Is this Legal/Ethical?
- Thread starter Poofs
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just like with speeding and essay question word limits there should be a small margin for error :/ I'd have said 5 mins after would be reasonable, especially if there were unusual traffic or weather conditions. If fact, I'd say that that would be better than making the kid rush because he was just about to break the curfew!
Wow. The early statements in this thread seem insane to me. The kid was making every effort to be home on time short of breaking more laws by speeding. For being three minutes late he is punished by not being allowed to drive again for two years. THREE MINUTES people. How many of you would be mad if you were fired for being three minutes late to work once? Can you honestly just shrug that off and say "it's the law?" If you can then you're letting the law override your reason and morals and I hope you're never put in a position of power over other people, particularly a judge.
The kid should have fought the citation in court. Jury trials are the "check for sanity" step of the legal system. Even a judge is better at it than cops are.
Also, curfews are unconstitutional anyway. It's basically saying that the government can decide what times you're allowed to be outside of your home. Youth or not, that's an obscene infringement upon the liberty of the people punished for it.
The kid should have fought the citation in court. Jury trials are the "check for sanity" step of the legal system. Even a judge is better at it than cops are.
Also, curfews are unconstitutional anyway. It's basically saying that the government can decide what times you're allowed to be outside of your home. Youth or not, that's an obscene infringement upon the liberty of the people punished for it.
There needs to be a cutoff point somewhere right? Where does the cop stop showing discretion and start taking action? Fair enough it sounds like the cop could have used some discretion here but the guy was playing with fire slightly by driving around so close to the curfew time.
The guy who was suspended should appeal for it- it does seem pretty pathetic.
I do see your point- but a curfew is there for a reason too right? People wont obey if they know they can bend the rules.
The guy who was suspended should appeal for it- it does seem pretty pathetic.
zama174 said:
I do see your point- but a curfew is there for a reason too right? People wont obey if they know they can bend the rules.
That's harsh, I think, that because he was 3 minutes over they took his license away. But it is the law...Poofs said:
But, how did the cop know that he was 16 and driving past the curfew? If he was driving 3 minutes over and the cop was tailing him then that would mean that the cop was just waiting for him to get home so he could maybe, possibly book some kind for sorta being over the limit and then just got lucky. That means that cop obviously had nothing better to do with his time (say, catching bank robbers, checking to make sure no one's being murdered) than to try and catch teens driving home a little over their curfew.
...Or maybe I've got this curfew thing wrong? I don't recall ever having a driving curfew so I might have misunderstood.
But...Isn't 16 still a learner though? Like...you need a parent in the car with you, don't you? I couldn't drive by myself until I was 17, almost 18.
but then again, england doesnt have 16 year old drivers, just like we dont have them in the netherlands, does it?...or does it? /not so suredathwampeer said:
but the realy anoying question is: how the hell would the tailing cop know that he was bloody 16. and thus in the foul. dont people in the USA have the policy of dont harrass me unless you have reasonable suspicion that im doing something illicit?
and being home at 12:03 is NOT a good reason. AT. ALL.
1. Ethical - No
There are many factors to consider in this instance. If the cop had not been following him, he may have been less nervous and made it home on time. Frankly, whenever a cop is following me for more than a block I turn into ANY driveway. They have no business following me.
Another problem I have with such a short time frame is there could be a million different things causing extenuating circumstances. For example, there could have been an accident or road closure that would extend the travel time unexpectedly. I have had to shut my car off because the traffic jam was so bad since they reduced 3 lanes to 1. The cops came and talked to me and said I couldn't do that. I told them that I wouldn't have enough fuel to survive this type of delay. The point is there are unexpected circumstances that will delay you no matter what you do.
Finally, this goes against the spirit of the law. Would someone rather this teenager exceed the speed limit to make the curfew? Because the laws around speeding may be harsh, but none result in a one to two year suspension of a licence that I know of.
2. Legal - Maybe
Is the ticket warranted for technically breaking the law? Yes.
Did the cop have a right to follow the teenager around? I'm not sure about that one.
Did the cop have a right to give the ticket on private property? I'm pretty sure this is a no. The officer would have had to pull the person over before getting home. In fact, I would have just said that the officer was mistaken and that I wasn't out past midnight.
There are many factors to consider in this instance. If the cop had not been following him, he may have been less nervous and made it home on time. Frankly, whenever a cop is following me for more than a block I turn into ANY driveway. They have no business following me.
Another problem I have with such a short time frame is there could be a million different things causing extenuating circumstances. For example, there could have been an accident or road closure that would extend the travel time unexpectedly. I have had to shut my car off because the traffic jam was so bad since they reduced 3 lanes to 1. The cops came and talked to me and said I couldn't do that. I told them that I wouldn't have enough fuel to survive this type of delay. The point is there are unexpected circumstances that will delay you no matter what you do.
Finally, this goes against the spirit of the law. Would someone rather this teenager exceed the speed limit to make the curfew? Because the laws around speeding may be harsh, but none result in a one to two year suspension of a licence that I know of.
2. Legal - Maybe
Is the ticket warranted for technically breaking the law? Yes.
Did the cop have a right to follow the teenager around? I'm not sure about that one.
Did the cop have a right to give the ticket on private property? I'm pretty sure this is a no. The officer would have had to pull the person over before getting home. In fact, I would have just said that the officer was mistaken and that I wasn't out past midnight.
Law does not equal Moral or ethics . Because everyone got different view on moral/ethics, taking all of these in consideration law would be impossible to create.
And yes it was legal, he was driving after the time he was supposed to stop driving. Unless there's specific part to the law that states that going home from somewhere is allowed. It was completely legal. There's no question about it., (And in what country is there law like that?)
If an officer of law uses the law wrong, it is the officers that is wrong, not the law.
Maybe he was assigned to patrol for law breaking teen drivers.
And most likely, the officer saw it to be hes duty (Both Moral and Legal) to get these people who break the curfew. You CAN NOT expect everyone to have the same fair and moral standpoint on these things.
I would see it was totally legal, the teen should have reserved way enough time to get home, more than he would have though it takes to get home. Why things need always be done just right before the deadline? Why can't you reserve bit more time to do things that got a deadline of some sort? I see that it was completely right thing to do, the punishment was right in both law and moral, but the officers way of tailing him was wrong. Note these are both two different things, The punishment was right, the way of behavior from police to justify the punishment was wrong.
And starting to ask moral views about subject relating to law is pointless. Law is not moral.
And yes it was legal, he was driving after the time he was supposed to stop driving. Unless there's specific part to the law that states that going home from somewhere is allowed. It was completely legal. There's no question about it., (And in what country is there law like that?)
Law does not equal Moral or ethics . Because everyone got different view on moral/ethics, taking all of these in consideration law would be impossible to create.zama174 said:
If an officer of law uses the law wrong, it is the officers that is wrong, not the law.
Maybe he was assigned to patrol for law breaking teen drivers.
And most likely, the officer saw it to be hes duty (Both Moral and Legal) to get these people who break the curfew. You CAN NOT expect everyone to have the same fair and moral standpoint on these things.
I would see it was totally legal, the teen should have reserved way enough time to get home, more than he would have though it takes to get home. Why things need always be done just right before the deadline? Why can't you reserve bit more time to do things that got a deadline of some sort? I see that it was completely right thing to do, the punishment was right in both law and moral, but the officers way of tailing him was wrong. Note these are both two different things, The punishment was right, the way of behavior from police to justify the punishment was wrong.
And starting to ask moral views about subject relating to law is pointless. Law is not moral.
I'm just going to say this:
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
The fact that the law technically allows you to do something isn't an invitation to do it.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
The fact that the law technically allows you to do something isn't an invitation to do it.
I know for a fact in Australia police can't follow people waiting to catch them, and I'm fairly sure they couldn't do something like that anywhere else either unless your law enforcement is completely hellbent on making your life shit.
3 minutes is a joke, if it was 12:15 or 12:30, yes they could get him for that. You can easily misjudge 3 minutes in driving time.
I'd just tell him to appeal it anyway if you know them, as much as it is technically right by textbook standards, still a dick move.
3 minutes is a joke, if it was 12:15 or 12:30, yes they could get him for that. You can easily misjudge 3 minutes in driving time.
I'd just tell him to appeal it anyway if you know them, as much as it is technically right by textbook standards, still a dick move.
It's not right. Technically it's the law, but over here in the UK, some MPs have said that they can fiddle with their expenses because a technicality says that they can't be tried for it. This has only 2 outcomes: common sense prevails and the courts look at the facts to bring things to the right conclusion (as is what is happening); or the technicality is accepted, but then it's apparent that the law isn't doing what it's meant to do, that is discourage socially unacceptable behavour and allow the law abiding public to live their lives without hassle, and so the law has to be thrown out (much like what the cop is achieving here).
Since when the hell did teenagers have government enforced curfews? Shouldn't that be left to the parents and teens to discuss? Goddamnit America, you disappoint me...
christ!
if anyone would think something like this is ethical and/or just then theyve clearly had their balls switched with their brains. i mean the guy who was driving couldve had his watch behind by just a few minutes. there was no reason why they couldnt give him a warning (after all he is techincally still a minor). honestly whats worth more? letting the kid go and keeping an eye out for actual crime. or follow some guy all the way home just to say ''tsk tsk three minutes behind curfew, no more driving for you for the next two years!'' even if it is legal it still isnt ethical and its completely unreasonable. this really isnt a win for law and order.
if anyone would think something like this is ethical and/or just then theyve clearly had their balls switched with their brains. i mean the guy who was driving couldve had his watch behind by just a few minutes. there was no reason why they couldnt give him a warning (after all he is techincally still a minor). honestly whats worth more? letting the kid go and keeping an eye out for actual crime. or follow some guy all the way home just to say ''tsk tsk three minutes behind curfew, no more driving for you for the next two years!'' even if it is legal it still isnt ethical and its completely unreasonable. this really isnt a win for law and order.
First off, there is a big difference between legality and being ethical. While there is some overlap, just because something is legal doesn't make it ethcal and visa versa.
Second, I think this cop is a dick for doing that. It was three minutes. Especially if the cop was following him and he didn't break any traffic laws in the process of heading home.
Cops are allowed to follow people if they think that they are likely to break the law, for example, the person may be driving eratically for a little bit, but may straighten out, but the cop follows them for a bit to see if they do anything else strange.
I don't know the whole story here though. I don't know what the laws regarding 16 year old drivers and what times they may and may not drive are. I remember driving home between 12AM and 1AM plenty of times when I was 17, but then, I drive carefully and made sure not to do anything stupid if I saw cops around. I think the cop should have had a bit of a heart, but he was technically enforcing the law.
However, since I see that you live in the US like myself, and keep in mind that laws like this can vary from state to state, so Florida may not have had the curfew. The only curfew I know of regarding driving time is in regards to people with permits.
Anyway, your neighbor can fight the ticket. Bring it to court and have them explain things to the judge. Be prepared for a fight though, because cops hate being wrong. I guess it depends on if you think it's worth that cop possibly having a grudge against you or having your license. I'd fight it, but mostly because the cop needs to learn to have a heart, especially over three minutes. Thirty, I could understand.
Second, I think this cop is a dick for doing that. It was three minutes. Especially if the cop was following him and he didn't break any traffic laws in the process of heading home.
Cops are allowed to follow people if they think that they are likely to break the law, for example, the person may be driving eratically for a little bit, but may straighten out, but the cop follows them for a bit to see if they do anything else strange.
I don't know the whole story here though. I don't know what the laws regarding 16 year old drivers and what times they may and may not drive are. I remember driving home between 12AM and 1AM plenty of times when I was 17, but then, I drive carefully and made sure not to do anything stupid if I saw cops around. I think the cop should have had a bit of a heart, but he was technically enforcing the law.
However, since I see that you live in the US like myself, and keep in mind that laws like this can vary from state to state, so Florida may not have had the curfew. The only curfew I know of regarding driving time is in regards to people with permits.
Anyway, your neighbor can fight the ticket. Bring it to court and have them explain things to the judge. Be prepared for a fight though, because cops hate being wrong. I guess it depends on if you think it's worth that cop possibly having a grudge against you or having your license. I'd fight it, but mostly because the cop needs to learn to have a heart, especially over three minutes. Thirty, I could understand.
Yes, there is no curfew here in England but 16 year olds cannot get a full license here either.dathwampeer said:
Police in many jurisdictions have "discretion", meaning that they can choose to ignore minor infractions. Most officers I know would, if they're satisfied that the person has made a reasonable attempt to comply with the conditions, choose to use their discretion and let them off.
Personally, I don't think 16 is old enough to drive (on the open road; they should get to start learning on safe areas); I'm not even happy about 17-year-olds getting licenced in the UK. But if they're trusted to drive at all, why not trust them to get on with it? So what's the point of the curfew?
Anyway, yeah. Legally precise, but excessive, picky and unnecessary.
Personally, I don't think 16 is old enough to drive (on the open road; they should get to start learning on safe areas); I'm not even happy about 17-year-olds getting licenced in the UK. But if they're trusted to drive at all, why not trust them to get on with it? So what's the point of the curfew?
Anyway, yeah. Legally precise, but excessive, picky and unnecessary.
For the sake of my sanity, I'm going to assume your friend was driving like a dumbass thus proving that he's a danger to himself and others. When he pulled up to his house, the cop found he was also under age and chose to give him the most appropriate punishment available out of all the laws he had broken which is the 2 year license suspension for breaking curfew. That would be a responsible use of discretion.