Got a fvcking ticket

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: myusername

Originally posted by: MrScott81
Let me clarify this. I told him I admitted that I didn't stop completely, and I agreed with him that I ran the stop sign, but I did want to say that I didn't blow through it. I said this in a very polite tone too, as I have mentioned above. There's no reason for him to think I was disrespecting him.

You misunderstand the nature of policemen. Disagreeing with in the slightest, suggesting that anything might have possibly happened even slightly different than he believes, or trying to describe something in shades of gray ... These are all disrepecting the policeman.

Policemen are not terribly intelligent, they don't have a law degree, and they don't like people who give them brain cramps. I'm not saying it should be any other way - they generally get the job done, and I do think they are necessary for society, but if he thinks he saw it happen, it happened, and the only thing you can do about it is hope you get a good laywer and a friendly judge.

You're a dumbass. This post confirms it. All policemen are smarter than you.

 

[Jejunum]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Maybe you should learn to drive legally instead, then you won't get points/tickets.

ding ding ding.

quit whining too, you were at fault

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: myusername
Well fine. I looked for myself, but all I could find was this

Originally posted by: bradruth
I don't know, what do YOU think?

I think you are a cop. Not a lot of leeway there.

Here's an excerpt from your article...

"Police officers, like anyone else, can be resistant to change," said Chief Berger.
"On the other hand, the average IQ of police officers is 120. They can be very
creative if they are challenged and given an environment where they can thrive."

So either you can admit you were wrong and we can move on, or you can tell me what standard you use for people being considered intelligent.

Actually, despite BigJ's gloating, that was the reason I posted that one - i.e. when you weren't going to answer, I went and looked for a counterpoint to my prior post.

Neither article really lends itself to generalizing about policemen as a whole.



By the way, I notice you didn't object to any of my other characterizations in that post. Do you feel that with the exception of the intelligence smear it was accurate?

 

[Chrono]

When I ran a stop sign, the damn CHP gave me a rolling stop ticket. LOL@me alright. It cost me $110 or so + $30-40 for online traffic school. Traffic school was a breeze though. Took me a matter of an hour after a bunch of copying and pasting to notepad then taking the test. I then proceeded to use ctrl+f to search for the answers by typing and searching for similar sentences that the tests/quizzes were asking. W00t.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: myusername

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: myusername
Well fine. I looked for myself, but all I could find was this

Originally posted by: bradruth
I don't know, what do YOU think?

I think you are a cop. Not a lot of leeway there.

Here's an excerpt from your article...

"Police officers, like anyone else, can be resistant to change," said Chief Berger.
"On the other hand, the average IQ of police officers is 120. They can be very
creative if they are challenged and given an environment where they can thrive."

So either you can admit you were wrong and we can move on, or you can tell me what standard you use for people being considered intelligent.

Actually, despite BigJ's gloating, that was the reason I posted that one - i.e. when you weren't going to answer, I went and looked for a counterpoint to my prior post.

Neither article really lends itself to generalizing about policemen as a whole.



By the way, I notice you didn't object to any of my other characterizations in that post. Do you feel that with the exception of the intelligence smear it was accurate?

If you treat a police officer with respect, they treat you with respect. If you try to be a smartass and give 'em a hard time like the OP did, then they're going to make it an unfortunate situation on your behalf. We give police officers this power because it would be impossible to convict or ticket a person otherwise. I'm not saying there aren't bad cops out there, but if it's a police officers word vs. the average joe, I'll trust the police officer. The OP obviously broke the law, and admits to it. Yet he has a hard time ponying up when it comes to the fine because he thinks its a stupid law. Hell should you not charge a person for firing 20 rounds in a crowded area simply because they didn't hurt anyone?

Why should a police officer be overwhelmingly intelligent or have a law degree? Does it take someone with a law degree to know that a person is breaking the law? Should an officer be required a law degree to have to ticket a person for running a stop sign? To know when a person is breaking a law is not that advanced where it would take something with a very high level of intelligence to know when it is happening.

As far as brain cramps are concerned, I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: myusername
By the way, I notice you didn't object to any of my other characterizations in that post. Do you feel that with the exception of the intelligence smear it was accurate?

What, that we don't have law degrees? Obviously we don't, or the pay would be a lot better. Why don't you go ahead & describe these "brain cramps" for me.

 

[Patt]

The thing that bothers me about complaints like this is that everyone seems to believe that driving a car is a right, not a privilege. People are ticketed (myself included) for not following laws, and when they get caught there is always a reason to justify their actions. This may even be true.

However, the extra attention drawn to the OP (other police cars called in) seems to be a bit exaggerated for the circumstances. Perhaps they were looking for someone in particular that you fit the profile for. Perhaps they were just having a bit of a rough day, and anything they might have interpreted as 'lip' put them over the edge. I know that when I'm having a bad day I don't always treat people with the complete respect they deserve. (if you need examples of people having a day like this, read the flippant name calling earlier in the thread ...).

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: BigJ
If you treat a police officer with respect, they treat you with respect.

Important life lesson here: no matter who you are, where you are, and what you're doing, treat police officers respectfully, speak only when spoken to, and don't make any sudden movements.
I don't care what you think of police, this can make any dealings with them much more pleasant for you. I'm not saying capitulate to their every demand, but use common sense. If you do not wish to have them search your car, express your objection in a calm and respectable fashion.

 

[StageLeft]

Perhaps they were just having a bit of a rough day, and anything they might have interpreted as 'lip' put them over the edge.

And perhaps the officer, if he was here, would have something else to say. It seems mighty interesting that four cop cars would respond to a rolled stop sign. They can't be THAT bored.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Perhaps they were just having a bit of a rough day, and anything they might have interpreted as 'lip' put them over the edge.

And perhaps the officer, if he was here, would have something else to say. It seems mighty interesting that four cop cars would respond to a rolled stop sign. They can't be THAT bored.

Sure they can. You've never lived in a small town, have you?

 

[Brule]

Originally posted by: Patt
The thing that bothers me about complaints like this is that everyone seems to believe that driving a car is a right, not a privilege. People are ticketed (myself included) for not following laws, and when they get caught there is always a reason to justify their actions. This may even be true.

People should believing driving a car is a right, not a privilege. That doesn't have any impact on criminal activity associated with driving. Owning a firearm is a right in the US, but when one breaks the law with a gun their rights end. A privilege is something granted by an authority. Since the government's only power is that granted to it by the people, a government doesn't have the authority to grant privleges. A mother or father, on the other hand, has power not derived from their children so allowing a child to drive or not is an example of a privilege.

/rant Your post has many good points, but the issue of rights stuck out like a sore thumb.

 

[Patt]

Originally posted by: Brule

Originally posted by: Patt
The thing that bothers me about complaints like this is that everyone seems to believe that driving a car is a right, not a privilege. People are ticketed (myself included) for not following laws, and when they get caught there is always a reason to justify their actions. This may even be true.

People should believing driving a car is a right, not a privilege. That doesn't have any impact on criminal activity associated with driving. Owning a firearm is a right in the US, but when one breaks the law with a gun their rights end. A privilege is something granted by an authority. Since the government's only power is that granted to it by the people, a government doesn't have the authority to grant privleges. A mother or father, on the other hand, has power not derived from their children so allowing a child to drive or not is an example of a privilege.

/rant Your post has many good points, but the issue of rights stuck out like a sore thumb.

Driving a car is a privilege ... when the driver does not follow the law, fines are assessed, and/or driving privileges removed. Driving a car is not a right. If you need to be licenced to drive the car, meaning you have completed some sort of examination/training, and agreed to adhere to the law, you are granted the privilege to drive by

an authority

(ie. the DMV).

 

[Brule]

Originally posted by: Patt
Driving a car is a privilege ... when the driver does not follow the law, fines are assessed, and/or driving privileges removed. Driving a car is not a right. If you need to be licenced to drive the car, meaning you have completed some sort of examination/training, and agreed to adhere to the law, you are granted the privilege to drive by

an authority

(ie. the DMV).

Since when is the US government enpowered to throw a few bread crumbs to the masses by granting privleges? If the roads were privately owned it would be different. We agree to "adhere to the law" by being US citizens in the first place unless I signed a contract at birth which I don't remember.

If a person demonstrates that they are physically and mentally capable to drive a car and follow the traffic laws, should the DMV be allowed to not issue a license because privleges aren't protected where rights are? The DMV has no authority to be proactive in denying the right to drive assuming there is no logical/legal reason to deny it. If driving is a privilege (as the DMV likes to mislead people into thinking) then there is nothing preventing them from subjectively denying applications based on race, sex, height, etc.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Crazymofo
Give me a break you self-righteous pricks like none of you have never rolled thru a stop sign on a side street in the middle of the night at <10mph. And I don't want to hear one of you snot-nosed punks that still lives at home with mommy say no either, you're not allowed out after dark anyway. If the OP really hasn't ever had a ticket then he should fight this one for sure so that he can keep his record clean. Judges will work with someone that has a clean record... I f'ing hate laws like this its one thing to do it in the middle of the day but at night as long as it wasn't a blatant disregard that ticket has no meaning other than acting as an unfair tax. I can roll up to a stop sign and look both ways more than 5 times each without coming to a complete stop, how is checking for clear 5 times each way not sufficient enough? It?s the middle of the night the amount of traffic on the streets even in large cities is a 10th of normal if not much less. Some traffic laws should have a SOL for night time. I won't even get into the fact that he was treated like an escaped prisoner because he "rolled" thru a stop sign, now had he (and he may have we don?t know for sure) just "blown" thru it would mean a lot more as in drunk idiot.

um, at any time another car could be at a stop sign. have i done it? sure. and if i'd gotten a ticket i wouldn't be whining about it. btw, i moved out 10 years ago, so i don't live at home with mommy. sorry. a law is a law, no matter the time of day, and it's not like a big deal to stop at a stop sign. if he'd simply said "hey sorry i didn't see anyone out, it was a stupid thing to do." then he wouldn't have been treated like a possible drunk driver, end of story. chances are he coped an attitude with the cop and he got what he asked for.

 

[Patt]

The DMV has no authority to be proactive in denying the right to drive assuming there is no logical/legal reason to deny it.

I totally agree. But in the same breath, you mention a logical/legal reason to be denied licensing. That is the same idea I'm trying to put across, that there are reasons people are denied a license to drive, or their license is revoked.

IMO, driving is still a privilege. Your privilege to drive can be revoked. If it was a right, there is nothing anyone (theoretically of course ) could legally do to infringe on that right.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Crazymofo

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Crazymofo
Actually troll, if you had any reading skills you would see that I used the word THAT as in I was referencing the OPs ticket not all laws in general. Fvcktard.

Thank for the laugh troll.

Here's your statement again:

I f'ing hate laws like this its one thing to do it in the middle of the day but at night as long as it wasn't a blatant disregard that ticket has no meaning other than acting as an unfair tax.

Looks like you need some more English lessons.

The whole sentence is in responce to the OPs situation and ticket so for that law and that law only yea I was saying its breakable. You put words of your own to that and took it as ANY law could be broken or isn't fair. And then made the comment about lights which I never said one thing oh exept "blatant disregard" hey couldn't that mean not RUNNING the signs but cautiously proceeding thru without stopping. You need the english lessons and not to mention anger management help as well, troll.

who needs anger management? you're ranting and raving like a lunatic. sounds like you need to leave the computer once in awhile.

 

[Thraxen]

Yup, been there. I got a ticket once at about 1AM for the same thing. I didn't make a complete stop (we are talking <5 MPH) and got a ticket. Much to my dismay I found out that there is no difference between making a "rolling stop" and just blowing through a stop sign. You get the exact same ticket for both. Total BS, IMO. I might as well have just driven straight through at 30 MPH, at least then I wouldn't have felt as cheated

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: myusername

Originally posted by: MrScott81
Let me clarify this. I told him I admitted that I didn't stop completely, and I agreed with him that I ran the stop sign, but I did want to say that I didn't blow through it. I said this in a very polite tone too, as I have mentioned above. There's no reason for him to think I was disrespecting him.

You misunderstand the nature of policemen. Disagreeing with in the slightest, suggesting that anything might have possibly happened even slightly different than he believes, or trying to describe something in shades of gray ... These are all disrepecting the policeman.

Policemen are not terribly intelligent, they don't have a law degree, and they don't like people who give them brain cramps. I'm not saying it should be any other way - they generally get the job done, and I do think they are necessary for society, but if he thinks he saw it happen, it happened, and the only thing you can do about it is hope you get a good laywer and a friendly judge.

wow that's incredibly ignorant.

 

[CyraKrin]

Meanwhile I blew clean through a redlight on my way to the bar, and get pulled over further on down the road- get this, not for the red light, but because my turn signal indicators blink too fast (short in the ground, working on getting that fixed) anyway, I get a written warning. I guess its just a matter of luck, and which cop pulls you over.

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: fisher

wow that's incredibly ignorant. [/quote]
:thumbsup:
First of all, I'm not denying that .. In fact, I believe I made some obligatory pseudo-self-deprecating comment to that effect in another post.

I do however, find it interesting the nature and vehemence of the reactions to that post, given that it is, IMO, largely accurate. Notably, the reactors failed to parse it properly even when requested. Maybe these people are not intelligent enough or familiar enough with the language ... perhaps they took umbrage at my sig and thusly lashed out. Perhaps I'm mentally ill, and my writing is inscrutable. [expect to see that last sentence quoted and bolded as a "legitimate" reply to this post]

Let me break it down, and give me some feedback on this:

You misunderstand the nature of policemen.

From the majority of posters' responses (particularly the ones that took offense at my post), it can hardly be said that they had a different reaction to the OP

Disagreeing with in the slightest, suggesting that anything might have possibly happened even slightly different than he believes, or trying to describe something in shades of gray ... These are all disrepecting the policeman.

Again, I believe I am correct in stating this. Never mind the old but accurate adage "Never argue with a man who has a gun" ... even the policeman here (not to exclude any policemen in this post other than bradruth) didn't bother to respond with even their opinion or observations as to the relative truth of this statement.
Aren't there a dozen posts saying "you dumbass. you shouldn't have argued with a cop"?
Are there a dozen more posts that suggest the only way out of a confrontation (and a ticket) is admission of guilt, humility, and apology, rather than trying to use semantics to explain *why* the infraction or perceived infraction was perceived incorrectly?

Policemen are not terribly intelligent,...

Zing! I didn't specify what I meant by "terribly" or "intelligent". I didn't day policemen have a sub-xxx IQ, or call them "dumbasses". In truth, I was thinking of cognitive spontanaety, in line with the previous paragraph. But wait ..

...they don't have a law degree, and they don't like people who give them brain cramps.

Okay, so "brain cramps" wasn't the best use of the English language. Nonetheless, it is the second half of a *single* sentence that returns to the original thought: policemen don't "do" semantics. [what do I mean, "do"?]

I'm not saying it should be any other way - they generally get the job done, and I do think they are necessary for society,

Is someone here disagreeing with me? This must be what bradruth was upset about. I guess if you disagree that a rigid mentality is necessary to be a policeman, you think that anyone off the street could be one.

but if he thinks he saw it happen, it happened...

Again, goes to mentality. Has anyone here ever convinced a policeman that his inital reaction or assessment of a situation was wrong? Any policemen here that realized in the middle of their "incident" (for lack of the correct terminology) that their initial observation was incorrect? Or, more significantly, been talked into believing the exact opposite of their observation by the party they were observing?

How about bradruth, who goes around knocking on all his neighbors doors, so that he can instinctively assess which ones are "scumbags"? Bradruth, you ever met a scumbag who turned out to be a decent guy? [edit: behavior misattributed to bradruth, orig. source unknown]

.. and the only thing you can do about it is hope you get a good laywer and a friendly judge.

merely the obvious conclusion given the aforesaid.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: myusername
How about bradruth, who goes around knocking on all his neighbors doors, so that he can instinctively assess which ones are "scumbags"?

I knock on my neighbors' doors?

 

[myusername]

hm. thought I read you did awhile ago, and it seemed like an ass thing to do so I've held it against you everytime I've seen your username since
lemme search and see if I'm wrong.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: myusername
hm. thought I read you did awhile ago, and it seemed like an ass thing to do so I've held it against you everytime I've seen your username since
lemme search and see if I'm wrong.

I'd be suprised to hear that I said anything even close to that.

 

[myusername]

Apparently I was mistaken .. not only did you post no such thing, the post I had been attributing to you was not even posted on ATOT.

I apologize for misrepresenting your character.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: myusername
Apparently I was mistaken .. not only did you post no such thing, the post I had been attributing to you was not even posted on ATOT.

I apologize for misrepresenting your character.

Apology accepted.