7 ms·

I think you're giving the officer a very generous amount of "benefit of the doubt". He didn't say "I wasn't sure about the legality, so I referred it to a judg

I think you're giving the officer a very generous amount of "benefit of the doubt". He didn't say "I wasn't sure about the legality, so I referred it to a judge", rather saying he cited her because she got argumentative. ie., "Don't challenge me if you disagree, otherwise I'll treat you as though you've broken the law." That's pretty crappy behaviour on the officer's behalf IMHO.

Pxtl 13y ago
Yeah, sounds like Contempt of Cop.
Karunamon 13y ago
Pretty typical, unfortunately..
droopybuns 13y ago
If we have to choose between a cop and a glasshole for douchebaggery, we all lose.
EpicEng 13y ago
If you're going to argue with someone who has the power to make your life difficult then, well, prepare for your life to get a bit more difficult. The cop didn't do anything illegal. Under the law I believe he can cite her (the whole "monitor" thing), but he has discretion. The law is a bit vague, enforcement will be up to the judge. Regardless, it sounds like she was argumentative. That's fine, but accept the consequences. Like I said, he is free to cite her, and I don't necessarily blame him for doing so given what I've read.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Just because the cop didn't do anything illegal doesn't mean he wasn't being a dick.
- clhodapp 13y ago
  What you are describing is exactly wrong behavior. You may think that most people become petty tyrants when placed in positions of minor authority (and there is some experimental support for this idea), but that doesn't mean that it is right. Given that their job requires that they be given the legal ability to do a lot of things that would be illegal for a non-police citizen to do, I believe that police officers should be given very little leeway for acting in bad faith (honest mistakes are a different story: I feel like most people are already quite intolerant of honest police mistakes, probably too much so).
  - EpicEng 13y ago
    Are you saying that the cop was wrong and that the citation was unwarranted under the law? If so, and if that is true, then I agree with you. However, that's not obvious as far as I know. Glasses which are essentially monitors are a pretty new thing, and California has existing law which states that "monitors" within the view of the driver (an exception is provided for mounted GPS) are illegal. What I'm saying is that I believe the cop was within his rights to issue a citation. If that is true, then he did nothing wrong. He has discretion. If you're going to argue with the person who has a choice in whether or not to punish you then you should expect to be on the losing end. It's no different than getting pulled over for speeding. Assuming that you were in fact speeding, the officer is allowed to issue a citation, or not. It's up to him. If you're a jerk then you're going to get one. "Tyrrany"? C'mon.
    - rhizome 13y ago
      What I'm saying is that I believe the cop was within his rights to issue a citation. Not if he didn't even try to discern whether it was being used for navigation. You ask whether the citation was unwarranted, but I think that betrays an authoritarian attitude. Was the citation warranted? The judge says no.
      - EpicEng 13y ago
        It was dismissed because there was no proof that they were turned on at the time. How in the hell a cop could ever prove that is beyond me.
cLeEOGPw 13y ago
It is clearly stated that using visual monitors while driving is against the law in the state.
Shivetya 13y ago
I will side with the cop here. Knowing a few who are in this line of work I am more than amazed at what they put up with. Put it to you this way, your not being pulled over because they don't like you, your not being pulled over because they are having a bad day, your being pulled over because you flagged yourself; speeding, running a stop sign, tail light out, etc. There is no reason to get argumentative with someone doing their job, let alone a traffic cop. All that while they are working on your incident they have to watch out for traffic, your actions, and ensuring you don't get so excited your a threat to yourself or them. More than likely, being familiar with "our type"; techies, she came off as a pretentious twit and treated him with contempt for being an ignorant cop.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  I've been pulled over for a "crack in the windshield" which wasn't visible from where the police officer's patrol car was sitting. I know because I went back and checked from his vantage point. I get that you're trying to provide some nuance here, but let's not pretend that all police officers are honest and decent individuals just doing everything by the book. It goes both ways.
  - Anderkent 13y ago
    Wait, so was your windshield cracked or not? The way you said it seems it was; in which case I don't see what was wrong?
    - vinceguidry 13y ago
      I think the GP has the idea that a cop needs a reason to pull anyone over. Unfortunately no such requirement exists anymore, IIRC the Supreme Court said that cops can lie about it. They keep up the pretense so as to not rub it in our faces how much of a police state we've become.
      - Anderkent 13y ago
        Except if he actually had his windshield cracked it's more likely that the cops saw it than that they pulled a random car over without cause and it turned out to have a cracked windshield.

Pxtl 13y ago

Yeah, sounds like Contempt of Cop.

Karunamon 13y ago

Pretty typical, unfortunately..

droopybuns 13y ago

If we have to choose between a cop and a glasshole for douchebaggery, we all lose.

EpicEng 13y ago

If you're going to argue with someone who has the power to make your life difficult then, well, prepare for your life to get a bit more difficult. The cop didn't do anything illegal. Under the law I believe he can cite her (the whole "monitor" thing), but he has discretion. The law is a bit vague, enforcement will be up to the judge. Regardless, it sounds like she was argumentative. That's fine, but accept the consequences. Like I said, he is free to cite her, and I don't necessarily blame him for doing so given what I've read.

rhizome 13y ago
Just because the cop didn't do anything illegal doesn't mean he wasn't being a dick.
clhodapp 13y ago
What you are describing is exactly wrong behavior. You may think that most people become petty tyrants when placed in positions of minor authority (and there is some experimental support for this idea), but that doesn't mean that it is right. Given that their job requires that they be given the legal ability to do a lot of things that would be illegal for a non-police citizen to do, I believe that police officers should be given very little leeway for acting in bad faith (honest mistakes are a different story: I feel like most people are already quite intolerant of honest police mistakes, probably too much so).
- EpicEng 13y ago
  Are you saying that the cop was wrong and that the citation was unwarranted under the law? If so, and if that is true, then I agree with you. However, that's not obvious as far as I know. Glasses which are essentially monitors are a pretty new thing, and California has existing law which states that "monitors" within the view of the driver (an exception is provided for mounted GPS) are illegal. What I'm saying is that I believe the cop was within his rights to issue a citation. If that is true, then he did nothing wrong. He has discretion. If you're going to argue with the person who has a choice in whether or not to punish you then you should expect to be on the losing end. It's no different than getting pulled over for speeding. Assuming that you were in fact speeding, the officer is allowed to issue a citation, or not. It's up to him. If you're a jerk then you're going to get one. "Tyrrany"? C'mon.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    What I'm saying is that I believe the cop was within his rights to issue a citation. Not if he didn't even try to discern whether it was being used for navigation. You ask whether the citation was unwarranted, but I think that betrays an authoritarian attitude. Was the citation warranted? The judge says no.
    - EpicEng 13y ago
      It was dismissed because there was no proof that they were turned on at the time. How in the hell a cop could ever prove that is beyond me.

cLeEOGPw 13y ago

It is clearly stated that using visual monitors while driving is against the law in the state.

Shivetya 13y ago

I will side with the cop here. Knowing a few who are in this line of work I am more than amazed at what they put up with. Put it to you this way, your not being pulled over because they don't like you, your not being pulled over because they are having a bad day, your being pulled over because you flagged yourself; speeding, running a stop sign, tail light out, etc. There is no reason to get argumentative with someone doing their job, let alone a traffic cop. All that while they are working on your incident they have to watch out for traffic, your actions, and ensuring you don't get so excited your a threat to yourself or them. More than likely, being familiar with "our type"; techies, she came off as a pretentious twit and treated him with contempt for being an ignorant cop.

wavefunction 13y ago
I've been pulled over for a "crack in the windshield" which wasn't visible from where the police officer's patrol car was sitting. I know because I went back and checked from his vantage point. I get that you're trying to provide some nuance here, but let's not pretend that all police officers are honest and decent individuals just doing everything by the book. It goes both ways.
- Anderkent 13y ago
  Wait, so was your windshield cracked or not? The way you said it seems it was; in which case I don't see what was wrong?
  - vinceguidry 13y ago
    I think the GP has the idea that a cop needs a reason to pull anyone over. Unfortunately no such requirement exists anymore, IIRC the Supreme Court said that cops can lie about it. They keep up the pretense so as to not rub it in our faces how much of a police state we've become.
    - Anderkent 13y ago
      Except if he actually had his windshield cracked it's more likely that the cops saw it than that they pulled a random car over without cause and it turned out to have a cracked windshield.