I received a 14 hour violation, but there’s only one problem.........

For what reason should your trainee not have gotten a citation?

And when you compile all your data on officers what do you expect the outcome to be?

 

heat doesn't bother me the redundancy does

 

Rule of thumb: if you're caught in the hammer lane, you're automatically assumed to be speeding. That was youre only screw up.

 

Technically the officer was correct because the laws will likely say your headlights need to be on by sunset. The problem I’m bringing up is that it was not the reason for the stop. The officer thought the headlights were not working. Once I turned them on, and the officer saw the headlights were working, he changed motive and gave my trainee a violation for not having the lights on at sunset.

I think it’s messed up when officers give violations or citations for minor infractions. I remember when I was 16 years old and was unknowingly driving without my headlights on, and an officer flashed me while I was driving through the streets. Later I learned that he was telling me my lights were off. I did not get stopped. I know. All officers think differently.

 

Hopefully officers will be more sympathetic toward the public. I’m all for promoting safety, but citing drivers for accidentally not realizing their lights were not on at sunset, really? Heck, not even I realized it, and I was on the passenger seat while my trainee was driving. Next time you notice the sun sunsets, look around you, and you will notice that there is still plenty of light. I’m being serious.

 

Nah, I am referencing comment # 52 last sentence "What kind of officer gives out violations for not having your headlights on at sunset".

Looked like a question to me, but if you didn't intend it as a question, or you did not post it, or you forgot you did, or somewhere along the way you messed up and now trying to rationalize it instead of discarding it, that's ok.

 

Ok, devil’s advocate: For all the officer knew your truck had a bad relay and it would get hot and kill your lights. You were aware of the issue and were trying to drive with headlights off as long as you could trying to make it to your stop for the night. Really, just because you turned them on all he knew was that they’d be on at that moment.

I understand where you’re coming from but your trainee was in the wrong as you’ve admitted. If you’re out long enough you’ll be on both sides of the “letter of the law / spirit of the law” coin. But we don’t see how many B.S. stories they get probably daily during traffic stops for small stuff.

 

It’s called a rhetorical question. Look it up.

 

I wasn't trying to be the devil’s advocate, rather just giving PE one possible answer and if it doesn't answer the question it does provide some information, which anyone can accept or reject. Was enforcement asinine? Sure sounds like it to me!

 

Unicorns and rainbows.
Oh, can't forget world peace....

 

Without looking it up a rhetorical question makes a point. And your point was what, that the officer was diligently doing his job to the letter of the law or he was an ###? BTW when you end a question with a period, it's usually called an indirect question.