The Shotgun Blog
« Persona Non Grita | Main | South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford: "Throw me in that briar patch, I'm guilty. I love liberty." »
Monday, May 18, 2009
Quota Cops
I do have a certain degree of sympathy for traffic officers. Most of them hate the work, they became cops to fight real crime, not harass people for some technical violation of the traffic code: People have suspected for many years that police officers do indeed have quotas for issuing traffic tickets. Cynics say that the practice is nothing more than a cash grab for local governments. And now, the Montreal Police union is saying it's true: police in Montreal have a minimum amount of tickets to issue everyday. In fact, the Montreal Police Brotherhood says officers were recently told by their superiors to start issuing 28 tickets a day -- up from their last daily quota of 18. "There's only one priority for the city hall. That's giving tickets, bringing more revenue to the city hall instead of fighting criminality," Yves Francoeur, the police union president, told CTV Montreal. The police department has raised its quota to make up for the more than $13.8 million in budget cuts from earlier this year, said the union.
Posted by Richard Anderson on May 18, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
One of my pet peeve is the argument that driving fast is unsafe. What is the peak speed a police car must reach to catch up in 1 minute, starting at 0, to a car going at 140kph? Why do cops think that their own vehicle is safe but mine is not?
Posted by: Manny | 2009-05-18 7:16:59 AM
"This particular officer used pull over many old ladies"
Stick your feminism you know where. Men are incarcerated federally at a rate FIFTY times higher than men. Your anecdotal story, probably false, is tweaked for maximum sympathy (little old ladies? please) and raises questions why you feel listing a gender is germane.
You are OK with the cop ticketing *economically productive* working age men? You shouldn't be, they contribute a hell of a lot more to society than old ladies, most of whom vote Liberal and incessantly demand freebies from the government. I'm glad in a way he tickets old ladies, a profoundly evil demographic cohort, it begins to make up for the damage they have done to Canada.
"we have a generally competent and civil police force."
No you don't. Toronto cops, like all Canadian cops, are ridiculously unaccountable and fairly vicious and violent. Following orders, you'll agree with me, is not an excuse, now or 65 years ago. 90km\h is a bit slow for a limit, but 100km\h is fine on the DVP, there is no need to go 110; yet another example of WS writers feeling like they have a right to break the rules and justifying it with self serving anecdotal stories.
Posted by: Bzzzzzzzzzzzz | 2009-05-18 9:15:14 AM
Had anyone thought that the problem just may be with your behavior? Speed limits exist for a reason - safety. That affects you as much as others. It's no big deal to slow down.
Oh yeah, May 15 was National Peace Officers Memorial Day. Thank your local police officers for their hard work keeping our communities safe.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-18 9:17:29 AM
The whole practice of quotas is ridiculous. It encourages the officer to exaggerate true offences and push borderline cases up past the mark, even if he'd rather not do so. Imagine if they instituted a quota for domestic violence arrests?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-18 9:41:04 AM
...you out to stand by the new Nose Hill bridge over Crowchild Trail and watch the cops pull over a whack load of people on a weekend where they leave the 50Km signs up without any construction going on. Some days there is, some not. Mostly not.
Like today, Victoria Day, two motorcycle cops by the power station. Hope they didn't freeze too much. Not sure what qualifies the ones they pull over, a guy in a mazda whipped past me but didn't pull him over.
Posted by: tomax7 | 2009-05-18 11:21:46 AM
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand
Posted by: TM | 2009-05-18 11:54:00 AM
Exactly Right TM. Our "Peace Officers" haven't been Peace Officers in a very long time. They are now closer to being "RoboCops" than ever before.
Unfortunately for people entering into the law enforcement biz, they are now being "used" as enforcers of ridiculous laws and collectors of revenue for the state. I feel sorry for the honest ones and contempt for the followers of these ridiculous "unspoken policies".
Posted by: JC | 2009-05-18 12:14:18 PM
There's nothing new about ridiculous laws, JC, as anyone who's read the jokes knows.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-18 12:23:49 PM
There's nothing new about ridiculous laws, JC, as anyone who's read the jokes knows.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-18 12:23:49 PM
That's for sure Shane. And there's nothing new about my contempt for ridiculous laws and worse...ridiculous "Lawmakers".
Posted by: JC | 2009-05-18 2:42:50 PM
In my opinion, if your not infringing on someones right to life,liberty or property then the law shouldn't exist. If you are breaking the law you should be charged with a crime and stand before the court. These tickets (especially photo radar) amount to nothing more then a tax. I feel for an officer banished to laser gun holder behind a bush. I doubt highly when he or she had aspirations to protect and server that was the image they had.
I think a small step in the right direction is to not allow any traffic violation ticket income to go to city hall in an attempt to keep politicians fingers out of that pie. Of course I can see city hall in retaliation to that with holding funding and telling police to get the money from tickets or other taxable offenses.
Posted by: Ross Mann | 2009-05-18 4:50:11 PM
Ross, there doesn't seem to be a simple solution does there? Maybe if we had real property rights, and the state had no property, then property owners would hire their own police force. The police in such a place would have little motivation to do anything but enforce the law; which would be to protect property rights.
Of course, the benefits of such a world will never happen because those making the rules would stand to lose.
Posted by: TM | 2009-05-18 8:05:29 PM
I tend to sympathize with the Police as more and more they are asked to enforce "other types" of violations - like using a cellphone in a car, driving while smoking - having a juvenile in the car, etc.
As long as there are lawyers as lawmakers, there will be laws that encourage litigation and enrich their incomes.
I think the solution is to create another type of officer - public or bylaw if you will - that have to enforce these "other types" of CRIMES and let the real Police get on with the job of fighting crime.
Posted by: The LS from SK | 2009-05-19 2:12:59 AM
Yes how can they waste time and effort making sure that several tonne chunks of steel and glass aren't hurtling down the highway at unsafe speeds when somewhere a teenager could be smoking a joint? Could you imagine these silly cops wasting their time trying to make people drive their cars at a safe, speed when they could be stopping someone from growing a plant in the bush behind their cabin? The insanity!
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-05-19 7:11:05 AM
You hate cops, Greenthumb. We get that. Unlike you, we've moved on. Smoking dope may not take more lives than dangerous driving, but it sure does wreck more.
You know what would make it easier to legalize marijuana? For lifelong users like you to simply shut up. Because as long as deluded old stoners are ranting on the podium about the evils of "godsucking" organized society or the magic of discovering stellar fusion while hang-gliding stoned, no one is going to want to take a chance of their kid ending up in a similar boat.
Seriously, do you let your boss hear you talk like this? Assuming, of course, anyone will let you work for them?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-19 7:34:43 AM
The trouble with that line of thinking, Ross, is it's far too simplistic. Using those criteria, it would be perfectly acceptable to let airplanes fly at rooftop level, so long as they didn't actually hit anything. Of course, there would be far more crashes (less margin for error), and there's not much point in filing charges against the pilot after he craters his Airbus in a daycare, is there?
The trouble with libertarians is their disdain for the rule of law. The whole idea of obeying statutes in which they had no direct input rankles them. If something doesn't fit their sketchy "natural crime" definition, then it shouldn't be illegal, so they say. In other words, they are anarchists with a trendy name.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-19 7:43:28 AM
Honourable Dr Greenthumb
your concern that modern society wastes valuable police resources chasing down illegal marihuana plants is valid,
We agree with you on this one
Thank heavens for Crimestoppers-
does the job at a fraction of the cost.
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-19 8:20:14 AM
See what drugs do to you kids - they make you paranoid, irrational and give you delusions of clarity and importance. Avoid at all costs - live in the real world, not a chemically induced one.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-19 8:37:53 AM
What really burns me, is when they come up with new ways to trick people into committing violations, then fining them.
The city, where I live, stopped writing tickets for parking on streets that were being swept this spring. They started using cameras with time/gps interface. They also quadrupled the fine. People were unaware of their violations, because no ticket appeared on their vehicles. Some of them received multiple "tickets" on the same day.
Our town also purchased a second photo-radar unit. They made so much money with the first one, I think we should have our property taxes reduced.
With revenues taking a serious tumble, I'm sure the local cops have been given a directive to start generating bigger revenues. Sort of like Tony Soprano giving Paulie Wallnuts a directive to start earning a bigger share. I suspect that earning more revenue is linked to earning promotions, overtime, better assignments.
And by the way Zeb, in case you haven't noticed, our local police officers haven't been keeping our communities all that safe. A little more time in high crime areas, and a little less time at Tim Hortons might be a good start.
Yesterday, I saw 2 squad cars, with lights flashing, giving a ticket to a couple of kids without bike helmets. I didn't hang around long enough to see if they tasered them, but I assume they got around to it. I could have driven a few blocks and seen people smoking crack, but the cops tend to avoid those neighbourhoods. Too dangerous.
Posted by: dp | 2009-05-19 9:20:20 AM
419- I have one word for you- rat poison. I guess that's two words.
Posted by: dp | 2009-05-19 9:23:25 AM
Maybe in your community, but my local cops are darn good. It's because we don't have Tim Horton's down here.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-19 10:05:46 AM
Thanks dp--
that was very clever ,
the self correcting math and everything
and with so many brands to choose from
- why don't you try a few different preparations
and let us know which one is the best
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-19 10:44:35 AM
Or perhaps, dp, they figure that the crackheads will never learn no matter how many times you bust them. The kids might. The light show was doubtless meant to give them enough of a jolt to make them think twice before doing it again. Since judges today are notoriously reluctant to send even career criminals to jail, writing tickets and scare shows are about the only tactics left that have a hope of working.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-19 11:03:30 AM
419- How about I just kick your ass instead, you little narc? I don't use drugs, or alcohol, but I can't stomach little hall monitors like you.
That's a noble thought, Shane, but I think it's a stretch. Are they paid to educate our kids, or to arrest criminals? I've never met a cop that had the credentials to be a social worker.
Posted by: dp | 2009-05-19 11:52:55 AM
The trouble with conservatives is their disdain for their fellow human beings. The whole idea of creating statutes that create criminals out of law abiding citizens keeps them intoxicated for months. If something doesn't fit their sketchy definition of morality, then it should be illegal, so they say. In other words, they are totalitarians with a trendy name.
Does that sound familiar Shane?
I can't figure out whether you are being disingenuous or simply irrational. It is pretty clear that the war on drugs and prostitution has failed. It has not reduced demand for either, has driven the profits to criminals, and reduced the chances that drug users and prostitutes will ever escape their all too often bleak existences.
The libertarian position is simple Shane. If an
act harms someone, then it should be illegal. If an act, when legal, such as prostitution or drug use does not harm anyone else, then it should be legal. How is that sketchy?
Posted by: Charles | 2009-05-19 12:04:45 PM
Well what can I add?
The old Bumper sticker said something to the effect that next time you are/were a Victim "...call a criminal".
All professions have their criminals - some just have professional associations to have it go away & and the Police are not in that crowd!
Posted by: The LS from SK | 2009-05-19 12:35:27 PM
The DVP is much like a 400 series highway, but it is not such. It's not a provincial highway, and was built and is maintained by the city. Not that it matters, but I'm picky.
And the issue of whether the speed limit is appropriate is not the same issue as whether the police should enforce it. It's the role of the police to enforce the law, however stupid it may be, and you wind up worse off when the police take it upon themselves to decide what laws to enforce than when they rigorously enforce all laws, even the dumb ones.
Posted by: ebt | 2009-05-19 12:45:04 PM
"...419- How about I just kick your ass instead, you little narc? I don't use drugs, or alcohol, but I can't stomach little hall monitors like you...""
well what's a good time for us to get together for you to carry out this little threat ? mornings are better for me
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-19 1:04:17 PM
Social workers are the last thing a kid in trouble needs, dp. What he needs is an incentive to smarten up. A good jolt can provide that, more than sympathetic words. Social workers mean well, but they're notorious for enabling anti-social behaviour--ironic, given their name.
Do you really think it more plausible that the cops decided to dazzle these kids with whoopee lights and blast the bejeezus out of them with their siren just to vindicate their manhood or liven up a slow day?
P.S. Even if cops were completely self-serving without a shred of caring in their bodies (which I much doubt), they still have an incentive to scare kids straight before they turn into real crooks. Because fewer crooks means an easier career for them and, if there's anything to the popular myth, more time for doughnuts.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-19 2:02:51 PM
oh.. forgot to ask dp
will you be arriving by motorcycle for your appointment to kick my ass, or shall I meet you at the bus stop ?
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-19 2:10:15 PM
No, Charles, there is nothing you need to add to that blatantly partisan opinion piece. I assure you it is beyond salvaging.
Virtually all laws are based on morality. The idea that it is wrong to harm another person or their goods derives from morality. If you don't understand that, there is little to discuss.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-19 2:35:23 PM
When the total number of vehicle collisions drop to zero in this country then you can say there are quotas in effect. This is the reply my friend, who serves in a police force, gives in regards to questions about quotas: "Quotas? No...my boss lets me write as many tickets as I want."
Quotas, if you want to call them that, are based on statistics that say there are these many people violating traffic laws which can be related to the number of vehicular collisions that occur. And if that is the case then you should be able to issue this many tickets. Speed may not kill, but speeding can be a major factor in the seriousness of collisions. The problem is there are too many people operating motor vehicles who do not always make the right decisions in regards to the manner that they operate motor vehicles. If every single person operated their vehicle properly and adjusted their driving manners to reflect the conditions of the road (weather, light, volume of traffic, road conditions, mental state, et cetera) we would not have deaths/injuries or property damage happening on our roads. Once you figure out a better way to make the roads safer for everyone, we can deploy those officers to other duties. If you received a speeding ticket, then you obviously were not paying attention to the posted limits or didn't give a damn. If the former, call it a cheap wake-up call and if the latter, I hope they pulled your license.
Posted by: Neil Bower | 2009-05-19 6:00:22 PM
listen to the right wingers whine. Its pretty simple if you don't want to pay the fine , don't do the crime. Its very cut and dry, especially photo radar, you are caught on film with your lawbreaking so suck it up. You are endangering the lives of others with your selfish addiction to speed. I think they should triple the fines and if you are more than 10 kmph over the speed limit their should be a mandaTORY minimum sentence of at least 6 months in jail for a first offence, and 2-3 years for every additional offence. We need to go further though, anyone caught producing or altering a vehicle to make it capable of going faster than 100kmph should face stiff jail sentences, even longer than murderers, because they are potentially contributing to thousands of deaths.
Also we should immediately impose a fine/tax on obesity. Being overweight is not only immorral because we have publicly funded health care, but also because looking at fat people is gross. If we passed a law against being fat then it would be even more immorral to be plump. Mathews drop that chicken wing! You are under arrest!
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-05-20 7:03:43 PM
Most of the logic in support of these absurd speeding laws is that kids who are speeding, in Shane's case, will turn out to be a criminal because of that. Do you realize how flawed that preposition is?
Laws governing harm befalling other humans are derived from morality. Laws governing how fast you may drive your car on the road you paid for regardless of the consideration of age, experience, motor skills, etcetera are derived from a desire to skew the world's behaviour based on how a select few people see fit. These kinds of laws and rationales bear a strange resemblance to dictator rule.
It's not the speed that kills, it's what the person does with that speed.
Posted by: Jorje | 2009-10-23 4:31:33 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.