PDA

View Full Version : Highest Law Enforcement Priority



1042 Trooper
03-01-2007, 05:06 PM
If our obvious #1 priority in law enforcement is the saving of lives and prevention of death and mayhem and, by far, traffic errors and reckless / drunken driving are responsible for more than 50,000 deaths each year, shouldn't traffic supervision and enforcement be the #1 priority of all uniformed enforcement agencies?

What say you? Hopefully, this wll be an objective and good intentioned logical debate. :eek:

Wile E. Coyote
03-01-2007, 05:10 PM
Disregard.

1042 Trooper
03-01-2007, 05:13 PM
We shall see! :D

Irishluck31
03-01-2007, 05:13 PM
I absolutely AGREE! Traffic Enforcement should be the #1 priority of ALL LEO's, in between catching calls, domestics, rapes, robberies and all the other plesentries we humans force on each other, traffic enforcement should be our main concern.

in other words when i am not catching calls I SHOULD be running traffic and that is exactly what I do. I just dont write tickets, because i hate writing tickets. i do look for dope and warrants though, thats always fun. :D

MountainCop
03-01-2007, 05:17 PM
I run traffic as the main part of my job.

But my mission as a peace officer is to keep the peace. Whatever that entails.

Fëanor
03-01-2007, 05:19 PM
I say no.

Accidents happen, but they are accidents. They happen to good people (although often stupid people) who just need help afterward. Of course prevention is better, but....

...Crimes such as robbery, murder, assault, etc are committed by genuine rotten eggs and I think that police should deal with the bad people rather than good people who have accidents.

1042 Trooper
03-01-2007, 05:24 PM
I say no.

Accidents happen, but they are accidents. They happen to good people (although often stupid people) who just need help afterward. Of course prevention is better, but....

...Crimes such as robbery, murder, assault, etc are committed by genuine rotten eggs and I think that police should deal with the bad people rather than good people who have accidents.
Even if these "good" people are killing three times as many as the "bad" people?

And "accidents" don't just happen. Some human MAKES them happen, through neglect, selfishness, disregard for the law, talking on the phone, reading a book, not inspecting their car before a trip, not studying their directions before getting lost and stopping in the middle of the highway.....on and on and on and on.

They are NOT an act of God.

Fëanor
03-01-2007, 05:41 PM
Even if these "good" people are killing three times as many as the "bad" people?

And "accidents" don't just happen. Some human MAKES them happen, through neglect, selfishness, disregard for the law, talking on the phone, reading a book, not inspecting their car before a trip, not studying their directions before getting lost and stopping in the middle of the highway.....on and on and on and on.

They are NOT an act of God.Yep, even then.

I still say that the immoral people should be dealt with first. We know what to do with them and they deserve it (and worse...). Then we can deal with the morons.

Stopping Evil = #1
Stopping Stupidity = #2

Of course, if things changed, it would cause a public outcry of "Why aren't the police doing anything about all these horrible drivers etc boo hoo etc"

Wile E. Coyote
03-01-2007, 05:50 PM
Accidents happen, but they are accidents.*Disclaimer: Not a personal attack*

I have seen only one true accident, not caused by human error or failure of servicable parts. An old Chevy stepside 3-speed was parked in an angled spot on the roadway. A wire from the starter solenoid touched the exhaust grounding the circuit. The starter drove the truck over a curb, into a parking lot into another vehicle. No one was in either vehicle.

Crimes such as robbery (carjacking), murder (vehicular homicide, DUI causing death), assault (reckless driving, DUI, DWHUA), etc are committed by genuine rotten eggs and I think that police should deal with the bad people (drug smuggling, human trafficking, anything else done with a vehicle), rather than good people who have accidents.

Good people who have accidents use Depends.

malka881
03-01-2007, 05:56 PM
It's public safety. #1 priority should be the safety of the public.

Start with what statistically causes the most damage and work your way down.

stangfather
03-01-2007, 05:59 PM
all are important but i think the protection role and response to calls for service, from robbery in progress to cat in a tree is the most important.

perception is reality.

Police ALWAYS look better when the public SEES police doing something (short response times etc..catching the badguys right in front of the victims etc.) ]

If the police are empathetic to the situation, they (the public) feel better than if for example, it take officers an hour to get to a burglary, the detectives are detached and impersonal and 4 days later they catch the guy.

what i mean is that when the response time and officers have the attitude that whatever the problem the victim is having is thier (the police's) utmost priority and gets 100% attention at that time..


like children who fall down and skin thier knees, police are the 'mommas' who pick the kid (society) up and tell them it will be ok, which often times is more important than the band aid that goes on mostly as a afterthought.
i hope i explained what i meant properly.

call it community policing or whatever you want.

However, the majority of the public seems to have a "what have you done for me lately " attiude in regards to police activity.

Citizen:you didnt get here fast enough!

Police officer: but we caught the guy who burgled your house last month

Citizen: yea, but...i needed you today and you took forever.


know what i mean? :)

1042 Trooper
03-01-2007, 06:55 PM
all are important but i think the protection role and response to calls for service, from robbery in progress to cat in a tree is the most important.

perception is reality. More so than saving lives / preventing death?


Police ALWAYS look better when the public SEES police doing something (short response times etc..catching the badguys right in front of the victims etc.) ]
Ask 100 citizens what they last saw a cop doing. 99 will tell you, stopping a speeder / on a traffic stop / stopping a car / arresting a drunk driver. Very few will say, "catching a burglar red handed." If you think about, this is probably true for you as well.


If the police are empathetic to the situation, they (the public) feel better than if for example, it take officers an hour to get to a burglary, the detectives are detached and impersonal and 4 days later they catch the guy.


what i mean is that when the response time and officers have the attitude that whatever the problem the victim is having is thier (the police's) utmost priority and gets 100% attention at that time.
What could more perfectly back this up, than an immediate stop of some turd that just blew a stop sign right in front of the citizen.

Fëanor
03-01-2007, 07:30 PM
carjacking...vehicular homicide...human trafficking...DUI...DWHUA...reckless drivingIt just so happens that traffic enforcement is usually the most effective way to deal with these types of crimes. So in these cases there is no priority conflict.

Drug smuggling in itself I don't see as evil or stupid. I think it should be left alone like any other legitimate import/export/retail business. The evil I see is the violence/theft/etc that makes it seem like an illegitimate business. That is where the focus should be, and that should not be left alone. In this case, traffic enforcement is NOT the best option.


cat in a treeI consider that a waste of police resources. Your average teenager is better trained/equipped to rescue a cat from a tree than most cops.


More so than saving lives / preventing death?In general, no. As far as policework is concerned, yes: I think a robbery in progress is more important than trying to save lives through general traffic enforcement.

Mystikal
03-01-2007, 07:35 PM
I thought revenue collection was the biggest priority? at least thats how it appears to be with some departments locally :rolleyes:

sibpd893tf
03-01-2007, 07:59 PM
If our obvious #1 priority in law enforcement is the saving of lives and prevention of death and mayhem and, by far, traffic errors and reckless / drunken driving are responsible for more than 50,000 deaths each year, shouldn't traffic supervision and enforcement be the #1 priority of all uniformed enforcement agencies?

What say you? Hopefully, this wll be an objective and good intentioned logical debate. :eek:

I'm sure traffic enforcement is the number 1 priority for those employed by a HIGHWAY PATROL agency. That's what they do; they don't handle general policing calls; just tickets, drunks and ACCIDENTS! On the other hand, State Police agencies, police departments and some Sheriff's departments handle "calls for service". This is their priority at work!

HardBall
03-01-2007, 08:10 PM
An officer's #1 priority is protecting human life.
The question is how can you do it?
What aspects of human behavior can an officer affect?

Being that most murders are committed by 'intimates' (ones the victim is related to or knows) it would be hard to expect an average officer to stop that type of crime.

As for street crime, statistics show that police on patrol intercept approx. 1% of street crimes. 'Police driving around trying to prevent crime is about as efficient as firemen driving around trying to prevent fires.' (Kansas City Police Patrol Study, 1974).

So how can an patrol officer directly impact the safety of the citizens in his jurisdiction?
1- active enforcement of traffic laws. Speed kills. Cops can definately affect speed.
2- Off -duty and as a citizen, advocate for changes in the law to slow people down and make the road safer. Like this http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=19&id=34545

leopold99
03-01-2007, 08:12 PM
other.

preventing and detering crime by whatever means that are available.

bluep7
03-01-2007, 08:23 PM
Taking care of my brothers and sisters.

Labrock
03-01-2007, 09:02 PM
Interesting thread.

I think that I would have to vote for a choice that was not on the list. I would have to vote for "balance."

We don't really have the type of job where we can say one specific thing is the most important. In my experience, the best officers are the ones with the most balance.

By this I mean, they can run radar all night, recognize the signs when one of the stopped drivers in nervous, use good I & I techniques, correctly apply search and seizure law, find the hidden narcotics, make the arrest, do a good job on the paperwork and have enough heart to offer to help get the guy into rehab.

Just my two cents.

SRT936
03-01-2007, 09:09 PM
Accidents happen, but they are accidents.

This statement I have to respectfully post my disagreement. The vast majority of "accidents" have a definate cause that would clearly be avoidable by one or more parties involved.

I voted for high profile patrol but with this proviso: Any high profile patrol has at its very core intense traffic enforcement. It allows you to address everything from so-called quality of life violations all the way up to big felonies. Even if its just by being visible enough to make the bad guys go elsewehere.

eman2k5
03-01-2007, 09:14 PM
damn the drugs.......


they are the #1 problem.

Jim1648
03-01-2007, 09:14 PM
I vote for Other.

The number one priority is to respond to an officer in need of assistance. Someone told me years ago that the reason an officer in need of assistance is the highest priority is that you can't help the public if you can't help one another. And the best person to help an officer in need of assistance is usually another officer.

I don't say this to detract from drug, vice, or traffic enforcement. Lets face it some of the most notorious criminals have been arrested due, at least in part, to good traffic law enforcement.

jwise
03-01-2007, 09:20 PM
My personal police philosophy is a focus on calls for service. I respond to the need of the people, regardless of what that might be. The amount of TIME I spend there is a direct reflection on how important the specific incident is in my opinion.

When I'm not on a call, I like to do high visibility patrol.

I view traffic enforcement just slightly above picking up the garbage. SOMEONE has to do it, but hopefully not me!

PS- Our numbers show that I answer more calls for service and take more reports than anyone else in my platoon. So obviously my "police philosophy" isn't just what I think, but what I actually practice.

1042 Trooper
03-01-2007, 10:12 PM
I view traffic enforcement just slightly above picking up the garbage. SOMEONE has to do it, but hopefully not me!

Gee. Could you be any more disrespectful or condensending to those likie me who dedicated a career to saving lives? :mad:

1042 Trooper
03-01-2007, 10:19 PM
I'm sure traffic enforcement is the number 1 priority for those employed by a HIGHWAY PATROL agency. That's what they do; they don't handle general policing calls; just tickets, drunks and ACCIDENTS! On the other hand, State Police agencies, police departments and some Sheriff's departments handle "calls for service". This is their priority at work!

Correction - Highway Patrol agencies quite often answer general calls especially in rural areas - but the question, was what our priority should be across the board, generally, as a whole profession. Proactively looking for traffic violators or, waiting for calls to service?

Dinosaur32
03-01-2007, 10:52 PM
The answer depends in large part on the area you patrol. If your area of responsibility is a county full of moose and jackalopes with a handful of humans thrown in, I can see how a speeding ticket can save lives, at least as long as the driver is stopped by the cop. On the other hand, traffic stops in a densely populated urban area with its attendant traffic crawl serve little or no purpose beyond revenue generation. Calls for service would have to be the priority.

jwise
03-01-2007, 11:04 PM
Gee. Could you be any more disrespectful or condensending to those likie me who dedicated a career to saving lives? :mad:

Just because I wouldn't want to be a sanitation worker doesn't mean I disrespect them. I appreciate their work, and wave and talk to them at the city's service center... same as I do the Traffic Officers. :)

I don't want to do a lot of jobs.

I view taking runaway reports pretty much the same. SOMEONE has to do it (and I appreciate our desk officer who does it), but I sure don't want to be the one.

BTW- I utilize traffic stops as part of my "high visibility patrol." I just don't dedicate myself to doing it for hours at a time.

eman2k5
03-01-2007, 11:13 PM
Correction - Highway Patrol agencies quite often answer general calls especially in rural areas - but the question, was what our priority should be across the board, generally, as a whole profession. Proactively looking for traffic violators or, waiting for calls to service?


The drugs, how many problems can be linked to drugs? Alot......


get rid of the drugs and you get rid of alot of problems

scratch13
03-01-2007, 11:46 PM
The number one priority of LEO's should be to make the biggest possible and greatest impact on making the US a place where citizens can do the "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" thingy. Whether one does that by traffic, drug inter, domestics, SWAT, etc.

What is more important than the other? Stopping a rape in progress or giving a traffic ticket to someone for speeding (who may have killed themselves down the road)? Not really a fair question.

Do what you need to do to make the biggest difference that you think you can.

1042 Trooper
03-02-2007, 12:04 AM
Just because I wouldn't want to be a sanitation worker doesn't mean I disrespect them. I appreciate their work, and wave and talk to them at the city's service center... same as I do the Traffic Officers. :)

I don't want to do a lot of jobs.

I view taking runaway reports pretty much the same. SOMEONE has to do it (and I appreciate our desk officer who does it), but I sure don't want to be the one.

BTW- I utilize traffic stops as part of my "high visibility patrol." I just don't dedicate myself to doing it for hours at a time.
But just think of the lives you could save and the death you could prevednt! :)

1042 Trooper
03-02-2007, 12:06 AM
The number one priority of LEO's should be to make the biggest possible and greatest impact on making the US a place where citizens can do the "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" thingy. Whether one does that by traffic, drug inter, domestics, SWAT, etc.

What is more important than the other? Stopping a rape in progress or giving a traffic ticket to someone for speeding (who may have killed themselves down the road)? Not really a fair question.

Do what you need to do to make the biggest difference that you think you can.
You know me...just full of these unfair questions! All the same, it does take everything we do out there.

dogma vs karma
03-02-2007, 12:39 AM
officer safety. if i'm no good i can't help out anyone else.

Fëanor
03-02-2007, 12:41 AM
get rid of the drugs and you get rid of alot of problemsNot to turn this into a debate on Drug Prohibition but the ONLY thing that drug users do that sober people do not is the drugs themselves. Sober people commit robberies and homicides, cause car accidents, vandalize property, and do anything else you can think of.

If you think that getting rid of drugs is a general cure for society's problems, you are sorely mistaken.


...Proactively looking for traffic violators or, waiting for calls to service?Theoretically no cop should EVER be waiting for calls. While at work, you aren't being paid to sit on your butt as you wait for a call that might not even be coming. Traffic enforcement is a lower priority. That means that it should be done but not when there is a higher priority situation at the same time.

t150vsuptpr
03-02-2007, 02:06 AM
Highest Law Enforcement Priority

Depends on the law enforcement position one occupies, where, what, etc. Of the choices presented though, this is how I would vote, if I voted.

X = Voted For
O = Not voted for.
__________________________________________________ __
X Prevention of death and mayhem by traffic enforcement
X Saving lives in peril
O Erradication of drugs
O Solving crimes
O Public education
O Public relations
O Vice control
O Recovering stolen property
X Prevention of crime by high profile patrol
O Other
__________________________________________________ __

I think the three choices I picked are so closely related as to be inseperable.

Later ........ :)

Irishluck31
03-02-2007, 06:13 AM
Just because I wouldn't want to be a sanitation worker doesn't mean I disrespect them. I appreciate their work, and wave and talk to them at the city's service center... same as I do the Traffic Officers. :)

I don't want to do a lot of jobs.

I view taking runaway reports pretty much the same. SOMEONE has to do it (and I appreciate our desk officer who does it), but I sure don't want to be the one.

BTW- I utilize traffic stops as part of my "high visibility patrol." I just don't dedicate myself to doing it for hours at a time.


Way to back track Hero. :rolleyes:

Traffic Enforcement is an important part of LE. Some of us us it as a mean to an end, some choose it as their main focus. You apparently fancy yourself as a shooter and a student of the Patrol Theory. Some dont. I would never liken them to a trash man, because they do a job I dont want to do. I hope your arrogance is just a show on the threads and doesnt reflect the way you act towards the cops you work with.

Let the excuses fly. :eek:

Da Po-po
03-02-2007, 07:16 AM
I voted for public education. Before everyone jumps me for being a bleeding heart liberal, my view on this is pretty broad. I have always felt that an officer's job is to educate the public whenever possible. There are plenty of traffic stops where I try to educate the driver of the dangers about their driving habits. Sometimes that education included a ticket. A lot of crimes could be prevented if people knew some of the stupid stuff they do actually helped cause their victimization. Granted, you are always going to have people who are just plain stupid, refuse to listen, or are victims of events way beyond their control. That's where the enforcement part of the job comes into play.

SgtCHP
03-02-2007, 09:49 AM
I say no.

Accidents happen, but they are accidents. They happen to good people (although often stupid people) who just need help afterward. Of course prevention is better, but....

...Crimes such as robbery, murder, assault, etc are committed by genuine rotten eggs and I think that police should deal with the bad people rather than good people who have accidents.


A number of years ago the phrase "Traffic ACCIDENT" was officially removed from statistical data and the term "Traffic COLLISION" was put in its place. Why? Because there is no such thing as an accident when it comes to traffic. There is always a cause - be it man, woman, child or mechanical.

As 10-42 says: 50,000 lives are lost every year and hundreds of thousands of injuries are incurred due to traffic collisions. The loss of lives and the injuries cost taxpayers and insurance companies great amounts of money.

Also, the motor vehicle has become a major tool in the criminal community.

If one thinks that traffic law enforcement is not effective, one should read this:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/deskbk.html

Fëanor
03-02-2007, 12:12 PM
A number of years ago the phrase "Traffic ACCIDENT" was officially removed from statistical data and the term "Traffic COLLISION" was put in its place. Why? Because there is no such thing as an accident when it comes to traffic. There is always a cause - be it man, woman, child or mechanical.Semantics. My point was that there are no bad intentions. That's not to say that nothing caused the accident, but it was unintentional.


If one thinks that traffic law enforcement is not effective, one should read thisI think traffic law enforcement is very effective, I just don't think it should be the Highest LE priority.

Dinosaur32
03-02-2007, 01:09 PM
When considering this topic you must consider the populace's demands. I feel safe in saying that NYC residents considered the removal of the windshield washing squeegee men from the streets more important than a few traffic tickets. Quality of life is what concerns the public and that must be our top priority. So if your population feels safe in their homes and neighborhoods, then strict traffic enforcement will rise to the top of the list. If, on the other hand, innocent 12 year girls are getting killed in their apartments by random shots being let go in the streets, traffic enforcement will not even be a blip on the public's desires. After all, we serve the public, not what some think tank decides we should be doing.

Plaso
03-02-2007, 07:46 PM
#1 for was saving my own life and going home at the end of the night!

MPSoldier84
03-02-2007, 08:25 PM
I agree that Traffic is a high priority of Highway Patrol, and I'm far from a City/Rural or Highway Cop. But I think it can be incorporated in High profile patrol. Doing a lot of traffic stops, and showing force is High profile patrol. Your lights on the side of the road, and you writing a citation IS High Profile. You can also look for major/minor crimes and violations by roving patrol.

Matto
03-02-2007, 08:49 PM
Nothing intimidates criminals more than traffic stops, in my opinion. My city pd, and the pd next door are apples and oranges. My city is aggressive with traffic stops, and I can tell you that word of mouth is scrotes try to stay out of my city.

Redders
03-02-2007, 08:54 PM
Correction - Highway Patrol agencies quite often answer general calls especially in rural areas - but the question, was what our priority should be across the board, generally, as a whole profession. Proactively looking for traffic violators or, waiting for calls to service?

If you work for an agency that has the ability to have specialized units then your priority should be that of which you are asigned to. Due in part to the fact that all of Troopers listed priorities can have special units in a large deptartment to address that specific issue.

However from the stand point of a small rural agency Sgt I priortize that when I go on duty I make a special point to be as much of a visible presence as possible to protect the public at large, proactively enforce all laws, and respond to calls for service. Why? Because there is absolutely no one else to call but me.

scratch13
03-02-2007, 09:52 PM
Not to turn this into a debate on Drug Prohibition but the ONLY thing that drug users do that sober people do not is the drugs themselves. Sober people commit robberies and homicides, cause car accidents, vandalize property, and do anything else you can think of.
If you think that getting rid of drugs is a general cure for society's problems, you are sorely mistaken.

Theoretically no cop should EVER be waiting for calls. While at work, you aren't being paid to sit on your butt as you wait for a call that might not even be coming. Traffic enforcement is a lower priority. That means that it should be done but not when there is a higher priority situation at the same time.

I disagree.

You give me a random sober person. Stats say he is probably is a law abiding person (but maybe not, just the odds).

You give me a crack head ......... that person is a criminal no question.

Fëanor
03-02-2007, 10:33 PM
I disagree.

You give me a random sober person. Stats say he is probably is a law abiding person (but maybe not, just the odds).

You give me a crack head ......... that person is a criminal no question.Drugs influence crime, but they are only one of many factors; they are not the sole cause. Drug use is the only crime that would not exist if drugs disappeared. That is all I was saying.

You could get rid of every mind-altering substance on the earth, down to caffeine and sugar too. There will still be violence, theft, vandalism, rapes, and any other crime you can think of.

jwise
03-02-2007, 10:58 PM
Way to back track Hero. :rolleyes:

Traffic Enforcement is an important part of LE. Some of us us it as a mean to an end, some choose it as their main focus. You apparently fancy yourself as a shooter and a student of the Patrol Theory. Some dont. I would never liken them to a trash man, because they do a job I dont want to do. I hope your arrogance is just a show on the threads and doesnt reflect the way you act towards the cops you work with.

Let the excuses fly. :eek:

I'm not back-tracking. I'm clarifying my statement so as not to offend others. I didn't mean to offend Trooper, but obviously I did.

I didn't LIKEN Traffic Officers to trash men. I said the "act" of traffic enforcement was as appealing TO ME as the "act" of picking up garbage (or taking out garbage.) Please don't put words in my mouth, as there is a HUGE difference between what I said and what you stated.

I'm GLAD others like chasing tail lights. I agree it is an important function of police work. I just don't like doing it.

I also agree with Redders4786 that if you are specialized, then your given specialty SHOULD be your priority. I'm patrol, not traffic. We have traffic officers who chase tail lights all day. I like to respond to calls all day. As long as we have manpower for each job, we all get along fine and the city is well served.

To summarize (again), the #1 priority of LE should be to respond to calls for service. Of course, an investigator would chime in and say "solving crimes." Maybe the #1 priority of PATROL is to respond to calls for service, the #1 priority of TRAFFIC is to reduce the number of collision related deaths, the #1 priority for our SCHOOL COPS (SROs) is to teach kids to make better choices and stay off drugs, etc, etc, ad nausem...

There are a whole lotta LE officers (corrections officers) who would say maintaining the prison system is the #1 priority. What would happen if they didn't exist anymore?!?!

PERHAPS "Law Enforcement" is too broad to have a #1 priority?

MarineGrunt
03-02-2007, 11:05 PM
The term "accident" always bothers me. 99.9999% of the time an "accident" is caused by disregarding laws or safety. So "accidents" are really a crime.

nobody33
03-02-2007, 11:06 PM
My vote was for saving lives. Though I would agree that the priority is to back each other up.

Every area is going to be different.. traffic is important, but I've only worked in the ghetto... it is much more valuable to the community I serve to be going after felons, parolee, narcs, and getting guns off the street, than for me to be giving seat belt tickets and running radar. I personally think running radar in my area would be a waste of time. Traffic is just a tool for me to get bigger and better things. Other areas (read: low crime burb's and highways) traffic is no doubt one of the highest priorities. Everyone's job is important. If I had to guess, I would say DUI units across the nation probably prevent more deaths than anything else.

Now here is where I'm going on a gripe, because this happened to me 2x last week. Another agency in my area which primarily runs traffic, doesn't always dig in their stops, and doesn't always run DL status. They get a license- write a ticket- and move on to the next stop. I've been stopping people who still had their license in their possession, but it was suspended several times, and got a ticket during the active suspension from this agency, then were allowed to drive away the car. With just a lame stop sign or speeding ticket, because the officers obviously didn't bother to run it for status. Most hit and runs here are unlicensed drivers. If there is an opportunity to take those cars off the street and get the driver on a jail able offense they could save a lot of people grief.

jwise
03-02-2007, 11:11 PM
Drugs influence crime, but they are only one of many factors; they are not the sole cause. Drug use is the only crime that would not exist if drugs disappeared. That is all I was saying.

You could get rid of every mind-altering substance on the earth, down to caffeine and sugar too. There will still be violence, theft, vandalism, rapes, and any other crime you can think of.

I agree with your statements, but am unsure what should be done about it. Regulate meth, heroin, cocaine, and all the rest like alcohol? All of them are useless except for altering your mental state, and alcohol related deaths are greater than other drugs, but what would happen if they became legal? What kind of message would that send?

I think this should be taken to another thread instead of hi-jacking this one.

Sorry- now back to your regularly scheduled programming... [#1 priority of LE]

1042 Trooper
03-02-2007, 11:43 PM
I'm not back-tracking. I'm clarifying my statement so as not to offend others. I didn't mean to offend Trooper, but obviously I did.
Not personally - I'm used to these statements from local yokels. It was kind of offensive to the profession, however.


I'm GLAD others like chasing tail lights.
Your words betray you. See? You did it again with this obvious slam. If this is truly how you feel about the work, you are missing a sheeotload of good drug / drunk / felony arrests. Not doing your community much good that way.


I'm patrol, not traffic. This tells it all, man.


We have traffic officers who chase tail lights all day. There you go again. C'mon, man, be honest.


I like to respond to calls all day. So while you are driving around waiting for those hot calls, are you completely ignoring unsafe driving?


PERHAPS "Law Enforcement" is too broad to have a #1 priority?
What could possibly be more clear than saving lives as our #1 priority? This is puzzling to me.

DeputySC
03-03-2007, 12:04 AM
Uniformed officers main goal is improve the quality of life of the citizens by enforcing all local, state, and federal laws. I think that sums it up wether its town, city, county, highway patrol, other state, or federal police. They are all different.

Being a deputy sheriff in the area that I am in, I do not get to do alot of traffic like a trooper is expected to do. Their main job is to enforce traffic and work wrecks. My main focus is to handel calls such as disputes between family members, neighbors, landlords and tenants or whatever else that may turn into assaults of mabey they just need a referee. Then it could be an armed robbery in progress, to a shooting incident with multiple people shot, to little suzy trying to overdose on tylenole, to a my neighbors music is to loud call. We respond to multiple 'i see a suspicious person' calls, and the list goes on. Which is alot of things a trooper, federal, or wild life officer for example would very rarely experience uness mabey they happen to be in the area, hear the call go out and back us up.

But every now and I may be able play highway patrol and pull a soccer mom over speeding through a school zone. :D Usually between 1am-4am when most people go to sleep, calls slow down, and the creeps come out. :eek:

Redders
03-03-2007, 12:27 AM
What could possibly be more clear than saving lives as our #1 priority? This is puzzling to me.

Simple, everything that you posted as to what a priority is saves a life in some way. A good and vaild question that makes sense yet what no one is comprehending is the simple fact that our profession and our priorities are a careful balancing act that requires all of us to make sure that all of LAW ENFORCEMENT'S priorities are met. No priority in and of it's self is more important than the other because just as a team if one of the members of a team lags behind the whole team fails.

IMHO it's easier for large agency's with special units to get it done. It's harder for me to get everything done because I am a jack of all trades instead of a master of one.

Mirrain
03-03-2007, 02:00 AM
Preservation of public safety....and it includes many of those listed.

I see plenty of carnage on the streets and while I agree with you that accidents cause more fatalities than other crimes, I still feel that the priority should be given to saving lives touched by rape, murder, etc.

The question is, if you had the choice to save a child from a fatal traffic accident, would you chose to do that over protecting a child from being sexually assaulted and murdered?

Bad people are the focus for me. I hate seeing people expire in accidents and while it's not easy for families to deal with it, it's a hell of a lot easier than having to deal with a murder or other brutal crime.

Irishluck31
03-03-2007, 06:54 AM
My personal police philosophy is a focus on calls for service. I respond to the need of the people, regardless of what that might be. The amount of TIME I spend there is a direct reflection on how important the specific incident is in my opinion.

When I'm not on a call, I like to do high visibility patrol.

I view traffic enforcement just slightly above picking up the garbage. SOMEONE has to do it, but hopefully not me!

PS- Our numbers show that I answer more calls for service and take more reports than anyone else in my platoon. So obviously my "police philosophy" isn't just what I think, but what I actually practice.


Put words in your mouth?

scratch13
03-03-2007, 07:22 AM
Drugs influence crime, but they are only one of many factors; they are not the sole cause. Drug use is the only crime that would not exist if drugs disappeared. That is all I was saying.

You could get rid of every mind-altering substance on the earth, down to caffeine and sugar too. There will still be violence, theft, vandalism, rapes, and any other crime you can think of.

Sorry, you are WRONG. You have NO idea about crack and meth. They WRECK the lives of EVERYONE that they touch. That is just how it is. Pot? Maybe not. But those others, you are just plain wrong. Anyone else who has dealt with crack heads or tweakers want to chime in?

Irishluck31
03-03-2007, 12:08 PM
Your words betray you.


Its just a show, an attempt to see how good one can make himself look to those who cant see through the bull. I can see through the bull.

the only question is the motive. Why insult people who do a job I dont want to do, especially cops. What is the benifit? how does it help justify what is being said?

Who cares?

Fight the good fight.

dpatrol
03-04-2007, 04:43 PM
I have to disagree with you 1042, not all law enforcement can focus on traffic. For highway patrol/state patrols and rural counties and smaller municipalities,yes is should be priority.

I work in a larger urban eniviorment where more people die from guns/knives/battery/robbery than traffic accidents. My focus should be on violent crime not traffic enforcment. We have motor officers and designated traffic officers for this.

Where I work officers dont even have time to do traffic , all night is running from call to call. I can't remember the last time I wrote a traffic citation.

1042 Trooper
03-05-2007, 01:23 PM
I have to disagree with you 1042, not all law enforcement can focus on traffic. For highway patrol/state patrols and rural counties and smaller municipalities,yes is should be priority.

I work in a larger urban eniviorment where more people die from guns/knives/battery/robbery than traffic accidents. My focus should be on violent crime not traffic enforcment. We have motor officers and designated traffic officers for this.

Where I work officers dont even have time to do traffic , all night is running from call to call. I can't remember the last time I wrote a traffic citation.
You missed the point of the question. The question is OVERALL - ALL UNIFORMED LAW ENFORCEMENT - not your local situation.

I just wondered if the protection of lives was shared as our #1 priority. And if not, what on earth would be MORE important to a police officer?

When you recognize (which you must unless you ignore the numbers) that traffic enforcement is the best way to prevent the most needless deaths of the people we protect, then wouldn't it make sense that traffic enforcement should be our first priority in methods to save lives? Sure, other aspects are far more exciting and fun but, we aren't here for our own amuzement. We are employed for that which protects our people in the most effective way. The numbers say traffic supervision is the bst way to do this

Wouldn't you agree?

Delta784
03-05-2007, 02:16 PM
The question is OVERALL - ALL UNIFORMED LAW ENFORCEMENT - not your local situation

That's an impossibly broad question. Some cops have time for traffic enforcement, some don't. Felony in-progress call vs. equipment violation....looks like a no-brainer to me.

My #1 priority, as already mentioned, is going home at the end of the night.

Kieth M.
03-05-2007, 02:46 PM
The number one priority of uniformed LE officers?

Going home in one piece, never going hungry, and never getting wet! :D

Okay, with the joke out of the way, here's my real answer:

To be flexible and responsive to the needs of the community: If we all concentrate of traffic, some neighborhoods will collapse due to the scourge of narcotics. If we all just do dope arrests, peds will get taken out by red- light runners, or innocent drivers will get hit by DUI's. Focusing only on drugs and traffic will have a backlog of investigations so grand, no agency could recover from it. Radio call "specialists" will lose ground if they don't do a fair amount of more proactive crime suppression by "shaking, rattling and rolling" in high-crime areas.

My favorite cops are the ones who can switch back and forth to the mission they're needed for.

3India
03-05-2007, 03:31 PM
Troop,

Don't all the choices listed in your poll directly and indirectly serve to protect life? Everything we do as LEOs, in some way protects a life. I hate to be Mr. Obvious. We are here to enforce laws which allegedly, when properly observed, will save lives, be they traffic or other. Community outreaches educate the public on how they could benefit from following the law. Solving crimes makes it harder for the criminal to get away with the crime, thereby making too much of a hassel to commit one.

:eek: Further observance would be to say our job is to teach the public the rules and punish them when they break them...it begins to sound a lot like babysitting :eek: .

scratch13
03-05-2007, 06:35 PM
Troop,

Don't all the choices listed in your poll directly and indirectly serve to protect life? Everything we do as LEOs, in some way protects a life. I hate to be Mr. Obvious. We are here to enforce laws which allegedly, when properly observed, will save lives, be they traffic or other. Community outreaches educate the public on how they could benefit from following the law. Solving crimes makes it harder for the criminal to get away with the crime, thereby making too much of a hassel to commit one.

:eek: Further observance would be to say our job is to teach the public the rules and punish them when they break them...it begins to sound a lot like babysitting :eek: .

No, he knows better. :rolleyes:

Traffic enforcement IS important. It DOES save lives. BUT we can't all drop what we are doing and write tickets all day long. As said before, the rest of the city will crumble due to not enforcing those other parts of our job.

1042 Trooper
03-05-2007, 06:59 PM
Maybe I'm just not asking correctly. My question wasn't one, or the other....it was PRIORITY. Which should take PRIORITY over others - not that one must stop doing everything else!

Anyway, another horse has become Alpo. :)

CoolAid
03-05-2007, 08:02 PM
Here in Northern Nevada our #1 issue right now is Meth. The tweaker population is growing stronger, more devious, and more dangerous. We have a awesome force of state troopers in the NHP to handle the traffic issues, that lets the Sheriff's Office stick with trying to combat the Meth problem thats running rampant through our communities.

Dinosaur32
03-06-2007, 12:00 AM
Let me throw this into this discussion: The number of lives saved in this country by all law enforcement is statiscally insignificant. The number of lives lost in traffic accidents is of even less statistical importance. A large number of those dead from TAs are the actor and compatriots, who chose to put themselves in danger. If the USA has a population of over 200 million, the 50,000+ lives lost in TAs are a statistical blip. And except for the occasional, horrific media story most citizens don't give a d*mn about traffic. BUT when a city experiences a few push in robberies, also statistically insignificant, the citizenry will be outraged.

Law enforcement's priority must be to soothe the psyche of a disturbed populace. Crime solving, crime prevention should be a higher priority than traffic control.

1042 Trooper
03-06-2007, 11:27 AM
Let me throw this into this discussion: The number of lives saved in this country by all law enforcement is statiscally insignificant. The number of lives lost in traffic accidents is of even less statistical importance. A large number of those dead from TAs are the actor and compatriots, who chose to put themselves in danger. If the USA has a population of over 200 million, the 50,000+ lives lost in TAs are a statistical blip. And except for the occasional, horrific media story most citizens don't give a d*mn about traffic. BUT when a city experiences a few push in robberies, also statistically insignificant, the citizenry will be outraged.

Law enforcement's priority must be to soothe the psyche of a disturbed populace. Crime solving, crime prevention should be a higher priority than traffic control.
So, Dino, our priority should be what the public PERCIEVES as its greatest threat to life, rather than what actually IS its greatest threat. Is that it?

You do have a solid point as to the public's support of our efforts leaning toward what threatens them but I think you miss something here...

The vast majority of the public has never been robbed, beaten, raped, murdered or burgled. They HAVE been run off the road, tailgated, nearly killed and road raged a zillion times and to them, traffic violators ARE a huge issue. Do a public speaking event and when the "questions from the aufience" segment comes around, nearly every question is about reckless, drunk or drugged drivers.

TX Heat
03-06-2007, 04:34 PM
Even if these "good" people are killing three times as many as the "bad" people?

And "accidents" don't just happen. Some human MAKES them happen, through neglect, selfishness, disregard for the law, talking on the phone, reading a book, not inspecting their car before a trip, not studying their directions before getting lost and stopping in the middle of the highway.....on and on and on and on.

They are NOT an act of God.
They are an act of negligence by humans. All the traffic enforcement in the world won't stop them. It can impact them, but not stop them.
Much like finding criminals, saving lives and recovering property, traffic enforcment is a vital part of our job but the highest priority?
I'd much rather expend my time stopping those evil doers who intentionally try to inflict harm rather than arresting some 84 year old woman who pulled out in front of a car because she couldn't see. Even if she was negligent... :rolleyes:

scratch13
03-06-2007, 09:55 PM
Traffic enforcement that HELPS: Speeding, red lights, stop signs, SEAT BELTS, DUI, etc .........

Enforcement ALONE? Nope. We need well rounded law enforcement practices.

Dinosaur32
03-06-2007, 10:33 PM
Here's the thing Trooper....We work for the public through officials they have elected. Citizens do encounter some bad experiences on the road BUT for the greatest part these experiences are forgotten in hours asnd what happened to Sally has little import to Tom. On the other hand, reports of rape and pillaging are of great import to the average Joe. He pressures his elected officials. They set the the tone for our enforcement actions.

So as important as traffic enforcement plainly is, the reality is other facets must take a higher priority.

1042 Trooper
03-06-2007, 10:48 PM
Again I ask, what could possibly be more important than saving lives?

chaser266
03-06-2007, 11:29 PM
Again I ask, what could possibly be more important than saving lives?
The possible answers to this poll were poorly worded. Most of our activities as cops involve protecting life, limb and property. Obviously protecting life more of a priority than the lattter two. And, doing a foot patrol in a bad neighborhood has just as much life-saving potential as writing a ticket to a speeder on the interstate. (And I don't recall "saving lives through proactive policing" as a possible answer; oddly enough saving lives though traffic enforcement was a possible answer.)

In order to determine the biggest priority of a police officer, we would look to the community policing model -- which tells us to adapt our policing style to the needs of a particular community, beat, or geographical area. In the US, law enforcement officers patrol rural highways, high-crime urban areas, suburbs, waterways, federal facilities, airports, etc. Each of those areas has its own unique situation and its own particular needs. Attempting to lump the whole country into one community and decide what the highest priority is -- well, that's just asinine.

Dinosaur32
03-06-2007, 11:49 PM
What's more important is what our bosses tell us is more important. And I think taking a rapist or burglar off the streets has more of an effect in calming the public psyche and protecting their lives than issuing speeding tickets. Lock up a felon and he is out of circulation for awhile...the speeder is out of circulation only as long as it takes you to write him. And obviously no matter what MADD and SADD think, DWI is not a priority for society. Just look at the posts in other threads that touch on the subject.

1042 Trooper
03-07-2007, 11:04 AM
The possible answers to this poll were poorly worded. Most of our activities as cops involve protecting life, limb and property. Obviously protecting life more of a priority than the lattter two.
Thank you. This was my only point. Saving lives must be our #1 priority and one can save the most by heavy traffic supervision.

And, doing a foot patrol in a bad neighborhood has just as much life-saving potential as writing a ticket to a speeder on the interstate.
Huh? Taking a stroll through the getto will save as many lives as actively stopping reckless drivers? I think this is what George Bush #1 called, "fuzzy math."


Attempting to lump the whole country into one community and decide what the highest priority is -- well, that's just asinine.
Relax - it was just a discussion point - not an attempt to change modern policing. If putting forth a legitimate question to ponder is asinine, how do we learn anything?

1042 Trooper
03-07-2007, 11:18 AM
What's more important is what our bosses tell us is more important.
No independent thinking allowed?

And I think taking a rapist or burglar off the streets has more of an effect in calming the public psyche and protecting their lives than issuing speeding tickets.
You keep reducing traffic enforcement to writing speeding tickets. Your words betray your disrespect of that facet of law enforcement. Speeding is one of nearly 100 different traffic violations to be enforced and is one of the least important - yet that is the one you focus on. What about reckless, DWUI, tailgating, unsafe passing, unsafe lane changes, no signal, hit and run, unsafe equipment violations - all of these have and continue to cause death and misery on a daily basis in society.

Lock up a felon and he is out of circulation for awhile...the speeder is out of circulation only as long as it takes you to write him.
Here again, ignorance is a problem. It isn't just the violator you have stopped, it's the dozens who pass by, see it, and get a little reminder to be more careful. It helps immensly and far more often.


And obviously no matter what MADD and SADD think, DWI is not a priority for society. Just look at the posts in other threads that touch on the subject.
Pehaps not, but we as police officers should know better. Anyone who kills 25,000 people per year aught to be the #1 priority to every uniformed police officer on patrol and in a position to detect them and arrest them. Nothing-no other criminal element, does more to harm the public than these selfish clowns. It is sad some police officers cannot see this due to personal bias or preference.

No, traffic is not an adrenalyn rush - but that was not the question. Saving lives was.

scratch13
03-07-2007, 12:46 PM
Again I ask, what could possibly be more important than saving lives?

Here is the BIG problem with your "point." If we take aaaaaallllllllll of the guns, cars, pools, sharp pointy objects, etc out of the world, less people would die. Does that mean that we should do it just because "we would be saving people's lives?"

scratch13
03-07-2007, 12:48 PM
Thank you. This was my only point. Saving lives must be our #1 priority and one can save the most by heavy traffic supervision.

Huh? Taking a stroll through the getto will save as many lives as actively stopping reckless drivers? I think this is what George Bush #1 called, "fuzzy math."


Relax - it was just a discussion point - not an attempt to change modern policing. If putting forth a legitimate question to ponder is asinine, how do we learn anything?

Says you ..... alot here do believe it is asinine.

1042 Trooper
03-07-2007, 01:44 PM
We should do what we can within our scope of duty. That's all. Seems simple.

chaser266
03-07-2007, 01:47 PM
Thank you. This was my only point. Saving lives must be our #1 priority and one can save the most by heavy traffic supervision.

Huh? Taking a stroll through the getto will save as many lives as actively stopping reckless drivers? I think this is what George Bush #1 called, "fuzzy math."


Relax - it was just a discussion point - not an attempt to change modern policing. If putting forth a legitimate question to ponder is asinine, how do we learn anything?
If you're patrolling a rural highway, traffic enforcement clearly presents the best potential for saving lives.

A foot patrol (not the same as a stroll) in a drug-infested area could result in causing gun-toting criminals to go home for a while. Or it could result in the officer taking some drugs, guns, and criminals off the street. These actions could prevent a murder from occurring.

In contrast, with regard to traffic enforcement, I acknowledge that it is necessary to do. However, it's quite possible that the same person you wrote a ticket for speeding will be speeding again once you're out of sight. As a matter of fact, if he was running late to be somewhere, he may be going even faster to make up for lost time.

So, if you're going to argue that my position involves "fuzzy math," where are your figures? I don't think there are any reliable numbers related to the outcomes of various enforcement activities -- there are just too many variables.

I am very relaxed about this subject. You are the one who is trying to set everyone else straight that the correct answer to your survey is saving lives through traffic law enforcement. My position is that it depends on where you work, and that the multiple-choice responses to your survey were slanted in favor of your opinion. And to attempt to determine the number one priority for law enforcement officers nationwide is very cumbersome, and ultimately meaningless. (Cumbersome becuase: Are we going to determine the number one priority on a geographical basis, a population basis, etc.) (Meaningless because: If we do draw a particular conclusion on a nationwide basis, what does that mean to me as a patrol officer, or me as a citizen? Nothing.)

1042 Trooper
03-07-2007, 01:49 PM
Says you ..... alot here do believe it is asinine.
A LOT is two words, Scratch, not one.


To ponder thoughtfull questions is asinine in your world? Too bad. In mine, it's how we learn other perspectives and keep our minds open to better ways.

Stand by, however. I've grown tired of this one. Give me a few minutes, Scratch, and I'll think of some other asinine thread to post, to drive you and A LOT of others here, nuts. :D

Wouldn't want to end a streak.....

1042 Trooper
03-07-2007, 01:58 PM
However, it's quite possible that the same person you wrote a ticket for speeding will be speeding again once you're out of sight. As a matter of fact, if he was running late to be somewhere, he may be going even faster to make up for lost time.
Thee you go, right back to speeding again.


So, if you're going to argue that my position involves "fuzzy math," where are your figures? I don't think there are any reliable numbers related to the outcomes of various enforcement activities -- there are just too many variables.
Easy - there were roughly 50,000 traffic realted deaths last year. How many total homicides? 16,000 or so? A a more than 3-1 ratio of traffic deaths vs homicide deaths. There's the math.


I am very relaxed about this subject. You are the one who is trying to set everyone else straight that the correct answer to your survey is saving lives through traffic law enforcement. My position is that it depends on where you work, and that the multiple-choice responses to your survey were slanted in favor of your opinion. And to attempt to determine the number one priority for law enforcement officers nationwide is very cumbersome, and ultimately meaningless. (Cumbersome becuase: Are we going to determine the number one priority on a geographical basis, a population basis, etc.) (Meaningless because: If we do draw a particular conclusion on a nationwide basis, what does that mean to me as a patrol officer, or me as a citizen? Nothing.)
And, again, my only question in this discussion has been, shouldn't a police officer's overall priority be in saving lives / preventing deaths. Taking this as a given (my first mistake apparently), then it seems to make sense that the best place to be the most effective at this objective, would be rigerous traffic enforcement. I remain so convinced.

ANyway, you got nasty and suggested I was being asinine and I didn't think that was called for.

Carry on..... :)

theloniusfleaba
03-07-2007, 03:58 PM
Law enforcement's priority must be to soothe the psyche of a disturbed populace. Crime solving, crime prevention should be a higher priority than traffic control. I have to concur with Dinosaur here, sad though this statement may be. I voted 'other', though I felt some were very close. Previously someone had picked three that were very closely linked, and I agree with that assessment.
As a non-LEO, I don't envy the police one bit...dealing with the crappiest underbelly of society as a full time job doesn't make me jealous. While 10-42 Trooper makes several good arguments for traffic stops being the possible #1 saver of lives, Dinosaur makes a good point, public perception is huge. We as the 'ignorant masses' know we are taking a chance every time we take the wheel. I know I am 'rolling the cosmic dice' every time I step out the door. The biggest 'wrong' we perceive, though is when someone else willfully abrogates our rights (to freedom from aggression, etc), rather than the 'accidental'. While I understand the argument that most 'accidents' can be ascribed to one or another violation, I don't see the 'violator' being in the same criminal league as say, a crackhead who beat a Subway clerk to death with a hammer for $50 towards his next fix. The general public doesn't view inattentiveness at the wheel as the same kind of threat as the crackhead, even when statistics might say otherwise.

Mind you, statistics can paint whatever picture you want them to. Does anyone know how may safe, 'collision'-free trips are taken in N. America each year vs. the number of 'collisions'?

chappo555
03-07-2007, 06:53 PM
1042 Trooper,

I agree. In my state in Australia we have 500+ road deaths per year and less then 100 homicides.

As a point dont most good LEO's find that the repeat traffic offenders are also the ones who commit crimes. The druggies and thieves drive to and from their crimes and or drug deliveries being unlicenced, unregistered etc.

The number of drug seizures, warrants and stolen cars Ive got from a routine traffic stop or a traffic breach is huge. Having said that we in Australia have a great power that I think most states in the US dont and that is RBT. Random Breath Testing gives the power to stop any vehicle being used at any time on any road simply to subject the driver to a breath test. From that stop you find all the other stuff that a good LEO wants in his work diet.

A boss told me years ago that a good traffic cop can affect crimes rates and I have to agree. A majority of road deaths are caused by people who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs and are criminals in the real sense of the word. So yes traffic enforcement should be a priority.

Just my $AUS 0.02.

cheers
chappo555

scratch13
03-07-2007, 07:59 PM
We should do what we can within our scope of duty. That's all. Seems simple.

And who here has said anything but ..........

scratch13
03-07-2007, 08:02 PM
A LOT is two words, Scratch, not one.


To ponder thoughtfull questions is asinine in your world? Too bad. In mine, it's how we learn other perspectives and keep our minds open to better ways.

Stand by, however. I've grown tired of this one. Give me a few minutes, Scratch, and I'll think of some other asinine thread to post, to drive you and A LOT of others here, nuts. :D

Wouldn't want to end a streak.....

Oh ...... great angle to argue ...... grammar :rolleyes: .

You give yourself too much credit. Someone who has been gone for a while did the same thing. You are starting to sound "a lot" like him. Nuts? Maybe some of your points, but you aren't getting to me. I just like to point out what I agree with and what I see as wrong.

chaser266
03-07-2007, 10:59 PM
Easy - there were roughly 50,000 traffic realted deaths last year. How many total homicides? 16,000 or so? A a more than 3-1 ratio of traffic deaths vs homicide deaths. There's the math.
Okay -- so let's see how many homicide (and illegal drug-related) deaths there are if officers in high-crime neighborhoods across the country are ordered to make traffic law enforcement their number one priority.

I do not disagree with you that traffic law enforcement is important. I try to be a well-rounded LEO, and don't get tunnel vision on one particular aspect of my job.

Dinosaur32
03-07-2007, 11:28 PM
I refer to speeders only because there are hundreds of other traffic violations to refre top and doing so would maker the post onerous to read. I'm not sure where you stood in the chain of command on your job. But I have civilian and uniformed bosses who limit my "independent thinking"........maybe you wre abl;e to, but I cannot decide what laws I am going to enforce today.

Basing your reasoning only on statistics, you fail to see the impact of crime upon society. Perhaps in Wyoming there are no concentrations of civilians to cause you to do otherwise. But here in the Big Apple, we have a population, that when they "perceive" a crime problem, expect said crime problem to be eradicated. We're talking drug sales, prostitution, burglaries muggings, etc. Crimes that affect not only the driver and a few others on the road at the same time and point in space, but crimes that affect whole neighborhoods for days and weeks until they are resolved.

jwise
03-08-2007, 06:36 AM
Thee you go, right back to speeding again.


Easy - there were roughly 50,000 traffic realted deaths last year. How many total homicides? 16,000 or so? A a more than 3-1 ratio of traffic deaths vs homicide deaths. There's the math.

...then it seems to make sense that the best place to be the most effective at this objective, would be rigerous traffic enforcement. I remain so convinced.


Check your spelling before correcting others. A lot of people make that one word, and it has even made its way into vernacular as one word. Your errors have not gained such acceptance.

jwise
03-08-2007, 06:59 AM
Put words in your mouth?

Are you kidding?!? Ok, let's dissect the sentence...

"I view traffic enforcement just slightly above picking up the garbage. SOMEONE has to do it, but hopefully not me!"

"Traffic Enforcement" is an action, or, a verb, just like "picking up the garbage." You'll note I did NOT say "Traffic Enforcement OFFICERS" or "Those who pick up the garbage." To further clarify my meaning, I went further to add the last sentence, which clearly shows that it is the ACTION that is distasteful to me.

I don't mind ****ing people off, but I REALLY do not like ****ing people off on accident. If this doesn't clear things up, I will resort to purposefully ****ing you off... :)

jwise
03-08-2007, 07:27 AM
Your words betray you. See? You did it again with this obvious slam. If this is truly how you feel about the work, you are missing a sheeotload of good drug / drunk / felony arrests.

My use of the term "chasing tail lights" has come from others on this website. It wasn't used as an insult then, and I wasn't using it as an insult either. It is just slang for working traffic. (I hope "working traffic" doesn't have a negative conotation!?)

While I was out today, I put four in jail for various crimes ranging from warrants to felonies in progress. I was able to get there quickly and efficiently because I was NOT on the highways running radar. Nothing is better than getting there quick enough to arrest the suspect instead of just taking a report.



Not personally - I'm used to these statements from local yokels. It was kind of offensive to the profession, however.

Words betraying who?


So while you are driving around waiting for those hot calls, are you completely ignoring unsafe driving?

Of course not.

I agree with one of your earlier posts, that while there are no other priority calls holding, it behooves us to "watch" for traffic violations and enforce them when observed. I do this. I don't set up on them at rarely used stop signs and pull over everyone who rolls through without coming to a complete (momentum killing) stop. I don't pull people over for anything that could be considered an accident, or a mistake (unless it's ongoing, like going the wrong way on a one-way street.) I do stop and ticket those who blatantly vioate the law for their convenience, putting others at risk.

I also don't run traffic all night while on patrol, leaving my beat to be covered by my sister district units. That's poor form. I don't like it when others do this, regardless of how important they feel traffic enforcement is.


What could possibly be more clear than saving lives as our #1 priority? This is puzzling to me.

As it was previously stated, the public is not overly "traumatized" by traffic accidents. They ARE traumatized by violent interpersonal behavior (rape, robbery, murder, assault, etc...) Lt Grossman actually speaks directly to this truth in his lectures, and I believe in his book "On Killing" as well. Perception is reality, so perhaps traffic deaths aren't the biggest problem in the US.

Irishluck31
03-08-2007, 11:00 AM
Are you kidding?!? Ok, let's dissect the sentence...

"I view traffic enforcement just slightly above picking up the garbage. SOMEONE has to do it, but hopefully not me!"

"Traffic Enforcement" is an action, or, a verb, just like "picking up the garbage." You'll note I did NOT say "Traffic Enforcement OFFICERS" or "Those who pick up the garbage." To further clarify my meaning, I went further to add the last sentence, which clearly shows that it is the ACTION that is distasteful to me.

I don't mind ****ing people off, but I REALLY do not like ****ing people off on accident. If this doesn't clear things up, I will resort to purposefully ****ing you off... :)


Bravo, that could very well be the best spin job I have seen in a long time. I am truly impressed. BTW you didnt "****" me off as I don't care at all.

The last part has left me with a shaking fit, i guess its the fear dump, you know the one. Its a new experience for me. :D

Best of Luck

scratch13
03-08-2007, 11:06 AM
Check your spelling before correcting others. A lot of people make that one word, and it has even made its way into vernacular as one word. Your errors have not gained such acceptance.

While we have disagreed on some topics ...... thanks for getting my back on that. :D

scratch13
03-08-2007, 11:09 AM
My use of the term "chasing tail lights" has come from others on this website. It wasn't used as an insult then, and I wasn't using it as an insult either. It is just slang for working traffic. (I hope "working traffic" doesn't have a negative conotation!?)

While I was out today, I put four in jail for various crimes ranging from warrants to felonies in progress. I was able to get there quickly and efficiently because I was NOT on the highways running radar. Nothing is better than getting there quick enough to arrest the suspect instead of just taking a report.




Words betraying who?



Of course not.

I agree with one of your earlier posts, that while there are no other priority calls holding, it behooves us to "watch" for traffic violations and enforce them when observed. I do this. I don't set up on them at rarely used stop signs and pull over everyone who rolls through without coming to a complete (momentum killing) stop. I don't pull people over for anything that could be considered an accident, or a mistake (unless it's ongoing, like going the wrong way on a one-way street.) I do stop and ticket those who blatantly vioate the law for their convenience, putting others at risk.

I also don't run traffic all night while on patrol, leaving my beat to be covered by my sister district units. That's poor form. I don't like it when others do this, regardless of how important they feel traffic enforcement is.



As it was previously stated, the public is not overly "traumatized" by traffic accidents. They ARE traumatized by violent interpersonal behavior (rape, robbery, murder, assault, etc...) Lt Grossman actually speaks directly to this truth in his lectures, and I believe in his book "On Killing" as well. Perception is reality, so perhaps traffic deaths aren't the biggest problem in the US.

Well said. I agree with what you are saying here.

1042 Trooper
03-08-2007, 02:54 PM
Well said. I agree with what you are saying here.
Okeedokee - now that we all agree, it's ALPO guys! Just having some fun on the correction, Scratch - guess my sense of humor can be ASININE as well. Sorry about that. Joke not taken well. My fault.

Funny thing is, I'm done saving the world so it all belongs to you guys now. Just be careful whatever you do. "Nuff said. :)

Next irritating thread from a fat, old retired taillight chasing fool coming soon! :D:D:D

1042 Trooper
03-08-2007, 03:24 PM
I refer to speeders only because there are hundreds of other traffic violations to refre to and doing so would maker the post onerous to read.
It also, conveniently, minimizes a critical aspect of police work.


I'm not sure where you stood in the chain of command on your job. But I have civilian and uniformed bosses who limit my "independent thinking"........maybe you wre able to, but I cannot decide what laws I am going to enforce today.
Of course not. The question was just to suggest where our overall priority might be - not day to day answering of calls. That isn't police work - that's babysitting. That's why 2 years of city policing was plenty for me. I liked my freedom of choice too much. My hat's off to you guys who like that kind of work but it is indeed, too confining - to military and rigid for me. I liked being able to "choose" what area to concentrate on on a given day or shift.


Basing your reasoning only on statistics, you fail to see the impact of crime upon society. Perhaps in Wyoming there are no concentrations of civilians to cause you to do otherwise.
Impact on society? Are you kidding? Do you not think losing a family member to a bloody, body-pulverizing wreck, caused by someone too busy to obey the law stop for a stop sign, has an impact to society? No impact, when a salesman too involved in a cell phone conversation, fails to see a child run out in front of them,? No impact,when someones teenaged boy is in too big of a hurry to obey the law and runs through a residential neighborhood at 65 miles per hour, only to hit an innocent high school honors student, backing out of her driveway? No impact?

Your points, are precisely reinforcing, my points! :eek: Even we police officers can have a scewed view of things depending on where we work, what specialty we do and how long we've done it. This is why I thought it might be interesting to see how others think - albeit obvious where I come down on things.

Anyway, just some chum for chewing on.

Sgt. Geezer
03-08-2007, 03:30 PM
Are you kidding?!? Ok, let's dissect the sentence...

"I view traffic enforcement just slightly above picking up the garbage. SOMEONE has to do it, but hopefully not me!"

"Traffic Enforcement" is an action, or, a verb, just like "picking up the garbage." You'll note I did NOT say "Traffic Enforcement OFFICERS" or "Those who pick up the garbage." To further clarify my meaning, I went further to add the last sentence, which clearly shows that it is the ACTION that is distasteful to me.

I don't mind ****ing people off, but I REALLY do not like ****ing people off on accident. If this doesn't clear things up, I will resort to purposefully ****ing you off... :)

Perhaps your endless schooling on English language usage would be better suited to the Communication Center portion of the forum :confused:

1042 Trooper
03-08-2007, 03:41 PM
My use of the term "chasing tail lights" has come from others on this website. It wasn't used as an insult then, and I wasn't using it as an insult either. It is just slang for working traffic. (I hope "working traffic" doesn't have a negative conotation!?)
C'mon, jwise. Who are you kidding here? Me? Even if unintentional, it is still a cop's minimization of the function. Let's say you worked SRT or SWAT. How would you feel if that function, was blindly, ignorantly albeit unintentionally, dismissed as less than important by fellow cops as, "Playing soldier boy, " or, "Playing Rambo" as we've all heard from time to time. It's wrong, it's insulting and it is ignorant. Intentional or not.


While I was out today, I put four in jail for various crimes ranging from warrants to felonies in progress. I was able to get there quickly and efficiently because I was NOT on the highways running radar.
There you go AGAIN! Another unintentional dismissal. See?


I agree with one of your earlier posts, that while there are no other priority calls holding, it behooves us to "watch" for traffic violations and enforce them when observed. I do this. I don't set up on them at rarely used stop signs and pull over everyone who rolls through without coming to a complete (momentum killing) stop. I don't pull people over for anything that could be considered an accident, or a mistake
You don't even stop them? Not even just to check for DWUI or health issues that might be causing this? Would you feel badly if you didn't stop one like this and a few minutes later learn they have crashed head-on with another vehicle? C'mon, man, I know you're better than that!


I do stop and ticket those who blatantly violate the law for their convenience, putting others at risk.
How can you tell the difference before you stop them? Do they look different?


As it was previously stated, the public is not overly "traumatized" by traffic accidents. They ARE traumatized by violent interpersonal behavior (rape, robbery, murder, assault, etc...) Lt Grossman actually speaks directly to this truth in his lectures, and I believe in his book "On Killing" as well. Perception is reality, so perhaps traffic deaths aren't the biggest problem in the US.
So, how many should we write off? How do we, as law enforcement, decide which ones to let die on our watch?

My point, for the last time I swear :D is this: we as police should try not to minimize the affect decisive and certain traffic enforcement has, on the safety of the people employing us to keep them safe. No, it doesn't have the drama and excitement of traumatic crime but that wasn't my point.

On, to the next annoying discussion! :D:D:D

jwise
03-08-2007, 07:00 PM
It also, conveniently, minimizes a critical aspect of police work.

So says you. I don't agree that it minimizes it.


Of course not. The question was just to suggest where our overall priority might be - not day to day answering of calls. That isn't police work - that's babysitting. That's why 2 years of city policing was plenty for me. I liked my freedom of choice too much. My hat's off to you guys who like that kind of work but it is indeed, too confining - to military and rigid for me. I liked being able to "choose" what area to concentrate on on a given day or shift.


So what you're saying is, you would rather not answer calls for service? Do I get to play the same game you do, and wail and moan about how insulting your "babysitting" comment was to my profession?! Babysitting!? Aww, I can't stay mad at you, Troop! I forgive you. :D


Your points, are precisely reinforcing, my points! :eek: Even we police officers can have a scewed view of things depending on where we work, what specialty we do and how long we've done it. This is why I thought it might be interesting to see how others think - albeit obvious where I come down on things.

Other than being mispelled, skewed is generally interpreted as meaning "distorted", or simply "wrong." How about just saying different officers have different points of view concerning Law Enforcement, depending on their specialty?


Well said. I agree with what you are saying here.

Holy Crap! I just saw a pig flying across the sky! ;)


While we have disagreed on some topics ...... thanks for getting my back on that.

Of course I'll get your back... except when you're wrong. Then you're on your own... just kidding. :D err.. Perhaps? :D


Perhaps your endless schooling on English language usage would be better suited to the Communication Center portion of the forum

Wherever someone demonstrates a deficiency in reading comprehension, and thereby gets their panties in a wad, I'll be there. Sorry...

jwise
03-08-2007, 07:19 PM
Bravo, that could very well be the best spin job I have seen in a long time. I am truly impressed.

An English lesson is not a spin session. This would not have been necessary if your 7th grade English Composition teacher would have done his job.

As Mark Davis says, "Words MEAN something."

If you don't know their meaning, look them up and use them properly. If you don't comprehend a series of words strung together to form a sentence, ask someone for help or get an education. Don't shoot your mouth off.


You don't even stop them? Not even just to check for DWUI or health issues that might be causing this?!

Sometimes. It depends on the situation. Is it 5pm, or 2am? Is the vehicle coming out of a club or gas station? You see my point.


How can you tell the difference before you stop them? Do they look different?

"Easily" and "Yes", respectively.

Sgt. Geezer
03-08-2007, 07:31 PM
How can we really be sure that JWISE & Scratch 13 aren't the same person?
I can't tell their posts apart. They < if there really are two > have almost identical verbal demeanors.

jwise
03-08-2007, 08:24 PM
How can we really be sure that JWISE & Scratch 13 aren't the same person?
I can't tell their posts apart. They < if there really are two > have almost identical verbal demeanors.

Go read 1042 Trooper's other thread about "what would you do" or some-such. It should clear up the question for you..."Perhaps."

Dinosaur32
03-08-2007, 10:57 PM
Trooper........I think we might actually agree on something here. I believe I posted earlier in this thread and I think you just indicated with your statement about bailing on city policing, that our point of view on this topic is developed in large part by the environment we work in. In no way do I denigrate traffic enforcement. My comments are only meant to express the belief that, through my experience, other aspects of law enforcement have a higher priority.

In your example of the tragedy caused by a major traffic accident with DOAs, the reach of the horror is still very much limited to those immediately affected. On the other hand, every woman in a neighborhood (and in NYC that number will be in the thousands) will be affected by a brutal rape. That is where my perspective comes from.

scratch13
03-09-2007, 12:00 AM
How can we really be sure that JWISE & Scratch 13 aren't the same person?
I can't tell their posts apart. They < if there really are two > have almost identical verbal demeanors.

And how can we be sure that you aren't also Pee Wee Herman? You are right, I guess that we will just have to keep wondering.

NY Troop
03-09-2007, 12:25 AM
Thanks jwise, I appreciate you reducing my years of service to being one of taking out the garbage!!

NY Troop
03-09-2007, 01:15 AM
I haven't looked at all the posts here yet, has anyone made the analogy that we all work in a sand paper factory? One of us has to get the paper made and delivered, someone has to find the sand and have it ready. Better be the right sand for the job, I'm going to find the glue we need to attach the sand to the paper, you all see where I'm going. Law enforcement is a huge area to try and reduce it to what small part of what we do is more important. I'm a Trooper in New York, some of our counties have no law enforcement other than us. Those Troopers do everything from the speeding ticket to the mailbox crim misch to the rape murder. Troopers working in more populated areas have numerous town/county agencies that handle everything except the highways, those guys do traffic. I've worked the inner city as a Trooper and found that we run complaints and do the stop and frisk/move along thing there, but several arrests we made while doing the city thing were due to traffic stops. It all sums up as we go out and get the bad guys off the street, but we might use different tactics as our location and environment are different. GOD BLESS all of us Traffic, Patrol, Complaint, ECT. GET THE JOB DONE. WE ARE THE GOOD PEOPLE.

jwise
03-09-2007, 03:26 AM
Thanks jwise, I appreciate you reducing my years of service to being one of taking out the garbage!!

It appears the babies have lost their pacifiers. After all, according to 1042 Trooper I have just been babysitting all these years while working patrol...

You "Traffic Enforcement Officers" sure are sensitive. Yikes!

For the thousandth time, I DON'T LIKE WORKING TRAFFIC. I could get paid $45/hr to work selective traffic enforcement initiatives, but I don't. Why? Because I DON'T LIKE TRAFFIC! You do? GREAT! I'm happy to hear it. Have fun out there.

I fail to see how my distaste for working traffic somehow "reduces" your service. Like your self-worth is linked to how I would enjoy doing your job?

1042 Trooper
03-09-2007, 10:45 AM
Trooper........

In your example of the tragedy caused by a major traffic accident with DOAs, the reach of the horror is still very much limited to those immediately affected. On the other hand, every woman in a neighborhood (and in NYC that number will be in the thousands) will be affected by a brutal rape. That is where my perspective comes from.
No sale. Having been where I have been, every needless death of a toddler not in a car seat will affect his mom, dad, grandparents, siblings, friends, neighbors and every other parent in the neighborhood. The needless death of a high school cheerleader will tear at the heart of thousands of friends, teachers, parents, siblings, grandparents, schoolmates and every other parent in the neighborhood; the needless death of some fifth grade little boy's daddy by a duece coming across the centerline, will affect that little boy, his family, his future kids someday, just as deeply, just as painfully, just as long - forever.

Next arguement?

1042 Trooper
03-09-2007, 10:56 AM
It appears the babies have lost their pacifiers. After all, according to 1042 Trooper I have just been babysitting all these years while working patrol...

You "Traffic Enforcement Officers" sure are sensitive. Yikes!

For the thousandth time, I DON'T LIKE WORKING TRAFFIC. I could get paid $45/hr to work selective traffic enforcement initiatives, but I don't. Why? Because I DON'T LIKE TRAFFIC! You do? GREAT! I'm happy to hear it. Have fun out there.

I fail to see how my distaste for working traffic somehow "reduces" your service. Like your self-worth is linked to how I would enjoy doing your job?
jwise, all I can say is, in my mind we are all more well-rounded peace officers for having worked traffic - not because we enjoy it or not, but because we recognize it is as critical a part of the job just as is investigations (a task I hate but certainly respect and do not note compare it to sifting through the trash), dope, property crimes, homicide, worthless documents, juvinile, public relations, etc.

And while working traffic, you may be surprized to find out how many more arrests you make - felony warrants, dope, fugitives, stolen cars, etc..

Remember, we mock what we do not understand! :D

miami-k9
03-09-2007, 11:50 AM
Goodness me the heavens must be raining sulfer someplace because I happen to agree with the Trooper.

scratch13
03-09-2007, 12:12 PM
Go read 1042 Trooper's other thread about "what would you do" or some-such. It should clear up the question for you..."Perhaps."

Ouch ...... that hurt. You just tore open that scab. I kind of liked it better when we were thought of as being the same person. :D

1042 Trooper
03-09-2007, 01:45 PM
Goodness me the heavens must be raining sulfer someplace because I happen to agree with the Trooper.
Stranger things have happened. :D

Dinosaur32
03-09-2007, 02:29 PM
Trooper...I guess you and I will never agree on this topic....but where I work traffic violations are not looked upon as "real crime" and cops are believed to be primarily involved in reducing crime. In suburban Nassau County the DA won a murder conviction against a drunk driver. He drove his vehicle head on into a limousine. Driver killed and seven year old girl decapitated. There was much surprise in the community that the drunk was even actually charged with murder, much less convicted. Once again, strictly from the perspective of being a civil servant subject to the wishes of the public, traffic enforcement is not that important here. "Real crime" is. Let a team of muggers loose on the subway and you will see plenty of outrage from the public but not for failure to wear a seatbelt.

scratch13
03-09-2007, 10:04 PM
No sale. Having been where I have been, every needless death of a toddler not in a car seat will affect his mom, dad, grandparents, siblings, friends, neighbors and every other parent in the neighborhood. The needless death of a high school cheerleader will tear at the heart of thousands of friends, teachers, parents, siblings, grandparents, schoolmates and every other parent in the neighborhood; the needless death of some fifth grade little boy's daddy by a duece coming across the centerline, will affect that little boy, his family, his future kids someday, just as deeply, just as painfully, just as long - forever.

Next arguement?

That is just his point. You live or work in NYC? No? Then go work your traffic (or used to) on the interstate or state highway. Feel good about doing your job. But let's flip this coin a bit, old man. What are you implying about officers who cannot work traffic? That their job does NOT mean as much as yours does (did)? How egotistical are you?

1042 Trooper
03-09-2007, 11:23 PM
That is just his point. You live or work in NYC? No? Then go work your traffic (or used to) on the interstate or state highway. Feel good about doing your job. But let's flip this coin a bit, old man.
YIKES! "Old Man?" Is 50 old in your world? What a nice and respectful little weiner your are.

What are you implying about officers who cannot work traffic?
Huh? Why, nothing at all. I don't imply, I state. Read slowly...MY ONLY POINT IS IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO WORK TRAFFIC WHEN YOU ARE OTHERWISE ABLE TO DO SO, YOU ARE NOT PERFORMING YOUR JOB FOR THE PUBLIC PAYING YOU TO DO SO.

Clear enough? I'm done now. As you like, the last word is yours. I'm out.

Dinosaur32
03-09-2007, 11:43 PM
Trooper....I'm telling you the 8 million folks in NYC are paying the 35,000 NYPD cops to do traffeic enforcement on Park Avenue. They couldn't care less about that. They want Dr. Barks stopped.

Chief Wiggum
03-10-2007, 12:10 AM
That is just his point. You live or work in NYC? No? Then go work your traffic (or used to) on the interstate or state highway. Feel good about doing your job. But let's flip this coin a bit, old man. What are you implying about officers who cannot work traffic? That their job does NOT mean as much as yours does (did)? How egotistical are you?

Your beating your head against a brick wall. He is completely out of touch with reality and can't comprehend how everyone doesn't think as he does.

1042 Trooper
03-10-2007, 12:18 AM
Your beating your head against a brick wall. He is completely out of touch with reality and can't comprehend how everyone doesn't think as he does.
Know what I was doing when you were in 3rd grade, "Chief"?

Working traffic and saving lives. Show some class.

But thanks for chiming in.

1042 Trooper
03-10-2007, 12:19 AM
Trooper....I'm telling you the 8 million folks in NYC are paying the 35,000 NYPD cops to do traffeic enforcement on Park Avenue. They couldn't care less about that. They want Dr. Barks stopped.
Gotcha. Thanks.

Chief Wiggum
03-10-2007, 12:27 AM
Know what I was doing when you were in 3rd grade, "Chief"?

Working traffic and saving lives. Show some class.

But thanks for chiming in.

So what. You'd think that with all your experience you'd know better than to assume that your way is the only way, but apparantly not.

When I was in 3rd grade you were working traffic and assuming you were saving lives. Truth is you have no idea if your enforcement ever saved a life. I'm sure you have convinced yourself it has in order to pad your ego, and you very well may have. But you don't know. The fact that you state it with such certianity just further displays your arogance (sp?).

Know what I'll be doing after your in the grave? Police work. Big deal. :rolleyes:

1042 Trooper
03-10-2007, 12:48 AM
So what. You'd think that with all your experience you'd know better than to assume that your way is the only way, but apparantly not.
Dude, you chimed in waqy too far along the conversation. You need to read what has been said here to avoid sounding like ... well ... like you sound.


When I was in 3rd grade you were working traffic and assuming you were saving lives. Truth is you have no idea if your enforcement ever saved a life. I'm sure you have convinced yourself it has in order to pad your ego, and you very well may have. But you don't know. The fact that you state it with such certianity just further displays your arogance (sp?).
No - just my intelligence, maturity, study of police science and desire for cooperative learning between professionals.


Know what I'll be doing after your in the grave? Police work. Big deal. :rolleyes:
And that you would say this, sadly reinforces what you have clearly already displayed to all who have read this worn out thread - that you are ... well .. what you are. :)

Be safe young gun and if I may, there's an old joke about two bulls on a hill you really need to hear. But not from me.

Chief Wiggum
03-10-2007, 11:58 AM
Dude, you chimed in waqy too far along the conversation. You need to read what has been said here to avoid sounding like ... well ... like you sound.

I've read this thread since it started. I sound like everyone else that disagrees with you. Which is pretty much everyone on this thread.


No - just my intelligence, maturity, study of police science and desire for cooperative learning between professionals.

Sorry, how could I possibly infer that you have an ego. :rolleyes:


And that you would say this, sadly reinforces what you have clearly already displayed to all who have read this worn out thread - that you are ... well .. what you are.

Which is an officer that doesn't think he's the best thing to happen to LE since sliced bread. Which is an officer that doesn't need to hear from everyone else how great he is. Which is an officer that doesn't need to stand there with his hands on his hips with chest puffed out talking about how many lives he's supposedly saved. When I say "Big deal." it's because I believe I am no more special than any other hard working officer out there. I would hazard a guess and say that you don't feel that way about your self.


Be safe young gun and if I may, there's an old joke about two bulls on a hill you really need to hear. But not from me.

Heard it. Just a little tid bit. Just because your older doesn't make you smarter. The fact that you posed such a silly lopsided question/poll proves it.

chaser266
03-10-2007, 02:58 PM
Just because your older doesn't make you smarter. The fact that you posed such a silly lopsided question/poll proves it.
I wonder if 1042 is even willing to admit that his poll is unfairly worded... For the record, my belief is that policing priorities vary from one agency to another, and one community/beat to another. The guy who spends all day working traffic makes an important contribution, as does the guy who does proactive policing in a high-crime area; the different policing styles are combined to create reasonably safe communities. Personally, I do not feel any need to try to categorize one aspect of policing as more important than another on a nationwide basis. This survey does reek of egoism, in my opinion.

Irishluck31
03-10-2007, 03:56 PM
I wonder if 1042 is even willing to admit that his poll is unfairly worded... For the record, my belief is that policing priorities vary from one agency to another, and one community/beat to another. The guy who spends all day working traffic makes an important contribution, as does the guy who does proactive policing in a high-crime area; the different policing styles are combined to create reasonably safe communities. Personally, I do not feel any need to try to categorize one aspect of policing as more important than another on a nationwide basis. This survey does reek of egoism, in my opinion.


Does that mean working traffic in a high crime area? Or is it the ever popular and useless Visibility Patrols?

chaser266
03-10-2007, 04:14 PM
Does that mean working traffic in a high crime area? Or is it the ever popular and useless Visibility Patrols?
Proactive policing basically means taking action before it becomes a problem that people call about. In other words, stopping the armed drug dealer before he shoots somebody, rather than wait for violence and answer when somebody calls. It can include making traffic stops with the intent of looking beyond the ticket.

1042 Trooper
03-10-2007, 05:35 PM
So admitted. Poorly worded. How's that?

And it wasn't ego - just an ill-conceived given I thought would be shared by others with common sense. I was wrong there.

Fair enough?

1042 Trooper
03-10-2007, 05:48 PM
I've read this thread since it started. I sound like everyone else that disagrees with you. Which is pretty much everyone on this thread.
That which is popular is often wrong. And sometimes the ,most unpopular thing is so, because we know it is true, but we don't want it to be. But just because the popular opinion is counter to mine, does not make me wrong.


When I say "Big deal." it's because I believe I am no more special than any other hard working officer out there.
No? Then why toss around disrespectful insults - do you do that to all you feel equal to?

Just because your older doesn't make you smarter. The fact that you posed such a silly lopsided question/poll proves it.

Honestly, how could my posting a point for discussion lead you to this personal attack. Did I attack you somewhere in the past? Did I toss about a disrespectful note about you or your opinions? I think not. What you read here is in response to your input.

Geesh.

Civility is one of those things that comes with maturity and intelligent thought. Hateful diatribe and disrespect, comes from ignorance and childish tantrums.

Ego? No - just a sharing of thought. Anyway, disrespect me if you must, you are far from the first. Just go away and be safe young gun.

Chief Wiggum
03-10-2007, 06:59 PM
That which is popular is often wrong. And sometimes the ,most unpopular thing is so, because we know it is true, but we don't want it to be. But just because the popular opinion is counter to mine, does not make me wrong.

I guess you have not figured it out yet so allow me to help old gun. There is no right or wrong answer to your question. I guess the answer sould be "it depends". Several people have pointed that out but you refuse to believe it. That's your right I suppose. I tend to think there is no right or wrong when opinions are involved.


Honestly, how could my posting a point for discussion lead you to this personal attack. Did I attack you somewhere in the past? Did I toss about a disrespectful note about you or your opinions? I think not. What you read here is in response to your input.

You attacked me and every cop on this forum that has to or chooses shag calls all day (how did you put it?...."babysitting"). The hostility comes from listening to your holier than thou attitude about traffic enforcement and the inference that those that choose not to do it as our primary objective are lesser cops.

Everything I've written is a direct response to YOUR insulting what I do everyday.


Civility is one of those things that comes with maturity and intelligent thought. Hateful diatribe and disrespect, comes from ignorance and childish tantrums.

Even the intelligent sometimes get ******ed off when insulted.

chaser266
03-10-2007, 07:41 PM
So admitted. Poorly worded. How's that?

And it wasn't ego - just an ill-conceived given I thought would be shared by others with common sense. I was wrong there.

Fair enough?
Works for me, brother.

dpatrol
03-10-2007, 10:14 PM
Hey troop, I guess I misunderstood the original question starting this thread. I dont disagree with you, more people die in accidents, but alot of these accidents are just that, accidents.

All the traffic enforcement in the world is not going to stop an accident from happening. Specific enforcement ,like drunk driving or speeding may help stop some, but alot are just accidents, caused by stupid or inattentive driving like blown stop sign/lights. The problem is there are just not enough cops out there to put a dent in poor driving skills of our nations drivers.

Idealistically we would need a trooper/deputy for every mile for highway or a cop for every city block to have any realistic impact on traffic fatalites. It is unfortunate that in my jurisdiction we just don't get time to do much traffic, never enough manpower. I did find it interesting that with all the violent crime in my community ,the number one complaint to alderman from residents was about speeding motorists.

yessemi
03-13-2007, 04:45 AM
Going home at night is #1. #2 is the entire list.