Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
How do you figure? Even if the speed enforcement officer wasn't empowered to arrest someone for anything besides speeding, he's presumably going to, for example, run the plates of the vehicle he stopped and see if it's a stolen car, or that it belongs to a guy who's wanted for the murder of three people. What does he do then? Call the "gun police" and wait? Doesn't the murderer in the car he just pulled over immediately shoot him to try to prevent him from making that call?
Or would you prefer that the "speed enforcement police" never attempt to determine whether the person he pulled over is wanted for anything and remain wilfully blind to who they've pulled over? In which case, who is at fault when he drives away with his speeding ticket and kills someone else?
Moreover, now you've got an unarmed person who's intentionally had information withheld from him or her that the state could have given them about the dangerous person they're going to interact with. If you're the sort of person who might shoot a police officer, do you think it's at all likely that you're going to go "no problem, s/he's just going to give me a speeding ticket, no need to get worked up"? Or do you think that officer is in immediate mortal danger while handing out that ticket, without even knowing it? Because I'm thinking it's the latter.
|
Calgary Transit Peace Officers do not carry firearms. When they write a ticket to a citizen for riding the train without a valid fare, they check an inter-agency database to determine if the person has any outstanding arrest warrants or is a known dangerous criminal. If the check comes back positive, they do indeed call in the "gun police" and wait. If that model of law enforcement works for non-violent offenses like transit fare-skipping, why couldn't it also work for non-violent offenses like traffic violations?