Jury Duty

[DGuller]

It's not a "free pass".  If one cop waves a badge and says "I'm a cop, you can't ticket me", he'll get both a ticket and serious discipline from his superior.

Maybe in la-la land.  Here in NJ, even obnoxious cops nearly automatically get a break.  It's not just a misplaced sense of camaraderie, the traffic officer himself can get ostracized or harassed if he writes another cop.

And what you don't understand is that for a police officer, getting a ticket is a lot more serious than it would be for you.  They'll have to report it up the chain.  An outside judge will have to be brought in.  You could proably negotiate down a ticket - a cop wouldn't have that ability.

You are mistaken, I am very well aware of that.  It seems like all the more reason for a cop to pretend like the laws apply to him just the same, or at least not be blatant when breaking the traffic laws.  Given the higher penalties, having a slightly higher threshold may be justifiable, but not the blanket immunity from traffic violations that most cops are proud to provide.

[Barrister]

And just where do you get your information from?

[DGuller]

And just where do you get your information from?

Cops themselves.  During on my Goggle searches, I came across a forum frequent by NJ cops.  One of the topics I saw was a very lengthy discussion of "professional courtesy".  About 80% of the participants see nothing wrong with it and are proud to claim that they NEVER write another cop, another 10% are more ambivalent but still don't, and the rest (almost always state troopers) are critical of that practice but are still highly reluctant to do it.

My interest was piqued, so I searched around some more, and found another cop forum with a high traffic.  Read the same topic there, and there was a similar consensus.  Writing another cop is a big NO-NO, even if he's driving 30 over (paraphrasing, not exaggerating).  DUI is not treated as leniently, but there is still a lot more leeway provided than a normal civilian would get.  Whereas any civilian who's even borderline would be arrested, often times cops expressed willingness to tow the brother's car and send him home with a relative if he's not too drunk.

Maybe it just so happens that only the most ethically-challenged cops feel the urge to post on Internet forums.  Or maybe there are even plenty of good actors with an axe to grind who are good at subtly impersonating cops on the Internet on their own sites.  However, I think it's just more likely that I got a glimpse of the true mindset of American cops.

[Barrister]

And just where do you get your information from?

Cops themselves.  During on my Goggle searches, I came across a forum frequent by NJ cops.  One of the topics I saw was a very lengthy discussion of "professional courtesy".  About 80% of the participants see nothing wrong with it and are proud to claim that they NEVER write another cop, another 10% are more ambivalent but still don't, and the rest (almost always state troopers) are critical of that practice but are still highly reluctant to do it.

My interest was piqued, so I searched around some more, and found another cop forum with a high traffic.  Read the same topic there, and there was a similar consensus.  Writing another cop is a big NO-NO, even if he's driving 30 over (paraphrasing, not exaggerating).  DUI is not treated as leniently, but there is still a lot more leeway provided than a normal civilian would get.  Whereas any civilian who's even borderline would be arrested, often times cops expressed willingness to tow the brother's car and send him home with a relative if he's not too drunk.

Maybe it just so happens that only the most ethically-challenged cops feel the urge to post on Internet forums.  Or maybe there are even plenty of good actors with an axe to grind who are good at subtly impersonating cops on the Internet on their own sites.  However, I think it's just more likely that I got a glimpse of the true mindset of American cops.

I rest my case.

[DGuller]

And just where do you get your information from?

Cops themselves.  During on my Goggle searches, I came across a forum frequent by NJ cops.  One of the topics I saw was a very lengthy discussion of "professional courtesy".  About 80% of the participants see nothing wrong with it and are proud to claim that they NEVER write another cop, another 10% are more ambivalent but still don't, and the rest (almost always state troopers) are critical of that practice but are still highly reluctant to do it.

My interest was piqued, so I searched around some more, and found another cop forum with a high traffic.  Read the same topic there, and there was a similar consensus.  Writing another cop is a big NO-NO, even if he's driving 30 over (paraphrasing, not exaggerating).  DUI is not treated as leniently, but there is still a lot more leeway provided than a normal civilian would get.  Whereas any civilian who's even borderline would be arrested, often times cops expressed willingness to tow the brother's car and send him home with a relative if he's not too drunk.

Maybe it just so happens that only the most ethically-challenged cops feel the urge to post on Internet forums.  Or maybe there are even plenty of good actors with an axe to grind who are good at subtly impersonating cops on the Internet on their own sites.  However, I think it's just more likely that I got a glimpse of the true mindset of American cops.

I rest my case.

I don't know, after serving amongst the cops, I think listening to cops talk amongst themselves is the best way to know what they really think, and not just the party line.  It's certainly more reliable than taking the word of a prosecutor with authoritarian mindset at face value.

EDIT:  And here's a link to discussions from one of the sites, on a forum where only verified police officers can post.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36403
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90409

I wonder which of the two options provide better and more reliable information:  two big threads with plenty of confirmed police officers talking among each other, or one Canadian prosecutor who is not exactly known for his willingness to question authority.

[Barrister]

Will "I know something because I read it on an internet forum" be the new "I know something because I was in a university club" meme?

[grumbler]

Will "I know something because I read it on an internet forum" be the new "I know something because I was in a university club" meme?

Actually, he already used it in the very same discussion in which he claimed expertise based on membership in a college club! 

[DGuller]

Will "I know something because I read it on an internet forum" be the new "I know something because I was in a university club" meme?

Probably.  Many posters here are willing to go for cheap shots when they're out of arguments.  That was the reason for the university club meme, and it's the reason for the internet forum meme.  Communication is communication, regardless of the medium. 

Go ahead, feel free to tell me how an honest discussion between cops is not credible, just because that discussion occurred on the Internet.

[Grey Fox]

All the times I was pull over, the cop was very nice well except for the whole giving me a ticket business.

But I still think most of them are idiots.

[DGuller]

Will "I know something because I read it on an internet forum" be the new "I know something because I was in a university club" meme?

Actually, he already used it in the very same discussion in which he claimed expertise based on membership in a college club! 

Actually, I claimed expertise based on doing things in a club, not based on being a member of a club.  My expertise in car matters was questioned, so I figured mentioning that I was once one of the people building an original car was a good way to shore it up.  Normally it would work, but I made a mistake of stating it too late, after a couple of people who hate admitting a mistake already staked out their position that I don't know what I was talking about.

I still find it ironic that I am mocked for that thread when I didn't say anything wrong, and in fact brought up a couple of unique points.  On the other hand, grumbler said a fundamentally idiotic thing, about a car being able to overpower its brakes, and yet still feels like he's in position to mock me.  I guess it goes to show you that looking like you know what you're talking about is often more important than actually knowing what you're talking about.

[garbon]

If you can't dress the part, darling, don't bother trying.

[Caliga]

I guess it goes to show you that looking like you know what you're talking about is often more important than actually knowing what you're talking about.

Congratulations son, you have just figured out how the legal profession works.

[grumbler]

On the other hand, grumbler said a fundamentally idiotic thing, about a car being able to overpower its brakes, and yet still feels like he's in position to mock me. 

Actually, as you well know, I said nothing of the sort.  But don't let mere truth get in the way of your weaseling.

[DGuller]

On the other hand, grumbler said a fundamentally idiotic thing, about a car being able to overpower its brakes, and yet still feels like he's in position to mock me. 

Actually, as you well know, I said nothing of the sort.  But don't let mere truth get in the way of your weaseling.

Took me a minute to find this quote:

He tried to use the brakes to fully stop the car, and failed.  The engine was just too powerful.

This quote implies, by simple laws of physics, that the engine can be powerful enough to overpower the brakes, which is nonsense for any conceivable passenger car.

[grumbler]

Took me a minute to find this quote:

He tried to use the brakes to fully stop the car, and failed.  The engine was just too powerful.

This quote implies, by simple laws of physics, that the engine can be powerful enough to overpower the brakes, which is nonsense for any conceivable passenger car.

Except that we know that he tried to use the brakes, and they didn't stop that particular vehicle.  I made no general statement about cars, because (unlike you) I recognize that known specific incidents are more persuasive than general rules, even ones that you claim make the known facts "nonsense."

In other words, you can claim that you know from a general rule (learned from non-professional sources) things than the specific facts of the case as determined by professional experts will not allow, but don't expect anyone to swallow your claim.