Ticketed for flashing headlights?

[Deepcrush]

As I said, you're technically correct. What I'm discussing is that the officers involved issued those situations, not because of their deep sensibilities concerning the law, but because of their pissy and elitist attitudes. The same speeding laws mean that you can't drive over the speed limit, even if you're taking your momma to the ER - but does a cop have to stop you and issue you a citation for it?

Brace yourself for a shock... but! Breaking the law is against the law. Helping someone break the law is against the law. Helping someone avoid punishment for breaking the law is against the law. It doesn't matter what excuse you come out with, its still breaking the law. Because my mother needing help doesn't justify me putting everyone else on the road at risk from my driving. If a cop catches me speeding and is there to do his job then yes, he has to issue me a citation. Then he can take my mother to the ER from that point on since he's allowed to speed.

Its not elitist, its the job he was hired to perform for the safety of society as a whole and not just to satisfy the ego of some subhuman Jersey boy. If its a problem for the people breaking the law or the people helping them break the law, they should quit driving and go back to walking.

Interfering with Law Enforcement is and should be a crime IF we're talking about people who impede the police from catching people who are breaking the law.

But the flashing lights thing doesn't impede the police at all - rather it encourages the drivers to stop breaking the law.

If you're breaking the law and I see you and say "Hey, stop that, you'll get caught!" and you stop... is it really sensible to blame me for getting in the way of the cops?

Wrong, simply wrong... This only encourages the driver to stop breaking the law for the ten or so seconds it takes to pass the police stop. However, allowing the police to catch the criminal means a minimum of thirty days with a warning on the person's record. It also puts that person in the police records so that if the person continues to break the law that their DL can be suspended or revoked or if needed they can be placed in jail. This removes the problem for up to two years, which is vastly superior to your flashing lights which slows the problem for a few seconds.

As has been pointed out to Mikey several times... breaking the law or helping someone break the law is against the law. No excuses, no crying, no meaningless babble about how you should be allowed to break the law since you don't like that the police dare to enforce laws. It simply is THE LAW.

[Reliant121]

As has been pointed out to Mikey several times... breaking the law or helping someone break the law is against the law. No excuses, no crying, no meaningless babble about how you should be allowed to break the law since you don't like that the police dare to enforce laws. It simply is THE LAW.

Surely if you are indicating them of imminent danger and they are slowing down, you are in fact encouraging them not to speed and therefore to keep to the law, if only for a short period.

[Graham Kennedy]

Wrong, simply wrong... This only encourages the driver to stop breaking the law for the ten or so seconds it takes to pass the police stop.

Encouraging a person to stop breaking the law is encouraging them to stop breaking the law. The fact that you're encouraging them to do it only briefly, even if it could be proved, doesn't change that that's what you are doing.

If somebody jumped in front of the cops and stopped them measuring the speed of a speeder, or blocked their pursuit of a speeder with his car, sure, he's interfering with law enforcement. But to warn another person that they should stop breaking the law does nothing to impede the cops. You may as well complain that the whole "Say no to drugs" campaign is illegal because it stops drug busts from being made.

However, allowing the police to catch the criminal means a minimum of thirty days with a warning on the person's record. It also puts that person in the police records so that if the person continues to break the law that their DL can be suspended or revoked or if needed they can be placed in jail. This removes the problem for up to two years, which is vastly superior to your flashing lights which slows the problem for a few seconds.

All of which is nice, but really irrelevant. At best, the fact that catching them is a better deterrent than having a stranger warn them doesn't make the warning criminal.

As has been pointed out to Mikey several times... breaking the law or helping someone break the law is against the law. No excuses, no crying, no meaningless babble about how you should be allowed to break the law since you don't like that the police dare to enforce laws. It simply is THE LAW.

But that's not what they're doing in this case, which is probably why the police are backing down.

[Deepcrush]

As has been pointed out to Mikey several times... breaking the law or helping someone break the law is against the law. No excuses, no crying, no meaningless babble about how you should be allowed to break the law since you don't like that the police dare to enforce laws. It simply is THE LAW.

Surely if you are indicating them of imminent danger and they are slowing down, you are in fact encouraging them not to speed and therefore to keep to the law, if only for a short period.

Problem is that its ONLY for a short period that is a matter of seconds. Where the police can effect the change for months to years at a time.

Encouraging a person to stop breaking the law is encouraging them to stop breaking the law. The fact that you're encouraging them to do it only briefly, even if it could be proved, doesn't change that that's what you are doing.

What you're doing is helping someone who is breaking the law, continues to break the law. That is what you are doing.

If somebody jumped in front of the cops and stopped them measuring the speed of a speeder, or blocked their pursuit of a speeder with his car, sure, he's interfering with law enforcement. But to warn another person that they should stop breaking the law does nothing to impede the cops. You may as well complain that the whole "Say no to drugs" campaign is illegal because it stops drug busts from being made.

That comparison is worthless. The anti-drug program is an educational service. A real comparison is more of someone seeing people dealing drugs and warning them the next person in line is a cop so they can get away. Again, helping someone get away with breaking the law is against the law.

All of which is nice, but really irrelevant. At best, the fact that catching them is a better deterrent than having a stranger warn them doesn't make the warning criminal.

Helping someone break the law is against the law, violating the law makes you a criminal.

But that's not what they're doing in this case, which is probably why the police are backing down.

It was in fact what the police were doing and they are more likely backing down because there's no reason to waste efforts on safety with a population that clearly cares nothing about their safety. Its the same reason we don't deploy officers in a lot of gang areas. The population is more likely to warn the people who are raping and murdering them to help the officers who are their to save them. So why should the cops continue to risk their lives for people who are such an inferior breed that they can't tell the difference?

[Graham Kennedy]

What you're doing is helping someone who is breaking the law, continues to break the law. That is what you are doing.

No, what you are doing is helping them to stop breaking the law.

The anti-drug program is an educational service.

Which tries to stop people breaking the law. Same thing.

It was in fact what the police were doing and they are more likely backing down because there's no reason to waste efforts on safety with a population that clearly cares nothing about their safety.

If that's their decision then they will stop doing speed traps at all.

[stitch626]

If stopping hem for a few seconds is breaking the law, then so is stopping them for a month (done by the cops) because you know that when they get out they will do it again.

By your logic the only way to maintain the law is to kill everyone.

[Deepcrush]

If stopping hem for a few seconds is breaking the law, then so is stopping them for a month (done by the cops) because you know that when they get out they will do it again.

By your logic the only way to maintain the law is to kill everyone.

Really? Because I was pretty sure I already pointed out that the logic is to record those who break the law and punish them by fines, revoking their DLs or by prison. None of which involve killing people and in fact is meant to prevent people from dying. Nice of you to not bother reading my post before commenting.

No, what you are doing is helping them to stop breaking the law.

By helping them avoid law enforcement... what a wonderful idea. Inform on the cops and then say you're doing it because it stops crime for a few seconds. Then they can just speed up a few seconds later and maybe kill someone. Lovely plan!

Which tries to stop people breaking the law. Same thing.

One is based in education, the other is based in enforcing the law... NOT THE SAME.

If that's their decision then they will stop doing speed traps at all.

A lot cities and states are in fact doing that. And people like you are already bitching about the random shits on the road who start dying from it. That's the downside to law enforcement is having to listen to the trash we call civilians gripe.

[stitch626]

Really? Because I was pretty sure I already pointed out that the logic is to record those who break the law and punish them by fines, revoking their DLs or by prison. None of which involve killing people and in fact is meant to prevent people from dying. Nice of you to not bother reading my post before commenting.

Those fines, revoking DLs, and prison don't work forever, and are temporary just like flashing of the lights.

The only way for a perminant fix is to kill the violators.

[Deepcrush]

Those fines, revoking DLs, and prison don't work forever, and are temporary just like flashing of the lights.

Flashing lights are temporary as in a few seconds, law enforcement is temporary that can be measured in YEARS. That's a major difference in case you've never seen a clock before.

The only way for a perminant fix is to kill the violators.

And that you feel the need to kill them is fine by me, and I'm willing to bet for most LEOs as well, but since the point of the law is to protect people and not start mass executions. The better option is simply to get people off the street for a while and hope that most can learn its better to just stop risking other people's lives due to the punishments that come with it.

[Captain Seafort]

Flashing lights are temporary as in a few seconds, law enforcement is temporary that can be measured in YEARS. That's a major difference in case you've never seen a clock before.

Plus it's far more likely to act as a long term deterrent as it inflicts proper pain, rather than extremely minor inconvenience, on the individual in question.

[Deepcrush]

Exactly, first offenses are normally with warnings or small fines. Followed by adding points to DLs plus larger fines and even probation. The first mistake may cost you 30-50$. Repeat offenses add onto that by the hundreds and even thousands of dollars. Costs that most people can't afford to keep paying out.

[Mikey]

Very good, except that warning someone to slow down isn't the same as interfering with LE.

[Tyyr]

What law were people breaking that allows a ticket to be issued?

What's also against the law is helping someone break the law.

Uhhh... by warning them to stop breaking it and drive within the law?

Problem is that its ONLY for a short period that is a matter of seconds. Where the police can effect the change for months to years at a time.

Hell, if you think a ticket is a deterent I'd love to see the stats on repeat offenders. I'd be willing to bet that on average the same people keep getting tickets because it's not about people not being aware of the law, the punishment for breaking it, or that it's enforced. People know all this and do it anyways. Giving them a ticket isn't going to change it because what do people say, "I had some bad luck," not that "I committed a crime and need to rethink what I'm doing," they just figure they rolled the dice that day and had the bad luck for it to come up snake eyes. Tomorrow they'll roll them again and probably be fine.

What you're doing is helping someone who is breaking the law, continues to break the law. That is what you are doing.

No, you're encouraging them to stop breaking it. Just because you give someone a speeding ticket doesn't mean they're going to stop speeding. It's not like someone who's breaking and entering. They don't get thrown in jail. They get a citation and immediately drive off, likely starting to speed again once out of sight of the cops.

Because I was pretty sure I already pointed out that the logic is to record those who break the law and punish them by fines, revoking their DLs or by prison.

Except that it rarely works that way. How many DL's are revoked for chronic speeding much less actual jail time? I chronicly speed. I average 5 to 10 miles an hour over the limit daily and usually about 15 over the limit on the highway. I haven't gotten a ticket in over... well shit, the last time I got a speeding ticket was fifteen years ago.

And for the record I live less than 50 miles from this place. This trap and the department that run it and several others like it are well known in the local area. They're not set up to stop speeding, they're revenue generation. This is how these departments finance themselves. They set up these traps in very high traffic areas, in places where they will get lots of out of state traffic (tourists) who therefore aren't aware of the traps and are less likely to fight the tickets, and help to fund the department off the tickets. And no, this isn't supposition, this has been investigated by the local news and proven. The Sherrif's have even been proud of it at points because they say they're saving the tax payers money. Not going to say it's good or bad, it's actually pretty complicated, but this trap and several others just like it aren't about public safety so much as the local PD's bottom line.

[Lt. Staplic]

helping them avoid law enforcement

They aren't helping them avoid law enforcement. Unless flashing lights allows them to take another road they're still going to drive right past them.

Also, unless flashing the lights some how makes it easier for the car to go over the speed limit then I'm not helping them to break the law, I'm issuing a general warning that there is something ahead. I'm doing the same thing that LE does on a less invasive scale, encouraging them to stop breaking the law. Weather they take the warning or leave it, follow it for the next ten minutes or ten years has little to do with the fact that all I did was blink my lights and warn them to slow down.

Additionally, ticketing for this inhibits road safety, both for civilians and for Law Enforcement. In the state I live in as well as several others around us there's a "Move Over" law which requires drivers to move over into the far lane or slow way down when passing LE pulled over on the side of the road. If I'm ticketed for flashing to warn people of an upcoming speed trap; how can LE know or prove that I'm warning them to slow down under the speed limit so they don't get caught. It could just as easily be that I assume they're all driving legally and am warning them to make room so drivers can avoid the possible upcoming LEO on the side of the road that may or may not have pulled someone over since I drove past.

[Deepcrush]

I'll point out that I do understand that this is an issue which is just to complex for most of you to understand. Not a shock since some here can't tell the difference between elementary school programs or triangles or have the belief that flashing their headlights has the same effect as a court order. This aside, the fact remains that no lowly unimportant civilian can do anything that will match the ability of the LEOs assigned to the tasks of this thread. Now also skipping aside the excuses of "its my right to commit to aiding and abetting because I shouldn't be punished for breaking the law or helping someone break the law or helping someone get away with breaking the law"...

What is it that the civilian population would like to pretend to gain by interfering with LE?

CJ, if moving over to the next lane is to difficult for someone. Then we're better off having them crash as it removes them and then seed from the gene pool.