Pulled over today: weird experience

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at "putting himself at risk." Yeah, a real hero to be on traffic patrol. He was doing a job that pays very well; no need to thank him for "his service." He is well compensated.

Why do you hate children? How else is she supposed to say "I have two children in the back seat" that meets your non-smugness standards?

+1

I don't hate children; However, I DO have little tolerance for those who can't see the forest for the trees; this is not rocket science.

Nothing was really said here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh well, sounds like you'll live. At least you weren't shot & killed.

It's a good day for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at "putting himself at risk." Yeah, a real hero to be on traffic patrol. He was doing a job that pays very well; no need to thank him for "his service." He is well compensated.

Why do you hate children? How else is she supposed to say "I have two children in the back seat" that meets your non-smugness standards?

+1

You have no idea how many officers are injured or killed during traffic stops, do you?

Keep posting; the more you write, the more your bias and uneducated "contributions" will speak for themselves.

By Asian women, in minivans, with two infants in the back seat? Keep talking.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d be upset because now under your license/license plate is the warning that you were in the HOV as a single passenger.

There was no warning to give because you broke no law. I’d have pushed that more. I understand he must have been embarrassed to realize he was wrong but entering a warning in the system is wrong as well.

Example, husband was pulled over for a taillight out. The police gave him a warning and logged it in the system. About a week later another policeman noticed this light out and pulled him over. He said he was going to give him a warning but when he ran his info he saw he’d been warned the week prior and not taken care of it. A ticket was then issued.

So now say you make a mistake and get in the HOV solo and get pulled over, your warning has been logged on a false accusation and you’ll just straight up get the ticket.

Yep. You need to fight this, OP. And never apologize for having three people in a car in the HOV lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Today I was pulled over on the beltway in the express lanes. I have twins that are in infant carriers in the back seat with the window shades on each window. These aren’t super dark, just the typical shades sold at Target. I got pulled over because the cop thought I was cheating the HOV lanes by not paying. So I’m pulled over (which is always disconcerting) and the cop walks over and tells me I had my Express pass switched to HOV and I would be ticketed since I was the only person in the car. I pointed out that I have two 6 month olds in the back. He got flustered and said I wasn’t following the “spirit of HOV” laws that are meant to encourage adults sharing the car to reduce traffic. He said he would just give me a warning, but never gave me any official paper work so I didn’t get his name/ badge number. I wish I would have asked for it, but I hate being stopped on the side of the road with cars flying by.

This is weird right? I’ve been stewing on it all morning and have gone from bewildered to just mad.

OP, there should be stringent psych evals for police officers. That is what you learned today. Let it go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at "putting himself at risk." Yeah, a real hero to be on traffic patrol. He was doing a job that pays very well; no need to thank him for "his service." He is well compensated.

Why do you hate children? How else is she supposed to say "I have two children in the back seat" that meets your non-smugness standards?

+1

You have no idea how many officers are injured or killed during traffic stops, do you?

Keep posting; the more you write, the more your bias and uneducated "contributions" will speak for themselves.

If you were the "snowflake" poster you really did go off the rails. Nobody was saying that he had to know before hand- just his reaction once he saw the babies. Before you comment nobody was arguing about his work or putting himself at risk.

Really? I'm going "off the rails" ? Wow, you have the same thin skin that upset OP. And read again if you don't think the amount of risk was questioned.

Oh my; the drama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh well, sounds like you'll live. At least you weren't shot & killed.

+1

+2
Not to mention he's right about the spirit of HOV. You ended up with only a warning, his is truly a no harm no foul situation, what outcome are you looking for?

There is no "spirit of the HOV." That's just some bullsh#t the officer made up. The law is the law. When did living, breathing babies stop qualifying as "persons"?

The appropriate response from a respectful and socially well-adjusted man is to laugh at the mistake, wave at the babies, and say "Have a good day, ma'am."

Bootlickers like you disgust me.

OMG you need to chill out - let me guess you hate traffic enforcement and think it infringes on your civil liberties somehow?

Of course there is a spirit of HOV - it is to move people more efficiently. The law may allow children to count but I'm not really sure why they should as children don't really need to commute through congested corridors but maybe I'm missing something (and I'm a parent who commutes).

But you can't ticket someone for violating the spirit of HOV and that obviously didn't happen so this entire thread is stupid.

But I'm glad the police are trying to enforce the HOV rules which lots of drivers, including presumably the person I'm responding to, think the rules are optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh well, sounds like you'll live. At least you weren't shot & killed.

+1

+2
Not to mention he's right about the spirit of HOV. You ended up with only a warning, his is truly a no harm no foul situation, what outcome are you looking for?

There is no "spirit of the HOV." That's just some bullsh#t the officer made up. The law is the law. When did living, breathing babies stop qualifying as "persons"?

The appropriate response from a respectful and socially well-adjusted man is to laugh at the mistake, wave at the babies, and say "Have a good day, ma'am."

Bootlickers like you disgust me.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a WINNER! This poster gets it from start to finish and I agree, this thread IS stupid.

Thus endeth the lesson.

OMG you need to chill out - let me guess you hate traffic enforcement and think it infringes on your civil liberties somehow?

Of course there is a spirit of HOV - it is to move people more efficiently. The law may allow children to count but I'm not really sure why they should as children don't really need to commute through congested corridors but maybe I'm missing something (and I'm a parent who commutes).

But you can't ticket someone for violating the spirit of HOV and that obviously didn't happen so this entire thread is stupid.

But I'm glad the police are trying to enforce the HOV rules which lots of drivers, including presumably the person I'm responding to, think the rules are optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh well, sounds like you'll live. At least you weren't shot & killed.

+1

+2
Not to mention he's right about the spirit of HOV. You ended up with only a warning, his is truly a no harm no foul situation, what outcome are you looking for?

There is no "spirit of the HOV." That's just some bullsh#t the officer made up. The law is the law. When did living, breathing babies stop qualifying as "persons"?

The appropriate response from a respectful and socially well-adjusted man is to laugh at the mistake, wave at the babies, and say "Have a good day, ma'am."

Bootlickers like you disgust me.

Agreed. That cop is an asshole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh well, sounds like you'll live. At least you weren't shot & killed.

+1

+2
Not to mention he's right about the spirit of HOV. You ended up with only a warning, his is truly a no harm no foul situation, what outcome are you looking for?

There is no "spirit of the HOV." That's just some bullsh#t the officer made up. The law is the law. When did living, breathing babies stop qualifying as "persons"?

The appropriate response from a respectful and socially well-adjusted man is to laugh at the mistake, wave at the babies, and say "Have a good day, ma'am."

Bootlickers like you disgust me.

OMG you need to chill out - let me guess you hate traffic enforcement and think it infringes on your civil liberties somehow?

Of course there is a spirit of HOV - it is to move people more efficiently. The law may allow children to count but I'm not really sure why they should as children don't really need to commute through congested corridors but maybe I'm missing something (and I'm a parent who commutes).

But you can't ticket someone for violating the spirit of HOV and that obviously didn't happen so this entire thread is stupid.

But I'm glad the police are trying to enforce the HOV rules which lots of drivers, including presumably the person I'm responding to, think the rules are optional.

Thank you Voice of Reason!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh well, sounds like you'll live. At least you weren't shot & killed.

+1

+2
Not to mention he's right about the spirit of HOV. You ended up with only a warning, his is truly a no harm no foul situation, what outcome are you looking for?

There is no "spirit of the HOV." That's just some bullsh#t the officer made up. The law is the law. When did living, breathing babies stop qualifying as "persons"?

The appropriate response from a respectful and socially well-adjusted man is to laugh at the mistake, wave at the babies, and say "Have a good day, ma'am."

Bootlickers like you disgust me.

OMG you need to chill out - let me guess you hate traffic enforcement and think it infringes on your civil liberties somehow?

Of course there is a spirit of HOV - it is to move people more efficiently. The law may allow children to count but I'm not really sure why they should as children don't really need to commute through congested corridors but maybe I'm missing something (and I'm a parent who commutes).

But you can't ticket someone for violating the spirit of HOV and that obviously didn't happen so this entire thread is stupid.

But I'm glad the police are trying to enforce the HOV rules which lots of drivers, including presumably the person I'm responding to, think the rules are optional.

I'm the person you're responding to:
I have no issue with the officer pulling her over and trying to enforce the law.

My issue is with his socially maladjusted attitude and thinking his sh#t doesn't stink. He pulled her over to get more info. He should have not threatened an innocent driver with a "warning" who was following the law as written. He should have said "Thank you, ma'am. Have a nice day with your babies."

I expect good customer service from the civil servants I PAY with my tax dollars. This cop wants to take a tax-payer provided salary, overtime, benefits, and pension? Then he needs an attitude adjustment. He's not allowed to lie and make up laws on the spot.

[Anonymous]

OP he could have given you a ticket and you would have to fight it. Why are you so upset about getting pulled over. Is this just more woman privileges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d be upset because now under your license/license plate is the warning that you were in the HOV as a single passenger.

There was no warning to give because you broke no law. I’d have pushed that more. I understand he must have been embarrassed to realize he was wrong but entering a warning in the system is wrong as well.

Example, husband was pulled over for a taillight out. The police gave him a warning and logged it in the system. About a week later another policeman noticed this light out and pulled him over. He said he was going to give him a warning but when he ran his info he saw he’d been warned the week prior and not taken care of it. A ticket was then issued.

So now say you make a mistake and get in the HOV solo and get pulled over, your warning has been logged on a false accusation and you’ll just straight up get the ticket.

Your husband deserved his ticket. He was given a warning. He didn't fix the taillight. That is a terrible example of "wrongly putting a warning in the system".

OP has no "right" to "one free warning" that just got unfairly used up. If she gets in the HOV lane solo, she should get a ticket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh well, sounds like you'll live. At least you weren't shot & killed.

+1

+2
Not to mention he's right about the spirit of HOV. You ended up with only a warning, his is truly a no harm no foul situation, what outcome are you looking for?

There is no "spirit of the HOV." That's just some bullsh#t the officer made up. The law is the law. When did living, breathing babies stop qualifying as "persons"?

The appropriate response from a respectful and socially well-adjusted man is to laugh at the mistake, wave at the babies, and say "Have a good day, ma'am."

Bootlickers like you disgust me.

OMG you need to chill out - let me guess you hate traffic enforcement and think it infringes on your civil liberties somehow?

Of course there is a spirit of HOV - it is to move people more efficiently. The law may allow children to count but I'm not really sure why they should as children don't really need to commute through congested corridors but maybe I'm missing something (and I'm a parent who commutes).

But you can't ticket someone for violating the spirit of HOV and that obviously didn't happen so this entire thread is stupid.

But I'm glad the police are trying to enforce the HOV rules which lots of drivers, including presumably the person I'm responding to, think the rules are optional.

I'm the person you're responding to:
I have no issue with the officer pulling her over and trying to enforce the law.

My issue is with his socially maladjusted attitude and thinking his sh#t doesn't stink. He pulled her over to get more info. He should have not threatened an innocent driver with a "warning" who was following the law as written. He should have said "Thank you, ma'am. Have a nice day with your babies."

I expect good customer service from the civil servants I PAY with my tax dollars. This cop wants to take a tax-payer provided salary, overtime, benefits, and pension? Then he needs an attitude adjustment. He's not allowed to lie and make up laws on the spot.

If he was making up laws on the spot, he would have given her a ticket.

If you think the police exist to serve you, you are truly deluded. They have no obligation whatsoever to protect you or serve you.

[Anonymous]

This is a stupid thread because a cop could not admit he was wrong. Not for pulling you over, if he could not see the kids, but for not simply saying, “sorry, I did not see the children....have a nice day”.

W