Does this punishment really fit the crime?

[earthson]

also Cops don't make the rules, they just selectively enforce them.

Corrected

[ptrthgr8]

+1 also Cops don't make the rules, they just enforce them.

Ah, yes... the old "I was just following orders" defense. Classic.

Not a big fan of gov't taxes in any form since it's too easily (and often) abused to plump up the coffers. And as others have stated, this sort of fine was clearly only intended to generate revenue. Rather than cutting costs, gov'ts tend to increase their revenue however they can (taxes, fines, etc.) in order to continue along with their ridiculous levels of spending.

As for the cop bashing... well... I liked cops just fine when I was a kid. You know, Officer Friendly and all that. But I've seen such a militarization of the police forces over the years that I can't help but dislike them in general now. I can honestly say that I met more [moderated] cops in Seattle (where I grew up) compared to what I've seen in North Dakota (been here 14 years now), but I can also say that's probably relative to the population in general (far more [moderated] in Seattle in general). But I absolutely resent seeing the cops around here rolling through town in black AFVs. Because Fargo or Grand Forks needs cops in tanks to keep us safe. Yeah, okay... I would like law enforcement in general a lot more if they didn't run around pretending to be Call of Duty operators. Officer Friendly is now Officer No-Knock.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

Edited November 6, 2014 by Fuzz
Language

[cigardude]

yup, the punishment doesn't suit the crime, pure cash grab.

[IPORTER]

Very harsh fine.....excessive!!!!!

[headstand]

"Let them write the ticket, thank them then fight it in court..."

The end.

Yup, this is the best strategy. Admit you are at fault right from the start when talking to the judge. Give him the info you have gathered on potentially life threatening motor vehicle infractions for comparison, and make the plea for a reduced fine. Just like your post says "does this penalty really fit the crime?"

Good luck.

[Colt45]

Heads: Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine

Tails: Street Kings

[Bernardini]

I agree that the price of the ticket is WAY too high considering the "crime". Seems like the high fee is just a way for the municipality to raise funds more than anything.

[Foz]

Ah, yes... the old "I was just following orders" defense. Classic.

Not a big fan of gov't taxes in any form since it's too easily (and often) abused to plump up the coffers. And as others have stated, this sort of fine was clearly only intended to generate revenue. Rather than cutting costs, gov'ts tend to increase their revenue however they can (taxes, fines, etc.) in order to continue along with their ridiculous levels of spending.

As for the cop bashing... well... I liked cops just fine when I was a kid. You know, Officer Friendly and all that. But I've seen such a militarization of the police forces over the years that I can't help but dislike them in general now. I can honestly say that I met more [moderated] cops in Seattle (where I grew up) compared to what I've seen in North Dakota (been here 14 years now), but I can also say that's probably relative to the population in general (far more [moderated] in Seattle in general). But I absolutely resent seeing the cops around here rolling through town in black AFVs. Because Fargo or Grand Forks needs cops in tanks to keep us safe. Yeah, okay... I would like law enforcement in general a lot more if they didn't run around pretending to be Call of Duty operators. Officer Friendly is now Officer No-Knock.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

Whilst I disagree entirely with revenue raising in the form of issuing on the spot fines, I don't really see fines as much of a 'money tree'. If people don't pay them, the govt has to pay to chase up the debt, if people still don't pay them, the govt has to pay other govt agencies to impose sanctions (i.e suspend licence, cancel vehicle registration etc). If they still don't pay the govt has the option to have a warrant issued to imprison the person to otherwise 'pay off the debt' with incarceration....All of this costs a phenomenal amount of money which dwarfs the originally issued fine.... trust me - not everyone that is issued a fine ever actually pays it, the cost in issuing and enforcing the payment of a fine far outweighs the sum of the fine itself. Especially for stupid minor offences with a comparatively high fine cost - such as the one issued to the OP.

As for your thoughts about cops. Fair enough, each to their own.... however, and I mean absolutely no offence or assumptions by this, but one wonders why it is you are meeting so many 'dickhead cops' in the first place? People don't generally interact with the cops repeatedly (or at all) unless they are repeatedly victims of crime (in which case, perhaps you need more cops on the street?) or repeat offenders of crime...

I would hazard a guess that if the 'militaristic' cops were not out on the street where you reside, you would be the first wanting them to return... as much as you may like to think that the world would be a better place, unfortunately human beings run the total spectrum from being good people, to being absolute lowlife's and everything in between. Be thankful you can pick up the phone and call for help if and when you need it, with the full knowledge that these 'call of duty operators' will rush to your aid, no questions asked.

[Nedule]

Thanks for the advice but I told him that as the inspector was writing the ticket. So there was no chance he was going to let me go with a warning. The cop said he agreed and that he would have rather been investigating real crimes, but that a complaint had been put on the mayors desk and that he had the city inspector with him for that reason.

Once I left I met a few other dog owners, one old lady had been walking in the park area and she also got a ticket. They weren't there to give out warnings, no matter what you had to say.

I think we're missing the obvious here. It's Montreal/Quebec, it is la belle province, but also the la province that has a law system that's totally unique from the rest of Canada, also a unique culture to go along with it. And don't get me wrong, I love the place, my dad was born & raised in Montreal/Chateauguay. But for those of us who know the culture, Quebec is a place where some rules are held loosely & then some they will take to the death. I'm sure if you had offered them each $50 to walk away & never speak of the event again, the cop probably would have taken it , city inspector may also have taken but either way would have still issued the ticket. I remember visiting there as a young teenager & it was common knowledge that under age kids could easily buy smokes & beer at the depanneur (convenience store).

[shlomo]

I think we're missing the obvious here. It's Montreal/Quebec, it is la belle province, but also the la province that has a law system that's totally unique from the rest of Canada, also a unique culture to go along with it. And don't get me wrong, I love the place, my dad was born & raised in Montreal/Chateauguay. But for those of us who know the culture, Quebec is a place where some rules are held loosely & then some they will take to the death. I'm sure if you had offered them each $50 to walk away & never speak of the event again, the cop probably would have taken it , city inspector may also have taken but either way would have still issued the ticket. I remember visiting there as a young teenager & it was common knowledge that under age kids could easily buy smokes & beer at the depanneur (convenience store).

Or you can face jail time with trying to bribe an officer of the law...but you know...no biggie...lol

[...]

I think we're missing the obvious here. It's Montreal/Quebec, it is la belle province, but also the la province that has a law system that's totally unique from the rest of Canada, also a unique culture to go along with it. And don't get me wrong, I love the place, my dad was born & raised in Montreal/Chateauguay. But for those of us who know the culture, Quebec is a place where some rules are held loosely & then some they will take to the death. I'm sure if you had offered them each $50 to walk away & never speak of the event again, the cop probably would have taken it , city inspector may also have taken but either way would have still issued the ticket. I remember visiting there as a young teenager & it was common knowledge that under age kids could easily buy smokes & beer at the depanneur (convenience store).

Yeah... how long since your last visit to the Belle Province and city of Montreal? Try giving money to a police officer and see where it takes you...

[Nedule]

Or you can face jail time with trying to bribe an officer of the law...but you know...no biggie...lol

Yeah... how long since your last visit to the Belle Province and city of Montreal? Try giving money to a poilce officer and see where it takes you...

Well I guess times do change, it's has been a 10 years or so since my last visit. I'll take the local's advise & not bribe cops any more. Although is it still acceptable in the smaller townships?

[Nedule]

I'll take no response as a

[ptrthgr8]

Whilst I disagree entirely with revenue raising in the form of issuing on the spot fines, I don't really see fines as much of a 'money tree'. If people don't pay them, the govt has to pay to chase up the debt, if people still don't pay them, the govt has to pay other govt agencies to impose sanctions (i.e suspend licence, cancel vehicle registration etc). If they still don't pay the govt has the option to have a warrant issued to imprison the person to otherwise 'pay off the debt' with incarceration....All of this costs a phenomenal amount of money which dwarfs the originally issued fine.... trust me - not everyone that is issued a fine ever actually pays it, the cost in issuing and enforcing the payment of a fine far outweighs the sum of the fine itself. Especially for stupid minor offences with a comparatively high fine cost - such as the one issued to the OP.

As for your thoughts about cops. Fair enough, each to their own.... however, and I mean absolutely no offence or assumptions by this, but one wonders why it is you are meeting so many 'dickhead cops' in the first place? People don't generally interact with the cops repeatedly (or at all) unless they are repeatedly victims of crime (in which case, perhaps you need more cops on the street?) or repeat offenders of crime...

I would hazard a guess that if the 'militaristic' cops were not out on the street where you reside, you would be the first wanting them to return... as much as you may like to think that the world would be a better place, unfortunately human beings run the total spectrum from being good people, to being absolute lowlife's and everything in between. Be thankful you can pick up the phone and call for help if and when you need it, with the full knowledge that these 'call of duty operators' will rush to your aid, no questions asked.

I think you misunderstood my point re: fines being revenue streams for gov't. It's not that fines are issued to offset the cost of whatever resources were used to issue the fine in the first place. Fines are essentially taxes - the gov't uses these fines to add funds to their coffers. There's certainly a punitive element to it, too, but you don't need a monetary fine to deliver a punishment. It's all about the money. Gov'ts like to spend lots of money, so they need to generate lots of revenue.

The comment about [moderated] cops was in reference to those cops who walk around like they're swingin' a [moderated] just because they have a badge and a gun. I've never been arrested and have only been pulled over a couple of times in my life. Many - not all, but many - of the cops I met in Seattle (either as a member of Joe Public, or as an employee at a store, or through my mother who worked for the Seattle PD) were cocky as hell, thought they were better than the "citizens" (which always [moderated] since I'm pretty sure cops are still citizens, too), and were just general ass-hats. With a badge and a gun. Cops in North Dakota are generally friendlier and seem to be more helpful, but there are [moderated] in every crowd.

The cops driving around in up-armored Humvees and AFVs can go away and never be seen again as far as I'm concerned. North Dakota doesn't need cops with tanks to keep the peace. And I guess the cops in Sydney are better than the ones anywhere in the US. Generally speaking, cops in the States don't stop crimes - they only show up after it's happened. Like you said - call them and they'll show up, but not in time to keep anything from happening. Many of the courts in the US have already recognized that the cops don't really have a duty to "protect" because they can't always be there when they're really needed. You're far more likely to save your own skin by whatever means (that's me trying to avoid another gun debate thread LOL) than you are to have a cop pull your fat out of the fryer. In most instances they just "rush to your aid" to take down reports. I'm not sure why they need military gear for that.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

Edited November 6, 2014 by Fuzz
Language

[CaptainQuintero]

Wasn't there a court ruling in the US a few years ago that set out a precedent which stated that the police are there to protect society not individuals?

[Ptowncigar]

Maybe North Dakota cops can round up the crimals with a horse and wagon, great. As a former paramedic and now police officer, I deserve to go home to my family when the crap really hits the fan with the help of a armored vehicle. If seeing that armored vehicle hurts your feelings, great. Easy to critize without walking in a law enforcement officers shoes.

[ptrthgr8]

Maybe North Dakota cops can round up the crimals with a horse and wagon, great. As a former paramedic and now police officer, I deserve to go home to my family when the crap really hits the fan with the help of a armored vehicle. If seeing that armored vehicle hurts your feelings, great. Easy to critize without walking in a law enforcement officers shoes.

You're helping me to make my point. Let's say for a moment that North Dakota LEOs could round up criminals with a horse and wagon... they're not. That's my point exactly. Instead of using what's needed, they acquire USGI surplus AFVs (which would be more at home on the streets of Falluja) to supposedly keep the peace in places like Fargo, North Dakota. What purpose can that possibly serve, other than to show the public that the local cops are capable of bringing military-style firepower to bear upon whoever deserves it?

Your comments are sort of what I pointed out in an earlier post. Your comments seem to imply that you don't care about the opinion of the tax payers, even though they pay your salary and buy your gear. They don't like it? Tough bananas, I guess. Who are they to tell me how I should or shouldn't do my job? Am I right? I may never have been a cop, but that doesn't mean I don't get a say in the matter. I work my ass off for my income so I can support my family. A large portion of what I earn goes to the gov't. So as long as cops and other gov't entities are funding themselves from the labor of the people they're supposed to be protecting and serving, you'll have to forgive people like me for having concerns about the way cops are spending our money.

[Ptowncigar]

Are you saying LEO doesn't deserve to have the best equipment available to them provided by the tax payer? I'm sure you work your ass off and do pay taxes that put food on my table. But, do you risk your life everytime punch that time card? Your family would want you to have the best equipment if you were taking that risk everyday. Maybe more parades for police officers killed in the line duty is what people would rather see then what they think are "military style firepower."

[...]

Are you saying LEO doesn't deserve to have the best equipment available to them provided by the tax payer? I'm sure you work your ass off and do pay taxes that put food on my table. But, do you risk your life everytime punch that time card? Your family would want you to have the best equipment if you were taking that risk everyday. Maybe more parades for police officers killed in the line duty is what people would rather see then what they think are "military style firepower."

I agree to some extent to both of you but there is a bit of strawman in each of your comments guys...

[Ptowncigar]

Strawman? I'm sorry I don't know the reference.

[...]

Strawman argument. Look it up. To sum it up, it's an argumentative technique in which someones debates an argument his opponent did not actually make.

Example... Party a says 'cops shouldn't use military power if there are alternative options'

Party B answers 'Why don't you want cops to use any means to defend themselves'

There is a world between the two...

[Ptowncigar]

I did and I see. Thx

[CanuckSARTech]

You're helping me to make my point. Let's say for a moment that North Dakota LEOs could round up criminals with a horse and wagon... they're not. That's my point exactly. Instead of using what's needed, they acquire USGI surplus AFVs (which would be more at home on the streets of Falluja) to supposedly keep the peace in places like Fargo, North Dakota. What purpose can that possibly serve, other than to show the public that the local cops are capable of bringing military-style firepower to bear upon whoever deserves it?

Your comments are sort of what I pointed out in an earlier post. Your comments seem to imply that you don't care about the opinion of the tax payers, even though they pay your salary and buy your gear. They don't like it? Tough bananas, I guess. Who are they to tell me how I should or shouldn't do my job? Am I right? I may never have been a cop, but that doesn't mean I don't get a say in the matter. I work my ass off for my income so I can support my family. A large portion of what I earn goes to the gov't. So as long as cops and other gov't entities are funding themselves from the labor of the people they're supposed to be protecting and serving, you'll have to forgive people like me for having concerns about the way cops are spending our money.

Just because they could doesn't mean they should.

Bad guys up the ante. Trust me, whether you or I like it, us cops need to do likewise.

Also - how do you know what's needed? How do you know what intel they had (or didn't) that caused their decision for a tactical posture, to get that gear? There are checks and balances in place - sometimes, the uneducated citizen (in an intel perspective) is not the proper one to determine what's needed or not, just by looking at the outward face of things.

I'm in a unique position in Canada as a military police officer. Very much a stradle of two lines, with both "normal" citizenry, and the military aspect. So, with everything we do, "militarization" or not doesn't so much come into play - it's somewhat expected.

But, you make the assertion that because North Dakota is a vast, open, lovely state, that cops shouldn't use or have urban-combat-style equipment. I'd put to you that in your area, while the proportion of "bad guys" may be small, they're even more likely to have "heavy firepower" (rifles, etc.) than simple pistols (more common in North American urban areas). Well, the more penetrating power of that firearm, leads to a need for a heavier capability of both defense mechanism (plates, armour, etc.) and offense mechanism (equal or higher firepower) on the part of police.

[CanuckSARTech]

And since I've broke my silence on this....

Do I agree with you that militarization of the police in the U.S. (and elsewhere) is a spiraling-out-of-control issue? ABSOLUTELY! But does it have it's valid reasons? Unfortunately, yes also. If you don't want police "militarization" (which is a funny thought, as police are para-military to begin with), then stronger social controls have to be brought into play. You and I have talked about it before, and we're both gun lovers. Even ASIDE from what I do for work, me, as just Joe-citizen gun lover, if I had further restrictions placed on me (as we do in Canada), and it meant that there was less of a need for police militarization then, and it was tangible in the stats that it worked, I would be ALL for it. But, you don't have that on that side of the border. So, if you want Joe-citizen freedoms, you have to deal with the repercussions of that.

Whether any of us like it or not, police are MANDATED by law, government's expectations, social contract, etc., etc. to meet any negative actions or force by bad guys with an EQUIVALENT OR HIGHER LEVEL OF FORCE to repel or stop the negative actions. Sometimes - that leads to a necessity of "militarization".

Is policing mostly "reactive"? Unfortunately yes again. But, unless society wants to at least double their town's/state's/area's policing budgets, the penny-pinchers won't allow us to really have the amount of cops walking a beat as what's needed to be truly proactive. So, being that action is always generally quicker and more efficient than reaction (when it comes to reaction time), yes, the old adage of "when you need a cop in seconds, help is only a few minutes away" is true. So, I'm fully appreciative and understanding of home defense or whatnot to assist in that measure. But when bad guy pops into your backyard BBQ with your family, and he has one of those new pump shotguns with a 20-round capacity spitting out 00-buck or 1oz slugs at you from a few yards away, and you have your pistol with 15-rounds or so, would you not want a cop responding with an M4 / C8 / carbine / AR weapon?

Sorry to have taken this off of the track a bit...

But, while I've relatively bit my tongue on this, and while my time in "the life" is relatively minimal, the cliches from members of Joe-public quite frequently are exasperating. "Jack-hole cops", "attitude swinging", "I tell the cop he coulda found a REAL crime to deal with", "demanded his badge number", "I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway, but it's just a SMALL offense" or "only for a split second", "everyone else was speeding, but you're just picking on me", "I know there's no point in arguing, but I wanted to give him a piece of my mind otherwise", "I pay your taxes" etc., etc., etc. [sIDE NOTE - I absolutely LOVE this "I pay your taxes thing"; hey, I'll be glad to give you 2 cents worth of compassion and assistance then, LOL. Two-cents-worth of my time to listen to your caught-red-handed excuses. People generally pay more toward healthcare or education than any individual pays into policing - I love to see someone being rational and trying to say "I pay your taxes" when a doctor gives you a bad diagnosis, or a teacher gives your kid a failing grade.]

It's frustrating. We don't create the laws. You don't like them - vote, run for council, do whatever, and get the laws changed. Yes, we police do have "officer discretion", and sometimes choose to give warnings instead, and sometimes even choose to ignore seeing extremely minor offences. But, we're humans, and sometimes have bad days.

I grew up with pets. My favourite was a Siberian husky and timberwolf cross - the most well-behaved and tame dog I've ever met or seen. She, off-leash, would not walk further than about 5 feet from my side, was extremely obedient, and would, rather than snap at it, let her nose get bit by a blackfly and then yelp and cower. At the same time, I've seen her stand and act aggressively and defensively when needed and called upon by me.

At the same time, I was mauled when I was in Grade 3 by a relative's dog. A cocker spaniel / collie mix (I believe it was), no less. Not a sign of aggressiveness before or after. Extremely well trained, and well treated by my Aunt and Uncle. Nothing to think it would happen prior to that event.

I have no patience for whining after the fact. Can the punishment sometimes be more graver than the offence??? Hell yes. Be aware and knowledgeable before hand then.

Is the offense amount higher in this case than passing a school bus? The OP states so - I'll defer to that info, as I'm not in Quebec currently, and not fully up to par with the knowledge of those fine amounts (us cops use "short form wording books" with fine amounts key-coded in there, 'cause our maths lurning ain't too good sumtimes!)

Perhaps the local council / government decided to set the fines so ridiculously high as maybe they found people were flaunting the law otherwise? Maybe someone recently had a loved one attacked or bit, so they've upped the fine amount, and are going on a blitz, as that could have been ordered by local governments due to pressure from neighbourhood groups? Who knows.

All this to say - if there's a leash law in place where you take your pet, obey it. As the Dalai Lama once said, "one must fully know the rules to know how to properly break them". If you intend to go off-leash, know the offence's punishment amounts BEFOREHAND, and be prepared to pay. Don't ***** and moan after. "It was only for a second" is tripe and juvenille, IMO with regards to this. Don't like it? Buy a property where your pet can run more freely, go to an off-leash dog park, don't buy a pet if you're urban-locked, obey the rules in the first place, etc.

Im gonna quote my inner-Trekker here (even though I'm more of a Star Wars fan - true dat!)....Laws are made, decided on, voted on, come into being, etc., all for the betterment of society. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few [/one]". Laws, and policing concepts, are there for that. The courts on the other hand, balance that out in the other way. If you as Joe-citizen don't like it, well, maybe it was a law that was made for the betterment and happy-living of the other 999-out-of-a-thousand people in your neighbourhood/area around you.

[Foz]

You're helping me to make my point. Let's say for a moment that North Dakota LEOs could round up criminals with a horse and wagon... they're not. That's my point exactly. Instead of using what's needed, they acquire USGI surplus AFVs (which would be more at home on the streets of Falluja) to supposedly keep the peace in places like Fargo, North Dakota. What purpose can that possibly serve, other than to show the public that the local cops are capable of bringing military-style firepower to bear upon whoever deserves it?

Your comments are sort of what I pointed out in an earlier post. Your comments seem to imply that you don't care about the opinion of the tax payers, even though they pay your salary and buy your gear. They don't like it? Tough bananas, I guess. Who are they to tell me how I should or shouldn't do my job? Am I right? I may never have been a cop, but that doesn't mean I don't get a say in the matter. I work my ass off for my income so I can support my family. A large portion of what I earn goes to the gov't. So as long as cops and other gov't entities are funding themselves from the labor of the people they're supposed to be protecting and serving, you'll have to forgive people like me for having concerns about the way cops are spending our money.

If the police there have those vehicles, they have obviously demonstrated a need for them. Particularly in the United States, the firepower and self defence equipment that is accessible there is astonishing (your average joe citizen here can't even buy bulletproof vests or pepper spray or CEW's - they're illegal). For your safety and that of the community's I would hope that the police have more than the upper hand in terms of equipment, they are human beings and would love to go home safe after a shift, just like you. If that means some of the cops roll around in AFV's, then so be it and - in all seriousness - what concern is it of yours? You are a law abiding citizen that has no need to interact with police on a regular basis.... Who cares what they drive around in.

In relation to the old 'my taxes pay your salary argument' - the average police officer out on the street really shouldn't be in a position to have to take this into account. An officer is primarily duty bound to protect life and property, keep the peace and enforce law without thought (within reason) to the financial cost of them doing so. By the logic of your statement, that an officer should take into account the tax payers opinion, you would then have police officers making decisions that were based on the wide ranging financial implications of their actions. Not really ideal as it leaves an officer to form the belief that your matter isn't that serious, they could simply say "sorry mate, cost benefit analysis - can't help you". Whilst this would save money, the community would not get a police force they require and deserve. If you take issue with the expense that your local police impose on your tax bill (minor), take it up with your government, not the officer's themselves, they pay their taxes just like you do and have no say in how they are spent.

I think you misunderstood my point re: fines being revenue streams for gov't. It's not that fines are issued to offset the cost of whatever resources were used to issue the fine in the first place. Fines are essentially taxes - the gov't uses these fines to add funds to their coffers. There's certainly a punitive element to it, too, but you don't need a monetary fine to deliver a punishment. It's all about the money. Gov'ts like to spend lots of money, so they need to generate lots of revenue.

I don't believe I missed your point, I was merely trying to suggest to you that whilst they do add money to the coffers just like taxes, compared to other sources of government revenue (i.e actual taxes etc) they provide very small amounts of income to the government. On top of that, as I outlined, they cost a hell of a lot more money to collect than actual taxes do. If you offset the cost of issuing the fines and enforcement of the fines and other associated cost, the actual amount of revenue obtained by the govt from fines is comparatively very small. Trying to assert that they are a dependable revenue stream for government is, imo, a bit of a stretch... If everyone just did the right thing, this revenue would dry up - easy way to stop the revenue stream.... of course that will never happen

Monetary fines will always be the preferred choice of punishment by the judicial system because they hit people where it hurts and acts as a deterrent thus serving both the community's need to see justice done and to deter offending.