Quote:
Originally Posted by Bent Wookie
The courts have recognized that the police DO have discretion. However, it is certainly not (as you stated in a previous post) part of being a police officer.
|
So you are saying that police do have discretion, but it isn't part of being a police officer? Do you maybe want to rephrase that, as that seems to be a direct contradiction of itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bent Wookie
Just to confirm, if someone gives you some story about why they broke the law AND if they seem upset about getting a ticket, then the police should, in that case, use discretion to avoid a long lasting negative impression on said ticket getter? Does that at all seem realistic?
|
No, I'm saying in this particular case, the ticket seemed to be ill-advised. That is the purpose of discretion, to decide when to act differently in what *seem* to be similar situations. What you are talking about is just another way of trying to apply rigid rules to avoid thinking.
"Just to confirm", are you saying police officers should always give out a ticket regardless of circumstances? Never ever give someone just a warning?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bent Wookie
There is way more to the story. I can't believe you fell for the ole, 'I was driving along minding my own business when....'.
|
I have no doubt there is more to the story, but it is entirely possible that the police were simply looking for two asian men in a car similar to the one they were driving. So the driver was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Having the backup quickly arrive seems to support this conclusion. It's also possible that he was belligerent and unco-operative. So what? Doesn't change the fact that giving someone a ticket for something that is both trivial and unfair is poor judgement.
Again, what exactly did it accomplish to do so - make the gov't a few bucks? If he had just gotten a warning, do you think he would have driven off and said "Haha, I'm gonna leave those old certificates in there and THE LAW CAN'T STOP ME!!!"