Police Website

[griz]

Is there any other information about her case?  The article says she is fighting the ticket, not sueing the city.  Nothing about a right for an LEO to speed, only that she was being discriminated against since they dismissed most of the other tickets.

[Hawkmoon]

I'd like to personally thank all of their D#$K of the Month club winners and nominees for doing the right thing.

I cannot believe the sense of entitlement and superiority these jerks openly flaunt.

10-4 on both counts. It's amazing to me that there are ANY police officers out there who will do their jobs objectively, given what appears to be the prevailing attitude that "professional courtesy" MUST be extended no matter how far over the limit the writee was going.

The sense of entitlement is sickening. The majority truly do not believe that the laws they are SWORN to enforce apply to them. They are a disgrace to their uniforms, their badges, and their profession ... but they mostly prefer to regard the few "rogue" officers who do the job fairly as being the "disgraces."

[Hawkmoon]

I like an officer who enforces the common sense intent and/or limits legislative ummm, transgressions (plenty of laws simply aimed at revenue through violations).  Unless there really is a matter of being reckless, I'm against speeding tickets.  Ditto for DUI, DWI charges.  Punish people for harm, not the potential.

Doing as you suggest perverts the entire system. The laws against speeding, DUI, reckless driving, talking on the cell phone while driving, are not written for the sole purpose of punishing those whose transgressions result in harm, but in the hope that by discouraging people from engaging in those behaviors the harm (accidents) will be avoided. If the laws prohibiting these actions are not enforced, they cannot accomplish the intended purpose ... which is to keep everyone safe(r).

Perfect (IMHO) example: I read a brief article just a day or three ago that Connecticut is finding cell phone use while driving to be rampant, even though it has now been illegal for two years. Apparently, the fine was set at $100 by state law and many police officers in CT have decided that THEY know better than the legislature, and THEY have decided that $100 is too high of a fine ... so they don't write the tickets. Obviously, back when they were in high school they must have skipped out on Civics, because they don't seem to grasp the simple fact that it is the function of the legislature to write the laws, and it is function of the Law ENFORCEMENT Officers to , well ... enforce ... the laws. Once the police start decided which laws they WANT to enforce, we no longer have a nation of laws. What we have is nothing short of anarchy.

Meanwhile the number of cell-phone induced accidents continues to rise in CT ...

[ilbob]

Obviously, back when they were in high school they must have skipped out on Civics, because they don't seem to grasp the simple fact that it is the function of the legislature to write the laws, and it is function of the Law ENFORCEMENT Officers to , well ... enforce ... the laws. Once the police start decided which laws they WANT to enforce, we no longer have a nation of laws. What we have is nothing short of anarchy.

What you say is sort of true. But IIRC, the laws on citable offenses such as traffic violations (as opposed to criminal offenses) generally come with a lot of discretion built in to them.

[Gewehr98]

I'm against speeding tickets.  Ditto for DUI, DWI charges.  Punish people for harm, not the potential.

Nope.  No way.  As somebody who's lost an elder brother to a drunk driver, DUI laws should remain strictly enforced - period.   

[Balog]

Driving drunk is like pointing a loaded weapon at someone. It's in and of itself a threat that is harmful.

[Firethorn]

She was doing 40 in a 30mph zone (I got that part wrong, but I was right about the 10 over part).  Apparently, Beaverton has issued 15 citations to police officers for speeding, and dismissed 8 because they were responding to dispatch.  The officer in question was not responding to dispatch when she was caught by a speed camera.

Then she deserved the ticket, and to be fined for abusing a government vehicle besides.

I can understand that, in some situations, a police officer might desire to relocate as quickly as possible without the obvious signs of flashing lights/siren.  Responding to a hostage situation, perhaps.  Don't want the hostage takers realizing how many officers out there until it's too late.

Still, any officer should be able to explain why he or she was speeding at that point.  Any need for such maneuvers should end up in their log book, for example.