Slashdot Mirror


Couple Who Catch Cop Speeding Could Face Charges

a_nonamiss writes "A Georgia couple, apparently tired of people speeding past their house, installed a camera and radar gun on their property. After it was installed, they caught a police office going 17MPH over the posted limit. They brought this to the attention of the local police department, and are now being forced to appear in front of a judge to answer to charges of stalking."

21 of 876 comments (clear)

  1. It's funny? Laugh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Someone has an odd sense of humor. What's so funny about the police misusing their power? Yeah, that Rodney King thing a few years ago was a real yuk-fest. And tasering that college student in the library to the point he was shrieking in pain? I couldn't stop chuckling after that one...

  2. Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen by dada21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is funny that you list one tyrannous group after another in order to try to "fix" the initial group -- the local police.

    If Wal*Mart serves me badly, against what I consider a profitable exchange, I stop shopping there. Eventually, we see stores fail -- even big ones, often. If Burger King serves me badly, against what I consider a profitable exchange, I stop eating there. Eventually, we see restaurants fail -- even big ones, often. If the police serve me badly, what can I do? I can risk upsetting them by tattling on them. I can not stop using them, because I am forced to pay for them. Even worse, if I stop paying for them, guess who can come knocking on my door, with force? The very same people I am not happy with.

    Your solution sounds great, but how often would any of us take the risk to tattle on them? For proof, see original article.

  3. Service to whom by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Parent has some very valid points. Wherethere is a system or service, being controlled by its own practiitioners, then that system will evolve so as to cater for the desires of the practitioners. This is something that seems to happen in organisations independent of the scale (ie. families, small companies, large corporations, countries).

    Lawyers contruct a legal system that suites them, not one that best protects the citizens.

    The court system is constructed to put the courts ahead of anyone else. Contempt of court is a very big deal.

    Tax accountants construct a tax system that is too complicated for Joe Average to use, so you need to hire a tax consultant.

    Cops have a system that serves cops...

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Service to whom by RocketScientist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The police are not there to protect you.
      The police are there to do the paperwork after you are unable to protect yourself.

  4. Popluist babble ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If a cop breaks the law, there is almost nothing you can do to fight them. There is a lot they can do, off the public record, that can harm you more than they harm you in their lawbreaking. Remember, cops are not here to protect you, there are there to protect their jobs -- and many of them love the power they wield over the average citizen. Why else do we have cop unions?

    Hardly, while there are obvious examples of "cops getting away" with things, you act as if this isn't already reflected in the general community. In our local paper, two cops have been fired and are awaiting criminal trials for abuse of power, so not all cops get away with everything. Conversely, there are plentiful examples of citizens "getting away" with numerous crimes. It's a general part of the system. Plus, your whole comment about "why else do we have cop unions" is laughable. I assume then that you consider all unions evil? Your grossly overgeneralized comments could be said about anyone in any profession (remember, the developer isn't there to help you, their just there to keep their jobs). Puleeze, anyone past the 4th grade can see how simplistic (but apparently popular) statement that is.

    What you do on your property is no one's responsibility but yours.

    I think you are confusing "responsibility" with something else? I think even cops would agree, ultimately YOU have responsibility over what happens on your property (certainly all personal injury lawyers agree with this).

    When a bunch of cops stopped an alleged speeder in front of my old house, I complained about the constant blue and red lights and strobes keeping me awake -- I was told I have no right to prevent it.

    I guess they should have let the guy continue speeding through your residential neighborhood until they got to some place where he wouldn't disturb anyones sleep? Or they should have turned off their lights, thereby increasing the chances that they might get hit by other motorists? Plus, look at your statement above. The street in front of your house is owned by the city (or county), you absolutely have the right to erect a barrier to block the light, as long as it doesn't run afoul of any local ordinances. So on your property, do what you want, the police, or anyone else, have no obligation to you while on public property.

    These folks put up cameras because the police did nothing for them to prevent speeders. This is to be expected -- when you need help, you won't find any.

    Again, nice oversimplification. Are these folks willing to pay more in taxes to get more police on the streets to help THEIR particular problem? I live in a predominantly quiet neighborhood and we are very sensitive to speeders, but I don't walk around thinking that MY problem is the biggest and/or only problem in the city.

    Your diatribe is humorous, and many will take your side. They choose to take the simple view of life, however far it differs from reality. That's why systems fail, not necessarily because of faults in the system, but because of the supreme lack of understanding by those who are trying to implement it. It's like OpenOffice vs M$ Office, all the rhetoric about FOSS being "better" don't mean squat if you can't get something implemented that is better. While you may have won some kind of "moral" victory (and that is dubious at best), you have not truly helped the general populace.

    1. Re:Popluist babble ... by Myopic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are these folks willing to pay more in taxes to get more police on the streets to help THEIR particular problem?

      Did anyone say anything about there being too few cops on the street? The people in the article (the Sipples) did have a problem with speeders, but the context of the rest of the story suggests that there are in fact cops patrolling their street, but that the cops weren't doing anything about the speeders.

      Now, I'm a libertarian, so perhaps I would suggest that the speed limit might be too low and that the Sipples need to stfu and keep their kid out of the street, but if society agreed on a speed limit -- and it did -- and if society hired some police to enforce that limit -- and it did -- and if they hired enough police to patrol that very street -- AND IT DID -- then my estimation of the situation is that the police were not only breaking the law, and were not only abusing their powers (in that watchdogging the police is not "stalking" by any stretch of the imagination), but were also negligently failing to do their job by enforcing the law.

      It is certainly reasonable to fire any person from their job for failing to perform it satisfactorily, and it is even more clearly reasonable to do so with a safety officer; but this officer didn't just fail to do his job, he also broke the law (as well as his oath to obey and uphold the law), and most importantly, he abused his lawful power. Any of those transgressions are sufficient for terminating the officer; all three together might warrant criminal prosecution.

  5. Recording public officials by alakazam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As much as I despise new laws always popping up, I *really* wish we could make it legal to audio/video record *any* government official in the course of their work. Without notice or permission. If they're "on the job" they should be fair game for being recorded by their employer (us). It would solve a lot of problems if "they" didn't think they were above "us."

  6. Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? by sootman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Evidently not us.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  7. Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I disagree. I've seen to many examples of "nice" cops (and the courts who support them) who turn ruthless if confronted with evidence that they are breaking the rules.

    Even "nice" cops are fundamentally in love with their power over others. And this includes some of my relatives in law enforcement. They just love the fact that they can make your life hell if you are just an average joe.

    Like most bullies, they are abject cowards when it comes to people with real power (and rightfully so since the cops get the same treatment when they try to enforce real rules on people in power). You cross the wrong person- your career is over. You might as well leave law enforcement and go be a milk maid.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  8. Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen by Darlantan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, wait, his off-duty speeding is somehow more legitimate than when I speed? Explain the reasoning there. Is it somehow safer for him to speed? Do the laws of physics bend a little for cops and make a car driven by a cop at 75 MPH do the same damage as a car crashing at 55 MPH with a civvie behind the wheel?

    "Because you can" is no more a valid excuse for police to break the law than it is for me. The difference is that they can chose to enforce the rules when and if they choose. Speeding on the job, when required, is overlooked because it is usually required to perform a task that benefits the public safety. Driving around at 20 MPH over the limit just because they can is endangering the public safety. That's why we have speed limits to begin with. If they want to drive like bats out of hell even when it isn't needed, perhaps they should push to do away with speed limits.

    You're right, though. Police are people too, not evil overlords bent on dominating everyone else. As such, they should be held to the same standards as the rest of us.

    --
    Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
  9. Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen by rpbird · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have you heard of democracy and the court system? Local communities get fed up with their high-handed police all the time. They sue the city, they campaign against the police chief (if it's an elected position), they put up opposition candidates to local elected officials. Local government elections aren't as sexy as national elections, but they have more real impact on your life. Take my little town, for instance. There's always someone upset at the sheriff or the mayor or a county commissioner or the school superintendent. There are always recall elections, new candidates for sheriff, lawsuits against the school, lawsuits against the city, reform candidates for mayor (our new mayor is the reform candidate, he won the last election), and write-in campaigns aimed against the county commission. This in a rural Kansas town of 1500, in a county of 5000 people. Got a problem with government? Fix it yourself, with a little help from your friends. That's the essence of democracy.

  10. Re:Moo by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, if by "catch" you mean "give him a ticket", then no, the civilian couple did not do that.

    But if by "catch" you mean "show that the SOB was doing 17 over the limit on his way to Waffle House, then, I'd say "Yes", they managed to make their point.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  11. Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There will come a time when eventually enough people will get fed up with how we are being treated and go back and follow the words of our own fore fathers:

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    However, I think that that document will be ruled contraband long before that happens.

  12. Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen by slack_prad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the police serve me badly, what can I do?
    Become one.
    --
    Sent from my desktop computer
  13. Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen by porkface · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's sad that you presume that all of those organizations, through and through, are tyrants.

    Because that is not the case. Anything you cite I'm sure will be annecdotal and far from evidence that as a whole those organizations are bad.

    And it's kind of funny that so many of the annecdotes tend to involve citizens with a deep seeded opinion that the police are bad. I'm not saying that's the case here, but it seems to be the case quite often.

    It's important to know the difference between not trusting authority and distrusting authority.

  14. Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There will come a time when eventually enough people will get fed up with how we are being treated ... and go back to drinking beer and watching NASCAR, because they've already forgotten what it was they were fed up with. The public schools they went to never taught them about their forefathers anyway, some dead guys apparently. Like, whatever. Ooh, a new Ford commercial!

    There, I fixed your post for you.

  15. Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree and disagree with you. They can be very brave with regard to criminals (possibly being killed) and then immediately turn around and be completely cowardly to a political threat (possibly "only" ending their career as a cop).

    They get caught all the time covering up minor offenses by themselves and people with the right connections.

    When the criminals get real power (ala mexico), the police back off. How does the old hack go-- "Cops got better things to do than get killed in Harlem". Same thing for many areas of New Orleans PRE Katrina.

    They are peculiar heros, my nephew would put his life on the line to protect innocents from bad guys and then regale you with a tale about intimidating the same innocents himself. They do want to do good, but they are corrupted by the power given to them.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  16. Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen by Who235 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And what, exactly, would you call doing something because you can get away with it if not a power trip?

    I submit that acting like you're above the law because it has no consequences for you is the very definition of a power trip.

    I'm tired of this bullshit, and frankly I'm tired of hearing about your pal the cop with a heart of freakin' gold.

    Power corrupts. It has already started working its magic on your buddy, who thinks nothing of breaking one of the laws he is sworn to uphold. His selfish disregard of the speed limit might seem trivial to you - and maybe it is - but the fact remains that what he is doing is still criminal no matter how you try to rationalize it and he knows damn well that he'll never be punished.

    At least when you or I choose to speed, we know we might get a ticket and can weigh that as part of our decision to abide by or ignore the law. He has no such restrictions.

    How long until Officer Friendly decides to start ignoring some of the other laws on the books?

    Or will that be OK since he's such a teddy-bear and no one is nice to him and blah, blah, blah?

  17. Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen by iminplaya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As such, they should be held to the same standards as the rest of us.

    No, actually as enforcers(and this goes for those who write the law also) of the law, they should pay a much higher price for violating it.

    --
    What?
  18. Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen by All+Names+Have+Been · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Training my ass. I spend some of my free time racing cars, doing autocross, and have been through driving courses that a I dare-say makes the average cops' driving training pale by comparison. Should I be allowed to speed? Heck, we an institutionalize it - take some courses, and speed all you want!

    What you (and these cops apparently) fail to understand is that no matter how good you are, there are 10,000 other assholes out there that can't drive worth a shit, not to mention kids, unforeseen road problems, etc. Some of these cannot be avoided, and the only way to mitigate damage is to slow the fuck down.

    Out in the middle of nowhere with no one to kill but yourself, sure speed. In town with other traffic or in a residential area - you better have a damn good reason to be hauling ass. And one of those reasons isn't that you're an off-duty cop. There's a reason that cop cars and emergency vehicles have lights and sirens. It's to help ensure that people get out of the way. Speeding without those running is especially reckless. Again - you better have a damn good reason.

  19. No, keep fighting it by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that the cop dropped his application for a warrant against them shows that he knows that it was wrong and possibly illegal. It was an attempt to intimidate the couple, illegal in itself and doubly wrong when it's someone that we charge with protecting the peace. He should be suspended, if not fired, for this. The speeding? Give him a ticket, show that no one is above the law. The attempt to intimidate citizens into not complaining? That should get him off the force.