Cop or camera choose your poison

 

http://bit.ly/ks27qH

I think everyone here needs to reassess their thinking and behavior. The judges, the nurse, and the cop.

I think this is an example of everyone being wrong.

Two bruised egos and incompetence on the bench.

I am sorry to admit that in this case a speed camera would have been a much better form of enforcement,

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

I agree

The ruling was on a very narrow point: “Here, even drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Ms. Leverington, it is debatable whether a reasonable officer in Peters’s position would have considered her statement to be a threat,” Ebel wrote. “Accordingly, Ms. Leverington’s free-speech rights in this context were not clearly established, and Peters is entitled to qualified immunity on this basis.”

Definitely poor judgment is in play, but it is on both parts in the decision to complain to the nurse's employer and the decision of the nurse's lawyer to pursue the defense as a matter of free speech and sue the officer.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

This whole thing is just

This whole thing is just messed up!

--
~Jim~ Nuvi-660, & Nuvi-680

anything missing

If the cop really thought it was threat why didn't he arrest her on the spot? Was the conversation recorded by the officer? not mentioned one way or the other in the article. the comment could have been off the cuff. I could go on, they had a similar situation on 'Judge Judy', in that case there was a recording played for the judge and the judge let the gal have it.

Right decision

I think that the decision was right. She threatened the life or well being of the police officer, that isn't protected speech. She also threatened to use her position as a health care worker to make that threat a reality, that also isn't protected speech. The police officer has no way of knowing if this was just a case of her mouth overloading her butt or if she would attempt to carry out the threat. His actions were justified.

Double Tap, there is no way that you could know how she would have reacted to a ticket from a corporation. Your statement about a speed camera being better has no basis in fact or knowledge. But there are a couple of facts we do know. One is that the police officer has a job and the other is that the city doesn't have to share the fine with a private company.

My 2 cents

In a small town near me, the police chief followed a council woman home after the meeting. He said, "If you ever humiliate me again, I will kick you in the a** so hard that you will walk bowlegged the rest of your life." She filed charges against him for terroristic threats against a public official. He was convicted by a jury. He appealed. The appellate court ruled as a point of law, that it was not a threat at all.

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

Based on Fact

jackj180 wrote:

I think that the decision was right. She threatened the life or well being of the police officer, that isn't protected speech. She also threatened to use her position as a health care worker to make that threat a reality, that also isn't protected speech. The police officer has no way of knowing if this was just a case of her mouth overloading her butt or if she would attempt to carry out the threat. His actions were justified.

Double Tap, there is no way that you could know how she would have reacted to a ticket from a corporation. Your statement about a speed camera being better has no basis in fact or knowledge. But there are a couple of facts we do know. One is that the police officer has a job and the other is that the city doesn't have to share the fine with a private company.

It is an absolute fact that if she received a ticket from a speed camera in the mail there would be no one present when she opened the letter that she would threaten about the ticket, unless of course that an employee of the ticking issuing company hand delivered the letter.

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Or

Double Tap wrote:
jackj180 wrote:

I think that the decision was right. She threatened the life or well being of the police officer, that isn't protected speech. She also threatened to use her position as a health care worker to make that threat a reality, that also isn't protected speech. The police officer has no way of knowing if this was just a case of her mouth overloading her butt or if she would attempt to carry out the threat. His actions were justified.

Double Tap, there is no way that you could know how she would have reacted to a ticket from a corporation. Your statement about a speed camera being better has no basis in fact or knowledge. But there are a couple of facts we do know. One is that the police officer has a job and the other is that the city doesn't have to share the fine with a private company.

It is an absolute fact that if she received a ticket from a speed camera in the mail there would be no one present when she opened the letter that she would threaten about the ticket, unless of course that an employee of the ticking issuing company hand delivered the letter.

She paid a visit to the company.

They both suck......

.

--
Striving to make the NYC Metro area project the best.

Shut up

She should have just kept her big month closed! End of story.

--
Nuvi 50LM Nuvi 2555LM

what's with that cop?

In the cop vs. camera debate, I'll take a cop every time. The fact that we have some bad cops is independent of the camera issue.

That said, just how old was that cop? He acted like a 4 year old - "I'm gonna tell on you...". What a rat. All because the woman said she didn't want to deal with him at work? If she worked anywhere else, it wouldn't have been a problem.

Not for anything....

She let her personal experience go beyond into her professional life. Was it a true threat? Who knows, but that was a very LOUSY way to express your displeasure. Her job had zero to do with her traffic infraction. Leave it OUT. She opened the venue, he closed it.

My $.02

--
Striving to make the NYC Metro area project the best.

So she was pissed, big deal

camerabob wrote:

She let her personal experience go beyond into her professional life. Was it a true threat? Who knows, but that was a very LOUSY way to express your displeasure. Her job had zero to do with her traffic infraction. Leave it OUT. She opened the venue, he closed it.

My $.02

And this cop proved he is a schmuck and probably is not psychologically fit to be in law enforcement.

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

title VII

This is going back to my b-school days, we're pretty much engaged in employment-at-will. You are free to leave with no notice, 2 wks, notice, like my brother, 8 wks. notice. Other than what's protected by title 7, an employer can fire anybody, anytime. With that being said, any decent employer has an employee handbook, which spells out expectations and what they also provide.

This is another example of trying to imply that someone's rights were violated. She could have made that statement to a squeegee man cleaning windshields at the Holland Tunnel entrances. he calls her employer in CO, and she's also fired. The cop had nothing to do with the outcome imho.

You must be

johnnatash4 wrote:

This is going back to my b-school days, we're pretty much engaged in employment-at-will. You are free to leave with no notice, 2 wks, notice, like my brother, 8 wks. notice. Other than what's protected by title 7, an employer can fire anybody, anytime. With that being said, any decent employer has an employee handbook, which spells out expectations and what they also provide.

This is another example of trying to imply that someone's rights were violated. She could have made that statement to a squeegee man cleaning windshields at the Holland Tunnel entrances. he calls her employer in CO, and she's also fired. The cop had nothing to do with the outcome imho.

You must be kidding if you think the cop had nothing to do with it. He made the call and complained like a little boy that was yelled at by someone he could not retaliate against physically or he would be the one without the job. IMHO this cop is a wuss and not psychologically fit to be in law enforcement.

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

yup

Double Tap wrote:
camerabob wrote:

She let her personal experience go beyond into her professional life. Was it a true threat? Who knows, but that was a very LOUSY way to express your displeasure. Her job had zero to do with her traffic infraction. Leave it OUT. She opened the venue, he closed it.

My $.02

And this cop proved he is a schmuck and probably is not psychologically fit to be in law enforcement.

Agree!

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

sorry

Double Tap wrote:

http://bit.ly/ks27qH

I think everyone here needs to reassess their thinking and behavior. The judges, the nurse, and the cop.

I think this is an example of everyone being wrong.

Two bruised egos and incompetence on the bench.

I am sorry to admit that in this case a speed camera would have been a much better form of enforcement,

Sorry I will go with the cop any time. jolleyr

--
Southern CA Temp 76 and Sunny. Running around with my Nuvi 465T. Getting lost around the country and loving it.

Cops

Rule 1: Most cops when they stop you are just doing their job.
Rule 2: Some cops are authoritarian and just want to get somebody.
Rule 3: Some may be nervous, tense or just having a bad day.

Guess what? No cop likes to be argued with . It starts everything off on a bad foot and the driver will always come off worst.
Always, always be friendly and polite. You may be annoyed but your first plan should be to get the cop on your side. That's more likely if he /she likes you.

Rule 4" Anyone that threatens a policeman is an idiot.

--
nuvi 855. Life is not fair. I don't care who told you it is.

article

Double Tap wrote:
johnnatash4 wrote:

This is going back to my b-school days, we're pretty much engaged in employment-at-will. You are free to leave with no notice, 2 wks, notice, like my brother, 8 wks. notice. Other than what's protected by title 7, an employer can fire anybody, anytime. With that being said, any decent employer has an employee handbook, which spells out expectations and what they also provide.

This is another example of trying to imply that someone's rights were violated. She could have made that statement to a squeegee man cleaning windshields at the Holland Tunnel entrances. he calls her employer in CO, and she's also fired. The cop had nothing to do with the outcome imho.

You must be kidding if you think the cop had nothing to do with it. He made the call and complained like a little boy that was yelled at by someone he could not retaliate against physically or he would be the one without the job. IMHO this cop is a wuss and not psychologically fit to be in law enforcement.

I'm not kidding in the least bit. It's pretty surprising how many conclusions (cop is a ****, his/her psychological profile) you can draw from an article posted on the web. A MA schoolteacher lost her job based on a facebook post. No cops, no guns involved. A very undramatic case of a person losing their job based on their own actions. What was involved was employment at will. Even though the 54 y.o. teacher admitted her stupidity, it was too late, she was s*** canned anyway.

Out of curiosity, what line of work are you in?

lets' not digress

johnnatash4 wrote:
Double Tap wrote:
johnnatash4 wrote:

This is going back to my b-school days, we're pretty much engaged in employment-at-will. You are free to leave with no notice, 2 wks, notice, like my brother, 8 wks. notice. Other than what's protected by title 7, an employer can fire anybody, anytime. With that being said, any decent employer has an employee handbook, which spells out expectations and what they also provide.

This is another example of trying to imply that someone's rights were violated. She could have made that statement to a squeegee man cleaning windshields at the Holland Tunnel entrances. he calls her employer in CO, and she's also fired. The cop had nothing to do with the outcome imho.

You must be kidding if you think the cop had nothing to do with it. He made the call and complained like a little boy that was yelled at by someone he could not retaliate against physically or he would be the one without the job. IMHO this cop is a wuss and not psychologically fit to be in law enforcement.

I'm not kidding in the least bit. It's pretty surprising how many conclusions (cop is a ****, his/her psychological profile) you can draw from an article posted on the web. A MA schoolteacher lost her job based on a facebook post. No cops, no guns involved. A very undramatic case of a person losing their job based on their own actions. What was involved was employment at will. Even though the 54 y.o. teacher admitted her stupidity, it was too late, she was s*** canned anyway.

Out of curiosity, what line of work are you in?

Lets' not digress, the issue is the behavior of the cop and the motorist in addition to the judgement of the court.

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

absolutely

jolleyr wrote:
Double Tap wrote:

http://bit.ly/ks27qH

I think everyone here needs to reassess their thinking and behavior. The judges, the nurse, and the cop.

I think this is an example of everyone being wrong.

Two bruised egos and incompetence on the bench.

I am sorry to admit that in this case a speed camera would have been a much better form of enforcement,

Sorry I will go with the cop any time. jolleyr

Absolutely right. The cop can use judgement, the camera cannot. However, it's not economically feasible to put a human in every position that a camera can watch.

But it is!

johnnatash4 wrote:
jolleyr wrote:
Double Tap wrote:

http://bit.ly/ks27qH

I think everyone here needs to reassess their thinking and behavior. The judges, the nurse, and the cop.

I think this is an example of everyone being wrong.

Two bruised egos and incompetence on the bench.

I am sorry to admit that in this case a speed camera would have been a much better form of enforcement,

Sorry I will go with the cop any time. jolleyr

Absolutely right. The cop can use judgement, the camera cannot. However, it's not economically feasible to put a human in every position that a camera can watch.

The cop is always preferable over the camera. If a camera can generate enough income to offset it's start-up costs and pay for all of it's associated continuing costs then a cop can generate enough to pay his salary, benefit package and equipment costs. When ticket volume falls off at intersection A, it is a simple matter to move the cop to intersection B. Not so with a camera.

Large cities used to have meter-maids who's sole job was to write parking tickets. They paid their own way and generated income for the city. Why do you think traffic cops can't do the same thing?

I prefer a cop to a camera, however

jackj180 wrote:
johnnatash4 wrote:
jolleyr wrote:
Double Tap wrote:

http://bit.ly/ks27qH

I think everyone here needs to reassess their thinking and behavior. The judges, the nurse, and the cop.

I think this is an example of everyone being wrong.

Two bruised egos and incompetence on the bench.

I am sorry to admit that in this case a speed camera would have been a much better form of enforcement,

Sorry I will go with the cop any time. jolleyr

Absolutely right. The cop can use judgement, the camera cannot. However, it's not economically feasible to put a human in every position that a camera can watch.

The cop is always preferable over the camera. If a camera can generate enough income to offset it's start-up costs and pay for all of it's associated continuing costs then a cop can generate enough to pay his salary, benefit package and equipment costs. When ticket volume falls off at intersection A, it is a simple matter to move the cop to intersection B. Not so with a camera.

Large cities used to have meter-maids who's sole job was to write parking tickets. They paid their own way and generated income for the city. Why do you think traffic cops can't do the same thing?

I always prefer a cop to a camera however some are not fit to serve the public. Based upon the facts as presented in the story this police officer is in my opinion psychologically unfit for the job he has. He acted in an infantile manner by running to the woman's employer. The police officer should have a thick enough skin to let that kind of behavior roll off his back. Here in NYC he would find himself facing that behavior very often. I can assure you his superiors would not be happy with a cop that was always involved with extraneous litigation because he can't cope with the public appropriately.

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

According to your standards

Double Tap wrote:

I always prefer a cop to a camera however some are not fit to serve the public. Based upon the facts as presented in the story this police officer is in my opinion psychologically unfit for the job he has. He acted in an infantile manner by running to the woman's employer. The police officer should have a thick enough skin to let that kind of behavior roll off his back. Here in NYC he would find himself facing that behavior very often. I can assure you his superiors would not be happy with a cop that was always involved with extraneous litigation because he can't cope with the public appropriately.

If we apply your logic to other professions we would eliminate air traffic controllers because not all air traffic controllers are able to stay awake all night. We would also abolish the "Silent Service" because not all navy men can meet the naval testing requirements to service in the submarine service. You know the original purpose of requiring a police recruit to pass an entry test wasn't to keep minorities out, it was to ensure that the men and women selected were suitable to serve as police officers, both physically and physiologically. But the testing has been dumbed down so that anyone with the correct number of arms, legs and head(s) can now qualify to be policemen.

If I had been in his shoes, I probably wouldn't have done what he did but that doesn't mean that I don't understand why he did it. A lot of people today don't seem to have a governor on their emotions and they will go off over the least little thing. Personally I think it stems from the acceptance of recreational drug use, it changes a person and not always for the better.

And now I'm done with this subject, I have expressed my opinion and I bid you good day.

Your reply

jackj180 wrote:
Double Tap wrote:

I always prefer a cop to a camera however some are not fit to serve the public. Based upon the facts as presented in the story this police officer is in my opinion psychologically unfit for the job he has. He acted in an infantile manner by running to the woman's employer. The police officer should have a thick enough skin to let that kind of behavior roll off his back. Here in NYC he would find himself facing that behavior very often. I can assure you his superiors would not be happy with a cop that was always involved with extraneous litigation because he can't cope with the public appropriately.

If we apply your logic to other professions we would eliminate air traffic controllers because not all air traffic controllers are able to stay awake all night. We would also abolish the "Silent Service" because not all navy men can meet the naval testing requirements to service in the submarine service. You know the original purpose of requiring a police recruit to pass an entry test wasn't to keep minorities out, it was to ensure that the men and women selected were suitable to serve as police officers, both physically and physiologically. But the testing has been dumbed down so that anyone with the correct number of arms, legs and head(s) can now qualify to be policemen.

If I had been in his shoes, I probably wouldn't have done what he did but that doesn't mean that I don't understand why he did it. A lot of people today don't seem to have a governor on their emotions and they will go off over the least little thing. Personally I think it stems from the acceptance of recreational drug use, it changes a person and not always for the better.

And now I'm done with this subject, I have expressed my opinion and I bid you good day.

Your reply has no relevance to what I wrote, connection or what you quoted.

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Your reply

Double Tap wrote:
jackj180 wrote:
Double Tap wrote:

I always prefer a cop to a camera however some are not fit to serve the public. Based upon the facts as presented in the story this police officer is in my opinion psychologically unfit for the job he has. He acted in an infantile manner by running to the woman's employer. The police officer should have a thick enough skin to let that kind of behavior roll off his back. Here in NYC he would find himself facing that behavior very often. I can assure you his superiors would not be happy with a cop that was always involved with extraneous litigation because he can't cope with the public appropriately.

If we apply your logic to other professions we would eliminate air traffic controllers because not all air traffic controllers are able to stay awake all night. We would also abolish the "Silent Service" because not all navy men can meet the naval testing requirements to service in the submarine service. You know the original purpose of requiring a police recruit to pass an entry test wasn't to keep minorities out, it was to ensure that the men and women selected were suitable to serve as police officers, both physically and physiologically. But the testing has been dumbed down so that anyone with the correct number of arms, legs and head(s) can now qualify to be policemen.

If I had been in his shoes, I probably wouldn't have done what he did but that doesn't mean that I don't understand why he did it. A lot of people today don't seem to have a governor on their emotions and they will go off over the least little thing. Personally I think it stems from the acceptance of recreational drug use, it changes a person and not always for the better.

And now I'm done with this subject, I have expressed my opinion and I bid you good day.

Your reply has no relevance to what I wrote, or connection to what you quoted.

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”