4 ms·

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

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.
    - rhizome 13y ago
      Even better.
      - EpicEng 13y ago
        Right... until some guy watching a video on his glasses while driving plows into you and your family.
        rhizome 13y ago
        And then it becomes an issue. Am I missing part of the logic here?
        EpicEng 13y ago
        I believe you are missing a fair amount of logic...
        rhizome 13y ago
        ZING!
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > What I'm saying is that I believe the cop was within his rights to issue a citation. Cops don't have "rights" to issue citations. They have power to issue citation as an aspect of their job, and an obligation to use that power within its legal bounds, which include, in the case of issuing citations, generally that there be probable cause to believe that the person has violated the law identified on the citation.
  - EpicEng 13y ago
    Ok, you're right; I used the wrong term. How does that change the substance of my argument exactly?

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.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Even better.
    - EpicEng 13y ago
      Right... until some guy watching a video on his glasses while driving plows into you and your family.
      - rhizome 13y ago
        And then it becomes an issue. Am I missing part of the logic here?
        EpicEng 13y ago
        I believe you are missing a fair amount of logic...
        rhizome 13y ago
        ZING!
dragonwriter 13y ago
> What I'm saying is that I believe the cop was within his rights to issue a citation. Cops don't have "rights" to issue citations. They have power to issue citation as an aspect of their job, and an obligation to use that power within its legal bounds, which include, in the case of issuing citations, generally that there be probable cause to believe that the person has violated the law identified on the citation.
- EpicEng 13y ago
  Ok, you're right; I used the wrong term. How does that change the substance of my argument exactly?