I was arrested at lunch..

Jarod said:
I think its crazy to charge someone with a crime... All the guy had to do was ask me to read a chart or something.
Click to expand...

I can see it now. The guy has you read a sign or billboard (I doubt he has a standard eye test chart in the trunk of his cruiser).

Then an hour later you slam into a minivan with a mom and 6 kids on their way to a state spelling bee.

When it is discovered that you weren't wearing your corrective lenses, and that a cop stopped you and let you go because you read a sign to him, let the lawsuits begin.

Not to mention that the cop could be spending time in jail (never a good place to be, but far worse for cops)


Yeah, having you read a chart or something would be a great idea.
 
Solitary said:
I can see it now. The guy has you read a sign or billboard (I doubt he has a standard eye test chart in the trunk of his cruiser).

Then an hour later you slam into a minivan with a mom and 6 kids on their way to a state spelling bee.

When it is discovered that you weren't wearing your corrective lenses, and that a cop stopped you and let you go because you read a sign to him, let the lawsuits begin.

Not to mention that the cop could be spending time in jail (never a good place to be, but far worse for cops)


Yeah, having you read a chart or something would be a great idea.
Click to expand...


1) How could a cop be spending time in jail for that?

2) At least here in Florida police enjoy immunity from such suits.
 
Jarod said:
The officers job is to protect and serve, how did he do either by citing me for a crime?
Click to expand...

The officers job it to keep improperly liscenced people off the road.
He should not have let you drive away, and had your car towed and impounded.
 
Diuretic said:
Immunity? From common law actions for negligence? Really? How the hell did they get that?
Click to expand...

All police have it in Florida, if they are in the process of conducting government business. I had it when I was a prosecutor.
 
Damocles said:
The cop could not be personally sued. They'd have to sue the department. I don't believe the cop would be in jail for that either.
Click to expand...

Heck, we get sued - personally. There is in most states (not all) a provision for the government (we don't have local agencies) to pick up the tab if and only if the cop has tried to do the right thing but was strung up on the civil burden of proof (balance of probabilities). But unless the cop is in the union (membership about 99.9% recurring) then they have to pay their own legal fees up and until judgement and they get reimbursed only if they have done the right thing. It goes back to cops in Australia, like cops in England and Wales, holding an independent office rather then being just employees.
 
Jarod said:
All police have it in Florida, if they are in the process of conducting government business. I had it when I was a prosecutor.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, not much of a restraint on them then is there? Interesting.

Barristers in some states here (as opposed to solicitors, although in my state the legal profession is unified and not split) can't be sued even if they trash a case with spectacular negligence.
 
Diuretic said:
Heck, we get sued - personally. There is in most states (not all) a provision for the government (we don't have local agencies) to pick up the tab if and only if the cop has tried to do the right thing but was strung up on the civil burden of proof (balance of probabilities). But unless the cop is in the union (membership about 99.9% recurring) then they have to pay their own legal fees up and until judgement and they get reimbursed only if they have done the right thing. It goes back to cops in Australia, like cops in England and Wales, holding an independent office rather then being just employees.
Click to expand...

I belive it is a cops job to start with what is just and fair, and while its his job to uphold the law, he/she must be reasonable about it. Arresting people for technical transgressions that put noone at harms risk is silly. Police have an awsome power, unless it is used sparingly and responsably the community grows to resent them, and that power is reduced. A good police officer is one who is reluctant to use his power, but will when required to do so to protect citizens.
 
Jarod said:
I belive it is a cops job to start with what is just and fair, and while its his job to uphold the law, he/she must be reasonable about it. Arresting people for technical transgressions that put noone at harms risk is silly. Police have an awsome power, unless it is used sparingly and responsably the community grows to resent them, and that power is reduced. A good police officer is one who is reluctant to use his power, but will when required to do so to protect citizens.
Click to expand...

That's probably one of the reasons that in common law jurisdictions (I'm referring to England and Wales and here in Australia) a cop is considered to be taking his or her own actions and is held to account for them. There's no hiding behind the employer's vicarious liability because there isn't one. Being unreasonable here gets you into big strife. Heck you don't even have to try sometimes, trust me.*

Your situation I see (scuse the pun) as trivial. I've read the counter arguments and I'm not persuaded. It was, to me, trivial. No I'm not sucking up, if I thought you deserved pinching I'd say so. Believe it or not, cops don't like other cops who behave like arseholes, it give us so much grief it's not worth it. I hate being dragged into internal investigations because of what my offsider did.

*There's a line of authorities on this issue - this is a quick read:

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/r24outpart12

The relevant part:
One of the significant consequences of the reasoning in Tobin v. The Queen is that the State is not liable for a tort committed by a policeman in the performance, or purported performance, of a function which the law provides that he has by virtue of that office. Thus, in 1906, the High Court, following that reasoning, held in the case of Enever v. The King 38 that the Crown is not liable for a wrongful arrest made by a policeman. As the then Chief Justice, Sir Samuel Griffith, put it, “the powers of a constable ... whether conferred by common law or statute law, are exercised by him by virtue of his office, and cannot be exercised on the authority of any person but himself”. Another of the judges put it this way - “Is a person who is obeying or endeavouring to obey the authority of an Act of Parliament so under the control of the State as to render the State responsible? It appears to me that in order to establish that position it must be shown that the control, if any, under which the person acted was that of the Executive Government of the State. The difficulty of sustaining that position was obvious.” It seems to us that the law required the judge to ask himself the wrong question. The question should have been whether the power to arrest was one which the policeman had by the will of the State. It was the will of the State that he have the function to make arrests - albeit that the will of the State was expressed by the law rather than by administrative directions.
Click to expand...

Sorry about the spectacular thread drift.

Anyway, how's the pay and conditions for cops in Florida?

No liability eh? :clink:
 
Diuretic said:
That's probably one of the reasons that in common law jurisdictions (I'm referring to England and Wales and here in Australia) a cop is considered to be taking his or her own actions and is held to account for them. There's no hiding behind the employer's vicarious liability because there isn't one. Being unreasonable here gets you into big strife. Heck you don't even have to try sometimes, trust me.*

Your situation I see (scuse the pun) as trivial. I've read the counter arguments and I'm not persuaded. It was, to me, trivial. No I'm not sucking up, if I thought you deserved pinching I'd say so. Believe it or not, cops don't like other cops who behave like arseholes, it give us so much grief it's not worth it. I hate being dragged into internal investigations because of what my offsider did.

*There's a line of authorities on this issue - this is a quick read:

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/r24outpart12

The relevant part:


Sorry about the spectacular thread drift.

Anyway, how's the pay and conditions for cops in Florida?

No liability eh? :clink:
Click to expand...



I dont really know much about the pay. I belive it is about average, but I am not sure. THere are some very good police, but we also have more than our share of the local bully who never got respect in High School so he is taking it out on people now.
 
Jarod said:
The officers job is to protect and serve, how did he do either by citing me for a crime?
Click to expand...

He was serving the public interest in pulling you over for speeding. He was serving the public in upholding the law.... no matter how much you dislike the law, he was doing the job the public pays him to do.

It was YOUR fault that you did not update your license, not his.

It was YOUR fault that you were speeding, not his.

Could he have shown you leniency? Sure. But for you to EXPECT him to do so and get all pissy when he doesn't... is nothing more than you behaving like a child throwing a tantrum.
 
uscitizen said:
A necessary pre-requisite for a police state.

No personal responsibility among govt officials.
Click to expand...
It works the same for employees of corporations and LLCs... The employee is never personally liable for actions taken within the framework of their job. The company is liable for that.

However if they take action outside the normal requisites of the job they are then liable.
 
Superfreak said:
He was serving the public interest in pulling you over for speeding. He was serving the public in upholding the law.... no matter how much you dislike the law, he was doing the job the public pays him to do.

It was YOUR fault that you did not update your license, not his.

It was YOUR fault that you were speeding, not his.

Could he have shown you leniency? Sure. But for you to EXPECT him to do so and get all pissy when he doesn't... is nothing more than you behaving like a child throwing a tantrum.
Click to expand...
How many times have I heard "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."?

Usually from lawyers.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
Ok, Sir. What does that sign say? Ok, that's right. I'll let you move on, but please stop in and get your license updated. Have a nice day.

Stupid doughnut eating pig. (pass that on, too.)
Click to expand...

bullshit... Jarod was the one who did not do his job. The cop did his. Bitching because someone doesn't show you the leniency you think you somehow deserve is pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top