Attention: TDR Forum Junkies 
On a recent thread concerning straight piped rigs, several posters made derogatory remarks about the "cop" who issued the citations.
This bothers me!
"We", the taxpaying public,hire these officers, we, through our elected legislators enact the statutes the officers are directed to enforce-----they are out there doing EXACTLY what they are ordered by US through our elected legislators to do. (Yes, I am quite aware that there are officers who violate the trust placed in them and who themselves violate---that someone else is imperfect, is not validation of our misconduct. I have, as a Judge, initiated and participated in the disciplining and fireing of several officers who violated their obligations, and that is the answer to their misbehavior, not further failure to do the job they are hired to do.
If we disapprove of a statute, then our recourse is to attempt to have it changed; laws are changed in every legislative session because there was sufficient dissatisfaction with them.
Some of our members seem to believe that because we believe a muffler free truck is good, or that a truck going xx miles over the speed limit is good, that a traffic officer should ignor it when he sees/hears a violation of a statute, and vilify them when they do not themselves violate their obligation to enforce the traffic code.
And no it is not an answer to say that "with real crime out there they should not be bugging us about mufflers, speed, etc. Traffic officers are hired in large part specifically to enforce the traffic codes; yes, they do other things too, but a large part of their job is citing people for traffic violations.
It is no more correct to castigate an officer for doing that which he is hired to do than it would be to praise the assessor who, drives an electric hybred type mini car, and who on seeing that we
drive a monster diesel truck decides that because of the type vehicle we drive we should pay more in taxes and therefore bumps up our assessed value a few thousand dollars. He would simply be violating his obligation to apply a statutory obligation because he believed large vehicles are bad, just as some of us would have a traffic officer ignor our violation because we think the statute requiring a muffler, setting a particular speed limit etc is not desireable.
If it is not OK for the assessor to inlate your taxes, or the building inspector to "sit on" your application for a permit to build a car port for your truck because they hate big SUVs and those who drive them, it is not OK for a traffic officer to give you a pass on a traffic violation because you think its a "dumb" law. BTW, I could tell you about a hundred laws I think are outright stupid, but that does not mean I should have the right to violate them.
None of this is to say that if one believes they did not violate the statute in question that they should not fight it; its just like many of us say. If we make certain types of changes in our trucks we should be prepared to be our own warranty station; if we violate a statute, we should be prepared to face the penalty. We should not someway make it the fault of the officer who is doing just what he/she is hired to do, nor vilify them for doing their job.
Soap box put away :>)
Vaughn
This bothers me!
"We", the taxpaying public,hire these officers, we, through our elected legislators enact the statutes the officers are directed to enforce-----they are out there doing EXACTLY what they are ordered by US through our elected legislators to do. (Yes, I am quite aware that there are officers who violate the trust placed in them and who themselves violate---that someone else is imperfect, is not validation of our misconduct. I have, as a Judge, initiated and participated in the disciplining and fireing of several officers who violated their obligations, and that is the answer to their misbehavior, not further failure to do the job they are hired to do.
If we disapprove of a statute, then our recourse is to attempt to have it changed; laws are changed in every legislative session because there was sufficient dissatisfaction with them.
Some of our members seem to believe that because we believe a muffler free truck is good, or that a truck going xx miles over the speed limit is good, that a traffic officer should ignor it when he sees/hears a violation of a statute, and vilify them when they do not themselves violate their obligation to enforce the traffic code.
And no it is not an answer to say that "with real crime out there they should not be bugging us about mufflers, speed, etc. Traffic officers are hired in large part specifically to enforce the traffic codes; yes, they do other things too, but a large part of their job is citing people for traffic violations.
It is no more correct to castigate an officer for doing that which he is hired to do than it would be to praise the assessor who, drives an electric hybred type mini car, and who on seeing that we
drive a monster diesel truck decides that because of the type vehicle we drive we should pay more in taxes and therefore bumps up our assessed value a few thousand dollars. He would simply be violating his obligation to apply a statutory obligation because he believed large vehicles are bad, just as some of us would have a traffic officer ignor our violation because we think the statute requiring a muffler, setting a particular speed limit etc is not desireable.
If it is not OK for the assessor to inlate your taxes, or the building inspector to "sit on" your application for a permit to build a car port for your truck because they hate big SUVs and those who drive them, it is not OK for a traffic officer to give you a pass on a traffic violation because you think its a "dumb" law. BTW, I could tell you about a hundred laws I think are outright stupid, but that does not mean I should have the right to violate them.
None of this is to say that if one believes they did not violate the statute in question that they should not fight it; its just like many of us say. If we make certain types of changes in our trucks we should be prepared to be our own warranty station; if we violate a statute, we should be prepared to face the penalty. We should not someway make it the fault of the officer who is doing just what he/she is hired to do, nor vilify them for doing their job.
Soap box put away :>)
Vaughn
