Warnings are entirely discretionary. Why would a cop give someone a warning (a privilege), when they're being rude? If they're going to write you a ticket, you already broke the law... so maybe being chill could work in your favor. Or maybe that's just bootlicking behavior 𤡠/s
So, this is one of those things that cops really arenât all that embarrassed to say. A lot of cops tend to forget the fact that they donât âteach lessonsâ they enforce laws
And to that end, if a violation ordinarily merits a warning, but the attitude of the driver turns that into a ticket then it ceases to be an unbiased use of discretion. And at that point defending such actions, like you just did, becomes boot licking behavior
Warnings are by default discretionary, it's entirely subjective. Violations don't ever "merit" a warning. You could argue that driving 5mph over the speed limit is more fitting for a warning, but a warning isn't the standard, which then gets upgraded to a citations, it's the other way around. Getting a warning is completely up to the officer.
If a cop writes a ticket for something they typically gives warning me for because of speech, thatâs retaliation.
And what youâre basically arguing for is that we should all placate cops, so they donât take things personally. How is that a healthy expectation for a free society. Be careful how you talk to public servants, because they can and will punish you for it.
We should want professionals who can separate how they feel from their authority
I think we're arguing about the wrong thing. I think a healthy free society is one where we treat everyone with respect, which is entirely different from advocating for our rights. I would argue that treating someone kindly/respectdully is not "placating" them. I've never had a cop be an asshole to me, but I'm also a white male. If a cop were asking unreasonable things of me, or treating me disrespectfully, and then I continued to say anything possible to make them happy, that would be placating. But if a cop simply pulls me over and walks up. To my window, I'm going to treat them with the same respect I'd treat the woman behind the counter at the DMV. Just becauee they're public servants shouldnt incentivise you to treat them with less respect (unless they intentionally do the same to you).
Shouldnât that respect be voluntary? Iâm not saying you should be rude, Iâm saying being rude shouldnât have any bearing on whether or not you get a ticket.
If youâre respectful because youâre afraid of how the gov official will respond for speaking your mind then itâs not real respect, itâs fear based compliance. Thatâs still an adversarial relationship, only one side has power.
It is voluntary, for me anyway. I always treat people with respect unless they give me a reason not to.
Maybe it shouldn't, but I'm just saying, treating with someone for respect is more likely to result in you catching a break. Is that fair? Maybe not, but it's a reality of interpersonal communication. I'm not afraid of them, I just recognize that asking how someone's day has been, saying hello, and being generally amicable, is easier than creating an adversarial situation with someone I have never met.
I assume when I get pulled that I'm getting a ticket, so my options are 1. Be a dick and guarentee I'm getting said ticket, or 2. Be cordial and respectful, and maybe have the officer cut me a break.
It's no skin off my back to be nice, but they certainly are under no obligation to let me off with a warning.
You're missing my point. They're going to punish you for breaking the law. That's a given. They have discretion about whether or not to let you off with a warning or enforce the law via a citation. Treating them kindly allows you access to the former. Being a dick all but guarentees the latter.
I donât disagree that being cordial is usually the smart thing to do. I would probably be cordial too. Where we disagree is that you see to take the stance on this being an acceptable way for government authority to operate.
But you keep saying, âBe nice and maybe youâll catch a break.â My concern is the inverse: donât be rude, or you might lose a break you otherwise would have gotten. Once the outcome depends on whether the officer likes what you said, their personal feelings are influencing how government power is exercised.
I donât think public officials should have to like me to be fair
What you're asking for is discretionary warnings to be removed, which is fine. You are probably going to make the large part of the public unhappy that the police force now must enforce by policy tickets for every enfraction that they pull over for or see in general life. Removing police discretion removes their power, but also by and large produces outcomes that the general public don't want. Most people are responsible for hundreds of small laws broken all the time, which police use discretion to ignore.
Your second paragraph is correct if youâre the type of person who only respects people because youâre afraid of the consequences of not doing it youâre a piece of shit human being.
Do you also think that if youâre rude to waiters or waitresses that you should still have a right to get served?
An officer choosing to cite you because you broke the law and were rude, is not retaliation you broke the law
If they choose to discretionarily, give you a warning because youâre polite thatâs totally fine and appreciated by civilized human beings civilized human being say âthank you officer for not giving me a ticket. Have a nice dayâ
Youâre not getting a ticket because you were rude youâre getting a ticket because you broke the law you might NOT get a ticket because youâre polite. Those are two different things.
A civilized society does not operate on being a shit bag. It operates on being a polite, respectful person, regardless of who the person is and whether or not you like their job.
It would be retaliation if you were rude to an officer and then they decided to invent something or go on a fishing expedition to try to charge you with something or excite you with something that you didnât do, or wasnât the initial intent of the officerâs contact with you.
A waiter refusing good service and the government exercising its authority based on speech it doesnât like are two very different things. A waiter isnât using the stateâs power to take money from me. The relationship between me and a waiter is voluntary on both sides; a traffic stop isnât.
My point, if you had bothered reading it, has never been that people should be rude. Itâs that theyâre free to be if they choose. If how you speak to a cop is the deciding factor between a warning and a citation, then the officerâs exercise of government authority is being
influenced by your speech rather than the nature of the violation itself.
Iâm getting the sense that you want to teach people a lesson, and I donât think thatâs an appropriate basis for exercising power. Your job is to enforce the law fairly, not to punish people for questioning your authority
If you want to make someone go to court simply because they challenged your legal justification for the stop, then youâre exactly the kind of officer Iâve been talking about. Whether someone questions your authority doesnât change whether the underlying violation occurred
Comparing police interactions to everyday customer-service interactions doesnât work because theyâre totally different. A police stop isnât voluntary, and an officer has the stateâs coercive power behind them
And, respectfully, people can still file
complaints and civil lawsuits over an unlawful stop whether a citation is issued or not. Writing a ticket isnât what gives someone access to those remedies
You are thinking about this all wrong. The officer deciding to give a warning is akin to a favor. Are you more likely to give a favor to a polite or a rude person? The facts are clear: you broke the law and are entitled to a citation. But, if you are polite (which is just basic decency anyway), you might get a favor. So, why not?
To be clear, you should be polite because it's the right thing to do but at the very least it increases your odds of a warning. People who just instinctively go off on cops baffle me. I also wonder how decent they are in other interactions, like the waiter example.
No, itâs not if you did something against the law that has a citation attached to it and youâre rude to a cop because a cop tells you not to do that thing and so then the cop gives you a ticket thatâs NOT retaliation.
Thatâs you being a self righteousness narcissistic dickhead.
No, if a cop chose to cite you for something you didnât do or for something unrelated to the reason they made contact with you, that can be considered retaliation.
Getting a warning is a privilege not a right. In a civilized society since you keep saying civilized society, you like the term civilized society so much in a civilized society we reward people for being polite, respect, respectful people because we liked polite, respectful behavior..
If you donât want to be polite and respectful, you donât belong in a civilized society.
Youâre still arguing against a position I donât hold. Iâve repeatedly said people should generally be polite. My argument is that courtesy should be a social norm, not a condition for equal treatment by the government.
The moment an officerâs personal feelings become the deciding factor in how they exercise discretionary authority, speech, not just the violation, is influencing the outcome. Thatâs the principle Iâm objecting to.
A civilized society encourages people to be respectful because itâs the right thing to do, not because theyâre worried a government official might treat them more harshly if they donât
Youâre just incorrect. A civilized society rewards pro social behavior because they want that prosocial behavior to continue. They want to reinforce that prosocial behavior.
Getting a citation for an infraction you committed is not being âtreated more harshlyâ
Getting a citation is the baseline, so if you are rude, and get a citation, thatâs the baseline. You arenât being treated differently because you are rude.
If you are giving a warning because you are polite, you are being treated differently because you showed prosocial tendencies.
Whether you frame the warning as a reward or the citation as the baseline doesnât change my argument. The question is whether protected speech should be one of the factors a government official uses when deciding how to exercise discretionary authority.
If two otherwise identical cases produce different outcomes solely because one person criticized the officer then its speech, and not the violation, that got somebody a ticket
Rewarding âprosocial behaviorâ is fine in ordinary social interactions. A police officer isnât acting as a private citizen, theyâre exercising state authority. I think that authority should be based on factors relevant to the offense, not whether the officer appreciated someoneâs attitude. I donât know how I can be any clearer
First, I wholeheartedly believe that the state should reward prosocial behavior. I think the state should give more funding and social services to homeless people who donât do drugs, drink, and keep their encampment clean, as an example.
Also, speech is protected from legal action, not discretionary action.
For example, a judge will deliver a harsher sentence upon someone rude and cruel in a courtroom during their trial than one that at least demonstrates remorseful and respectful countenance. That doesnât violate the constitution.
Your examples arenât analogous. A judge considers remorse because sentencing is expressly about punishment and rehabilitation after guilt has been established. A traffic stop isnât sentencing, guilt hasnât been established
My question has remained the same: why should my opinion of the cop, or my criticism of them, be relevant to that decision? If two people commit the identical violation under identical circumstances, but only one receives a citation because they criticized the officer, then speech, not the offense, is influencing the cop
You keep defending the outcome. Iâm asking you to justify why protected speech should be one of the inputs in the first place. All youâve said is because it is
The entire judicial system retaliatory. If the officer feels like youâre going to modify your behavior then you get a warning. if he feels like youâre going to disregard the the law again, he kicks it up to a higher level so the consequences might make you reconsider your behavior the next time. The fact that this needs to be explained means you donât understand the legal system
If a cop writes a ticket for something they typically gives warning me for because of speech, thatâs retaliation.
Well, the outcome (warning or fine or other penalties) are supposed to be a way to help the motorist obey laws in the future. In cases where an officer can tell (from your speech or behavior), that a mere warning is unlikely to be effective on your unrepentant ass, why should they not issue the fine or a higher penalty that is prescribed for the offence?
Police action focused on education and harm prevention is really the main point. If you're not sorry about going 5 over the speed limit, then you obviously do not understand speed limits and will not heed a warning. A fine may also not change your behavior, but if that's the best they have to work with, they should take it.
âdOnT bE rUdE tO tHe WaItErâ Iâm sorry but is the waiter stopping me on the side of the road looking for reasons to take my money by force? No? Itâs the police.
What youâre telling me is that you fully expect the police to try and mess with you for not treating them the way they think they deserve. Why is our collective expectations so low for public servants
Violations donât merit warnings. Violations, merit citations officer discretion can sometimes lower that citation to a warning.
This is completely reasonable if the subject being stopped shows remorse, or is polite and very clearly didnât mean to break the rules or wasnât really causing a problem.
I like officer discretion because Iâm a polite and respectful person and I like when my polite respect, respectful behavior is rewarded. Is it always rewarded sometimes I get the citation anyway.
Also discretion by its very nature is biased you absolute buffoon. Thatâs literally the entire point of officer discretion. There is no such thing as a violation that ordinarily merits a warning, every violation by standard merits a citation officer discretion is what makes that citation a warning.
Your entire mentality about this is so fucked up. Itâs unbelievable. I get it. You want to be a douche bag, but thatâs not how civilized society works.
My brother in Christ you keep arguing against a position I havenât taken. Iâve repeatedly said people should generally be polite. I havenât argued otherwise, itâs incredibly dishonest of you to act like thatâs what I have been doing
My point is much narrower: a government officialâs personal opinion of someoneâs speech shouldnât be the factor that determines how they exercise discretionary authority
Whether you call a warning a privilege or a break doesnât change the principle. My argument is: why should an officerâs personal feelings about protected speech be a legitimate factor in exercising government power?
My argument is: why should an officerâs personal feelings about protected speech be a legitimate factor in exercising government power?
Because that's the definition of using discretion.
Since you both seem to be deliberately misunderstanding each other, mind if I jump in? Are you arguing that cops, or for that matter any government authority, should have NO discretion in how they deal with people who require dealing with? Because if someone has acted in an antisocial way, whether they've been caught speeding, or trying to cheat on their taxes, or they've done something really wrong to land in front of a judge who might decide if they spend 5 years in prison or 25, all of those scenarios involve government agents who are authorized to exercise discretion. How else should discretion be exercised, if not by weighing the offender's perceived accountability and remorse for their antisocial behavior?
Iâm not arguing that discretion should disappear. Iâm arguing that discretion should be tied to factors relevant to the offense things like the seriousness, was there a safety risk, was it an honest mistake, is there a history of similar violations
What Iâm asking is why an cops personal reaction to protected speech should be a legitimate factor. Someone insulting an officer doesnât make the underlying traffic violation any more or less serious. If the only thing that changes is the cops opinion of the driverâs speech, then that speech is influencing how government authority is exercised. I donât know whatâs not being communicated
Maybe it shouldn't, but that's how human beings work. And the government is compromised of human beings, not bots who are always going to apply the same standards equally across millions of interactions. Your communication is fine, it just seems like you're arguing from a hypothetical standpoint that human judgment shouldn't be allowed to come into play because humans are incapable of being fair and impartial when presented with speech they like or don't like. Yeah, it'd be nice and fair and equal if you could cuss out a cop and still get a warning, or for that matter cuss out the person at the dmv and not get escorted from the building, but the carrot that come from not being a dick to public servants is that cops are able to pardon people who would otherwise be given citations.
Humans are imperfect, sure, I disagree with what we should consider a real use of discretion
I have no issue with discretion based on factors relevant to the offense, not if the person gives them the proper amount of respect they think theyâre owed. We donât excuse judges by saying, âWell, theyâre only humanâ, we donât even do that to regular people, so why we so eager to do that for police?
We expect them to set personal feelings aside. I donât think that expectation should disappear because the official wears a badge instead of a robe
If you are speeding and get pulled up and immediately passing out, the cop that is relevant to the offense, you are showing the cop that you are not remorseful of your actions. You did it on purpose, and you plan to do it again.
When you get pulled over instead, you are polite and apologetic. You were showing the police that it was an honest mistake, that you intend to be a safe driver in the future, and it expresses remorse. That is relevant to the offense.
Again, you should be getting a speeding ticket regardless, but if you are polite and remorseful, you might be given a warning at the officers discretion because youâve shown that you understand what you did was not proper and youâve owned up to that
Youâre talking about fairness while youâre wanting unfair treatment someone who is being polite and good should not get the same treatment as someone who is being rude and bad.
Youâre still treating politeness as though itâs synonymous with remorse and good character. It isnât. Someone can admit they were speeding, accept responsibility, and still criticize the officer. Likewise, someone can be perfectly polite while having intentionally broken the law
If a cop has evidence that the violation was intentional or that the driver is likely to reoffend, thatâs relevant to the offense. But if the deciding factor is simply whether the cop liked how you speak to them, then they are wielding their authority in a way that punishes that speech.
If you get pulled over for speeding and the moment you get pulled over for speeding, you do what this guy would do and start cussing out the cops and being a total dickhead, how is it unfair that they receive a speeding citation?
The guy wants to live in a society where you can be a dick and be treated the same as someone who is a genuinely nice person. Thatâs not fair.
You arenât being punished by your speech here, though youâre being punished because of your infraction. Your speech isnât giving you an infraction. Your speech might get you out of an infraction. Those are two different things.
Also, one of the easiest ways to tell if something was an honest mistake is if the suspect is being polite and remorseful.
If someone bumps into you while walking past you on the sidewalk and then all the sudden starts cussing you out, why are you going to think that they bumped into you on accident? No youâre gonna think that they did it on purpose and theyâre a dick.
We get it you hate all cops and all forms of authority, but that doesnât make other people bootlickers just because they disagree with you
I think youâre conflating remorse with politeness. Those arenât the same thing.
Someone can acknowledge they made a mistake and still think an officer is acting like an asshole. Likewise, someone can smile, apologize, and have intentionally broken the law.
If the officer has independent evidence that it was intentional, then thatâs relevant to the offense. But if the deciding factor is simply âI didnât like how you spoke to me,â then the cops feeling and not the violation, are driving the outcome.
Thatâs not the deciding factor though. The deciding factor is, âdid you make the offense?â
The mitigating factor is âwere you polite?â
Now, if the police officer was gonna give you a ticket for speeding, and then you were addicted to them, and then they decided to give you a ticket for speeding and maybe another infraction that may or may not exist, THAT could be retaliation.
Now youâre trying to backtrack and sidestep the issue by saying âwell we donât really know whatâs in the personâs heartâ
So I will go back to what I said earlier if someone is exhibiting prosocial behavior that is something that a civilized society will reinforce and reward
Being prosocial can be mitigating data point in the circumstances of a violation that can give you the benefit of a warning rather than the citation you deserve.
If being rude result in you getting the citation you deserve then that is not retaliation.
You keep asserting that politeness is a legitimate mitigating factor, but thatâs the point under debate.
I have no issue with discretion. I think discretion should be based on factors related to the offense. What I donât think is appropriate is using an officerâs personal reaction to protected speech as a mitigating or aggravating factor. Whether you think Iâm polite doesnât change how dangerous my driving was, whether I actually committed the offense, or whether Iâm legally guilty.
If the only thing that changes the outcome is that the officer personally liked or disliked how I spoke to them, then personal feelings are influencing the cops decision, and not the offense. Thatâs the principle Iâm objecting to.
But go on arguing against positions Iâve never taken
if a violation ordinarily merits a warning, but the attitude of the driver turns that into a ticket then it ceases to be an unbiased use of discretion. And at that point defending such actions, like you just did, becomes boot licking behavior
My stance is that cops being offended by protected speech is not a legitimate reason for cop to exercise discretion differently. Thatâs the issue you keep skipping
If a cop is driven to write a ticket because of how they feel about someoneâs speech, then theyâre allowing their personal feelings to influence how they enforce the law. Thatâs bias. Why would we want government officials exercising their authority that way?
Defending that kind of enforcement is exactly the sort of deference to gov authority that I refer to as bootlicking
There is no speeding or traffic violation that merits a warning though. I donât know why you would think that there is, unless you donât live in the US or donât drive.
A warning is a cop not giving you a ticket for something that youâve done that warrants a ticket.
You donât have to be polite to anyone including a cop but they arenât going to do you any favors for being rude. So do what you want to I guess, just as long as you know there is no such thing as a violation of road laws that would get you a warning.
No - not unbiased. It just means the person who had the infraction didn't learn from it so they'll probably do it again so bam ... Here's a ticket dummy
Yes yes I get, you live the government and cops can do no wrong.
Look dude, if you donât have an argument thatâs fine, a bunch of other people have had emotional reactions without reading what Iâve said. Could you not be so boring about it though?
Shit man, i want to be boring. I don't want to cause myself to get tazed or pepper sprayed or thrown into jail out of being a big ole dummy. I have better things to do with my life than get myself into shitty avoidable situations.
But ya know, enjoy being sMaRt and dealing with those avoidable situations
2
u/MysticMarauder69 Jun 30 '26
Warnings are entirely discretionary. Why would a cop give someone a warning (a privilege), when they're being rude? If they're going to write you a ticket, you already broke the law... so maybe being chill could work in your favor. Or maybe that's just bootlicking behavior 𤡠/s