Oh well, I figure in about 100 years this country will over govern and destroy itself. Kinda like what happened to Rome.

From the article

quote:

---

ÊTexas law allows police to make arrests for routine traffic violations, except for speeding.

---

the Supreme Court simply ruled that under Texas law the arrest was legal and did not give rise to a situation where she could sue for the arrest.

The also went on to say that the state should be lobbied to change the law, an opinion I agree with.

Keep in mind this is an opinion from north of the border

I have no problem with the arrest if it might save somebody from death or injury. This rulling doesn't change anything that hasn't been going on in Texas for years.

I also don't feel sorry for the woman, especially when she wasn't detained for more than 4 hrs.

BTW I don't appreciate your condescending tone. Unless I was a cop how would I know all the details of what is legal & what is not? No one teaches us this & I'm willing to bet most people don't read every single law on the books even though it does apply to us. Now that this has been brought in the open I think it should be changed. There are a lot of things you have no clue about but that doesn't mean I would be condescending to you. You were a cop so you know, that doesn't make you better. So the, "sorry to burst your bubble of ignornace" comment was a STUPID thing to say.

Steve

P.S.- Abuses undoubtedly occur in police work as they do in every field, but making it more difficult for the people that allow you to sleep safely in your home to do their jobs isn't a wise solution. That's like taking away all high performance cars because some fools operate them recklessly.

P.P.S.- While we're on this topic, let me explain why it's vitally important that police have this ability to arrest for even the most minor of offenses and why the US Supreme Court made the RIGHT and not the wrong decision.
I'll give you a scenario: Did any of you see the Nicholas Cage film, "8mm?" It's a very disturbing film about a group of sexual predators that would get young girls, then sexual abuse, torture, and "snuff" them while filming their atrocities. They'd then sell these films to their sick, wealthy clients. Ok, so you as a law enforcement officer/agency become aware of similar activities, but you don't have enough evidence to get a search or arrest warrant to stop these fiends. In the meantime, their list of victims continues to grow. What do you do? You observe their habits, see where they go and when. Maybe you get a tip about when they transport the tapes. Maybe not. In any case what you then do is lay for them, stop them for ANY motor vehicle violation (you can almost always find one if you follow someone long enough), then arrest for any kind of BS violation like not wearing their seat belt. Once the arrest is made, then you have legal access to their car, you search it and find evidence of their more serious crimes (the tortures, murders, etc) and you break up the ring.
Did this Texas officer abuse this right? I think, unquestionably, he did. I also think this was a very isolated incident and that it rarely occurs. How many of us, after all, have been handcuffed and arrest after being stopped for a traffic violation remembering that the police officer COULD HAVE done so? Probably none of us. So, yes, the Texas officer was wrong, but because of this to then take this right, this tool, from all of law enforcement would have been a wrong and dangerous thing to do and the US Supreme Court was wise enough to see that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by XTrooper:
That's like taking away all high performance cars because some fools operate them recklessly.

---

Having said all that, I don't think Steve's message was condenscending either. Ignorance is not a comment about someone's intellectual ability. It merely means you don't have knowledge about something. If you call someone who is a genuis but know nothing about cars, ignorant to car stuff, does that make him stupid?? Of course not, Steve was just pointing out that we don't know the law.

Please don't say things that make me have to agree with Steve, it is too hard on me!

It's bad enough to be victimized by the robbers, rapists, and other assorted bad guys out there. At least you can act in self defense to protect yourself and your loved ones. It's another matter entirely to be treated this way by people who supposed to be there to protect you from this stuff. When it's an officer out of line, you're up against someone with powers and authority and a legal system that can turn your whole life updside down on that officer's whim. What's to stop that officer from lying in court to cover his butt? I readily concede that these are isolated incidents, but people will not tolerate it any more than you would have tolerated having your lawful orders casually disregarded when you were on the force.

I appreciate your intelligent and well written post. Further, I agree wholeheartedly with it in its entirety. I would point out that in a good organization there is a mechanism for dealing with the bad apples that unfortunately at times infiltrate the ranks. Even before that, there is, or should be, a vigorous and thorough enlistment process so that the majority of the unfit are weeded out before they ever wear the uniform. After that, there is a set of rules and regulations which must be abided by along with strict penalties for failing to do so. The organization in which I spent my career, the NJSP, conducted courts martial every week for violations of our "Rules and Regulations" and the punishments meted out were more often than not severe. I, and most of my fellow troopers, always accepted this situation as part of the price of being a member of a quasi-military organization where so much responsibility was entrusted in us. Most of us fulfilled that trust and responsibility as embodied in our motto, "Honor, Duty, Fidelity."

Steve

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanA_F99_1977:

Please don't say things that make me have to agree with Steve, it is too hard on me!

---

Thanks for your comments. I agree completely. The front-end screening process is the place to catch 'em if they're not a fit for the role. The standards have to be high and the folks have to be up to it. You're right...it is part of the price to be paid for the responsibility you have and the ones that don't hold to your standards raise the price higher...

PoppyZ28,

I don't think that people are missing the point so much as we have been discussing a punishment that should fit the crime. I agree with you that if you break the law and get caught, you should be a grown-up and pay the consequences. Some crimes are obviously more severe than others, and where arrest is required as a matter of public safety and restoring order, some "infractions" are minor enough that they truly don't merit the harshness of being arrested.