I don't know if this was picked up nationally, though it was front page news in the Times. This past weekend hundreds of cops protested outside a Bronx courthouse. It was like #occupy, but all the protesters had neat haircuts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/nyregion/officers-unleash-anger-at-ticket-fixing-arraignments-in-the-bronx.html?scp=5&sq=police%20protest%20bronx&st=cse

What were they protesting? The fact that 16 police officers were indicted over making traffic and parking tickets go away for themselves and their friends and families. "It's a courtesy, not a crime," the cops were saying. The police union was so heavily involved in the scandal that the prosecutors considered using RICO laws to bring down what they were seeing as an organized conspiracy.

People are talking about this more than the much more serious things that turn up, because tickets impact almost everyone, and the cheapest parking ticket in NYC, I think, is $95.00, so it's real money. To some, the protests show that cops think they are above the law, that there are some laws for the common people that cops don't have to follow.

So what do you think? Should the citizens and prosecutors not sweat the small stuff and let this slide, or is this a sign that something's really messed up and that the prosecutors were right to take this seriously?

geojanes wrote:I don't know if this was picked up nationally, though it was front page news in the Times. This past weekend hundreds of cops protested outside a Bronx courthouse. It was like #occupy, but all the protesters had neat haircuts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/nyregion/officers-unleash-anger-at-ticket-fixing-arraignments-in-the-bronx.html?scp=5&sq=police%20protest%20bronx&st=cse

What were they protesting? The fact that 16 police officers were indicted over making traffic and parking tickets go away for themselves and their friends and families. "It's a courtesy, not a crime," the cops were saying. The police union was so heavily involved in the scandal that the prosecutors considered using RICO laws to bring down what they were seeing as an organized conspiracy.

I hate the way RICO is used and abused, at the whim of prosecutors. How about some original intent?

That said, the unions out here are crooked. In our commonwealth, the cops are underpaid (I think), undertrained (without question), and the union doles out the overtime. It is a recipe for union corruption. I don't know much about the NYPD, but I would note one major non-occupy factor: they didn't camp out.

People are talking about this more than the much more serious things that turn up, because tickets impact almost everyone, and the cheapest parking ticket in NYC, I think, is $95.00, so it's real money. To some, the protests show that cops think they are above the law, that there are some laws for the common people that cops don't have to follow.

So what do you think? Should the citizens and prosecutors not sweat the small stuff and let this slide, or is this a sign that something's really messed up and that the prosecutors were right to take this seriously?

Fixing tickets should not be tolerated period.

That said, giving tickets to cops by other cops can have a real deleterious effect on law enforcement. The last thing anyone should want is departments or precincts having feuds.

Is it a double-standard? You bet. Try ducking bullets for a living and then turning around and giving the officers who are your back-up tickets on their way home.

Not smart.

If you didn't have a friend who was a cop and could make your ticket go away, and you failed to pay, that would be a crime, right? I'm not sure if illegal parking itself would be seen as a crime or not (over here it used to be but over time each jurisdiction has been decriminalising parking offences so that they can outsource the enforcement), but other things like speeding, running lights, driving an unsafe vehicle etc are crimes, right?

So it ought to be a crime to help someone who has been caught from evading justice, so the cops are way wrong to describe it as a 'courtesy'. It's also the thin end of the wedge to corruption. Once someone has 'done a favour' they are potentially indentifiable as someone who can do more substantial favours.

The police, of all groups in society, must not be above the law. They cannot be enforcing the law and at the same time ignoring it. They represent the government (and by extension, the people), and are accountable for how they act.

If the police union are complicit, then I have no time for them. By all means they should assist members who are facing allegations (everyone deserves a defence lawyer and assistance, even if they are guilty), but sometimes unions go too far in protecting the interests of the membership.

Seeing as we cross-posted..

Doctor Fate wrote:Fixing tickets should not be tolerated period.

Hooray, I agree with Doctor Fate!

That said, giving tickets to cops by other cops can have a real deleterious effect on law enforcement. The last thing anyone should want is departments or precincts having feuds.

Is it a double-standard? You bet. Try ducking bullets for a living and then turning around and giving the officers who are your back-up tickets on their way home.

Not smart.

Oh dear. That lasted about 20 pixels.

Sorry, but the police should not be above the law. If there's a problem with departments or precincts (or different jurisdictions) then that should be addressed for what it is. I'm sure that the current investigation is causing no end of deleterious effect on relations between parts of NYPD, with the honest cops being annoyed at those who have been bending the law. Sorry, breaking the law.

Besides, if it's obvious that the police are able to sidestep the law because otherwise it could make things a bit awkward, how can the public have trust that the police are acting with probity elsewhere?

Sure, respect that they put their lives on the line. So do coal-miners and construction workers and firefighters. Should we give those people a pass when they break the laws as well?

That said, giving tickets to cops by other cops can have a real deleterious effect on law enforcement

If you are ticketing a private vehicle how would one know they were ticketing a car owned by another police officer?

rickyp wrote:

That said, giving tickets to cops by other cops can have a real deleterious effect on law enforcement

If you are ticketing a private vehicle how would one know they were ticketing a car owned by another police officer?

He flashes his badge, and the other cop nods and winks. Some people might describe that as government corruption.

rickyp wrote:

That said, giving tickets to cops by other cops can have a real deleterious effect on law enforcement

If you are ticketing a private vehicle how would one know they were ticketing a car owned by another police officer?

You wouldn't., I wasn't talking about a parking ticket, but a moving violation.

Fixing tickets occurs AFTER a ticket is issued. This should not be done. It's actually illegal in CA.

Randy, I have found a really great way to avoid these 'taxes'. I try not to drink-drive, speed, run red lights, park illegally, let my tax-disc run out or leave faults on my car. It works a treat! If these fines are lucrative, it's only because there are loads of idiots out there who break laws and rules they should be pretty well aware of.

So I have no sympathy for those who get caught doing what they know to be wrong*.

But your point about cops is spot on. They carry guns. They are employed by the people. They represent the government in it's role of upholding and enforcing the law. Tolerating corruption in the police force could be the top of a very slippery slope.

*full disclosure - yes, I have occasionally sped and parked in the wrong place, and I have had a ticket for each. No complaints, it was my fault and like an adult I accept responsibility for my actions.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:

That said, giving tickets to cops by other cops can have a real deleterious effect on law enforcement

If you are ticketing a private vehicle how would one know they were ticketing a car owned by another police officer?

You wouldn't., I wasn't talking about a parking ticket, but a moving violation.

Actually, in most cases, in NYC the meter cops know if the car belongs to a cop. They have these placards, these things they put in their window that allows them to park illegally when they're on official business, but they're pretty widely used anytime*. The meter cops look at them and pass them by. You'll also see business cards on the dashboard to communicate to the meter cops the same thing, not official, but from what I've seen just walking around the streets, its effective. I don't think cops get ticketed often, the issue is more with the cop's cousin Vinny who drove into the City from Secacus and has no idea about alternate side parking and got dinged with a $150.00 ticket. The cousin calls looking for a favor and the cop says, "I'll see what I can do."

* My cop friend's wife would use one when she was double-parking while dropping of their kids at day-care, for instance.

Wouldn't work in LA. That's the problem with the East Coast--too much unionism and not enough professionalism.

I think cops should have discretion when they are giving minor tickets. They should be able to let a guy off with a warning, they should be able to stop writing the parking ticket if the guy comes to get his car after they started. The police have seen their discretion lessen and lessen. Now, if you start a parking ticket, you've got to finish it, which is partially due to budgetary issues and partly due to the fact that they don't want the very low skill people who they hire to do parking tickets to be using their discretion.

That said, once the ticket is written and in the system, it's done. You can't make it go away after the fact. Citizens are pissed off at the cops and their completely tone deaf protest. No one thinks this is right, except for the cops. There have been no further protests, and it wouldn't surprise me if this goes no further: These 16 get their discipline, it is made clear to cops that they can't do this anymore, and there will be consequences if they take care of cousin Vinny, and we don't hear of this again.

geojanes wrote:I think cops should have discretion when they are giving minor tickets.

In LA, we did. You would have been proud of me. I gave tickets to the rich and warnings to the poor, unless they were really, really dumb or dangerous (like the time I stopped a flat-bed truck filled with cardboard . . . held down by a guy sprawled across the top of it!).

Now, if you start a parking ticket, you've got to finish it, which is partially due to budgetary issues and partly due to the fact that they don't want the very low skill people who they hire to do parking tickets to be using their discretion.

I'm pretty conscientious about parking (and driving for that matter). If I got a parking ticket, I'd just pay it--even if I could have gotten it fixed. I remember once going into a sporting good store and coming back out to find . . . to my horror . . . that I had parked in a handicapped spot. I was embarrassed, but didn't get a ticket because no one showed up to ticket me. If they had, that was on me. I didn't see the sign! I don't know why--I don't remember, honestly. I was probably in a hurry and missed it. I got lucky. If I hadn't, well, I would have paid the $400.

No one thinks this is right, except for the cops.

I have said it once and I'll say it again: there is a palpable difference between the professionalism out here and in the West. These guys don't have it.

If it wasn't for bad management, I would say cops should not be allowed to unionize. Police unions are an inherently bad idea. Some of the unions around here are so powerful that they seem able to tilt the playing field. I think those cops are imitating their union.

Thugs will be thugs...

I was trying to find the old 'police protection' thread for this, but it seems not to have made it over from the handover or something. Ah well...

This is extraordinary:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20775071

Former Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell has called for a "full inquiry" into the row with Downing Street police officers that cost him his job.

He spoke out during a Channel 4 News programme which alleged that a police officer had posed as a member of the public backing the police's story.

The programme accused the officer of falsely claiming to have seen the events in an email to his MP.

The Metropolitan Police Federation has strongly denied any "conspiracy".

John Tully, chairman of the federation that represents police in the Metropolitan Police Service, said: "The Metropolitan Police Federation unequivocally and categorically refutes any allegation that it was part of a conspiracy to unseat a cabinet minister."

Most of you can be forgiven for having missed the original story behind this, but a few months back the government Chief Whip (a very senior party official) was forced to resign after a row brew up about his alleged behaviour towards police who wouldn't let him through the barrier outside Downing Street on his bike. He admits having sworn at them but the story which got leaked to the newspapers was that he'd called them 'plebs', which was particularly hard on him because it tied in with the current narrative about arrogant Tory toffs and doomed his career, eventually forcing him to resign (don't ask...). The official police report of the incident was also immediately leaked to the press and in it was the claim that a member of the public had written in with an official complaint, claiming to have heard everything that the coppers reported.

It now transpires that this random member of the public was actually a serving police officer who was not at the scene. I guess I should be shocked and horrified that the Metropolitan Police have effectively fitted up a serving Cabinet Minister by fabricating evidence against him, but actually I called this at the time. It was obvious that the police had done a number on Mitchell with the most brutal of media hatchet jobs. I'm glad to see they've now been caught out and fairly confident that they're going to regret picking a fight with the government. Serves em right, the Met have gone rogue in recent years and it's about time somebody tried to rein them in. If they're willing to fabricate evidence to try and end the career of a Cabinet Minister and think they can get away with it then what will they do to some poor kid they pick up off the street ?

Sassenach wrote:Most of you can be forgiven for having missed the original story behind this, but a few months back the government Chief Whip (a very senior party official) was forced to resign after a row brew up about his alleged behaviour towards police who wouldn't let him through the barrier outside Downing Street on his bike. He admits having sworn at them but the story which got leaked to the newspapers was that he'd called them 'plebs', which was particularly hard on him because it tied in with the current narrative about arrogant Tory toffs and doomed his career, eventually forcing him to resign (don't ask...). The official police report of the incident was also immediately leaked to the press and in it was the claim that a member of the public had written in with an official complaint, claiming to have heard everything that the coppers reported.

It now transpires that this random member of the public was actually a serving police officer who was not at the scene. I guess I should be shocked and horrified that the Metropolitan Police have effectively fitted up a serving Cabinet Minister by fabricating evidence against him, but actually I called this at the time. It was obvious that the police had done a number on Mitchell with the most brutal of media hatchet jobs. I'm glad to see they've now been caught out and fairly confident that they're going to regret picking a fight with the government. Serves em right, the Met have gone rogue in recent years and it's about time somebody tried to rein them in. If they're willing to fabricate evidence to try and end the career of a Cabinet Minister and think they can get away with it then what will they do to some poor kid they pick up off the street ?

Update:

The ex-Cabinet Minister, Andrew Mitchell, raised a libel suit against the newspaper that made the allegations that he called a policeman a "@#$! pleb". The policeman who was in the altercation counter-sued Mitchell because this included a claim that the cop was lying.

Today the judge found against Mitchell on both suits. The policeman was exonerated.

The other context for this, which Sass didn't mention at the time (and may have increased police sensitivity) was that it happened the day after a criminal shot dead two female police officers in the outskirts of Manchester.

Now, this in no way excuses the other police officers who lied about it. The one who made up that he was there to witness the event was imprisoned. Four others were sacked, and another three disciplined.

Then there were the three Police Federation reps who are still under investigation following statements they made after they went to meet Mitchell, for which they later apologised.

Neither the police nor Andrew Mitchell come out of this well. But I think it important to point out that Sass' view a couple of years ago has been overtaken by the legal process. While some evidence was fabricated, Mitchell still was found to not be telling the truth, based on comparing his testimony with CCTV of the event.