This question formed in my mind since I received an undeserved speeding ticket in June. I had been raised to believe that police officers were there to assist you when necessary as well as to enforce the law. I conclude now that the old motto "To Protect and Serve" is no longer valid and should be dropped altogether. A new motto that states "Law Enforcement Only" should be adopted. Peace Officer (which is the term they use to deceive us with) and Law Enforcement do not go hand in hand. They are opposite sides of the fence.
What leads me to this conclusion? In dealing with a stalker for over 4 years, I was belittled, insulted, lied to and put in more way of harm from my stalker than I was in already. The police did not write reports of harassment or trespassing when requested and gave the stalker the feeling he could do anything to me he wanted without consequences. Which he did do.
But this is only part of the problem. With the introduction of LIDAR as a means to control traffic (and its supposed unarguable qualities) we are now being milled through the court system on traffic tickets at a higher rate than ever. Our governments, in spite of being cautioned that traffic tickets are not to be a major source of revenue for municipalities, have joyously embraced LIDAR as a new means to increase revenue without protest. It is preferred over Radar.
In June I was returning home from work. The street I normally drive is usually congested and most drivers ignore the 35 mph speed limit in favor of about 40 mph. The police are known to let this go, but I now suspect it is with the intent of lulling drivers into a false sense of security. On that day the street was not being heavily travelled. There were a few cars coming from the opposite direction and there was a car about 75' in front of me, in the right hand lane. As I had a left hand turn coming up, I was travelling in the left lane. I saw lights flashing on a police car so immediately signalled for a right hand move. I was surprised when the officer pulled in behind me.
After stopping I asked what the problem was. He said I was speeding. I asked how fast I was going and he told me 48 mph. I was astounded. I knew that he was overstating my speeding by at least 10 mph. I asked for a warning ticket figuring it was best to let it go. He adamantly refused by stating that was why he was out there, it was his job.
From my research of LIDAR, I get the impression he was "sweeping" while targeting my vehicle. Sweeping can add up to 20 mph to a vehicle's speed. I wonder, since the officer is supposed to be certified in his training of LIDAR if he is ignoring his training or if he (and possibly other police officers) use this as a means to artificially increase speed, thereby making their citations believable. The officer was also located in a sloped area, which is contraindicated by training manuals. LIDAR is to be used on straightaways, in heavily travelled areas, while in a stationary position. The police cars here are also equipped with radar units, so maybe he was rolling in traffic, using that radar but wrote LIDAR on the ticket so it wouldn't be readily argued over.
This state has also adopted a "profiling system". Ostensibly, this system was put in place to monitor individual police officers' habits in order to establish if prejudicial profiling is too prominent. Reports from every law enforcement center in this state are to be reported to the State office monthly. What is really going on here? If profiling is being done, it is targeted at poor people, who drive older vehicles and usually won't argue a citation as well as the usual minorities.
The city has adopted codes of ordinances that states a person who has received a traffic ticket is guilty because he/she signed the citation. The citation states it is not an admission of guilt, but a promise to deal with the citation, whether it be in court or by paying a preset fine. Does not the code of ordinances go against "innocent until proven guilty"? I am positive I did not willingly sign an admission of guilt. I believe I was tricked into it because if I had refused to sign the citation, I would have went to jail. This officer, when he wins in court (I am not taking this meekly) will have cost me money I can't afford and 3 points on my license.
The city also has a quota that officers must meet. Does this not put inordinate stress on the officer to write more tickets than is necessary? Is this why some police will exaggerate the rate of speed on a citation? The city denies there is a quota, but in overhearing a conversation as to why an officer on duty was hanging out in a convenience store, I know it exists. He commented that he had reached his quota and he was in for a little relaxation time. Not very publicly oriented, was he?
Was this officer "protecting and serving" when he wrote an unwarranted citation? Were the other officers serving the public or themselves when they allowed a stalker unlimited activity (I am not the only one this man stalked)? Or are they strictly Law Enforcement beings who are too lazy to do even that?
With the advent of war and the propensity for our city governments in hiring ex-military personnel, control issues have increased. Some men/women who go to war nowadays are looking for a way to express aggressions with the blessing of the law. A great number of our police have power issues so they enter law enforcement in order to feel powerful. This is not to say there aren't good, decent men and women in law enforcement. There is and I have observed them too but they are now a minority group. However, maybe the goals of society have changed enough so that peace and order are secondary to the Law, no matter how skewed it is.
Police are not our friends. Governments have placed them in the position of solely enforcing law, with great disregard to protection and customer service. Any time you walk out of your house (actually even within your house) you can inadvertently break several laws and not even know it. Of course, it is unforgiven, unless you pay the money.
