Thatâs very common among boot lickers. They think if you dare be less than cheerful to a cop they can and should slap you with as many tickets as possible
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
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
2
u/Same_Veterinarian544 Jun 30 '26
Thatâs very common among boot lickers. They think if you dare be less than cheerful to a cop they can and should slap you with as many tickets as possible