Is this Legal/Ethical?

[bl4ckh4wk64]

I'm sorry, but this kind of thing sickens me.

This turns the law from sonething meaningful into an excuse to abuse people for trivialities, and in my opinion undermines confidence and respect for the institutions of law.

Laws as a concept exists to serve a purpose, not as an entity unto itself that should be tolerated just because.

It genuinely drives me nuts that people support these kind of things.

If it makes you feel better, it sickens me that people do not stand and support their laws steadfastly.

There is a difference between not supporting the law and handing out insane draconian punishments for breaking the law. Please learn that difference.

I suppose we shouldn't prosecute someone if they just steal a stick of gum?

Straw man.

Of course, these are examples of things that show someone lacks respect for the law, and moral fiber on the whole. Once you start making exceptions for "trivialities", there is a slippery slope.

Bullshit. There are tons of old outdated laws that no one enforces anymore but are still on the books.

This isn't the fictitious, absurd slippery slope politicians use to say that letting gays marry will result in nuclear war or some other relative impossibility, but a real, empirical one that we have seen.

No it's still a fictitious absurd slippery slope.

Anyway, as proof that this affects our mentality, I'd like to point to anyone who has posted in support of the criminal here. Their perception of the law has been warped to the point where they think that breaking the law "only by a little" isn't breaking the law any more. It's sad to think their social values have decayed so much.

Oh yeah and you're such a paragon of virtue aren't you.

They have a name for anal guys like you. Lawful stupid. And the label seems to fit.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid

You're just so hurt about the "injustice" you see that you don't realize that this is actually the way of the world. The world, nowadays, doesn't care about barely breaking the law. They only want to see the major crimes punished, not the miniscule ones that they don't care about. If we start letting those pass, we will change the laws to allow them so no new arguments will erupt, where people will then break those new laws just a tiny bit, and we will make even NEWER laws. It's a chain ending in complete anarchy.

 

[Merkavar]

cop was in the right but was abit of a jerk.

 

[Ameter]

Because the world is a black and white place, and the laws set forth by your various authorities beyond interpretation, heaven forbid to question them. Honestly, the responses advocating nothing beyond that reasoning are deeply disturbing, and such thinking the roots of much greater evils than your "criminal"-by-three-minutes.

In any case, as I mentioned earlier, in the middle of the night, that officer could've been doing a dozen more useful things, like cruising high-risk areas or looking for drunk drivers. Y'know, actual threats to human life and property. Not tailing some kid just to see whether or not he noses into the driveway just before midnight.

This argument never fails to be the height of stupidity, as it assumes that all cops are busy enforcing traffic laws, or that shifting the focus of traffic cops to more serious crimes would somehow prevent their occurrance or increase the rate at which they were solved.

 

[Kurokami]

Cop was in the right.

Neighbor was in the wrong.

Yes, because we should have ALL of the cops focusing on people who aren't drink driving, or even driving irresponsibly, but drivers who miscalculated or didn't have their times synchronized before deciding to drive home. Hell, the kid probably went out earlier from some party so that he wouldn't break curfew. True, the law is the law, no denying that, but cops are allowed to give a bit of leeway, hell they do it with speeding and even drinking on occasion. But no, when you're arriving home at 3 minutes after curfew, that's the final straw.

Even if you do decide that leeway isn't available, at least agree that it shouldn't be given to drivers who speed or drink a bit as well.

 

[Scout Tactical]

snip

Look, I know you're just acting dumb to make people realize how foolish they're being, but there actually are people stupid enough to believe you're being serious, so you may actually be doing more harm than good.

 

[Scout Tactical]

snip

Look, I know you're just acting dumb to make people realize how foolish they're being, but there actually are people stupid enough to believe you're being serious, so you may actually be doing more harm than good.

If you don't want to respond just say so, or just say nothing. You're not fooling anyone.

You didn't actually say anything in your post, which is why I was lead to believe the whole thing was a joke. You do realize that literally everything you said was just some variant on "No", without any real elaboration, right? I'm not going to bother requoting you: this page doesn't need the stretch, and you can scroll up a few posts.

 

[Yoshemo]

So my neighbor, who is 16, a new driver was driving home on a Friday night. He arrived in his driveway at 12:03 to find that a cop had tailed him all the way back to his house. As the curfew was midnight he was technically violating it, so the cops suspended his license until he turned 18. thats just under 2 years for 3 minutes past curfew.

Was your friend coming home from a job or taking care of a family member or something like that? If so, then hes allowed to be after 12. Also, if the cop was following him that long without your friend doing something stupid like swerving a lot, then he could try for entrapment charges to get away with it.

 

[Seddi]

Because the world is a black and white place, and the laws set forth by your various authorities beyond interpretation of the letter, heaven forbid to apply them to individual circumstance. Honestly, the responses advocating nothing beyond that reasoning are deeply disturbing, and such thinking the roots of much greater evils than your "criminal"-by-three-minutes.

In any case, as I mentioned earlier, in the middle of the night, that officer could've been doing a dozen more useful things, like cruising high-risk areas or looking for drunk drivers. Y'know, actual threats to human life and property. Not tailing some kid just to see whether or not he noses into the driveway just before midnight.

This argument never fails to be the height of stupidity, as it assumes that all cops are busy enforcing traffic laws, or that shifting the focus of traffic cops to more serious crimes would somehow prevent their occurrance or increase the rate at which they were solved.

While you ignore my initial point, you seem to exemplify it. Every officer's obligation to their service begins and ends with their job title? The letter of the law above the spirit of it? I'm also fairly certain drunk drivers at least fall within the scope of a traffic cop's interests, considering that drunk driving is involved with, what, roughly 40% of traffic deaths?

 

[Ambi]

SNIP

The driver broke the law.

The police officer did nothing wrong.

If you cannot understand that, best we stop the conversation here, least it turn into an argument.

Yes, the kid broke the law. Yes, the police officer did nothing wrong according to the law. But considering the degree to which he broke the law, why do you believe he deserved the punishment he was given?

If the officer decided to exercise personal judgement like police officers often do, and reasoned that letting the guy off wouldn't hurt anyone and that that punishment would be unfair in proportion to the offence because he was so incredibly close of being within the curfew, would you say that he did something wrong, and that it was unfair?

I think it was pretty mean and uptight of the police officer, unless the kid did something stupid to attract attention to himself. It reminds me of those teachers everyone hates and no-one respects, who enforce every petty rule to the extreme. "Top button undone? After school detention! No, it's the rules, unquestionable, holy rules. Don't tell me that's not fair! It doesn't matter if you have a valid excuse. The rules are there for a reason" as opposed to the teacher who lets little things slide when they don't matter and everyone gets along fine.

You're missing one key point: The cops don't set the punishment.

The cop either cites you or doesn't. He doesn't pick which punishment to slap you with.

I know he doesn't pick, but was it reasonable for him to cite the guy? He probably had the knowledge of what the punishment would be.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

I'm sorry, but this kind of thing sickens me.

This turns the law from sonething meaningful into an excuse to abuse people for trivialities, and in my opinion undermines confidence and respect for the institutions of law.

Laws as a concept exists to serve a purpose, not as an entity unto itself that should be tolerated just because.

It genuinely drives me nuts that people support these kind of things.

If it makes you feel better, it sickens me that people do not stand and support their laws steadfastly.

There is a difference between not supporting the law and handing out insane draconian punishments for breaking the law. Please learn that difference.

I suppose we shouldn't prosecute someone if they just steal a stick of gum?

Straw man.

Of course, these are examples of things that show someone lacks respect for the law, and moral fiber on the whole. Once you start making exceptions for "trivialities", there is a slippery slope.

Bullshit. There are tons of old outdated laws that no one enforces anymore but are still on the books.

This isn't the fictitious, absurd slippery slope politicians use to say that letting gays marry will result in nuclear war or some other relative impossibility, but a real, empirical one that we have seen.

No it's still a fictitious absurd slippery slope.

Anyway, as proof that this affects our mentality, I'd like to point to anyone who has posted in support of the criminal here. Their perception of the law has been warped to the point where they think that breaking the law "only by a little" isn't breaking the law any more. It's sad to think their social values have decayed so much.

Oh yeah and you're such a paragon of virtue aren't you.

They have a name for anal guys like you. Lawful stupid. And the label seems to fit.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid

You're just so hurt about the "injustice" you see that you don't realize that this is actually the way of the world. The world, nowadays, doesn't care about barely breaking the law. They only want to see the major crimes punished, not the miniscule ones that they don't care about. If we start letting those pass, we will change the laws to allow them so no new arguments will erupt, where people will then break those new laws just a tiny bit, and we will make even NEWER laws. It's a chain ending in complete anarchy.

Your slippery slope ending in an absurd conclusion does not impress me.

But hey we can always make the punishment fit the crime so instead of say 2 year suspension we can just make him pay $3

Yes, of course it's an absurd conclusion, but it's one that the public will reach. It's what happens in a world where people are too stupid to think for themselves and they're fed all their knowledge by sources such as CNN and ABC. I'm not trying to impress you, I personally don't give a shit whether you jump in a fire or not. I'm trying to get people to ask this question, "If we keep bending the rules in our favor, what's the point of the rules?"

 

[Serenegoose]

Curfew is inherently unethical, but the police officers actions were certainly legal. So my opinion on the matter should be quite obvious, and I'll chalk it up as another internal tally of when ethics and the law pass each other by entirely.

 

[Ameter]

So my neighbor, who is 16, a new driver was driving home on a Friday night. He arrived in his driveway at 12:03 to find that a cop had tailed him all the way back to his house. As the curfew was midnight he was technically violating it, so the cops suspended his license until he turned 18. thats just under 2 years for 3 minutes past curfew.

Was your friend coming home from a job or taking care of a family member or something like that? If so, then hes allowed to be after 12. Also, if the cop was following him that long without your friend doing something stupid like swerving a lot, then he could try for entrapment charges to get away with it.

Oh hey, look. Another person who doesn't understand the definition of entrapment

 

[Ameter]

Because the world is a black and white place, and the laws set forth by your various authorities beyond interpretation of the letter, heaven forbid to apply them to individual circumstance. Honestly, the responses advocating nothing beyond that reasoning are deeply disturbing, and such thinking the roots of much greater evils than your "criminal"-by-three-minutes.

In any case, as I mentioned earlier, in the middle of the night, that officer could've been doing a dozen more useful things, like cruising high-risk areas or looking for drunk drivers. Y'know, actual threats to human life and property. Not tailing some kid just to see whether or not he noses into the driveway just before midnight.

This argument never fails to be the height of stupidity, as it assumes that all cops are busy enforcing traffic laws, or that shifting the focus of traffic cops to more serious crimes would somehow prevent their occurrance or increase the rate at which they were solved.

While you ignore my initial point, you seem to exemplify it. Every officer's obligation to their service begins and ends with their job title? The letter of the law above the spirit of it? I'm also fairly certain drunk drivers at least fall within the scope of a traffic cop's interests, considering that drunk driving is involved with, what, roughly 40% of traffic deaths?

You conveniently neglect to ask yourself what made the cop follow him home.

 

[stompy]

It's not the job of police to pick and choose how and when they enforce the law.

The officer did his job.

Period.

Can't speak for the law where the OP lives but, at least where I live, the police are allowed to pick and choose how and when they enforce the law. Police do tend to have discretion, especially to stop situations like this, where a person faces what appears to be an excessive punishment for a relatively minor offence. (Of course, if the driver had a history of poor driving, this punishment could have been the 'straw that broke the camel's back'.)

Yes, the decision was lawful. Ethical though... I'd say no but if the driver had a history of breaking the law,I suppose it could be.

 

[Scout Tactical]

snip

Look, I know you're just acting dumb to make people realize how foolish they're being, but there actually are people stupid enough to believe you're being serious, so you may actually be doing more harm than good.

If you don't want to respond just say so, or just say nothing. You're not fooling anyone.

You didn't actually say anything in your post, which is why I was lead to believe the whole thing was a joke. You do realize that literally everything you said was just some variant on "No", without any real elaboration, right?

Nope I elaborated although most of your post was "it's the law, obey it or else we're all dooooooooooomed." Which is stupid because as I said there's laws that are no longer enforced yet still the law (and we aren't doomed yet), and that still doesn't excuse draconian punishments.

You have merely demonstrated that you didn't understand the pretty obvious argument I was making, which in retrospect, should have been clear, because you decided to not quote that part.

Whether or not you favor paternalistic laws isn't the question here, it's a question of government manipulation. When something becomes ubiquitous in society, the government is forced to either increase punishment or lower the bar for what constitutes offense. Perhaps ten years ago the punishment would have been that the kid would have been suspended for six weeks if he had arrived home after 1:00AM, but due to people ignoring the law, it has had inflated punishment and had its curfew moved up to discourage staying out late until after 1:00. The intent of the law isn't merely to stop people from being outside at 12:10AM, but rather to limit activities after dark on the whole. Your failure to understand this makes you Chaotic Stupid: hating the laws for the sake of hating laws.

But hey, I understand if you think "The Man" can't boss you around. You just hate all this mainstream crap. You probably even thought this was a good law before it sold out and got popular to talk about. Bottom line is, now that it -is- something being talked about, no one is going to convince you, so there's really no further need for discussion here. If you'd like to say you have a problem with paternalistic laws, ie: laws that stop people from doing things that don't actually hurt anyone, such as this one, that's a totally different argument that you're free to make, but it's not one I'm addressing.