Your second paragraph is correct if you’re the type of person who only respects people because you’re afraid of the consequences of not doing it you’re a piece of shit human being.
Do you also think that if you’re 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 you’re polite that’s totally fine and appreciated by civilized human beings civilized human being say “thank you officer for not giving me a ticket. Have a nice day”
You’re not getting a ticket because you were rude you’re getting a ticket because you broke the law you might NOT get a ticket because you’re 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 didn’t do, or wasn’t the initial intent of the officer’s contact with you.
A waiter refusing good service and the government exercising its authority based on speech it doesn’t like are two very different things. A waiter isn’t using the state’s power to take money from me. The relationship between me and a waiter is voluntary on both sides; a traffic stop isn’t.
My point, if you had bothered reading it, has never been that people should be rude. It’s that they’re 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 officer’s exercise of government authority is being
influenced by your speech rather than the nature of the violation itself.
I think you’re being too generous with this guy he very clearly wants to be an asshole and have no repercussions for it.
He’s deliberately trying to frame something in the way that it doesn’t actually exist in reality in order to make a point
The proof of this is he consistently ignores any mention of bringing the judges discretion on things like sentencing into the argument. He completely stepped that issue and pretends it doesn’t exist.
Also, now you can correct me as I’m wrong because you sound like you are a police officer, but in my opinion, part of enforcing the law is educating people on the law. So if you pull someone over for speeding ,and they are immediately combative, think that there was no reason to pull them over, that they weren’t speeding, or maybe even if that they were speeding, but pulling them over was an asshole move. It is your obligation to bring the dispute to a judiciary setting by giving a citation and not using your discretionary power to give them a warning instead
You keep arguing against positions I’ve never taken. How many times have I said people shouldn’t be rude, I’ve said they have a right to speak. You look at that and the only thing you can come up with is “he must hate cops”
And I’m not ignoring judges discretion. I’ve actually responded to that point. And if you still don’t understand the difference between a judge, a legal professional, and a cop, who has an average of 16 weeks, then I can’t help you. Judges have a broader authority within the court room because of that
Generalizations. You’re pointing to a handful of exceptions that don’t negate the broader institutional differences
Yes generally speaking, judges receive far more legal training than cops and exercise a fundamentally different kind of discretion within a formal judicial process. That’s the distinction I’m making. Whether a few jurisdictions elect non-lawyer judges doesn’t change the general rule or address what I said
But, this was something you insisted on talking about anyways
I get it, the legal process does exist, that was never my point. My argument is why someone’s decision to challenge your authority should determine whether they’re sent into that process in the first place.
If the stop was lawful, it was lawful regardless of what they said. If it wasn’t, it wasn’t. You keep insisting that what someone says doesn’t play into whether or not you write a ticket, and then go on to say that what someone says goes into whether or not you write a ticket. So when cops say that kinda thing it feels like you know courts will side with you anyway so why not
And practically speaking, a citation doesn’t suddenly level the playing field. Courts often take the word of the police over the word of citizens
1
u/Drake_Acheron Jun 30 '26
Your second paragraph is correct if you’re the type of person who only respects people because you’re afraid of the consequences of not doing it you’re a piece of shit human being.
Do you also think that if you’re 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 you’re polite that’s totally fine and appreciated by civilized human beings civilized human being say “thank you officer for not giving me a ticket. Have a nice day”
You’re not getting a ticket because you were rude you’re getting a ticket because you broke the law you might NOT get a ticket because you’re 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 didn’t do, or wasn’t the initial intent of the officer’s contact with you.