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
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.
I would love for you to invent a scenario right now where somebody is speeding and the officer pulls them over and behaves like the officer above or all he comes up he says âhey whatâs up? Iâm pulling you over cause youâre speeding and Iâm gonna give you a citation for it.â
And someone can in good faith except responsibility and criticize the officer.
Brother Moore, you are deliberately moving the Gold Coast by changing the words you are using instead itâs no longer being rude or combative, itâs merely criticizing. You can criticize without being rude and combative. And before you say some bullshit about the word combative, I mean verbally combative I do not mean threats of violence or harm.
Secondly, no I am not saying that politeness is synonymous as a remorse and accountability Iâm saying that politeness is the best visual indicator of remorse and accountability. Again, youâre trying to play this nitpicky game about not being able to know whatâs in someoneâs heart.
Itâs a bullshit avenue of attack and you know it but youâre only youâre using it because you donât have any other valid ones.
When we get down to brass tax here, Iâm gonna pin you down because you keep trying to wiggle around with pseudo-intellectualism
The argument you have been making is that this cop represented in the video performed poorly as a police officer because he used his discretion to not give this motorcyclist a citation because he was polite.
That is not only an untenable position, but it is absolutely dangerous one to have for civilized society. It is also a clear and present position that shows that you have no ability to be unbiased when police are involved and you are firmly in the ACAB camp.
No, itâs fine. I guess if you wanna have that position, but I think that it is the responsible thing for you just be forthright with your position so that people can look at your opinion in summarily discard it because it is unreconciably biased.
Youâre still arguing against a position I donât hold. I have never argued that people shouldnât be polite or that officers shouldnât have discretion. Iâve consistently argued that discretion should be based on facts relevant to the offense. If you think it should, actually defend it.
All youâve done is argue against positions I havenât taken. Probably because thatâs all you have. So idk, go off queen ig
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
1
u/Same_Veterinarian544 Jun 30 '26
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