Speeding ticket: Cops allowed to park on shoulder facing opposite direction on hwy?

[Mr. Burns]

GUYS GUYS GUYYYYYYYS!!!...











so i'm in line at the bank, waiting and waiting.
wifi drops dead on my phone, and i'm becoming impatient.

I display my displeasure by cranking out a few rounds from my Tek 9 into the ceiling...
nothing major, nobody got hurt but BAM! outta knowhere this undercover 5.0 just TACKLES me, and retrains me to the floor...

i'm talking KNEES ON MY FACE.

is this entrapment?

I had no time to explain my motives.

signed,
-Frustrated

[Mr. Burns]

when thoreau wrote of resistance to civil government, it was over slavery and the war on mexico.

When jbird wrote of resistance to civil government, it was over receiving a speeding ticket for 21 over.

lol

[chadthestampede]

I did not say that I was mad about the ticket, and I did not say that I shouldn't have gotten it. I also did not say that speeding shouldn't be against the law. I made this thread to simply ask if cops or anyone else are allowed to face the opposite direction the the shoulder of a highway, and also to start a discussion and get opinions on traffic laws and why cops patrol the highways so much more than in towns.

1.)Yes they are.

2.) Presumably police patrol the highways more because more people drive on them, thus increasing the likelihood that people will speed. Furthermore, the speed limit on highways is higher and there is generally a larger chance of people exceeding that speed limit when they are, say, tired.

Maybe you should read this as well

http://www.etsc.eu/documents/stars/Stephen%20Stradling%20-%20Why%20do%20people%20speed.pdf

My diatribe last evening was due to the fact that I generally view these threads as being 'Something happened to me that I don't think is fair and I'm mad (or not mad, as you so vehemently explained) about it, and I need validation of my feelings'.

I'm not against the occasional speeding per se (although I've never gotten a speeding ticket, I generally don't mind going the speed limit. Plus my touring is so god damn slow that it's more trouble than it's worth to speed).

[Mr. Burns]

She has beautiful eyes and probably smells like cinamon!

[Earendil]

I can't tell if people are just trying to be funny, or if they think that civil discussion on laws and regulations is somehow immoral, and that to even discussing these matters is anti-establishment? Do people realize that
A) This is what politicians do all day, discuss laws and how they should be modified/removed/added? It would be great if more of the population were involved in these matters for more than the 1 hour before it was time to cast a vote.
B) Out nation was build and continues to grow based on questioning the relevancy of laws and regulations in an ever changing social and political landscape.
C) Dicussing laws is not ONLY about whether an action should be allowed or not, but ALSO about what a just punishment and or reasonable deterrent should be. FYI, it's those last two things that the OP was asking about.

OP made one of the least complaining and whining posts I've seen on R3V in a long time, and approached the subject asking us for our opinion. The majority of what she got back was "Obey the man, you fool, go fight for injustice in Somalia". The US government is not your parents, backtalk and questioning are encouraged and its how our political system is built and how it grows. Also, the majority of us have the brain capacity to fight for more than one issue at a time. At least I do.

It's not as if US civilians have an over abundance in the areas of politics, philosophy, and social justice, either in education OR practice. Little discussions like this are the stepping stones that allow people to make educated and reasonable choices moving forward.

I understand R3V has humor and thread-chaos built into its genes, but every so often, especially by page three, you'd think you could take a break. Sheez....

[/rant]

[Mr. Burns]

Earendill,

I applaud and vote sanction in celebration to your post, as there are at times these motions need to be discussed, and a relative brainstorm should yield positive outcome in doing so.

Questioning the position of a police cruiser on state property is equivalent to suing McDonalds due to spilling hot coffee over ones self.

as Chadthestampeded hit the nail on the head here-->

My diatribe last evening was due to the fact that I generally view these threads as being 'Something happened to me that I don't think is fair and I'm mad (or not mad, as you so vehemently explained) about it, and I need validation of my feelings'.

Some people just refuse to ever be in the wrong, and will disect any situation in efforts to diffuse their guilt in any wrongdoing.

[Earendil]

I've given one example oh myself breaking the law in this thread. It was unintential, and the cop was not "protecting" anyone, but was there to hand out tickets, tickets that the Judge was rather upset about.

My second example of personal speeding is on Freeways, with lots of traffic. I'm a country boy, so I'm not positive of all the social road ramifications. But when I'm approaching downtown Seattle, Traffic is heavy, and it's all moving at 70mph, I'm damn well going to go close to 70mph. I know what I'm doing is "illegal", because the speed limit is 55mph, and I frankly don't care. I would feel less safe and feel like I was doing something actually immoral if I followed the law at that point, and I'm positive a Judge would agree (if you could somehow prove it). I will go slightly less than the flow of traffic, but fast enough that the closing speed of vehicles isn't 15mph.

And if I were given a ticket for doing the above? What should I do? Suck it up, because it's the law? Hellno. I'm going to go in front of a Judge, explain the situation, and let them pass what they think is fair judgement. The Law is a guideline in most instances, and it's the responsibility of the Judge (or jury) to apply the law and justice to each instance of perceived violation. That is why we have a concept of "Letter of the Law" and "Spirit of the Law".

I retract my earlier /rant, I have a whole bunch more rant saved up for a thread just such as this :D

[Mr. Burns]

you must throw the most bi-polar of parties!

[Earendil]

Earendill,

I applaud and vote sanction in celebration to your post, as there are at times these motions need to be discussed, and a relative brainstorm should yield positive outcome in doing so.

Questioning the position of a police cruiser on state property is equivalent to suing McDonalds due to spilling hot coffee over ones self.

I disagree with this only in so far as it's very important for a nation's civilians to keep its government and law enforcement as honest as possible. I'm far from a doom and gloom sort of person, and think this nation will die over hundreds of years due to neglect, not out of some giant revolt and fire. That said, it would be stupid to think letting minor things slide will never lead to medium things sliding, and then large things.

"Give a man an inch, and he'll take a mile".

Some people just refuse to ever be in the wrong, and will disect any situation in efforts to diffuse their guilt in any wrongdoing.

And that very well could be the emotional state of the OP when she initially made the post, with only a spattering of the idealistic notion I hold for this thread. However the OP (in my view) came around to wanting to learn something from the thread, especially after the first day and page, but people still doled out shit like they actually pay all state sales and income tax on every penny that passes through their hands.

By all means, hold those around you to a higher standard than yourself, but try and do so by teaching them WHY the law is what it is. Then some conversation and learning can happen.

Chadthestampede, great link btw.

[Mr. Burns]

lets just disagree to disagree in that case.

[FredK]

This is why I carry.

[Earendil]

you must throw the most bi-polar of parties!

Yes, my party rants are legend-wait for it... and I hope you're not lactose intolerant because the second half of that word is dairy! Legendary!


(See how I played off of your bi-polar bit there by making a joke in my "srsly-guys?" thread?)

[Earendil]

lets just disagree to disagree in that case.

Why is it more okay for a police officer to break the law than it is for a non-police officer to break the law? One does not justify the other, but aren't both equally wrong?

[Mr. Burns]

Why is it more okay for a police officer to break the law than it is for a non-police officer to break the law? One does not justify the other, but aren't both equally wrong?

completely agree with your statement, yet can be played off into a variety of arguments...

same reason a EMS/ERT vehicle can blow through traffic lights sirens blazing, at high rates of speed...emergency purpose.

keyword is purpose.

the police officer has a purpose in order to maintain sanity on the public access roads, and enforce infractions to those who break the posted laws.

how they manage this, is entirely complex case of it's own, as there are many benefactors which can be used as a crutch statement...
position of the vehicle, illumination/placement being one of them.

whether the cop had a disco show errupting with gayety within his cruiser, or was completely blacked out, doesnt' change the rate of travel the OP was going...

...however, to the argument, would of likely brake taped to slow down.

if I was a cop, I'd be a sneaky SOB busting Oregon's sexiest.

plus I'd rock coffee breath 24/7.

[Earendil]

completely agree with your statement, yet can be played off into a variety of arguments...

same reason a EMS/ERT vehicle can blow through traffic lights sirens blazing, at high rates of speed...emergency purpose.

keyword is purpose.

Reminds me of a story I heard from a Surgeon one time. He worked at a relatively small hospital, and in a rare case that had need of two surgeons at the same time asap. He got on an empty freeway to travel 20 miles in his (typical) Porche doing near 100mph. At some point early on a "punk kid" pulls up along side him while he's doing 100mph. The Surgeon calls 911 and explains the situation. moments later a friendly state patrolmen pulls over the other guy while a 2nd one escorts him (at speed) to the hospital. The Surgeon broke at least two laws, but he had "purpose". Technically the officers still should have given him a ticket, and let a judge decide the outcome, but whatever :)

the police officer has a purpose in order to maintain sanity on the public access roads, and enforce infractions to those who break the posted laws.

how they manage this, is entirely complex case of it's own, as there are many benefactors which can be used as a crutch statement...
position of the vehicle, illumination/placement being one of them.

Agreed. Those little details should be for a judge (or commanding officer) to decide, not us. However it is our irresponsibility to inform those who are in charge of making decision, not as a way of dismissing our own actions, but as a way of keeping them honest. Officers in years past have done illegal things because they felt the ends justified the means. But not everyone agrees.

if I was a cop, I'd be a sneaky SOB busting Oregon's sexiest.
plus I'd rock coffee breath 24/7.

I'd be right there with you :D

Every so often though I'd want to sit in a completely marked car with a sign a mile ahead as warning "OFFICER AHEAD!" in big bright letters, maybe even lit. That way, when someone did go flying by me I could have the smug satisfaction of not only knowing I was ticketing a speeder, but I was ticketing a distracted mutherfocker. I'm far less scared (as a driver) of the people going ten over as I am passing someone that is starring down at their crotch as if it's the coolest thing since sliced bread.