>He even uses words like "arrogant" and "ignorant", that I think are better applied to rich whiney college newspaper editors than our boys in blue that put their lives at risk day after day.

You'll forgive me for observing this, but pulling somone over for having an out of state plate, or meter-maiding out a parking ticket, doesn't normally qualifly as 'putting your life at risk day after day'.

Tired cliches about whiny college kids advance your argument abount as far as your assumption that radar-cops are ready for instant holy martyrdom.

Petty revenue corruption has consequences, not the least of which occurs when citizens percieve that innocence is not a protection from law enforcement.

Ryan,

Apparently you don't realize that the police do put their lives at risk whenever they stop a person. They don't know who is in that car or how they'll react, and thus police are killed or injuring during "routine traffic stops" all the time. You should know this.

Making stupid generalizations about the police, like this ass from Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College did, either proceeds from stupidity or ignorance. He didn't just complain about defacto ticket quotas, he alleged that police generally are just out to pester and annoy people while ignoring the risk they put themselves at every day.

Ultimately, it's just misdirected whining.

> Apparently you don't realize that the police do put their lives at risk whenever they stop a person.

Only inasmuch as I put my life at risk getting into my car and driving it. You know, I think there might actually be one or 2 police officers who survived 20 years on the force.

Now I know that's hard to believe, since we all know that most citizens are just itching for an excuse to jump out of their cars and start blazing away with fully automatic assault rifles loaded with 400 rounds of caseless, armor-piercing, pre-fragmented, hollow-point cop-killer, cop-seeking bullets.

But bear with me while you struggle to suspend your disbelief.

I know, watching too much COPS reruns can make the credible beleive that all pull-overs result in violence, but maybe this isn't the case. Maybe... its sensationalized. Maybe even they cut out the stops that wouldn't make for good ratings. Nah, couldn't be.

Some cops do indeed spend their careers in crapholes of inner-city slum disctricts. But, wonder of wonders, the meter maids and the I-999 prowlers don't show up there much.

Those are the cops that are putting their lives on the line... not the revenue enhancers.

Oh, by the way, the people LIVING in those places are in a teensy bit of danger themselves. Don't rush to laud them as heroes though. Not even the neighborhood watch folks.

After all, they don't write tickets.

I would liken the danger of pulling over random citizens to the danger of hitchhiking to and from work on a daily basis. You just never know who is sitting behind the wheel of that car.

My point is that people that speed, run stop signs, and violate minor traffic laws, shouldn't bitch about being pulled over and fined.

I am by no means a model driver. I've gotten my share of traffic tickets, and I usually go to court and fight them. I'm also usually pretty upset that I got the ticket in the first place.

However, I'm not about to blame the cops for pulling me over. After all, I know they are out there. When I speed or break traffic laws, I know that I'm taking a risk of getting pulled over. Whether or not they use traffic fines as a source of revenue is a non sequitur. To blame them for my indiscretion would be both 'arrogant' and 'ignorant'. Certainly more ignorant than the cop that pulls me over.

As for Rodman's column, he came off as a snotty little brat who had just gotten a ticket and was pissed off about it.

As for my being too soft on the police, they perform a thankless job. Sure there are bad cops that get a power trip out of it, but for the most part they all work long hours for short pay. Cut them some slack.

Besides, if you don't wanna mess with them, then don't break the law.

> My point is that people that speed, run stop signs, and violate minor traffic laws, shouldn't bitch about being pulled over and fined.

And people who do not, should have nothing to worry about. Unfortuately, that is not the case.

> Whether or not they use traffic fines as a source of revenue is a non sequitur.

Fine. Then have the cash exclusively fund their internal affairs department, and have that department set up 'stings' to catch cops who pull over legal-speed drivers.

I'm sure they won't object

More seriously, letting a police force 'eat what they kill', is a extremely serious conflict of interest, where it exists. Sending the money to general revenue isn't always enough, either.

>As for Rodman's column, he came off as a snotty little brat who had just gotten a ticket and was pissed off about it.

I must have missed the part where he mentioned getting a ticket. Or do you just assume that anyone with something bad to say about the police is a crook?

Hold on while I check...

Well hail mary and what do you know? He never said that. Course, he's probably covering it up, the little commie bastard. I bet he picks his nose, too.

While we are in the buisness of accusation-mongering, you come off as a person who never got a ticket you didn't obviously and manifestly deserve, and who has never interacted with the police beyond that capacity (like reporting a robbery). How close am I?

You think he picks his nose too? I was gonna say that but I figured you'd accuse me of making it up.

As for my run-ins with the law, I've seen the best and worst of them. Still, officers aren't the ones that convict. You still have your day in court, and have your right to plead your case before a judge.

Now our judicial system at the lower levels like traffic enforcement is a completely different beast. I've found dealing with prosecutors, judges, and lawyers to be most unpleasant. But don't blame that on the cop. Their job is to catalog evidence and present it objectively. With the advent of dashboard cameras and other technical advancements, it is no longer your word versus theirs either. But then again, when it comes down to that, you are pretty much screwed.

I'm only screwed by dashboard cameras to the extent that their evidence is only available to the police, to strenghen their cases (and convienently unavailable most of the rest of the time). Also, although some cameras record the cop's speed, in no case are they linked to the radar gun.

So, everything is recorded... EXCEPT the part that a citizen is likely to contest. Concidence?

Also note that the meter readers (even the ones in vehicles) do not have this.

The cameras are for the cops. They are NOT for you. Any benefit the public (as opposed to the police) might derive is incidental. Even the 'police abuse' aspect is intended to foil false claims of abuse, NOT catch abusers.

Round where I live, one of the ways cops determine where to lay in wait is citizen complaints. If there's a rash of complaints, the police set up a weeklong sting along that stretch of road.

Now although that approach has weaknesses, it nonetheless is an example of targetting your effort by some criteria other than pure, crass, moneymaking.

The public (or, less charitably a couple of whiners) percieves a problem, and the police go out and fix it. Everybody wins.

But when you are talking stupid crap like 5mph over the limit on the freeway, absent any other dangerous behavior, then we have leeches at work, without a bit of concern for public safety. Riddle me this: If going 60 mph in PA is just asking to murder someone, how is it that 65 in New Orleans is pretty damned slow?

States have the right to set their own limits(execpting the disaster of the 55mph extortion movement), but you'll forgive me if I don't take them seriously 100% of the time. Or god forbid, suspect them of caring more about their ticket revenue than my life.

You hear that in the cop's diatribe: 'I have no problem taking five minutes out of my day... or save the life of another that may have been killed by a speeder...'.

He ACTUALLY THINKS HE SAVES SOMEONES LIFE, every time he pulls someone over. Goddam. Where can I get me a job like that?

Maybe, that guy you pulled over would have killed someone, but since you don't specifiy any additional dangerous behavior(nor even the speed), I have to wonder.

Speeding lessens your reaction time. We can agree on this. But if there is no one ahead of you for a great long stretch, then I'm afraid the only person you are putting in greater-than-normal danger is yourself, and even that not by very much. You fall asleep and swerve off the road and hit a tree at 55, you are just as dead as at 75. Unless possibly if you are driving a SUV, which everyone wants to ban.

Tailigaters, weavers, cutters, and non-yielders are a hundred times more dangerous then a speeder. Anything that causes another driver to react to you or crash is dangerous.

But that is precisely what we put up with on the road... the cops do not prevent it, they might not be able to, and in any event usually do not even try.

He continues: 'Remember: Timothy McVeigh was caught after being stopped minor traffic violation'.

I'm shocked no one called him on that. Why don't we pull EVERYONE over then, and catch all the crooks?

A lucky break while you were out raping Joe Commuter does not a brilliant breakthrough in crime-solving make. Nor does it prove that speeding tickets are the best thing since the seat belt.

> I would liken the danger of pulling over random citizens to the danger of hitchhiking to and from work on a daily basis. You just never know who is sitting behind the wheel of that car.

You mean, you would liken it to the danger of hitchhiking to work, while fully armed, usually with backup(also armed), and a camera recording the whole affair, even including the person's liscence plate and usually his face.

Somehow that seems a hell of a lot less dangerous than you would like to spin it.

I'm glad that you like the police. Really. Most people who like the police and defend them in any and every event, are good neighbors.

What they are not, is vigilent. The founding fathers weren't very good neighbors, but most of them took their liberty seriously.

Support of the police is a good thing. Blind support leads to abuse, however.