Why do people think the law doesn't apply to them?

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Cephus You're right, it is taking a risk. If you break the law and the cop pulls you over, do you bitch and whine because you're being held responsible for your actions? Or do you just accept that you messed up and have to pay the consequences. Apparently there are a lot of people around here who figure they should be able to do anything they want with no risk of repercussion because they're somehow special. Sure, that's a bit different than just driving through a stoplight without even slowing down. I can't imagine that any cop would give you a ticket for sitting at a red light for a couple minutes, deciding that it's broken, then carefully crossing the street.

The section I put in bold makes an assumption, that you are actually guilty of what the cop claims you did or that the cop isn't corrupt or just being a flaming asshole.

About seven years ago I missed an exit and attempted to swing around on the grassy section between the four lanes. It's illegal, yes. Some states don't seem to really care, some really do. Apparently in Florida they really aren't fond of it. While, yes, I took a risk, I must admit when I see someone else do it, as long as their careful I feel more like cops apparently do in the states that aren't all that concerned with it. (BTW, to be clear, NOT a toll road.) But I really loath those who back up for an exit. You're essentially going down a one way the wrong way.

Well, anyway, after work I went right down to the courthouse and paid the ticket. I didn't whine at the cop or anyone else, although I smiled a little inside when he gave me that typical "you did the worse thing anyone has ever done" lecture that some cops feel it's necessary to give every time. I smiled because mid-rant he said, "The state of Florida views this worse than drunk driving..."

(Mentally I went, "Yeah, right!" Otherwise he was right. I was in the wrong.)

Re: Flaming asshole. When I first moved South I passed through a section of town that was where cops hung around waiting to give ticket. First time through the intersection I studied the very confusing signs and finally figured I had to be in the middle lane, so I pulled over to the middle lane and got pulled over past the intersection. When the cop told me I had been in the wrong lane I, very nicely, said, "But I did pull into the middle lane."

His response? "Yes, but your left rear wheel was still just a little bit in the wrong lane."

Asshole.

(No, I wouldn't have said that to his face. No, I didn't say much of anything after that. Yes, I was polite and made no negative comments other than what was mentioned.)

Then there are corrupt cops. I ran into one once and you don't want to go through that. He was obviously either on the take or had some scam going. It was quite obvious that he and his "witness," whom he obviously knew well, were scouting out parking lots looking for out of state plates they could observe leave, pulling them over and giving tickets for so he would either keep his ticket quota up or his buddy would get a nice check in the mail for fictional damage to a vehicle that had no damage. After his witness told an obvious lie and I told him I had my own witness to prove his was lying, he called up my witness and threatened him. If it hadn't been out of state I would have nailed his corrupt ass to the wall. He deserves to be in jail, not wearing a uniform.

So what some may automatically view as "whining" may be justified, although even then one should observe and recognize that if it's obvious the cop is corrupt or an asshole it won't get you anywhere and it's better if you just shut the hell up. But if I know I'm guilty, I take the ticket and I pay, although if the rhetoric gets a tad out of hand I may smile a little... inside. :)

[bseagle]

Quote by: Cephus I just got home from picking up my kids from school. In front of the school is a fire hydrant and a clearly painted red zone, right in the middle of a whole line of yellow curb clearly marked as no unattended car loading zone. While I'm standing there waiting for them to get out, some lady drives up and parks directly in the middle of the red zone so I ask her why she thinks that she's special and the law doesn't apply to her. She gets mad at me and makes a bunch of excuses. I tell her that she either moves her car or I call the police. She moves. It can't be more than 30 seconds later that some moron in a brand new Lexus pulls in to the same spot, locks his car and LEAVES! He's clearly sitting in front of a fire hydrant in a red zone, also violating the city statue about the full block loading zone. I'm about to go do the same routine with him when I see this police car driving down the street so I flag it down and direct him to the moron flagrantly violating the law. Ticket time and the idiot is yelling at me like it's MY fault he's getting a ticket. Hopefully he got two tickets for violating the unattended car law too. Since when did the entire planet start revolving around these self-absorbed assholes? And can we shoot them?

Totally with you on that one! I hate the idiots that park in handicap parking spaces because they're too damn lazy to walk a few extra steps. You just want to bash their windows out with a baseball bat!!! But I think for me that's more of a disrespect thing than a law thing. So I guess nothing I've just said really pertains to your topic at all. I'm sorry.

[SteveA]

The section I put in bold makes an assumption, that you are actually guilty of what the cop claims you did or that the cop isn't corrupt or just being a flaming asshole. ...

My personal experiences so far with police have been pretty close to the expression "2 out of 3 ain't bad". I've had 3 incidents with police and actually must admit that I think they were justified in getting involved each of those times (not bad considering police are still fallible), except the complaint I have was that the last time I got stopped, when I simply asked the guy why he'd stopped me he got all hard nosed on me and just seemed to want to treat me like a criminal. I don't think there was anything I did to deserve the attitude he gave. If he thought that was providing some sort of valuable communitee service to treat people badly, I'd have to disagree.

Oh it so happened that the 'bad' cop was a highway patrol officer, not local police. The 2 incidents with local police were almost pleasant despite the fact I came away with fines.

I do think there are real reasons why as government heads toward larger and more impersonal levels, there's a greater disrespect and danger to people. If the local police are causing problems, people in the area can more easily correct this, whereas people are suppose to be representive of a beaurocracy in D.C. they seem more likely to reflect that as well.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You are right. I, or no other American however seems to have enough disposable income to flush into the fight of repealing the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of state and federal level Unconstitutional laws. That is part of the crime of our usurpation. Lawyers were never meant to exist, as people were supposed to represent themselves. Now that we have allowed the bureauocracy to expand our laws beyond mass understanding to compliance of the law, we are forced to pay "law specialists" to fight our battles, at our own personal expense, to repeal laws that should have never been created in the first place.

You, as an individual, might not have the funds to spend, but if there are enough people who agree with you, then there's plenty of money available to fight the laws. If it's just you that doesn't like the law, sorry, you're probably out of luck. Such is life.

You obviously missed the point, though it was spelled out very clearly. Did I say ignore bad laws? I said people should take it as their CIVIC DUTY TO DISOBEY BAD LAWS, AND BE PREPARED TO WIN THE LEGAL BATTLE WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR YOUR DAY IN COURT.

And that's fine, civil disobedience is a time honored way of fighting bad legislation. But most people think they can be civilly disobedient and have no consequences for doing so. Let's be honest here, these people weren't parking in front of a fire hydrant because they want the law changed, they were doing it because they were lazy. None of them are going to go to court, they'll pay the ticket and when the opportunity comes to park in front of a hydrant again because it's convenient, not because they think it's a bad law, they'll do it.

If you want to fight the system, more power to you, but remember that you can't get your day in court if nobody ever catches you doing the crime. :)

Jeffrey Dahmer violated peoples rights, whose rights are violated by my not wearing a seat belt, or crossing in a no crossing zone?

It depends. If you go flying out of your car in an accident and land on someone because you weren't wearing a seat belt, you're certainly violating someone's rights, aren't you? And if you go flying face-first into a telephone pole and require major medical care and expect the state to pay for it, you're using people's tax money. Now on a personal level, I couldn't care less if you do these things, just be prepared for the consequences if you do.

My point is, when we allow laws to be created that can only be selectively enforced, we have to be wary of abuse and mis-use of that discretion for those selected for enforcement. We also have to be aware that these types of laws create their own problems with enforcement, and therefore, should only have laws of this type when absolutely necessary.

All laws can be selectively enforced because they require that you be caught to be fined or jailed. If there are no police around, you're probably going to get away with minor infractions. Sorry, that's reality. Doesn't mean that all laws should be revoked because someone somewhere might get away with it.

I have no problems with traffic laws, just with the way they are enforced, and the increasing encroach of our freedom in our cars, such as right to privacy.

Given a situation where it's a choice between a right to privacy and public safety, I pick public safety every time.

Just because I am exercising my right to conveyance, does not mean I forsake all other rights because I drive on a road patrolled by the state, or local law enforcement.

Sorry, I must have missed that right spelled out in the Constitiution.

If I am pulled over for not signalling, what right does an officer have to give my car a safety check, search it, and disassemble it on a public road with no responsibility to return it to the state it was in before they began? What right does he have to allow a intrusive search by special device (a super sensitive smelling device, such as a dogs nose) to try to further remove my rights, since I am already stopped for a minor infraction which could have been caused by a mere failure of the automobiles parts to begin with?

I don't know, have you had that problem a lot? Every time I've ever been pulled over for anything, I just get a ticket and go on my way.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Ken Carman The section I put in bold makes an assumption, that you are actually guilty of what the cop claims you did or that the cop isn't corrupt or just being a flaming asshole.

And you have the right to go to court and plead your case. If you feel that the ticket was wrong, fight it. Raise hell. That doesn't mean you have a right to violate the law, knowingly or unknowingly, because it's more convenient to you to do so. That's the whole point of the thread, that there are people who break the law because they think they're above it, not because they're out being civilly disobedient or anything of the sort. They're just being pricks who figure they're more important than everyone else.

It's time someone sent the message that they're not.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Cephus And you have the right to go to court and plead your case. If you feel that the ticket was wrong, fight it. Raise hell. That doesn't mean you have a right to violate the law, knowingly or unknowingly, because it's more convenient to you to do so. That's the whole point of the thread, that there are people who break the law because they think they're above it, not because they're out being civilly disobedient or anything of the sort. They're just being pricks who figure they're more important than everyone else. It's time someone sent the message that they're not.

I do agree, although I think out of state cases are kind of special, especially for the tourist or the person who travels for a living. It's far too easy to A/ Blame it on the out of stater... B/ Far too hard for the out of state person to pursue justice. Then you always have cases like a county in Georgia where they, last year I think it was, just released a large number of prisoners that had been jailed under bogus charges. In that county, they also discovered that cops had been hunting out of state plates just to do the type of crap I was referring to.

We tend to believe we live in a "innocent until proven guilty" society. Especially when it comes to traffic tickets that's not all that true. One of my biggest gripes is cops who hand out tickets for "offenses" that they never saw and have just guessed at. It shouldn't be banned. It should be discouraged in most cases.

As Steve posted I think 2 out of three, or maybe much better than that, is a pretty good guess. Most policemen i've met in 50 years of driving have been fair. But there are assholes and corrupt cops out there and battling them in court is not as easy as one would think, especially if you are out of state.

"It's time someone sent the message that they're not"

Yes, and cops that pollute the system with their unprofessional, corrupt natures are spoiling that message. They contribute to criminality and the "Oh, screw it" attitudes that some people have. They make people think "the whole system is corrupt so why should I care?"

It's not justified. I'm not saying that at all.

But the last thing police need in doing their duty is some jerk giving an excuse for the public to either not care, not trust their honesty, think they're special or do what they shouldn't. There's enough of that already.

[SteveA]

... That doesn't mean you have a right to violate the law, knowingly or unknowingly, because it's more convenient to you to do so. That's the whole point of the thread, that there are people who break the law because they think they're above it, not because they're out being civilly disobedient or anything of the sort. They're just being pricks who figure they're more important than everyone else.

I think it entirely depends on the value of a law, and not whether someone feels more important than other people.

If I'm picking my kid up from school and stop in front of a fire hydrant, I don't consider I'm flaunting anything in front of other people, I'm simply making a judgement of the value of that law based upon the circumstances. Yes, it's irresponsible to park your car in front of a hydrant and leave (though again, maybe if the laws were different, hydrants would be designed so it didn't matter whether or not someone was parked in front of it), but it's also irresponsible to clog a public street when there's a perfectly good way to pick up your kid without impeding anyone else.

Laws are simply text intended to organize human activities but they can't address every concievable cirsumstance and this is exactly why we have the courts, to resolve when and where the laws apply. I don't think our founders ever intended people to blindly follow the law without considering the consequences.

[SteveA]

... continued

as a matter of fact many of the founders even warned against blindly following laws as it can lead to tyranny. Follow the laws you feel are just and don't follow the ones you feel are unjust. Taking the attitude that someone must do something simply because it is the law is a vulnerable position to be in, and to resent people simply because they act in a more free manner, if they aren't hurting anyone seems simply envious. To put a bit better, there are consequences to to either following or not following a law for everyone. Use your common sense, try not to unnecessarily upset people, and do what you think's best. If someone doesn't feel confident in their ability to apply common sense, maybe it's better to play it safe, again it's a judgement call.

We could debate to what extent stopping to pick up a child from school impacts the likelihood of a delayed fire response if such were to occur and to what extent fire damages might be increased if the person weren't able to quickly move their vehicle (or to what extent the fire truck was unable to arrive because people couldn't find parking) but we could also debate how early you should signal before making a lane change and how many feet you should leave between cars when doing so, or to what extent alcohol causes medical shortages in the industry etc. What goes around, comes around.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Ken Carman We tend to believe we live in a "innocent until proven guilty" society. Especially when it comes to traffic tickets that's not all that true. One of my biggest gripes is cops who hand out tickets for "offenses" that they never saw and have just guessed at. It shouldn't be banned. It should be discouraged in most cases.

You're talking about a ridiculously tiny percentage of cops who are corrupt. The vast majority are hard-working, honest people putting their lives on the line every day for people like you and me. Sorry, but the "this one situation over here proves that all cops everywhere are crooked" is ludicrous.

But the last thing police need in doing their duty is some jerk giving an excuse for the public to either not care, not trust their honesty, think they're special or do what they shouldn't. There's enough of that already.

And in this case, the person was STILL illegally parked in front of the hydrant, in a red zone, out of their vehicle in a clearly marked no-unattended-vehicle area. Now, exactly where you came up with them doing something that they didn't personally see, I don't know.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Cephus You're talking about a ridiculously tiny percentage of cops who are corrupt. The vast majority are hard-working, honest people putting their lives on the line every day for people like you and me. Sorry, but the "this one situation over here proves that all cops everywhere are crooked" is ludicrous. And in this case, the person was STILL illegally parked in front of the hydrant, in a red zone, out of their vehicle in a clearly marked no-unattended-vehicle area. Now, exactly where you came up with them doing something that they didn't personally see, I don't know.

Sorry, but the "this one situation over here proves that all cops everywhere are crooked" is ludicrous.

And I said that...where????????? We can disagree about how much corruption there may or may not be, but please don't claim I said something I didn't. It's dishonest. Strawman arguments are just that: something you've set up to kick back down and while claiming I set it up to begin with.

As far as the fire hydrant argument goes, I didn't use it. I do think policemen should be willing to use discretion when giving out such tickets... emergency situations and blocked vision being occasional considerations. But that's up to the officer. I may silently grumble, if struck in such a situation, but the ticket is deserved. I have never parked in front of a hydrant. It's a vile thing to do.

The "doing something they didn't see" is a situation I've run into where, when called upon a scene of an accident, the policeman feels he must issue a ticket to someone. Most policemen will normally say, "I wasn't here so I didn't see it." For instance, in states where by law you have to move the vehicles if it's a minor accident, I've known cops who hand out a ticket to both or one even though they came after the fact and had no way of knowing who did what because the vehicles had been moved. Kind of a damned either way situation: move- ticket. Don't move? Ticket. Relying on interviewing the drivers is a poor substitute: both drivers will almost always tell their side of the story, and any driver that will tell the officer a less skewed version of the incident will most likely be rewarded by being the one ticketed. I just think it's a real bad idea and therefore should be discouraged, but not banned.

BTW, in the state of Tennessee one driver can ticket another by insisting the officer write a ticket, which I think is an even worse idea. If a policeman issues a ticket without seeing the incident, if he or she is a good policeman, they have at least tried to assess what happened in a fair manner. Neither driver should be in a position to demand such fare for obvious reasons. It's like encouraging revenge and tit for tat. It clogs the courts.

The fire hydrant example is different. Obviously you parked there... or you didn't.