[Mr 5 0]

elliotness:

Thanks for your opinion and yes, I was addressing my comments to you, as your posts are very pro-police and while you give lip-service to their faults you seem to ultimately find the danger of the job to be a trump card for most all arguments against police behavior that is illegal, harrassing or in any way negative. I'll get to that, later.

The New London police hiring story was real, of course, and I don't believe for a nanosecond that they are the only police department in the country that does this kind of testing with those limits. It's probably quite common but never advertised - for obvious reasons.

Your argument that a cop can ARREST you (emphasis yours) instead of issuing a citation is factually correct. We all know that if every motorist with tinted glass or a loud exhaust was ARRESTED (taken into custody, booked, bail set) the legal system would explode within days if not hours, so that's a straw man argument. It would never happen. The citation is as much for the police and courts convenience as it is for the citizen. It's a fair trade, by the way.

Yes, 'elliot', Police departments have divisions b but we've had many members report that after having a car stolen or vandalized, the cops mostly 'go through the motions' and if you complain you're told that they only have so many men available and a vandalized or even another stolen car isn't a high priority. Not encouraging.

When traffic-duty police make arrests for tinted glass and exhaust noise it's perfectly justified but obviously petty and mostly legal nit-picking. Jaywalking and spitting on the sidewalk are illegal and you can be cited for doing so but it's still a rather trivial use of police power all the same, even if you can wave the law book at someone and claim 'it's illegal'! Most everything is, it seems.

I'll trade Devil's Advocate suits with you for a moment and readily agree that police officers have to deal with a lot of trashy people and take a lot of bad attitude all the time. I truly believe this hardens them somewhat to the average law-abiding citizen with some minor automobile defect that they pull over. I believe that the hardened officer starts to think everyone is a 'perp' and is expecting trouble when he pulls you over, hence, the attitude on his part.

That's why when I treat police officers with respect I usually get it back, with or without a ticket.

On the issue that riles you the most, the illegal window tint, I agree that tampering with it was wrong, lacking integrity and illegal, although not the terrible crime you seem to think it is. Your reaction to that seems to be beyond what it deserves but so be it. Nothing either of us can do to change it.

Finally, the fact that seems to obscure all others for you is that cops can get killed in the line of duty. That's factual but more emotion than logic when we think that whatever else they do, the life-threatening nature of the job justifies it.

You may wish to deny you think this, but at the end of every pro-police post is usually the line, often in caps and bold; THEY CAN BE KILLED!!!!!!! I can almost hear the unspoken "So There!" that would follow this statement.

Sorry, 'elliot'. I respect the life-threatening nature of the job (most folks do) but young men (and women) line up for these dangerous jobs, take extensive tests, go through background checks, wait months, maybe years to be accepted and go through a difficult training process plus even have to pay for their own uniforms in many cases.

They want to be a police officer, they strive hard to get there and they willingly accept the very real risks involved but then, when they harrass a motorist the fall-back is always; 'They could DIE!'

Well, truckers can die on the highway, pilots can die in the sky, workers in chemical plants can die from toxins, etc and they all volunteered to be there. So while I respect the danger and frustration the police officer faces every day - and I don't minimize it - he/she volunteered for that danger, knowing full well what the job entailed. They don't work for free and they can retire with half-pay in twenty years (usually before 45) and start a new career if they choose. Most don't die on the job, as you know. It's tragic when they do but it's also quite rare.

Police work is a calling, not a job. The fact that it's dangerous is a given and eagerly accepted, apparently, by those who choose to do the work and take on the risk.

I applaud that dedication, I respect the dangers but I don't give anyone a pass because of it and I don't find trivial application of the law to harrass otherwise law-abiding citizens to be trumped by how dangerous the police officer's job is. Not relevant when discussing the specifics of traffic law enforcement, except that the officer needs to be careful when approaching every stopped vehicle and if the window tint is too dark, order people out of the car if he feels it's necessary but don't use the life-threatening aspects of the position he eagerly volunteered for as a defense for every police-related argument.

I appreciate your opinion, too but I would appreciate it even more if you didn't find it necessary to post everything in bold. It doesn't enhance whatever you're posting and it's another form of 'shouting'. No need. We hear you. Really, we do.