If you are ever pulled over by the State Police

[Anonymous]

I've been pulled over a handful of times in the 20+ years I've been driving. I've only gotten a ticket once, and he knocked it down to the lowest possible offense, I think because I was genuinely remorseful (totally didn't see the "no turn on red" sign), polite and had a completely clean driving record. I figure if I'm getting pulled over, I've done something wrong and the cop's doing his job. It's worked pretty well for me, though my guy friends swear it's because I'm a hot chick. (I'm not hot.) I think a lot of it is about the officer's mood that day, how you treat him/her, and what you have on your record; they have discretion on ticketing.

[Anonymous]

I once saw a little sporty coupe with a sticker on the small window right behind the driver's side that said "Bad cop! No doughnut!" It was right where a cop would stand when speaking to someone s/he pulled over. That's ballsy (or just plain stupid). If batman belt jokes don't go over too well, I can imagine the result of this sticker...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I address them as "Mister Police Officer Sir" with a very very thick accent.
I show some cleavage too so I only get tickets when the officers are women.

so you've been pulled over many times?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think pulling out the military ID is a cheap move. there's no reason to do so, and you can't really fake like you did it by accident. so it's CLEARLY a ploy to try and get out of a ticket. and there are so many military people in this area i doubt it would go that far.

It's not cheap. Both the state trooper and the soldier protect civilians, and they face some chance of being killed in the line of duty for it. So really, it is mutual respect for the job they are performing.

BS so they both are above the law? they both can speed and kill some innocent civilian respecting the speed limit?
once again BS!

Of course not. But officers have discretion. Surely you know that. This whole post is about how an officer has discretion and the circumstances under which he can use it. It seems that for a small offense or a questionable one, service to country is as reasonable a factor as whether you call the officer "trooper". I might also expect ministers to get a little extra lenience. Big deal. No one is getting a free pass on a DUI, a collision, or reckless driving.

This just keeps getting more messed up. So which religion's "ministers" are supposed to get a little leniency from a representative of our government which officially states that church and state are separate? If this is actually happening, it is perhaps even more wrong than allowing police officers the discretion to both let people off small hooks if they make them feel like big, important fancy pants guys and to nail citizens with bogus charges meant for real criminals when they take offense.

It says something about the character of the person pulled over. It's not like the government is sponsoring religion because a trooper lets a minister off with a warning.

I also don't think it's so bad if a trooper lets a nice person off with a warning.

I have no problem with a trooper giving big fines to assholes.

Which one are you?

I'm the one who believes it is essential to protect freedom of speech even if policemen take offense and that policemen should stick to a narrow interpretation of the duties for which we, as citizens and taxpayers, hire them. We don't hire them to subjectively decide who is "nice" and who is not nice and we certainly don't hire them so they can go on power trips. "Character" and any kind of demeanor short of physically threatening should be beside the point in a discussion about actions that break specific laws. Those issues may be relevant to judges as the professionals, but the policemen shouldn't have any more discretion than technicians in any other field, especially since they're apparently abusing this all over the place.

So you are clearly in this category. Sorry, your constitutional right of free speech allows you to be an asshole. It does not immunize you from the consequences of being an asshole. But go ahead and try it.

[Anonymous]

Mmmm, it does suggest to me that law enforcement has no right to impose consequences for mere assholery.

I am not advocating rude behavior on the citizens' part, but flattery should not be required of citizens and bullying from police officers should not be tolerated.

This is what's wrong. Policemen provide a specific public service and have no legitimate business over-reaching their limited social role. We shouldn't have to cower before them, apologize to them personally, or flatter them lest they get us any way they can. When this is happening, there's too much authority invested in minimally educated people who don't respect the gravity of the responsibility we've given them for the sake of our protection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: there's too much authority invested in minimally educated people who don't respect the gravity of the responsibility we've given them for the sake of our protection.

Yep, asshole. Too much authority? Criminals need to fear police as much as possible. If you were ever in a situation where you needed a police officer to protect you from one you wouldn't be saying something so ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

NP here. How about this as a statement of principles we can all agree on:

(1) Most police officers deserve loads of respect, and probably more respect than most other people, because they do an incredibly difficult and dangerous job, because they're underpaid, and because they put up with a lot of unwarranted abuse.

(2) Police officers have no right to abuse their authority, bully citizens, or even expect citizens to flatter them. Those police officers who do abuse their authority should be prosecuted aggressively and forfeit the right to act as police officers. They no longer deserve any respect.

Few things command my respect more than a good police officer, and few things piss me off more than an officer who abuses his authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mmmm, it does suggest to me that law enforcement has no right to impose consequences for mere assholery.

I am not advocating rude behavior on the citizens' part, but flattery should not be required of citizens and bullying from police officers should not be tolerated.

This is what's wrong. Policemen provide a specific public service and have no legitimate business over-reaching their limited social role. We shouldn't have to cower before them, apologize to them personally, or flatter them lest they get us any way they can. When this is happening, there's too much authority invested in minimally educated people who don't respect the gravity of the responsibility we've given them for the sake of our protection.

There is a vast world between rudeness and prostrating yourself with insincere flattery. It's called common courtesy.

You can be courteous without cowering. You can be courteous without apologizing or resorting to flattery. Calling an officer by his own title is common courtesy, like you call a doctor "Doctor". It's no big deal. If it seems like a big deal to use someone's proper title, you have an issue with manners, not the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mmmm, it does suggest to me that law enforcement has no right to impose consequences for mere assholery.

I am not advocating rude behavior on the citizens' part, but flattery should not be required of citizens and bullying from police officers should not be tolerated.

This is what's wrong. Policemen provide a specific public service and have no legitimate business over-reaching their limited social role. We shouldn't have to cower before them, apologize to them personally, or flatter them lest they get us any way they can. When this is happening, there's too much authority invested in minimally educated people who don't respect the gravity of the responsibility we've given them for the sake of our protection.

Their education may not equal yours. But your job does not put you at risk of being shot and killed in order to protect the citizenry. I think you do not respect the gravity of that commitment.