Is this Legal/Ethical?
- Thread starter Poofs
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well he did violate a legally enforced curfew so something should happen to him, but that seems a bit excessive.
I could take a similar shot and say that you conveniently neglect to negate any point I've made, but... to be perfectly honest, it's more like this incident may as well happened in Neverland for all we know. And granted, the account is probably biased.Ameter said:
The argument has to unfortunately be based on the assumption that the account we've been given is completely true and no other variables, such as erratic driving or the possibility of prior offenses, have been withheld from us. If he was, say, busted for curfew but was actually tailed over reckless driving, my stance on the situation would be somewhat altered, because there is then the viable concern of the safety of the driver and everyone around him. But that's not the case as it has been presented to us.
In my opinion, legal yes, ethical no. Going back to the original post, the cop followed the 16 year old all the way to his house. The kid wasnt breaking the law when the cop started tailing him, and it was only after he reached his house that the cop cited him, meaning the cop was simply out to fuck someone over, and the poor kid got the axe. Cops are human, and have bad days, sadly when they have bad days they get to fuck over people far worse then the rest of us. My suggestion is for the kid to take it to court and hope that either the cop doesnt make it to court, since by the 6th amendment states you have the right to face your accuser, or that he can make the argument that 3 minutes is too small of a window for any ones clock to be that precise.
I'm glad you are resisting the urge-- oh wait.Father Time said:
Are you sure you don't want to admit you're a straw man trying to help me out?Father Time said:
It's a pretty clear cut case, and he probably shouldn't have been cutting the curfew that close.Poofs said:
I'd also imagine that there is more to this story if the cop was tailing him to begin with.
Well, this depends on where he lives, his past convictions (if any) and a few other things.
Yes, he was driving after midnight, which with a beginners or G2 is illegal. However, if it was that close to the midnight cut off, he could argue that it was not actually midnight because no two clocks are ever the same.
Also, he could try to bring up that the officer was on a fishing expedition (Which basically means the officer was looking for an excuse to detain him.)
The punishment seems a bit harsh, again if he has previous convictions, it could be perfectly within reason for the action.
The best thing that I could/would suggest would be for him to contact a Legal Aid clinic (which is free for low income individuals/kids/students) or a Paralegal/Lawyer. Most of which give you a half an hour of there time free, which should be enough to get a basic answer to his situation.
Yes, he was driving after midnight, which with a beginners or G2 is illegal. However, if it was that close to the midnight cut off, he could argue that it was not actually midnight because no two clocks are ever the same.
Also, he could try to bring up that the officer was on a fishing expedition (Which basically means the officer was looking for an excuse to detain him.)
The punishment seems a bit harsh, again if he has previous convictions, it could be perfectly within reason for the action.
The best thing that I could/would suggest would be for him to contact a Legal Aid clinic (which is free for low income individuals/kids/students) or a Paralegal/Lawyer. Most of which give you a half an hour of there time free, which should be enough to get a basic answer to his situation.
There is very little debate legally speaking: If taken to court, he could argue two ways:
1. Entrapment since the officer tailed him before 12:00, didn't know how far away he lived, and because the presence of a police vehicle could have caused the driver to drive more slowly, more carefully, etc.
2. Legislative intent would be more difficult to argue since it usually only applies to vague wording, but since it is clear that intent of the legislator was to prevent people from driving out and about after 12:00, he could argue that since the drive was short, he was driving home, and it was reasonably possible for him to be home before 12:00, he did not actually violate the intent of the law, but simply its wording.
Morally speaking, there are A LOT more arguments:
1. The punishment does not fit the crime.
2. Since the officer was tailing him before 12:00 and he stopped him at his own home, the officers motives are questionable (Was he in a bad mood? Was he tailing the wrong person and simply trying to cover it up?).
3. By wasting his time tailing a kid for a minor violation, he could have let drunk drivers, speeders, and criminals free on the road, endangering other drivers, especially since it was this late a night.
4. In the end, he is being punished for a technicality and for a wrong action. The reason have the distinction between different degrees of murder and manslaughter is because judging someone on technicality is not morally acceptable.
5. The purpose of the law is to keep people safe, and to enforce moral conduct. The purpose of enforcing the law is to keep people safe, prevent people from committing crimes, and to punish wrong doers. Did your neighbor endanger himself or others significantly by being 180 seconds longer on the road than he should have been? No. Does punishing him for doing it prevent him or others from doing it again? No, because his punishment is hardly public and most people don't expect such a law to be enforced so strictly, anyway. Is the police officer punishing a wrong-doer? Not really, for reasons already listed.
Sorry for the TL;DR, but this is all I have to say about this.
P.S. The inaccurate watch thing someone pointed out also makes a good argument.
1. Entrapment since the officer tailed him before 12:00, didn't know how far away he lived, and because the presence of a police vehicle could have caused the driver to drive more slowly, more carefully, etc.
2. Legislative intent would be more difficult to argue since it usually only applies to vague wording, but since it is clear that intent of the legislator was to prevent people from driving out and about after 12:00, he could argue that since the drive was short, he was driving home, and it was reasonably possible for him to be home before 12:00, he did not actually violate the intent of the law, but simply its wording.
Morally speaking, there are A LOT more arguments:
1. The punishment does not fit the crime.
2. Since the officer was tailing him before 12:00 and he stopped him at his own home, the officers motives are questionable (Was he in a bad mood? Was he tailing the wrong person and simply trying to cover it up?).
3. By wasting his time tailing a kid for a minor violation, he could have let drunk drivers, speeders, and criminals free on the road, endangering other drivers, especially since it was this late a night.
4. In the end, he is being punished for a technicality and for a wrong action. The reason have the distinction between different degrees of murder and manslaughter is because judging someone on technicality is not morally acceptable.
5. The purpose of the law is to keep people safe, and to enforce moral conduct. The purpose of enforcing the law is to keep people safe, prevent people from committing crimes, and to punish wrong doers. Did your neighbor endanger himself or others significantly by being 180 seconds longer on the road than he should have been? No. Does punishing him for doing it prevent him or others from doing it again? No, because his punishment is hardly public and most people don't expect such a law to be enforced so strictly, anyway. Is the police officer punishing a wrong-doer? Not really, for reasons already listed.
Sorry for the TL;DR, but this is all I have to say about this.
P.S. The inaccurate watch thing someone pointed out also makes a good argument.
Poofs,
Was it a driving curfew? Or a ?minors curfew??
I?ll assume driving curfew since his licence was suspended. Anyway, if driving is very important to your neighbour I?d advise him to get a court date. Procedures very from place to place, so I can?t give specific details and they?ll likely need an adult to accompany them since they are a minor. Once he does that, here are some tips for success: (Pass them onto your neighbour)
- CONSULT A LAWYER. This can be pricey, but possibly vital if it?s an important issue. A lawyer will be able to give you the best advice to prepare your defence.
- DRESS FORMALLY. A dress shirt with a tie, dress pants and shined leather shoes would be ideal. It?ll show respect to the judge and show you are taking the process seriously
- BE CIVIL. Don?t yell, swear, speak out of turn or otherwise make a fool of yourself. Might sound like common sense, but I know of cases that went the other way because one side decided to flip off the judge or call the other party some obscene name.
- BE PREPARED. Know what your argument is going to be ahead of time. Research the applicable laws and be aware of possible counter arguments.
- ACCEPT THE JUDGES DECISION. Don?t go on a tear if the judge doesn?t side with you if the end, you may be able to appeal his decision and get a second trial.
I?m currently going to school to be a police officer and I probably wouldn?t have made the same decision the officer in your story made. This is, of course, assuming all your information is 100% accurate and you?re not omitting a vital piece of info. I would have checked his licence to see if he was actually arriving at his own home and warn him to give himself more time next time. The officer was in the right, but he was being a bit of a jerk. Don?t they have ?community-based policing? where you?re from? At least in a real, tangible form and not just a phrase the sheriff or police chief uses.
Was it a driving curfew? Or a ?minors curfew??
I?ll assume driving curfew since his licence was suspended. Anyway, if driving is very important to your neighbour I?d advise him to get a court date. Procedures very from place to place, so I can?t give specific details and they?ll likely need an adult to accompany them since they are a minor. Once he does that, here are some tips for success: (Pass them onto your neighbour)
- CONSULT A LAWYER. This can be pricey, but possibly vital if it?s an important issue. A lawyer will be able to give you the best advice to prepare your defence.
- DRESS FORMALLY. A dress shirt with a tie, dress pants and shined leather shoes would be ideal. It?ll show respect to the judge and show you are taking the process seriously
- BE CIVIL. Don?t yell, swear, speak out of turn or otherwise make a fool of yourself. Might sound like common sense, but I know of cases that went the other way because one side decided to flip off the judge or call the other party some obscene name.
- BE PREPARED. Know what your argument is going to be ahead of time. Research the applicable laws and be aware of possible counter arguments.
- ACCEPT THE JUDGES DECISION. Don?t go on a tear if the judge doesn?t side with you if the end, you may be able to appeal his decision and get a second trial.
I?m currently going to school to be a police officer and I probably wouldn?t have made the same decision the officer in your story made. This is, of course, assuming all your information is 100% accurate and you?re not omitting a vital piece of info. I would have checked his licence to see if he was actually arriving at his own home and warn him to give himself more time next time. The officer was in the right, but he was being a bit of a jerk. Don?t they have ?community-based policing? where you?re from? At least in a real, tangible form and not just a phrase the sheriff or police chief uses.
I am not sure where you are from, but this is not legal in America. Yes, The kid was breaking the law. However, Curfew violations can only be given on top of other charges. For example if he was speeding he could get a speeding ticket and also a curfew violation. The cop on the other hand cannot just ask for your license because you look under age. This is not to mention if the kid was at his house the cop could only give him a ticket if he was already in pursuit (lights on). I would advise him and his family to find a lawyer and sue the department. The cop has violated his civil rights. Specifically the 4th amendment, and the punishment I feel violates the 8th. The curfew law probably also violates a federal law passed in 1975 The Age Discrimination Act. If you are from America tell your neighbor to talk to a lawyer.
Interestingly, I just posted a topic questioning curfew, and in the course of writing it did some research into the subject. In my area, curfew can't be charged if the minor was returning directly home. Also, again just in my area, the only punishment is a fine between $5 and $25. I don't think what the cop did was right, especially as it wouldn't be following the law in my area.
EDIT: Sorry, double post. It seemed to have not gone through, and didn't show up on my profile, so I typed it again. Sorry!
You know every time I see you post it's a Lawful Stupid statement like this.Pirate Kitty said:
OT: Legally the cop can do this even though it's technically profiling, but morally the neighbor should have been let off with a warning at worst.
Also am I the only one that hates the idea of a legally enforced curfew on anyone that isn't a convicted felon?