[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

Well, because in my opinion (and I made this much clear in my previous post), he wasn't being kind, he was trying to keep himself out of court. We'll never know either way so no point debating that. But the rest of my argument is based on that assumption.

WTF? You pulled this assumption from where? Is it possible he could have done BOTH? Being kind as well as not wanting to sit in court all day? Because I will tell you something, from my experience, people fight tickets/enforcement action a lot less when they have been given a break.

In most cases it works in everyones best interest if someone gets these kinds of breaks.

1.) The offender feels much better about his experience with the officer if the officer appears to be a human and have some empathy. The offender is less likely to go around and bad mouth the officer and the department he works for, infact, he is more likely to talk positively about the officer. Of course there are always people that think they have done no wrong and everyone is out to get them.

2.) The offender becomes acountable for his/her actions as there is a punishment for breaking the law.

3.) The officer doesn't feel like is a dick wad going around like a robot handing out tickets for every offence at the maximum punishment.

4.) The officer can spend more time policing instead of being tied up in court all day long explaining to a judge that he caught someone speeding.

I call it a loophole because I see no legitimate reason for an officer to be able to write two tickets for the same offense. If someone explains a good reason to me, fine, I could be convinced.

It has been explained numberous times. If it were not like this then police would have to stop EVERYONE going over the speed limit no matter the speed and hand out tickets. Is that what you want? No discretion for police officers?

However, it doesn't matter anyway, it's just terminology. Loophole or not, the fact is the cop used the two tickets to dissuade (bully) the OP from his right to go to court.

That maybe the case and like I said early it is very unprofessional. But it has also been brought up that there is really two sides to this story. I am not picking a side but I know that in almost all cases someone who has been accused of an offence either does not tell the whole truth or they are unaware of some of the truth.

Because it's not a police officer's job to be a vindictive prick. All personal issues should be put aside and his behaviour should be governed by his job description. No question.

I agree, he shouldn't be vindictive, if he was and is then he shouldn't be a police officer. But you better pray that this world never ends up being a place where police do EXACTLY what the law tells them to do. We will all be screwed.

Because as has been outline earlier in this thread, in a case of the cops word versus someone else's, the cops' word is scripture. So yeah, he should mind.

I am pretty sure that no one said that a officers word is scripture. A police officers testimony many times does have more weight as evidence in court as long as the officer can articulate his authority, the event and the violation. A judge will almost never rely completely on a police officers word, or any other persons word for that matter. Part of what the officer testifies include past experiences, training and knowledge of the law.

EDIT: And, if someone is charged with an offence that they did not commit, I agree and encourage them to fight it in court. That is what it is there for. Police are human. They make mistakes, they can be bad officers, they can vindictive, they can be criminals.