every other officer here is not. I have
arrested two police offcers and also have gotten a DWI. SO, you said...."It is, you know, conventional to think that everyone should be equal before the law and that same crime-same punishemnt consept should apply." I totally agree. But when I got my DWI, I was placed under a
$6000.00 CASH bond. I have written several DWIs. Many were the driver's 3rd
or 4th, never have I seen a bond that high. Is that fair?

"Andrew M." <fictitious10f8@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:e1bd3e6e.0307231447.1a721fbd@posting.google.c om... > There are a lot more > anti-cops here than there are cops. I think the cops who come here
do it > with the intention of trying to explain their side of the story, but finally > give up on trying to get their point across in here because nobody
wants to > hear it. I beg to differ that nobody wants to hear. I do, and I am sure many others. Knowing your side of the story is what many people want very much. Does it help you in your job to read "their" sides of the stories? Did it affect your perceptions in any way or you just got convinced that you were always right anyhow? You still didn't answer the questions above. If this is because you think that as a cop you were always right in your actions and reading "their" side of the story in this newsgroup didn't affect this perception in any way, you just confirm one of the common stereotypes that cops are self-righteous. Coming to the Qs you did answer: Very simple examples. Do you always obey speed limits when off duty in your private vehicle? If you pulled someone over for routine traffic violation and find out that the driver is your colleague (off duty), would it affect your decision to write or not to write a ticket? If YOU are pulled over elsewhere, would you identify yourself as a police officer having also in mind that you will avoid being ticketed? Most people (not just cop bashers) would think that cops break the speed limits at least as much as everyone (and everyone does it) and that cops never give tickets to other cops. Maybe this public perception is plain wrong. Yes, yes, and yes, but not to get out of a ticket; only to avoid being sucked through the vent window for carrying a gun. Well, I buy this last one. Makes perfect sense. However, I didn't say that you would identify yourself with the purpose to avoid the ticket. I said that when you identify yourself you "also have in mind" that by doing so you will avoid a punishment for the crime the law says you deserve. As for the rest of you answers: Most cops don't give other cops tickets, but most doctors treat other doctors, lawyers
represent other lawyers, etc... Every profession has some kind of professional courtesy. Not giving tickets to cops has nothing to do with conventional courtesy in other professions. It's the job of the doctor to treat anyone. They should treat everyone the best they can, inlcuding other doctors. It's the job of the cop to ticket or arrest the lawbreakers. Unlike doctors, cops do treat the lawbreakers who happen to be their colleagues differently. A speeder is a law-breaker, isn't he? This kind of "courtesy" greatly affect the public perception of Police. It is, you know, conventional to think that everyone should be equal before the law and that same crime-same punishemnt consept should apply. I am glad you admit that you break at least one traffic law - the speed limit. You probably never run red lights, at least on purpose, you blink before changing lane and so on as most prudent drivers do. Most prudent drivers do not obey speed limits for reasons so obvious that they do not need to be repeated here. However, only cops get away with it. Others sometimes win the lottery whose winners donate to the local town and state revenue as well as insurance and lawyer's businesses. It is OK with your own ethics code to consiously break the law, knowing you will get away with it, and ticket others for the same. I could understand that too. By ticketing those who drive with safe but illegal speed you just follow the procedures not set by you. It is not your fault that town and state needs money and set the speed limit too low for this exact reason. But nobody blames the Police officers for the corruption of the whole system. People blame the system, which is obviously corrupt. Cops are just the most visible part of this system. If the procedures were changed such that speed limits are STRICTLY enforced and cop to cop ticketing excemtion would be outlawed the same way as racial profiling, the speed limits would quickly reach the natural engineering and safety based, not revenue based, limits. Andrew M.

"ThinBlue" <thin_blue_line402@yahoo.com> wrote
I am probably in a situation that every other officer here is not. I have arrested two police offcers and also have gotten a DWI. SO, you
said...."It is, you know, conventional to think that everyone should be equal before the law and that same crime-same punishemnt consept should apply." I totally agree. But when I got my DWI, I was placed under a $6000.00 CASH bond. I have written several DWIs. Many were the driver's
3rd or 4th, never have I seen a bond that high. Is that fair?

No, it doesn't seem fair, but I don't have all the information in front of
me that the judge had.

"motocat" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:StzUa.134235$OZ2.26235@rwcrnsc54... Does anyone believe that officer jaybird NEVER exceeds the speed limit
when not on duty? That would be highly unusual, perhaps even impossible. As such, his denial of ever breaking the speed limit laws lessons his credibility and/or points out his inability to critically evaluate
himself, others, etc. motocat

No, and actually I'd have no problem with it if he did. Nobody's perfect,
and everybody exceeds the speed limit at times, often unconsciously. As a
wise man once said long ago, only a sinner has any authority to preach, and
to admit one's fault is the next best thing to being innocent of it. BUT
that means Jaybird must graciously and humbly accept a ticket if he ever is
stopped, admit it publicly, AND that his friends within his jurisdiction do
not show any favoritism towards their fellow officers.

- Logic 3:16

"The graduate with a Science degree asks, "Why does it work?"
The graduate with an Engineering degree asks, "How does it work?"
The graduate with an Accounting degree asks, "How much will it cost?"
The graduate with a Liberal Arts degree asks, "Do you want mustard with
that?"

"Logic316" <Logic316@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n_pVa.227813$ye5.38331860@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv .net... "motocat" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:StzUa.134235$OZ2.26235@rwcrnsc54... Does anyone believe that officer jaybird NEVER exceeds the speed limit when not on duty? That would be highly unusual, perhaps even impossible. As such, his denial of ever breaking the speed limit laws lessons his credibility and/or points out his inability to critically evaluate himself, others, etc. motocat No, and actually I'd have no problem with it if he did. Nobody's perfect, and everybody exceeds the speed limit at times, often unconsciously. As a wise man once said long ago, only a sinner has any authority to preach,
and to admit one's fault is the next best thing to being innocent of it. BUT that means Jaybird must graciously and humbly accept a ticket if he ever
is stopped, admit it publicly, AND that his friends within his jurisdiction
do not show any favoritism towards their fellow officers.

But jaybird is steadfast in this denial and thinks it is reasonable to
expect averyone to attempt to follow all traffic laws at all times. I also
have no problem with people exceeding the speed limit, and do it all the
time myself.

motocat

"motocat" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zMdWa.22147$It4.14992@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.n et... "Logic316" <Logic316@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message news:n_pVa.227813$ye5.38331860@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv .net... "motocat" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:StzUa.134235$OZ2.26235@rwcrnsc54... Does anyone believe that officer jaybird NEVER exceeds the speed limit when not on duty? That would be highly unusual, perhaps even impossible.
As such, his denial of ever breaking the speed limit laws lessons his credibility and/or points out his inability to critically evaluate himself, others, etc. motocat No, and actually I'd have no problem with it if he did. Nobody's
perfect, and everybody exceeds the speed limit at times, often unconsciously. As
a wise man once said long ago, only a sinner has any authority to preach, and to admit one's fault is the next best thing to being innocent of it.
BUT that means Jaybird must graciously and humbly accept a ticket if he ever is stopped, admit it publicly, AND that his friends within his jurisdiction do not show any favoritism towards their fellow officers. But jaybird is steadfast in this denial and thinks it is reasonable to expect averyone to attempt to follow all traffic laws at all times. I
also have no problem with people exceeding the speed limit, and do it all the time myself. motocat

And what precisely is wrong with following all the traffic laws at all
times?

"motocat" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<StzUa.134235$OZ2.26235@rwcrnsc54>... Does anyone believe that officer jaybird NEVER exceeds the speed limit when not on duty? That would be highly unusual, perhaps even impossible. As such, his denial of ever breaking the speed limit laws lessons his credibility and/or points out his inability to critically evaluate himself, others, etc.

I agree that it is hard to believe in the credibility of the person
making such a claim. One cannot be serious claiming that s/he always
stays under 70 even on open highways.

Andrew M.

****, when the highway is straight, and the traffic is thin you ought to
be able to go 80.

`````````IT USED TO BE ALL GOOD!!! ! ! `````````

> And what precisely is wrong with following all the traffic laws at all times?
This discussion centered on how likely was it that someone always followed
all traffic laws at all times, not on whether doing so was right or wrong.
At issue here is the credibility of someone making this claim.

motocat

If you're a cop and you're not violating traffic laws (such as
speeding), you're not doing your job. Now there are some things such as
particularly dangerous driving that they should avoid for safety
reasons, but simple stuff like speeding and running red lights at times
is a daily regimen for most cops. Most of it revolves around being in a
hurry to get to calls or to back up other officers, even if it doesn't
require (or dept. policy doesn't cover) an emergency response. If cops
can't move around quickly to get to calls, victims suffer. If you don't
agree with this, just imagine someone committing a crime in progress
against a loved one of yours. The particular call may not warrant a
lights and siren response (such as a prowler), but I bet all your asses
you would want the cops there quick, and none of you would ***** if you
knew a cop drove over the speed limit to get there. This is especially
important in large jurisdictions where cops have to drive many miles
quickly to and from calls.

Most people who see cops hauling *** by them have a cynical attitude,
thinking they are on their way to the donut shop, or are speeding
because they can. Maybe you should consider doing a ride along with
your local law enforcement, and you'll then find out why cops speed all
the time.

<COPY99@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:322-3F366686-37@storefull-2235.public.lawson.webtv.net... If you're a cop and you're not violating traffic laws (such as speeding), you're not doing your job. Now there are some things such as particularly dangerous driving that they should avoid for safety reasons, but simple stuff like speeding and running red lights at times is a daily regimen for most cops. Most of it revolves around being in a hurry to get to calls or to back up other officers, even if it doesn't require (or dept. policy doesn't cover) an emergency response. If cops can't move around quickly to get to calls, victims suffer. If you don't agree with this, just imagine someone committing a crime in progress against a loved one of yours. The particular call may not warrant a lights and siren response (such as a prowler), but I bet all your asses you would want the cops there quick, and none of you would ***** if you knew a cop drove over the speed limit to get there. This is especially important in large jurisdictions where cops have to drive many miles quickly to and from calls. Most people who see cops hauling *** by them have a cynical attitude, thinking they are on their way to the donut shop, or are speeding because they can. Maybe you should consider doing a ride along with your local law enforcement, and you'll then find out why cops speed all the time.

I hate to open this can of worms again. It's been flogged so many times.
But please consider that there are many people who have a great need to get
somewhere in a hurry. EMT's (especially volunteers, who must get to an
ambulance station, before responding) are one example. But they are not
exempt from speed limits (argument is that if they get into an accident,
they haven't helped the first victim, but have complicated the situation by
created at least one additional victim. I can't address all states, but in
PA, ambulances were (when I was an EMT) bound by speed limits, even when
running lights-and-sirens. (Same arguement. If the wagon crashes, it does
no one any good).

Same argument for doctors. A doctor does no one a bit of good, if he's
crashed. How about mental health councilors? It goes on and on. How about
the teen-ager in a hurry to get his date home before she gets in trouble
with her parents. In fact, everyone can make a very good excuse why he/she
should be exempt from traffic laws. And, in fact, in a civilized society,
none should be.

Paul R