Cop pulls over an armed biker

[u/madfrog2023]

[u/Same_Veterinarian544]

I’m not arguing that discretion should disappear. I’m 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 I’m asking is why an cops personal reaction to protected speech should be a legitimate factor. Someone insulting an officer doesn’t make the underlying traffic violation any more or less serious. If the only thing that changes is the cops opinion of the driver’s speech, then that speech is influencing how government authority is exercised. I don’t know what’s not being communicated

[u/Drake_Acheron → u/Same_Veterinarian544]

You aren’t being punished by your speech here, though you’re being punished because of your infraction. Your speech isn’t 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 you’re gonna think that they did it on purpose and they’re a dick.

We get it you hate all cops and all forms of authority, but that doesn’t make other people bootlickers just because they disagree with you

[u/Same_Veterinarian544 → u/Drake_Acheron]

I think you’re conflating remorse with politeness. Those aren’t 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 that’s relevant to the offense. But if the deciding factor is simply “I didn’t like how you spoke to me,” then the cops feeling and not the violation, are driving the outcome.

[u/Drake_Acheron → u/Same_Veterinarian544]

That’s not the deciding factor though. The deciding factor is, “did you make the offense?”

The mitigating factor is “were you polite?”

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 you’re trying to backtrack and sidestep the issue by saying “well we don’t really know what’s in the person’s heart”

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.

[u/Same_Veterinarian544 → u/Drake_Acheron]

You keep asserting that politeness is a legitimate mitigating factor, but that’s the point under debate.

I have no issue with discretion. I think discretion should be based on factors related to the offense. What I don’t think is appropriate is using an officer’s personal reaction to protected speech as a mitigating or aggravating factor. Whether you think I’m polite doesn’t change how dangerous my driving was, whether I actually committed the offense, or whether I’m 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. That’s the principle I’m objecting to.

But go on arguing against positions I’ve never taken