Fun with COPS in Colorado

[twobjshelbys]

 

you just need to read the Constitution—possibly the most amazing document ever written by man

 

 

 

 

Nope. It was written by space aliens. Descendents of the same ones that built the pyramids.

[Matts]

I've been pulled over once in old Saleen for being an idiot and trying to get to a flight that I was late to. It was my fault and I respect them looking over my safety as well as others. Ever since then I always do the speed limit and drive very responsibly.

[skiph]

Let get this out of the way, I don't like cops. Here is my story from today, I was driving to work on I-25 northbound between Castel Rock and teh Tecj Center. I was following what I knew to be an unmarked cop car for 10 mile I was directly behind him at about 2 car lenths the entire time. The COP pull over one lane turns on his lights and slams on his brakes to get behind me. He then pulls me over and says I was doing 85 in a 75, my comment to him was "Wait a sec I was behind you for 10 miles and I was going the exact same speed that you were the entire time, does that mean you were speeding also", I recieved no answer to this question, he took my info and gave me a $165 ticket (which I intend to fight). The COP's light were not on while he was on the interstate, he was not heading to a call at a high rate of speed, yet he was going at least 90 miles an hour, is this legal????

 

 

Yes. It's legal. Well, I can't technically speak for Colorado, but in another state I grew up in. No problemo.

 

I've known a few cops of the years. One state trouper and the other ones were county cops. It's legal and if you think about it logical.

 

If they are going the same speed as everyone else, they never see any "new" vehicles. So going a good bit faster, or slower (you'll see that at times too) lets them move around in the crowd.

 

These men and women have a tough job to do. They can be shot for just pulling someone over for a routine traffic stop.

 

The guys I knew, taught me a lot about their perspective in all kinds of situations. Sure, some are holes. But there are holes all over the place regardless of one's job. For the most part, they are trying just do a job, and for not much pay typically.

 

If I get pulled over (yes, I speed on occation), I turn on all the lights in the car, roll down the windows, then put both hands on the 10 & 2 positon on the stearing wheel, and then wait. Answering questions with yes officer, no officer, etc.

 

I can't tell you how many times being respectiful has ended up with a warning instead of a ticket. There was even one time when I did get a ticket, but when I took it to court (since my record was clean) during the Q&A, after the officer gave the details of what happened, he mentioned that I was "very helpful and cooperative" out of the blue. Not sure if that is some kind of code or something, but ended up with a fine, but no points.

 

Taking these things to court is usually a good idea IMHO. But pleading not-guilty....good luck. I mean if there is proof you were speeding like radar, laser, or even clocking you, really tough to prove not-guilty. Different states have different options. Some times it being your first ticket (depending on the judge) on a clean record, can et you probation. Then, there is if the officer does not show up (and does not have an approved reason to not be there) poof, not guilty.

 

One caution when taking things to court, be aware that the fine and the points can be increased by the judge as soon as you step up there.

[raymond_chase]

I enjoy reading these discussions about rights vs. privileges. I have a brother who feels similarly to some of the thoughts expressed here. He and I have had some interesting discussions about whether driving is a "right" or a "privilege". He is intelligent and capable of arguing cogent points over this, but where he is unable to get around the “privilege” argument is this: The Constitution (supreme law of the land for those of you wondering about its place in society) gives specific powers to the federal government (the usurping of many others by the federal government is a different discussion entirely) and retains the remainder for the STATES (intentional capitalization), not the individuals. In fact, individuals had no specifically delineated “rights” in the Constitution as originally written; the First 10 AMENDMENTS (more intentional capitalization—amendments meaning “changes”) give us our “Bill of Rights” as individuals.

 

The primary concern of the framers of the Constitution had to do with the federal government being too strong, so they limited its powers specifically while providing little limitation to the states, except to prohibit them from interfering with commerce, making separate treaties, declaring war, granting titles, etc. (mostly powers granted to the federal government). Powers of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches are specifically granted, along with limitations to those powers. The states were not given specific powers intentionally in order to give them authority over everything else to govern. Individual rights were granted because it was popular with constitutions to give a “Bill of Rights”, and some anti-Constitutionalists were opposed to the Constitution on the grounds it did not contain one. Don’t misunderstand this to think that I am somehow opposed to individual rights—one of the greatest affronts to our Constitution is the creeping growth of laws infringing on specifically granted Constitutional rights, specifically to the 2nd Amendment.

 

Driving automobiles on public highways built and maintained by governments (local, state, etc.) using tax dollars from various sources was not occurring at the time the Constitution was drafted, so this activity was not covered by the Constitution. Since no amendments have been made concerning this activity since then, it is neither specifically granted as a “right” to individuals or as a “power” to the federal government. This leaves authority over driving automobiles on public highways with the states. This is the reason states issue driver’s licenses (interstate trucking is a form of interstate commerce, so different rules apply since “Commerce among the several states” is a power retained by Congress under Section 8 of the Constitution).

 

You are correct that driving is a “right”—when it is done on private property, not public roadways. This is the reason you don’t need a driver’s license to operate a vehicle on your own, or even another person’s, land. It doesn’t take a law enforcement officer or attorney to determine what I have said, you just need to read the Constitution—possibly the most amazing document ever written by man—to understand this.

 

Feel free to argue this point if you care to, but the theory that states cannot tell you whether or not you can drive on public highways is a slippery slope since if they cannot tell you that, then they cannot tell you not to do any of the following: drive recklessly, drive while intoxicated, drive too fast (not including the "chickenshit" tickets...lol), drive too slow, stop at stop signs, obey other traffic signals, etc.

 

What you describe is not “freedom”, it is anarchy. If you recall the preamble to the Constitution, it says: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. This means we are going to have laws; they are not intended to limit our freedoms, except where our freedoms might interfere with another person's rights, but that doesn't mean or guarantee that they won't. The same law that requires you to get a driver's license to drive on public highways keeps 12 year olds from doing so legally, takes away from or doesn't grant the privilege to people with insufficient eyesight to safely do so, takes away the privilege from people involved in serious traffic violations (DUI, manslaughter, etc.), and provides a means to remove or limit the privileges of those with other medical conditions that would endanger the general public.

 

Sorry for the long post!

 

 

Some very good points. I think Thomas Payne said it best...

 

"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

...

For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."

[mullens]

Respectfully, You choose your career, you got paid for it, why are you complaining?

 

And why does this choice give you the right to be a hypocrite and break the same laws, you wrote tickets for?

 

This is why most citizens avoid cops and cops usually only have cop friends, so there's your insight, the general public in all economic and social strata hates hypocrites.

 

 

Thanks for the honest answer, now I know why the bitter guy pulling me over has a boner over going 5mph over. He had a much more sad experience earlier and is still upset.

 

Sad way to live. Congratulations on retirement.

 

 

NOT TRUE. I'm 24 years retired LEO and I most of my friends were outside law enforcement. I'm around cops all day, why the hell would I want to hang with cops off duty? That is just one of the dumb, untrue sterotypes about cops. Take my advice go for a ride-along some time. Nothing like seeing what we do from the inside.

[SGT/SC#0471]

Respectfully, You choose your career, you got paid for it, why are you complaining?

 

And why does this choice give you the right to be a hypocrite and break the same laws, you wrote tickets for?

 

This is why most citizens avoid cops and cops usually only have cop friends, so there's your insight, the general public in all economic and social strata hates hypocrites.

 

 

Thanks for the honest answer, now I know why the bitter guy pulling me over has a boner over going 5mph over. He had a much more sad experience earlier and is still upset.

 

Sad way to live. Congratulations on retirement.

 

NOT TRUE. I'm 24 years retired LEO and I most of my friends were outside law enforcement. I'm around cops all day, why the hell would I want to hang with cops off duty? That is just one of the dumb, untrue sterotypes about cops. Take my advice go for a ride-along some time. Nothing like seeing what we do from the inside.

 

Pass, I avoid all interaction with hypocracy.

 

Glad you are the exception to what have seen in my life...Cheers!

[SGT/SC#0471]

From the Seattle Times 2/19/10:

 

"During his appeal hearing in October, the commission also heard testimony that Werner had offered conflicting information about whether he once engaged in inappropriate behavior with a man who had fallen asleep or had simply dreamed it.

 

Though Werner got his job back, the dishonesty finding led King County prosecutors to add his name to a list of potential witnesses whose honesty has been questioned. Most of the 52 names on the list are law-enforcement officers. Prosecutors will be required to notify defense attorneys whenever Werner is called to testify."

 

So most of the 52 on that list are LEO's in the County I live in that are known by prosecutors to have questionable honesty...

 

Heres the link mullens, you cannot make this stuff up and Officer Werner cannot remember "inappropriate behavior" with another sleeping man, whatever that means...

 

Like I posted above, no free ride along for me thanks...

 

Edit: forgot the link....http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011122366_werner19m.html

[mullens]

Hey SGT I'm not saying there aren't a few bad apples..that would be extremely naive of me. I saw it 1st hand in my time in IAB. What I am saying is that the vast majority of guys and gals I worked with had the utmost integrity (no job depends on it so much). The OP's "I don't like cops" opening statement really set the tone and said alot about his attitude.

[dgstang]

I enjoy reading these discussions about rights vs. privileges. I have a brother who feels similarly to some of the thoughts expressed here. He and I have had some interesting discussions about whether driving is a "right" or a "privilege". He is intelligent and capable of arguing cogent points over this, but where he is unable to get around the “privilege” argument is this: The Constitution (supreme law of the land for those of you wondering about its place in society) gives specific powers to the federal government (the usurping of many others by the federal government is a different discussion entirely) and retains the remainder for the STATES (intentional capitalization), not the individuals. In fact, individuals had no specifically delineated “rights” in the Constitution as originally written; the First 10 AMENDMENTS (more intentional capitalization—amendments meaning “changes”) give us our “Bill of Rights” as individuals.

 

The primary concern of the framers of the Constitution had to do with the federal government being too strong, so they limited its powers specifically while providing little limitation to the states, except to prohibit them from interfering with commerce, making separate treaties, declaring war, granting titles, etc. (mostly powers granted to the federal government). Powers of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches are specifically granted, along with limitations to those powers. The states were not given specific powers intentionally in order to give them authority over everything else to govern. Individual rights were granted because it was popular with constitutions to give a “Bill of Rights”, and some anti-Constitutionalists were opposed to the Constitution on the grounds it did not contain one. Don’t misunderstand this to think that I am somehow opposed to individual rights—one of the greatest affronts to our Constitution is the creeping growth of laws infringing on specifically granted Constitutional rights, specifically to the 2nd Amendment.

 

Driving automobiles on public highways built and maintained by governments (local, state, etc.) using tax dollars from various sources was not occurring at the time the Constitution was drafted, so this activity was not covered by the Constitution. Since no amendments have been made concerning this activity since then, it is neither specifically granted as a “right” to individuals or as a “power” to the federal government. This leaves authority over driving automobiles on public highways with the states. This is the reason states issue driver’s licenses (interstate trucking is a form of interstate commerce, so different rules apply since “Commerce among the several states” is a power retained by Congress under Section 8 of the Constitution).

 

You are correct that driving is a “right”—when it is done on private property, not public roadways. This is the reason you don’t need a driver’s license to operate a vehicle on your own, or even another person’s, land. It doesn’t take a law enforcement officer or attorney to determine what I have said, you just need to read the Constitution—possibly the most amazing document ever written by man—to understand this.

 

Feel free to argue this point if you care to, but the theory that states cannot tell you whether or not you can drive on public highways is a slippery slope since if they cannot tell you that, then they cannot tell you not to do any of the following: drive recklessly, drive while intoxicated, drive too fast (not including the "chickenshit" tickets...lol), drive too slow, stop at stop signs, obey other traffic signals, etc.

 

What you describe is not “freedom”, it is anarchy. If you recall the preamble to the Constitution, it says: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. This means we are going to have laws; they are not intended to limit our freedoms, except where our freedoms might interfere with another person's rights, but that doesn't mean or guarantee that they won't. The same law that requires you to get a driver's license to drive on public highways keeps 12 year olds from doing so legally, takes away from or doesn't grant the privilege to people with insufficient eyesight to safely do so, takes away the privilege from people involved in serious traffic violations (DUI, manslaughter, etc.), and provides a means to remove or limit the privileges of those with other medical conditions that would endanger the general public.

 

Sorry for the long post!

 

 

Very well put.

[skiph]

When the Constitution was wrote horses where the mode of transportation and they where smart enough to know that right didn't need to be in the Constitution unlike the kind of law makers we have today. Today the mode of transport is mainly by car. If I pass all of their tests and I drive reasonable I have the RIGHT to drive. You sound like a leo or a smart a$$ lawyer that takes and a pile of $hit and says it smells like roses. Now I'am going out to the barn and jump on my wild horse that has the power of 500 horses and exercise my RIGHTS reasonably. Have fun riding your Mule and enjoy the pile of roses

 

 

Agreed that it is VERY important to drive today. But driving IS a privilege, not a right. It's not a Constitutional (noting that was agreed to) or a Civil right.

[SGT/SC#0471]

Hey SGT I'm not saying there aren't a few bad apples..that would be extremely naive of me. I saw it 1st hand in my time in IAB. What I am saying is that the vast majority of guys and gals I worked with had the utmost integrity (no job depends on it so much). The OP's "I don't like cops" opening statement really set the tone and said alot about his attitude.

 

 

 

Cool,I agree... you coming to the next Friday PM get together at WWW?

Should be a kick!

[mullens]

WWW?

[Snake Doc]

After 40yrs + as a licensed driver and observing life from both sides of the law my conclusion is that while it is usually basically impossible to talk yourself out of a ticket, it's really pretty easy to talk yourself into one (or more).

[FiaCobra]

After 40yrs + as a licensed driver and observing life from both sides of the law my conclusion is that while it is usually basically impossible to talk yourself out of a ticket, it's really pretty easy to talk yourself into one (or more).

 

 

 

This man speaks the truth.

[SicShelby]

Mattyellott... what happened in the end? I'm actually curious to see the outcome.

[03reptile]

Mattyellott... what happened in the end? I'm actually curious to see the outcome.

 

 

Ditto for me, as well. You never responded to my last post suggestion, i.e. : the result of your inquiry to the supervisor and or the court date result. Are you in Jail? (just kidding).

[smallb69]

Sounds like you should be up in the Idaho mountains writing a manifesto...

 

 

Most likely could get the original cabin at a government auction. Sorry, I couldnt resist and tried to stay out of as long as I could, but that was hilarious.

[smallb69]

"Last thing is this, your mother, wife or daughter is broke down in the middle of nowhere with a flat tire in the middle of the night. Do you want me doing the speed limit to get there?"

 

I have AAA.

 

"People also forget that a drivers license is a privilege that can be taken away by the state at any time, it is not a "right."

 

How do you figure, that driving on publicly funded roads, in a private vehicle, with the gas that i have bought, is a privage? The goverment does not give me my privileges I give them theirs. Just becuase under the right circumstances the law can take something away does not make it a privage, by the logic since under the right circumsatnce the goverment can take away a persons life (capital punishment) does that mean that my life itself is a "privlage" given to me by the state? Somewhere along the line a lot of people seemed to have forgotten the way all of this was supposed to work, the goverment was supposed to play almost no role in my day to day life, cities now use fines as a primary source of revenue next to land taxes. Our nation has more people in the justice system then any other developed nation, most of whom are aferican american or latino, someting is broke, and I believe it is worth fixing.

 

"'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

 

 

If you are comfortable leaving your daughter/wife stranded on a dark highway waiting at least an hour more likely 2 hours for AAA that's fairly naive, but I would sure love to hear their thoughts about your lack of regard for their safety.

[SGT/SC#0471]

If you are comfortable leaving your daughter/wife stranded on a dark highway waiting at least an hour more likely 2 hours for AAA that's fairly naive, but I would sure love to hear their thoughts about your lack of regard for their safety.

 

 

 

So obviously, your wife doesnt pack heat...

 

My grandma was the best she packed a sweet automatic....

 

Mom packs too...

 

Wrong ladies to mess with...

[SGT/SC#0471]

WWW?

 

 

See the thread about Friday PM at Buffalo Wild Wings get together for the Nascar get together.

I saw that you lived in Vegas...it will be fun!

[SGT/SC#0471]

After 40yrs + as a licensed driver and observing life from both sides of the law my conclusion is that while it is usually basically impossible to talk yourself out of a ticket, it's really pretty easy to talk yourself into one (or more).

 

 

 

My attorney has talked me out of more than one...

[smallb69]

So obviously, your wife doesnt pack heat...

 

My grandma was the best she packed a sweet automatic....

 

Mom packs too...

 

Wrong ladies to mess with...

 

HAHAHA!!

 

I would say they only heat my wife packs is the smoking credit card!!!!!!!!

 

Just to add my .02 I will admit that being a retired police officer I will admit that I was initially a little pissed at the opening statement of this thread. I have been out now for almost 5 years now. As I read along I kept saying to myself people are people and every one will have their own opinions so stay out of it and don't get involved. Well that self imposed therapy session didn't work as here I sit responding with my little ole' opinion. I speak for myself and no other officer or individual out there. Plain and simple as in every profession there are good and there are bad, police officers included. As an example, would you treat your stock broker with disrespect because of idiots like Madoff? I doubt it and so I say police officers should be given the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately some are on a power trip and even if they are disrepectful to a citizen returning the favor will only fan the fire. There are other means to deal with an unprofessional officer. The majority of the tickets I wrote were due to someone flapping their jaw. Majority meaning probably 80%. Only I know what kind of officer I was, but I think 3 personal complaints in a 20+ year career speaks volumes for the professionalism I practiced. And by the way the 3 complaints were from indiviuals that I arrested and none were upheld.

 

All the remarks in this thread about 'that's the career you chose' and so forth.........well you are right. It was the career I chose and I am thankful for it. But let's face it......no one has an encounter with an officer unless there is a problem. We deal with a side of life that most people either ignore its existence, have no idea it exists and most likely will never encounter this side of our society. I am sure the guy who sells annuties doesnt have to worry about every step he takes or every decision he makes or opening the doors to his business and whether or not it will affect his ability to see his family for dinner or not that night. That's the reality of being a police officer. Whether you are driving down the street patrolling, on a traffic stop, or handling a call there is always a target on your back. Either as simple as someone wanting to critique you or actually cause you harm. All in all a traffic ticket is a minor thing. Pay it move on or exercise your rights and contest it in court. If the officer was disrespectful file a complaint. But at the end of the day remember when you dial 911 some cop will show up, not knowing you from a hole in the ground and do what he/she has to do to protect you and your rights. If you end up in an accident, chances are it will be a police officer that risks their life to pull you from a burning vehicle or a car submerged in a murky canal. It takes an individual with a special character to risk their life for a stranger one day and spat on the next because someone was mad they got arrested. Any one can learn to sell annuities or whatever, but the character needed to be a police officer, a fireman, a soldier or anyone else that puts their life on the line for a stranger is bred from with in. Sorry to ramble on and hopefully this was read in a light hearted manner, but I have to conclude by saying, the bold opening statement in this thread of 'I don't like cops' is rather ignorant. Mutter those words to the officer that may save your life one day so you can truly express the depth of your ignorance.

[SicShelby]

HAHAHA!!

 

I would say they only heat my wife packs is the smoking credit card!!!!!!!!

 

Just to add my .02 I will admit that being a retired police officer I will admit that I was initially a little pissed at the opening statement of this thread. I have been out now for almost 5 years now. As I read along I kept saying to myself people are people and every one will have their own opinions so stay out of it and don't get involved. Well that self imposed therapy session didn't work as here I sit responding with my little ole' opinion. I speak for myself and no other officer or individual out there. Plain and simple as in every profession there are good and there are bad, police officers included. As an example, would you treat your stock broker with disrespect because of idiots like Madoff? I doubt it and so I say police officers should be given the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately some are on a power trip and even if they are disrepectful to a citizen returning the favor will only fan the fire. There are other means to deal with an unprofessional officer. The majority of the tickets I wrote were due to someone flapping their jaw. Majority meaning probably 80%. Only I know what kind of officer I was, but I think 3 personal complaints in a 20+ year career speaks volumes for the professionalism I practiced. And by the way the 3 complaints were from indiviuals that I arrested and none were upheld.

 

All the remarks in this thread about 'that's the career you chose' and so forth.........well you are right. It was the career I chose and I am thankful for it. But let's face it......no one has an encounter with an officer unless there is a problem. We deal with a side of life that most people either ignore its existence, have no idea it exists and most likely will never encounter this side of our society. I am sure the guy who sells annuties doesnt have to worry about every step he takes or every decision he makes or opening the doors to his business and whether or not it will affect his ability to see his family for dinner or not that night. That's the reality of being a police officer. Whether you are driving down the street patrolling, on a traffic stop, or handling a call there is always a target on your back. Either as simple as someone wanting to critique you or actually cause you harm. All in all a traffic ticket is a minor thing. Pay it move on or exercise your rights and contest it in court. If the officer was disrespectful file a complaint. But at the end of the day remember when you dial 911 some cop will show up, not knowing you from a hole in the ground and do what he/she has to do to protect you and your rights. If you end up in an accident, chances are it will be a police officer that risks their life to pull you from a burning vehicle or a car submerged in a murky canal. It takes an individual with a special character to risk their life for a stranger one day and spat on the next because someone was mad they got arrested. Any one can learn to sell annuities or whatever, but the character needed to be a police officer, a fireman, a soldier or anyone else that puts their life on the line for a stranger is bred from with in. Sorry to ramble on and hopefully this was read in a light hearted manner, but I have to conclude by saying, the bold opening statement in this thread of 'I don't like cops' is rather ignorant. Mutter those words to the officer that may save your life one day so you can truly express the depth of your ignorance.

 

 

Well said.

 

I'm looking at entering law enforcement, and just like you said, it's a career that some people will pursue and also simply not occur to other people as a possibility. LEO's have a difficult job.

[mullens]

See the thread about Friday PM at Buffalo Wild Wings get together for the Nascar get together.

I saw that you lived in Vegas...it will be fun!

 

Thanks...will do.

[matyellott]

HAHAHA!!

 

I would say they only heat my wife packs is the smoking credit card!!!!!!!!

 

Just to add my .02 I will admit that being a retired police officer I will admit that I was initially a little pissed at the opening statement of this thread. I have been out now for almost 5 years now. As I read along I kept saying to myself people are people and every one will have their own opinions so stay out of it and don't get involved. Well that self imposed therapy session didn't work as here I sit responding with my little ole' opinion. I speak for myself and no other officer or individual out there. Plain and simple as in every profession there are good and there are bad, police officers included. As an example, would you treat your stock broker with disrespect because of idiots like Madoff? I doubt it and so I say police officers should be given the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately some are on a power trip and even if they are disrepectful to a citizen returning the favor will only fan the fire. There are other means to deal with an unprofessional officer. The majority of the tickets I wrote were due to someone flapping their jaw. Majority meaning probably 80%. Only I know what kind of officer I was, but I think 3 personal complaints in a 20+ year career speaks volumes for the professionalism I practiced. And by the way the 3 complaints were from indiviuals that I arrested and none were upheld.

 

All the remarks in this thread about 'that's the career you chose' and so forth.........well you are right. It was the career I chose and I am thankful for it. But let's face it......no one has an encounter with an officer unless there is a problem. We deal with a side of life that most people either ignore its existence, have no idea it exists and most likely will never encounter this side of our society. I am sure the guy who sells annuties doesnt have to worry about every step he takes or every decision he makes or opening the doors to his business and whether or not it will affect his ability to see his family for dinner or not that night. That's the reality of being a police officer. Whether you are driving down the street patrolling, on a traffic stop, or handling a call there is always a target on your back. Either as simple as someone wanting to critique you or actually cause you harm. All in all a traffic ticket is a minor thing. Pay it move on or exercise your rights and contest it in court. If the officer was disrespectful file a complaint. But at the end of the day remember when you dial 911 some cop will show up, not knowing you from a hole in the ground and do what he/she has to do to protect you and your rights. If you end up in an accident, chances are it will be a police officer that risks their life to pull you from a burning vehicle or a car submerged in a murky canal. It takes an individual with a special character to risk their life for a stranger one day and spat on the next because someone was mad they got arrested. Any one can learn to sell annuities or whatever, but the character needed to be a police officer, a fireman, a soldier or anyone else that puts their life on the line for a stranger is bred from with in. Sorry to ramble on and hopefully this was read in a light hearted manner, but I have to conclude by saying, the bold opening statement in this thread of 'I don't like cops' is rather ignorant. Mutter those words to the officer that may save your life one day so you can truly express the depth of your ignorance.

 

 

I respect the point of view, most people can be taught to do a number of things given the basal intelligence is there. I don't argue that there are good cops out there, only that my personal experience has been more negative then positive, and that this experience has formed my perception of the world. It does take a person with character to risk there life for another person the Cops and Firefighters that rushed into the twin towers are to be respected and admired as heroes. But the Cop who sets up a speed trap on rush hour to make quarto is a little different. As is said these are just my points of view, as far a worrying about seeing my family I fly 3 times a week for work, I don't see my family, in theory I have a much higher chance of death then many occupations. But as far as the facts go Timber cutters have the most dangerous job in the U.S. (see empirical data below). In addition Pilots put their lives on the line to transport people, and fishermen do it to provide for the tables of the American population.

 

The 10 most dangerous jobs

Occupation Fatalities per 100,000

Timber cutters 117.8

Fishers 71.1

Pilots and navigators 69.8

Structural metal workers 58.2

Drivers-sales workers 37.9

Roofers 37

Electrical power installers 32.5

Farm occupations 28

Construction laborers 27.7

Truck drivers 25

 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; survey of occupations with minimum 30 fatalities and 45,000 workers in 2006

 

Actually, homicides in the workplace were responsible for 609 in 2006. The total is slightly lower than the 643 in 2005, but well below the in high of workplace homicides of 1,080 in 1994. Nearly nine out of 10 retail cashiers who died on the job last year were murdered, by a firearm, what about the character of these Americans?

 

Restaurant and hotel management also saw a high percentage of workplace murders, with homicides accounting for 80% of workplace deaths. Cab and limousine drivers were also targeted. Fifty-nine percent of drivers and chauffeurs killed on the job were murdered, much higher than the percentage killed in highway accidents.

 

Among the 441 women who died on the job, though, the chief cause of death was homicide due to firearm, and this was in an office/professional environment. From a pure data standpoint being a police officer is not as high a risk job as several others. For instance in 2007, 143 sheriffs and patrol officers died on the job--a rate of 21.4 per 100,000 workers--making police work the 11th most dangerous job below truck drivers. Also Aircraft pilots and flight crews have a very high risky job, and are personally responsible for the lives of hundreds of people each day, including their own. These men and women would gladly give their live to keep their passengers safe from harm. I suppose all the data aside my main issue has always been the police are paramilitary and that they will do what the local/state government asks of them. What I see is an increasingly tight control on personal freedoms; in place of personal reasonability we have more laws. Intellectually I can separate the police from the laws written by the government, emotionally I can not.

 

What ended up happening was that I filed a complaint, last week I got the response saying that nothing would be going the officer's record. I made my voice heard, paid the fine and ended up with 2 points and another $9 a month in insurance costs.

[smallb69]

I respect the point of view, most people can be taught to do a number of things given the basal intelligence is there. I don't argue that there are good cops out there, only that my personal experience has been more negative then positive, and that this experience has formed my perception of the world. It does take a person with character to risk there life for another person the Cops and Firefighters that rushed into the twin towers are to be respected and admired as heroes. But the Cop who sets up a speed trap on rush hour to make quarto is a little different. As is said these are just my points of view, as far a worrying about seeing my family I fly 3 times a week for work, I don't see my family, in theory I have a much higher chance of death then many occupations. But as far as the facts go Timber cutters have the most dangerous job in the U.S. (see empirical data below). In addition Pilots put their lives on the line to transport people, and fishermen do it to provide for the tables of the American population.

 

The 10 most dangerous jobs

Occupation Fatalities per 100,000

Timber cutters 117.8

Fishers 71.1

Pilots and navigators 69.8

Structural metal workers 58.2

Drivers-sales workers 37.9

Roofers 37

Electrical power installers 32.5

Farm occupations 28

Construction laborers 27.7

Truck drivers 25

 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; survey of occupations with minimum 30 fatalities and 45,000 workers in 2006

 

Actually, homicides in the workplace were responsible for 609 in 2006. The total is slightly lower than the 643 in 2005, but well below the in high of workplace homicides of 1,080 in 1994. Nearly nine out of 10 retail cashiers who died on the job last year were murdered, by a firearm, what about the character of these Americans?

 

Restaurant and hotel management also saw a high percentage of workplace murders, with homicides accounting for 80% of workplace deaths. Cab and limousine drivers were also targeted. Fifty-nine percent of drivers and chauffeurs killed on the job were murdered, much higher than the percentage killed in highway accidents.

 

Among the 441 women who died on the job, though, the chief cause of death was homicide due to firearm, and this was in an office/professional environment. From a pure data standpoint being a police officer is not as high a risk job as several others. For instance in 2007, 143 sheriffs and patrol officers died on the job--a rate of 21.4 per 100,000 workers--making police work the 11th most dangerous job below truck drivers. Also Aircraft pilots and flight crews have a very high risky job, and are personally responsible for the lives of hundreds of people each day, including their own. These men and women would gladly give their live to keep their passengers safe from harm. I suppose all the data aside my main issue has always been the police are paramilitary and that they will do what the local/state government asks of them. What I see is an increasingly tight control on personal freedoms; in place of personal reasonability we have more laws. Intellectually I can separate the police from the laws written by the government, emotionally I can not.

 

What ended up happening was that I filed a complaint, last week I got the response saying that nothing would be going the officer's record. I made my voice heard, paid the fine and ended up with 2 points and another $9 a month in insurance costs.

 

 

 

You are kidding me, right? I mean you really didnt go research all this data to try and prove that there are more dangerous jobs than being a police officer.....did you????? There is no point arguing with you. I suggest you finish the cabin first so you can have peace and quiet as you write your manifesto. Good luck...............and hey slow down.

[matyellott]

You are kidding me, right? I mean you really didnt go research all this data to try and prove that there are more dangerous jobs than being a police officer.....did you????? There is no point arguing with you. I suggest you finish the cabin first so you can have peace and quiet as you write your manifesto. Good luck...............and hey slow down.

 

 

Excellent counter points, however when you write "the bold opening statement in this thread of 'I don't like cops' is rather ignorant. Mutter those words to the officer that may save your life one day so you can truly express the depth of your ignorance." seems to be an overly personal and not a logically sound statement your statement of my "ignorance" implies that I do not have experience in the topic at hand, on the contrary I do as I have said in the past my interactions with the police department in my home town have nothing to do with me personally braking any laws, and paying for them but with me personally knowing the family involved in the case below. When and if your friend’s children are murdered due to police inaction you can truly understand my level of "ignorance" on this topic. Finally I don't "mutter" words, especially to the individual’s that I pay to do a service; I will look them in the eye and speak them. You very use of the word “mutter” implies that the population is to fear law enforcement, and that I should be subservient to them. From my experience "muttering", words is not what produces police inaction resulting in homicide of children, that in my town takes 4 phone calls a restraining order, and a visit to the station during which the officer on duty not only failed to act for Jessica Gonzales, they left and went to dinner instead of serving the community, and attending to their duty so all in all you really have no idea why I have my points of view or what shaped them, in effect you statement of my "ignorance" is ironically "Ignorant" because you did not even stop to think that I may have been a thinking rational adult, and that I may have reasons for both, my attitudes and my points of view. In addition not one officer, not one commander ever apologized to this women. I am sorry guys I know this is a car forum and I am sure the officers on this board are good and honestly men and serve their communities well, but I have literally seen a family torn apart by not just the inaction of one officer but of an entire department. So that is why I have these points of view. I am not a wacko, I am not a socialist, or a communist, and I have no manifesto, I love my country. Like every other person on earth I am product of my combined experiences.

 

Castle Rock v. Gonzales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Castle Rock v. Gonzales

 

 

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 21, 2005

Decided June 27, 2005

Full case name Town of Castle Rock, Colorado, Petitioner v. Jessica Gonzales, individually and as next friend of her deceased minor children, Rebecca Gonzales, Katheryn Gonzales, and Leslie Gonzales

Docket nos. 04-278

Citations 545 U.S. 748; 125 S. Ct. 2796; 162 L. Ed. 2d 658; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5214; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 511

Prior history On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock, 366 F.3d 1093, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 19049 (10th Cir. Colo., 2004)

Subsequent history On remand at Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock, 144 Fed. Appx. 746, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 19072 (10th Cir., Sept. 2, 2005)

Holding

The town of Castle Rock, Colorado and its police department could not be sued under 42 USC §1983 for failure to enforce a restraining order against respondent's husband, as enforcement of the restraining order does not constitute a property right for 14th Amendment purposes.

Court membership

Chief Justice

William Rehnquist

 

Associate Justices

John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor

Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy

David Souter · Clarence Thomas

Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer

 

Case opinions

Majority Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer

Concurrence Souter, joined by Breyer

Dissent Stevens, joined by Ginsburg

Laws applied

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Due Process Clause

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

 

 

 

Restraining order and police inaction

During divorce proceedings, Jessica Gonzales, a resident of Castle Rock, Colorado, obtained a restraining order against her husband on June 4, 1999, requiring him to remain at least 100 yards from her and their three daughters except during specified visitation time. On June 22, at approximately 5:15 pm, her husband took possession of the three children in violation of the order. Gonzales called the police at approximately 7:30 pm, 8:30 pm, 10:10 pm, and 12:15 am on June 23, and visited the police station in person at 12:40 am on June 23, 1999. However, the police took no action, despite the husband's having called Gonzales prior to her second call to the police and informing her that he had the children with him at an amusement park in Denver, Colorado. At approximately 3:20 am on June 23, 1999, the husband appeared at the Castle Rock police station and instigated a fatal shoot-out with the police. A search of his vehicle revealed the corpses of the three daughters, whom the husband had killed prior to his arrival.

 

[edit] Lower court proceedings

Gonzales filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Castle Rock, Colorado, its police department, and the three individual police officers with whom she had spoken under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming a Federally-protected property interest in enforcement of the restraining order and alleging "an official policy or custom of failing to respond properly to complaints of restraining order violations." A motion to dismiss the case was granted, and Gonzales appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected Gonzales's substantive due process claim but found a procedural due process claim; an en banc rehearing reached the same conclusion. The court also affirmed the finding that the three individual officers had qualified immunity and as such could not be sued.

 

[edit] The Court's decision

The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit's decision, reinstating the District Court's order of dismissal. The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause.

 

Justice David Souter wrote a concurring opinion, using the reasoning that enforcement of a restraining order is a process, not the interest protected by the process, and that there is not due process protection for processes.

 

[edit] Stevens' dissent

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion, in which he wrote that with respect to whether or not an arrest was mandatory under Colorado law, the court should either have deferred to the 10th Circuit court's finding that it was or else certified the question to the Colorado Supreme Court rather than decide the issue itself. He went on to write that the law created a statutory guarantee of enforcement, which is an individual benefit and constitutes a protected property interest under Roth, rejecting the court's use of O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center to require a monetary value and the concurrence's distinction between enforcement of the restraining order (the violator's arrest) and the benefit of enforcement (safety from the violator).

 

[edit] Critical response and subsequent developments

This case was widely seen within the movement to end violence against women as validating the argument that restraining orders are of little use in the domestic violence arena and as giving abusers a "green light." [1]

 

As this case is the latest in a lineage of high-profile cases, such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County, in which lawsuits against governmental entities for failure to prevent harm to an individual were dismissed, it has also been used by gun rights advocates in the United States to add additional weight to the self-defense argument for private gun ownership. [2]

[twobjshelbys]

partial duplicate (don't know how it got posted)

[twobjshelbys]

What is the relevance of Castle Rock v. Gonzales ? All cops are evil because some screwed up?

 

I remember when that happened. It was awful.

[smallb69]

Excellent counter points, however when you write "the bold opening statement in this thread of 'I don't like cops' is rather ignorant. Mutter those words to the officer that may save your life one day so you can truly express the depth of your ignorance." seems to be an overly personal and not a logically sound statement your statement of my "ignorance" implies that I do not have experience in the topic at hand, on the contrary I do as I have said in the past my interactions with the police department in my home town have nothing to do with me personally braking any laws, and paying for them but with me personally knowing the family involved in the case below. When and if your friend’s children are murdered due to police inaction you can truly understand my level of "ignorance" on this topic. Finally I don't "mutter" words, especially to the individual’s that I pay to do a service; I will look them in the eye and speak them. You very use of the word “mutter” implies that the population is to fear law enforcement, and that I should be subservient to them. From my experience "muttering", words is not what produces police inaction resulting in homicide of children, that in my town takes 4 phone calls a restraining order, and a visit to the station during which the officer on duty not only failed to act for Jessica Gonzales, they left and went to dinner instead of serving the community, and attending to their duty so all in all you really have no idea why I have my points of view or what shaped them, in effect you statement of my "ignorance" is ironically "Ignorant" because you did not even stop to think that I may have been a thinking rational adult, and that I may have reasons for both, my attitudes and my points of view. In addition not one officer, not one commander ever apologized to this women. I am sorry guys I know this is a car forum and I am sure the officers on this board are good and honestly men and serve their communities well, but I have literally seen a family torn apart by not just the inaction of one officer but of an entire department. So that is why I have these points of view. I am not a wacko, I am not a socialist, or a communist, and I have no manifesto, I love my country. Like every other person on earth I am product of my combined experiences.

 

Castle Rock v. Gonzales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Castle Rock v. Gonzales

 

 

 

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 21, 2005

Decided June 27, 2005

Full case name Town of Castle Rock, Colorado, Petitioner v. Jessica Gonzales, individually and as next friend of her deceased minor children, Rebecca Gonzales, Katheryn Gonzales, and Leslie Gonzales

Docket nos. 04-278

Citations 545 U.S. 748; 125 S. Ct. 2796; 162 L. Ed. 2d 658; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5214; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 511

Prior history On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock, 366 F.3d 1093, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 19049 (10th Cir. Colo., 2004)

Subsequent history On remand at Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock, 144 Fed. Appx. 746, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 19072 (10th Cir., Sept. 2, 2005)

Holding

The town of Castle Rock, Colorado and its police department could not be sued under 42 USC §1983 for failure to enforce a restraining order against respondent's husband, as enforcement of the restraining order does not constitute a property right for 14th Amendment purposes.

Court membership

Chief Justice

William Rehnquist

 

Associate Justices

John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor

Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy

David Souter · Clarence Thomas

Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer

 

Case opinions

Majority Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer

Concurrence Souter, joined by Breyer

Dissent Stevens, joined by Ginsburg

Laws applied

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Due Process Clause

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

 

 

 

Restraining order and police inaction

During divorce proceedings, Jessica Gonzales, a resident of Castle Rock, Colorado, obtained a restraining order against her husband on June 4, 1999, requiring him to remain at least 100 yards from her and their three daughters except during specified visitation time. On June 22, at approximately 5:15 pm, her husband took possession of the three children in violation of the order. Gonzales called the police at approximately 7:30 pm, 8:30 pm, 10:10 pm, and 12:15 am on June 23, and visited the police station in person at 12:40 am on June 23, 1999. However, the police took no action, despite the husband's having called Gonzales prior to her second call to the police and informing her that he had the children with him at an amusement park in Denver, Colorado. At approximately 3:20 am on June 23, 1999, the husband appeared at the Castle Rock police station and instigated a fatal shoot-out with the police. A search of his vehicle revealed the corpses of the three daughters, whom the husband had killed prior to his arrival.

 

[edit] Lower court proceedings

Gonzales filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Castle Rock, Colorado, its police department, and the three individual police officers with whom she had spoken under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming a Federally-protected property interest in enforcement of the restraining order and alleging "an official policy or custom of failing to respond properly to complaints of restraining order violations." A motion to dismiss the case was granted, and Gonzales appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected Gonzales's substantive due process claim but found a procedural due process claim; an en banc rehearing reached the same conclusion. The court also affirmed the finding that the three individual officers had qualified immunity and as such could not be sued.

 

[edit] The Court's decision

The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit's decision, reinstating the District Court's order of dismissal. The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause.

 

Justice David Souter wrote a concurring opinion, using the reasoning that enforcement of a restraining order is a process, not the interest protected by the process, and that there is not due process protection for processes.

 

[edit] Stevens' dissent

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion, in which he wrote that with respect to whether or not an arrest was mandatory under Colorado law, the court should either have deferred to the 10th Circuit court's finding that it was or else certified the question to the Colorado Supreme Court rather than decide the issue itself. He went on to write that the law created a statutory guarantee of enforcement, which is an individual benefit and constitutes a protected property interest under Roth, rejecting the court's use of O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center to require a monetary value and the concurrence's distinction between enforcement of the restraining order (the violator's arrest) and the benefit of enforcement (safety from the violator).

 

[edit] Critical response and subsequent developments

This case was widely seen within the movement to end violence against women as validating the argument that restraining orders are of little use in the domestic violence arena and as giving abusers a "green light." [1]

 

As this case is the latest in a lineage of high-profile cases, such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County, in which lawsuits against governmental entities for failure to prevent harm to an individual were dismissed, it has also been used by gun rights advocates in the United States to add additional weight to the self-defense argument for private gun ownership. [2]

 

 

 

My man....................this indeeed is a sad story. Very sad. Unfortunately there are hundreds if not more like it. Is it right....by no means. But my point is to condem an entire profession is naive. Most people by nature are good. Too bad for us those that are poor examples stand out more than those that are good. I assure you that there are more good professional officers than those that are egomaniacs that take advantage. I am not the least bit familiar with this case so I can not remark on it other than based on the merits of what you write. Having said that I will concede that it is a travesty of justice. Being an officer for over 20 years I could enlighten you with some examples, but that would make for boring reading in a car forum. I guess my point is that we have to judge each indiviual based on their actions as a person and not condem an entire profession or even a race or sex or religion based on the actions of a few. Not all police officers are bad contrary to your experiences. May be one day you will have a better experience and hopefully your outlook will change. At the end of the day you have to be responsible for your actions and worry about that. And in conclusion just a fun fact to add to your statistics, traffic related deaths out number everything you had listed, including any disease or other accident as a cause of death. So you wonder why the coward cop is sitting behind the tree running radar? Ask the guy that lost a teenage son because someone was driving over the speed limit, lost control and took the life an an innocent person. Again its life. It happens everyday.......and that too is a travesty.