Stop Warning Motorists

I will continue to warn other drivers of the location I see a cop sitting at. The reason why is simple there are too many locals, county mounties, and DOTS who see truck drivers as rolling ATM machines. We don't have the time to take something to court to argue it, when we sit at home our wheels don't turn and thus we don't make money. Also, how many cars fly by us down the highway and aren't stopped, but a truck is for less speed? Sorry to me cops are just minor league corruption, they're pigs who haven't been voted into a higher office.

 

This doesn't do anything to stop all those other killers and rapists... the ones with the guns and badges. If I see Smokey setting a sneaky trap, I'll send a warning. If they're just cruising out in the open, I don't worry about it.

I actually got cussed out on the C.B. in Arizona because some hot-rod in a Peterwagon thought I shoulda warned him about the local getting ready to merge.

Sorry, dude. I may or may not give out a warning, but I don't owe anyone anything. Speed at your own risk.

 

The number of times an actual "criminal" is stopped and apprehended, compared to (mostly) honest/law-abiding citizens being stopped for minor infractions.....or even speeding is infinitesimally small.

 

All a cop wants you to do is slow down. If other motorists can help someone drive more safely, the cop can spend his/her time with more serious offenses.

 

...unless, of course, they're working to fill their superiors' coffers, then they'll act like the tax collectors many of them really are.

 

Yep, cops are only pigs and revenue collectors - until you actually need one.

 

Then they'll get there just in time to draw the chalk outlines. It's up to us to determine whose outlines get drawn. I know some decent cops, but
even they will tell ya, make no mistake, their job is NOT to serve OR protect. This has been repeated time and again by even the Supreme Court.

 

Can you name a particular Supreme Court case? I would like to better understand what you are stating. Most cops I have known took pride in serving and protecting.

 

I'll post one since I made the claim in the first place, but for more, Google is your friend.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

and more, just cuz it was so easy to find:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995). [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982). [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989). [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998 ). [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
[/FONT]



"Most cops I have known" is purely anecdotal, and I'm glad they take pride in helping folks out. Plenty of other people out there have found themselves on the other side of the equation, even when they have done nothing wrong.
My point is still that there is no legal requirement for them to protect you at all.

 

Thank you. I would have searched myself but your statement was rather broad, and there are a lot of court cases out there.