Officers Dressed As Homeless Give Tickets

[Coronach]

I would say that it depends. If this is a problem intersection, the local cops should be expected to do something to enforce it. And, lets face it, there are a lot of problem areas that are not possible to enforce, at all, with marked patrol units.

Why?

Easy. Marked patrol units are, well, marked. If you pull up to an intersection and see a cruiser sitting there, are you going to:

A. Run the light!

B. Stop for the light!



Well, we all know what the answer is. The question then becomes what you are going to do when you pull up there tomorrow and see no cruiser. IF the intersection is a high-accident intersection, I think we all know what the answer is to this one, too.

scrrreeeeeeech-*CRASH*

This is an attempt to make people think that, hey, the cops might just be watching me, even though there is no cruiser in sight. I better not run this light.

And, before we start with the Big Brotherism, this is no different than speed enforcement. Heck, lets be truthful...the thought that there might be a State Trooper hiding in a bush is the only thing that keeps my velocity out of the triple-digit range on interstate highways.

Mike

PS also, OTOH, if this is NOT a problem intersection, and just a fishin hole, well...I'll gladly chime in that this is a poor allocation of resources.

PPS Also, having been assigned to address traffic problems in a given area, lemme share...probably no one involved in this little operation is really having a good time. Some Lieutenant somewhere probably thought it was a brilliant scheme, and all the line officers are eye-rolling at his posterior when he walks by. BTDT.

 

[TheeBadOne]

Some "problem areas" get labeled that way not because of a high accident rate, but a "high call rate". A citizen or two, or three (you get the point) call and complain about an intersection/roadway, etc, and often call repeatedly. The result? Cops are directed to work that area. If it's an area that really doesn't have a problem other than busy bodies with nothing to do but call, I'm sure the officers assigned are less thrilled than anyone.

 

[hammer4nc]

Mike,

Thanks for the insight on traffic enforcement. For the record, I've only received one moving citation in 35 years of driving (deserved); got the hotrod stuff out of my system a long time ago; don't drive any different if there are unmarked, marked, or no squad cars in the vicinity.

You're right, we've become inured to hidden speed-traps, and sometimes it seems there are more UNmarked patrol cars than there are marked ones around here.

Yet, this story takes it to a new and novel level, hence that's why it made cnn national headlines, after all. Let me put it another way: I think the safety objective could have been accomplished without the "homeless" spotter and his cutesy sign. At least a couple of groups have been ticked off enough to be quoted in the article...if I'd been nabbed in this sting, I would remember the method employed long after forgetting about the actual ticket. Its like the agency is trying to audition for "COPS", the TV show.

"Good will" is something that has to be managed, by private businesses, and public agencies alike. Do you think this story did anything to elevate the "image" of Florida law enforcement? I do not.

 

[Sleeping Dog]

Disguise? If you see a couple of homeless vagrants huddled around a box of Krispie Kremes, be suspicious.

Regards.

 

[Coronach]

I've had...lots of tickets. All of them deserved.

I agree that it does the image of the department no good, but I'll also bet that if you had asked the genius that thought it up, he would tell you that they would not have done it if they knew it would blow up like it did.

Actually, I would not be at all startled to find out that such operations had been going on for a while with not so much as a batted eye. I think what gave them press this time was the fact that homeless advocates are freaking out about it, when they should be making sandwiches for their disadvantaged charges.

Query: would it be better if the spotter was uniformed cop, in plain view?

How about a plainclothes cop, in plain view? Which, essentially, these guys are.

How about a guy hiding in a bush?

How about a guy in a parked car?

All of the above are used every day by LE, nationwide, to reduce accidents at problem intersections. But if we take the plainclothes guy and give him a sign that says "sting in progress, buckle up"... it is a bad thing?

Sorry, I'm just not seeing it.

Mike

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Sir...the reason your shoes are all wet? Its because you missed the dripping sarcasm in my post."

You're right, I missed the "dripping sarcasm."

Why?

Because it seemed as if you were taking a stance that I've seen here quite a few times before...

The concept that "rights" give someone free license to do anything, and act anyway, in which they desire.

Own a home in the middle of a suburban neighborhood? Hey, my "rights" should allow me to operate a rendering works or strip mine if I want! Restrictions on the use of my property violate my "rights!"

Well, what about the property rights of your neighbors, who would obviously be affected by such operations?

"Well them! MY rights! MY property! I don't care if I violate any one else's rights, by God forbid anyone violate mine!"

That's just a single example of a trend among some that I sarcastically refer to as the "Me God, you Sh**" concept of Constitutionally protected, or otherwise ordained, rights. And hell, driving's not even a right.

So, no, I missed your sarcasm, because I thought you simply had become a proponent of the Me God, you Sh** camp.l

 

[Mike Irwin]

Problem intersection vs. Fishing Hole...

I submit that ANY intersection where people blow the red light is a problem intersection.

If this were not a problem at this intersection, I sincerely doubt that the police would have devoted resources to assessing the situation.

 

[Drjones]

$83??? $83???????

In CA red lights are $271!!!!!!!!!



Regardless, this is pretty pathetic.

Don't these guys (cops) have terrorists to hunt down or something?

 

[mpthole]

Ok, I didn't read all of the replies to the original post, so I suppose I shouldn't even get into this conversations but...

I can't believe noone has mentioned this yet:

State Rep. Irv Slosberg, D-Boca Raton, an advocate of stronger seat-belt and other traffic-safety laws, applauded the sting operation. His daughter, Dori, 14, was killed in a 1996 traffic accident in which she did not wear a seat belt.

To me this says that Rep. Slosberg wasn't a good enough parent to watch out for his own kid's safety, so he's going to dictate how everyone else has to live.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Mike

And hell, driving's not even a right.

Sorry to take it off topic, but can you tell me where in the Constitution it says we do not have a right to drive? See Ninth Amendment.

 

[Coronach]

Ok, thats a thread in and of itself.

[my opinion]
Driving is a priv, not a right.
[/my opinion]

However, lets not debate that here. This is a thread about officers dressing as homeless to give tickets. If you want to debate driving as a right vis a vis the BOR, start a new thread, please.

Mike

 

[TheeBadOne]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/918426.asp?0dm=C278N
Study: 91 percent take risks on road

WASHINGTON, May 27 — A majority of drivers admit they routinely speed, eat or even read while driving in a new poll designed to measure drivers’ attitudes about safety.

NINETY-ONE PERCENT of drivers of all ages acknowledged at least one risky activity in the previous six months, including 71 percent who said they sped; 59 percent who ate while driving; 37 percent who used a cell phone; 28 percent who wore no seatbelt and 26 percent who used no signal when turning. Fourteen percent admitted to reading while driving.
At the same time, drivers were likely to say that someone else on the road is more dangerous than they are. Drivers ages 26-44 were most likely to engage in risky driving, but when that age group was asked which drivers should be retested to make sure they’re driving safely, 83 percent said seniors and 69 percent said teens. Only 56 percent said everyone should be retested.
“We worry about the car, the weather, the driver in front or behind us. But we don’t spend nearly enough time worrying about our own driving habits,†said Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations.
Of those 65 and older, 68 percent said teens should be retested and 59 percent said seniors should be retested. Of those under 26, 83 percent said seniors should be retested and 47 percent said teens should be retested.
The survey, released Tuesday, was conducted for Volvo Cars of North America, AAA and Partners for Highway Safety as part of a new safety campaign.
The groups plan a Web site that invites drivers to test their knowledge of safe driving habits and learn about safe driving techniques. The group also plans to air a half-hour television special this summer on safe driving.
“So far, the focus has been on making cars and roads safer,†AAA Vice President Susan Pikrallidas said. “But driving is a complex task and many of us have poor driving habits.â€
The drivers polled also said drivers have gotten more dangerous. Of those polled, 81 percent said cars are safer than in the past and 57 percent said roads are safer, but only 27 percent said drivers are safer.
The poll was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. from May 13 to 16. It questioned 1,100 drivers ages 16 or older and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Sorry to take it off topic, but can you tell me where in the Constitution it says we do not have a right to drive? See Ninth Amendment."

Oh, I get it!

Anything enumerated in the Constitution is a protected right...

And anything NOT enumerated in the Constitution is ALSO a protected right because of the Ninth Amendment?

Cut me a ing break.

That is the most patently assnine thing I've ever heard.

Think you have the "right" to rape children? Seems to be covered in that definition of the Ninth Amendment.

Think you have the "right" to randomly murder whomever you please? Seems to be covered in that definition of the Ninth Amendment.

Hey, I think it should be my right to shoot out the streetlights whenever I want.

Second Amendment says I have the right to bear arms, so by extension the Ninth Amendment must mean that I have the right to discharge those arms whenever I see fit, for any purpose at all.

Yow.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Whoops.

Sorry, Coronach...