cops sink to new lows to give you a ticket...HOBO-COPS

[freespirit]

Police-panhandlers pick out distracted drivers

http://autos.sympatico.ca/auto-news/13707/police-panhandlers-pick-out-distracted-drivers

http://autos.sympatico.ca/docs/sizes/4fa2aa482f14d/large/128577-large-04_hobo-cop-distracted-driver.jpg


A tactic drawn up by some outside-the-box thinkers with the RCMP in B.C. is catching on in the rest of the country: "hobo cops."

The idea is to dress up police officers as panhandlers with cardboard signs so that they can get in close enough to cars at traffic lights to pick out distracted drivers.

The undercover officers then radio nearby patrol cars to pull over people caught driving while on their cell phone or texting, explains CTV.

Often the police officer's cardboard sign gives away the scheme, explaining "My name is Constable —. If you're on your phone, you're about to get a ticket."

"It's a very, very successful campaign," said Halton, Ontario police Sgt. Chantal Corner.

"There are many people out there who are not abiding by new laws and they are not putting their cellphones down."

Police in her district in Burlington put the tactic to use as part of a four-day campaign, "Project Disconnect," launched April 30. They ticketed 121 distracted drivers in just six hours.

The "hobo cops" tactic was apparently kicked off in March by RCMP Constable Bryan Martell in Chilliwack, B.C. From there it spread to other police departments in the province, then to Ottawa, Ontario last month.

Now it's being picked up in cities around Toronto.

The National Post reports that the tactic, while effective, is getting some negative feedback. John Clarke with the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty says these cops are giving panhandlers a bad name.

"They are displacing people who are trying to survive by panhandling," says Clarke.

"The level of social cutbacks is such that, for panhandlers, there are no survival margins at all. And from a general decency point of view, it is a sneaky and unsavoury tactic.”

Some drivers are also upset with these new campaigns. In Burlington, two drivers tried to flee the undercover officers but were caught, says Corner.

Another said she was frightened by someone she thought was a beggar and grabbed her cell phone to try to send them a message.

That driver, Allison Boyles, plans to dispute her ticket in court, but the undercover hobo-cop is sticking to his story, that she was already on the phone when she drove up, before he knocked on her window with his police badge in hand.

Corner says a vast majority of drivers – 90 percent, she estimates – have given the tactic a thumbs-up.

What's your take on the "hobo cop" tactic? Is it fair?

[willie pete]

rogue state revenue agents

[joboo]

Way to exploit the poor for profit. Welcome to a new level of low.

[Serpo]

Thats not a new low ....................they have found their place in society and fit in well................

[MNeagle]

Wonder how long before it hits the states? Or customs at the border?

[vacuum]

How do they know if you're texting?

[Gaillo]

Fukin' bums! Go get a (real) job! :(

[still afloat]

I'm sorry your honor , I felt threatened by the man in disguise approaching my car so was using my phone to call for assistance.

"The idea is to dress up police officers as panhandlers with cardboard signs so that they can get in close enough to cars at traffic lights to pick out distracted drivers."

Even if I wasn't on a cell phone , if he came up to my car at a traffic light I'd be distracted .

[madfranks]

"It's a very, very successful campaign," said Halton, Ontario police Sgt. Chantal Corner.

I guess that depends on which side of the money you're on.

[joboo]

Poll results

75% Great idea
25% Unethical

Undercover traffic cops...people loving it.

[Santa]

It's against the law for a pig to impersonate a human.

[milehi]

When you go to court for this, make sure both the observing officer and the ticketing officer are present, like an aircraft observed speeding ticket.

[hoarder]

I'd have to yell "Get a job!".

[solid]

This type of sting is a target to make a statement, to get folks to pay attention.

Everyone's on their cell phone while driving. Studies show it's just as dangerous as being drunk behind the wheel.

The cops figure, spend one weekend, make the NEWS as bums catching folks breaking the law. They issue a few well deserved tickets, and maybe...more folks will be more responsible behind the wheel.

As long as they issue enough tickets to pay their overtime, your taxes won't be affected. All the time, if they prevent one innocent victim from being killed by an asshole on the phone, it's worth it.

[ximmy]

The police want you to be safe. Please don't think they do this to increase revenue...

[solid]

The police want you to be safe. Please don't think they do this to increase revenue...

If they can keep folks safe and increase revenue, they will. That's what this thread is about.

[freespirit]

If they can keep folks safe and increase revenue, they will. That's what this thread is about.

that may be what the article was about, but the reason i posted it was to illustrate the lengths they will go to in order to "tax" the general public. while these clowns are playing dress up to write tickets how many people were mugged, raped, murdered, etc.?

they should be focusing on the serious crimes, not on the minor infraction crowd.
what's next? make it illegal to adjust your radio station or use your cigarette lighter while driving?

[solid]

Freespirit, at least they have an excuse.

The next time anyone says "my son was killed by someone driving talking on their cell phone, what do you people do?"

The cops can say, we dressed up as hobos and busted some folks. We did our part.

Being a cop...isn't anymore about doing what's right, it's about covering your ass.

You shoot a guy...your whole world changes, the media, BS, yet...don't shoot, and he kills someone. You got there too late. You are then a 'report writer', good for nothing. Being a cop is basically "everything you do is wrong" no matter WHAT the outcome.

I don't blame cops for not giving a fuck. I wouldn't anymore. Everyone hates you anyway. Might as well man up, and do what you feel is right.

[freespirit]

Freespirit, at least they have an excuse.

The next time anyone says "my son was killed by someone driving talking on their cell phone, what do you people do?"

The cops can say, we dressed up as hobos and busted some folks. We did our part.

Being a cop...isn't anymore about doing what's right, it's about covering your ass.

You shoot a guy...your whole world changes, the media, BS, yet...don't shoot, and he kills someone. You got there too late. You are then a 'report writer', good for nothing. Being a cop is basically "everything you do is wrong" no matter WHAT the outcome.

I don't blame cops for not giving a fuck. I wouldn't anymore. Everyone hates you anyway. Might as well man up, and do what you feel is right.

according to the OP, they are approaching people at traffic lights. call it splitting hairs if you like, but last time i checked, it was not illegal to talk on your cell phone while stopped in your vehicle.

[solid]

according to the OP, they are approaching people at traffic lights. call it splitting hairs if you like, but last time i checked, it was not illegal to talk on your cell phone while stopped in your vehicle.

I don't think it's illegal while stopped, but while moving.

I'm against a lot of things cops do. But honestly, I don't think anyone should be texting while driving, looking at facebook while driving, downloading porn...you name it. Our families are on the roads. Bad accidents happen all the time because people are unaware, they don't know. Just a week or so ago, in my neighborhood. A kid texting, 17 years old, loses control and kills a man and his daughter, walking on the sidewalk. They weren't even in a car. Man, daughter dead, a second daughter was injured but lived.

17 year old kid, texting, while driving. Shouldn't have happened.

[freespirit]

I don't think anyone should be texting while driving, looking at facebook while driving, downloading porn...you name it.


you're absolutely right, Solid...but i don't need a law to tell me it's a bad idea.

[solid]

you're absolutely right, Solid...but i don't need a law to tell me it's a bad idea.

Well, tell the 17 year old kid it's a bad idea.

[freespirit]

Well, tell the 17 year old kid it's a bad idea.

if he was smart enough to get a driver's license, he should have been smart enough to know not to text while driving.

the cell phone didn't cause the accident, the 17 yr old driver's stupidity did. they teach this stuff (dangers of distracted driving) in driver's ed.

(not trying to detract from the seriousness of that particular story, Solid...)

[solid]

(not trying to detract from the seriousness of that particular story, Solid...)

No worries, we all shouldn't be blamed for the stupidity of that kid.

However, people aren't smart. For the most part, people are idiots. This is why we have these stupid laws to begin with. I personally am not going to drive and text, so I don't care about the law. I'm not stupid enough to break that law anyway. The asshole behind me might.

Honestly, some laws take our freedom away. Some don't, some are actually for GOOD reasons. This is one of them, imo.

[freespirit]

No worries, we all shouldn't be blamed for the stupidity of that kid.

However, people aren't smart. For the most part, people are idiots. This is why we have these stupid laws to begin with. I personally am not going to drive and text, so I don't care about the law. I'm not stupid enough to break that law anyway. The asshole behind me might.

Honestly, some laws take our freedom away. Some don't, some are actually for GOOD reasons. This is one of them, imo.

i hear you, Solid...

imo, i think that driver's education should be a mandatory part of the licensing process, especially for new drivers. in most cases, the student gets a break on their insurance as well. if it were mandatory, new drivers would be much more conscientious about their driving, and act in a safer manner. you wouldn't fly a plane without taking lessons first, ya know?

i think it better to educate people of the dangers than to just tax them by writing tickets.

[sirgonzo420]

Some people have jobs in which they must at times be on the phone and drive at the same time.

The point is, if it's your car do what you want in it.

If someone runs over my hypothetical toddler, I wouldn't give a flying fuck how drunk or sober he was or who he was texting or whatever.

In fact, on the road I'd rather being surrounded by drunk drivers on the phone who *don't* hit me than one sober phone-less driver who DOES hit me.

You don't violate anybody's rights until you violate their rights.

Someone on their phone in their car is not a violation of anybody's rights.

[solid]

True, if people can learn. Unfortunately some folks will only learn when they get a ticket. When it hits their pocketbook. I'm not agreeing with that, but it's true. A person who gets a ticket for texting while driving, is less likely to text again in the future. Therefore, the roads are that much safer.
uy
For example, getting on the bridge, I never realized I was using a commuter lane. A $200 ticket taught me that lesson. I haven't made that mistake since.

It's definitely better to educate folks rather than tax them. But consider this, any hammerhead, can buy a 100 foot boat, no license, no idea on any thing seaward. They can take that boat out, and crash into a bridge potentially. The laws haven't really got here to boating. You wouldn't believe the things I've seen on the water.

[solid]

If someone runs over my hypothetical toddler, I wouldn't give a flying fuck how drunk or sober he was or who he was texting or whatever.

You can't get your toddler back though. That's the point, life is fragile. The whole point is to protect your toddler from the idiots out there.

[sirgonzo420]

True, if people can learn. Unfortunately some folks will only learn when they get a ticket. When it hits their pocketbook. I'm not agreeing with that, but it's true. A person who gets a ticket for texting while driving, is less likely to text again in the future. Therefore, the roads are that much safer.
uy
For example, getting on the bridge, I never realized I was using a commuter lane. A $200 ticket taught me that lesson. I haven't made that mistake since.

It's definitely better to educate folks rather than tax them. But consider this, any hammerhead, can buy a 100 foot boat, no license, no idea on any thing seaward. They can take that boat out, and crash into a bridge potentially. The laws haven't really got here to boating. You wouldn't believe the things I've seen on the water.

Freedom is scary, solid.

Personal responsibility can be scary.

I'm not mocking you, it is scary. There are risks.


Even with all the risks inherent in a truly free society, man is still most "secure" when he is free.


And you weren't doing a damn thing wrong for being in the commuter lane!


Shit, if "safety" and "saving lives" is what counts, everything would be safer if we all lived in mandatory government-regulated bubbles.

I like life and all, but I like freedom more.

[sirgonzo420]

You can't get your toddler back though. That's the point, life is fragile. The whole point is to protect your toddler from the idiots out there.

Most drivers who cause accidents are not drunk.

The issue isn't "drunk driving", it's people using poor judgment and causing accidents in the first place.

[solid]

I like life and all, but I like freedom more.

You must understand I'm an idealist.

Ideally, I'd like the idiots stopped from hurting the rest of us, and the rest of us left alone to be free.

I understand that's not going to happen. But, there has to be some compromise. This is why I'm in favor of some of these 'annoying' laws. Nobody, responsible is going to text while driving, obviously, because of the hazards it causes the rest of us. Why not teach the idiots a lesson who are stupid enough to not get it?

Heck, if it saves one life from being lost, to me it's worth it.

[sirgonzo420]

You must understand I'm an idealist.

Ideally, I'd like the idiots stopped from hurting the rest of us, and the rest of us left alone to be free.

I understand that's not going to happen. But, there has to be some compromise. This is why I'm in favor of some of these 'annoying' laws. Nobody, responsible is going to text while driving, obviously, because of the hazards it causes the rest of us. Why not teach the idiots a lesson who are stupid enough to not get it?

Heck, if it saves one life from being lost, to me it's worth it.

What if it causes one life to be lost? Hell, often cops are run over at the side of the road while they are giving frivolous traffic tickets!

If I am on the phone, and driving down the road at the same time, and am not causing any harm to anyone, why should anyone have the right to interfere with my life? Why should it be permissible for someone to arrest (a stop is a de facto arrest) me if I decide I need to travel 75 mph to reach my destination on time when the State thinks I'm compelled to stay under 70?

[LastResort]

You can't legislate away stupidity...

This is just another tax grab on the people.

[solid]

If I am on the phone, and driving down the road at the same time, and am not causing any harm to anyone, why should anyone have the right to interfere with my life?

Newton's second law. Your several thousand pound vehicle at speed is a potential deadly weapon. While you may be looking at your phone to dial a number, someone's son or daughter may be riding a bicycle nearby.

Let me ask you this. Another potential deadly weapon is a firearm. If you were at a gun range, saw someone pointing a gun at a child by mistake (he was looking at his phone not paying attention). What would you do?

[SLV^GLD]

Ah, yes, think of the goddamned children... my fucking favorite.

[solid]

Ah, yes, think of the goddamned children... my fucking favorite.

OK, let's look at it from a different angle. Do we, have a right, to intervene when others compromise our safety? This is really the question that needs to be answered.

A car, is a tool, to get you from point A to point B. A gun is a tool, for self preservation, hunting, etc.

A car driving to run you over...is not a tool, but a deadly weapon at that time. You have all right to stop that threat. Just like a gun pointed at your head.

Negligence. If you see a man waving a loaded gun around innocent people, you can stop that threat. You have every right to intervene. If you see a car, with the driver acting negligently around your family, or any innocent people, do YOU have a right to intervene?

Furthermore, if you have a right, cops have a right too.

[collector]

Gotta love the "if it saves one life" argument - nothing like pre-crime is there? None of us have a right to "safety", we will pay a price in civil court if our actions harm another person but this vague notion of "your right to do what you like must be removed because it might possibly harm someone, and if you don't comply, we will charge you" is a bunch of crap. These laws aren't about keeping people safe any more than seatbelt laws are about keeping anyone safe - it's about revenue generation for the state. The insurance company has a vested interest in seeing that I'm buckled up but as for the state - there's no reason for their involvement in my choices. How are THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA harmed if i don't wear my seatbelt, or talk on the phone, or change the station on my radio?

[Son-of-Liberty]

Newton's second law. Your several thousand pound vehicle at speed is a potential deadly weapon. While you may be looking at your phone to dial a number, someone's son or daughter may be riding a bicycle nearby.

Let me ask you this. Another potential deadly weapon is a firearm. If you were at a gun range, saw someone pointing a gun at a child by mistake (he was looking at his phone not paying attention). What would you do?


OK, let's look at it from a different angle. Do we, have a right, to intervene when others compromise our safety? This is really the question that needs to be answered.

A car, is a tool, to get you from point A to point B. A gun is a tool, for self preservation, hunting, etc.

A car driving to run you over...is not a tool, but a deadly weapon at that time. You have all right to stop that threat. Just like a gun pointed at your head.

Negligence. If you see a man waving a loaded gun around innocent people, you can stop that threat. You have every right to intervene. If you see a car, with the driver acting negligently around your family, or any innocent people, do YOU have a right to intervene?

Furthermore, if you have a right, cops have a right too.

Firstly, if we were to take your argument as correct then with any distraction or potential distraction the same logic would apply. That would mean that talking to a passenger, eating or drinking, changing the radio, or picking your nose or scratching your balls should be a ticket-able offense. Obviously this is ridiculous and so is a law banning the use of a cell phone while driving.

Secondly your analogy is similar but different enough that I don't think it applies. You are comparing apples to oranges.

A vehicle's primary use is transportation. It has the potential to kill but that is not it's primary use. Guns were designed to kill. They really have no other use. Even when you are target practicing you are really just practicing killing something. So obviously if someone is pointing a gun at someone even by accident people have a right to intervene.

For your example to be similar the child would almost have to be out on the range near the line of fire. Which would be ludicrous. If the guy with the gun was so distracted he was pointing in the exact opposite direction of the range then that would be like a driver being so distracted that they drive over the sidewalk and kill someones kid in the front yard.

I agree with the others that have said that there has to be a damage for there to be a crime. Handing out tickets because something might happen is just revenue generation and is basically a form of pre-crime.

By that logic anything could be a weapon, any action dangerous. Choosing to drive to work in the morning is endangering children's lives. You never know when one of them might run out in front of you. Your front tire could blow out when someone is riding next to your car and you could run them off the road. I know that we want to get to work but if stopping driving will save just one life then it is worth it.

[solid]

If the guy with the gun was so distracted he was pointing in the exact opposite direction of the range then that would be like a driver being so distracted that they drive over the sidewalk and kill someones kid in the front yard. .

I posted earlier about a young 17 year old so distracted that he killed a man walking with his daughter, on the sidewalk. The father and daughter were not even on the street. He was holding her hand while walking. Why was the 17 year old driver so distracted? He was texting on his phone.

Personally, I think cars are more dangerous than guns. Anything can be a weapon though, if you pick up the chair you are sitting on and start swinging it at someone it becomes a potential deadly weapon.

I really think it's odd how brainwashed our society is. Everyone is terrified of guns, yet they get into 6,000 lb vehicles and drive them 70 mph on the freeway like it's nothing. They don't realize how great the amount of damage they can cause. People feel so entitled to do whatever stupid things they want to on the roads. Like they have a right to threaten other people's lives every day.

[mick silver]

people fall all the time , so next time lets give that people a ticket for falling because that people could die an cause someone else to die because he or she fell . what a fucking life we have to look forward too . hell you may just die because of a ticket too

[solid]

people fall all the time , so next time lets give that people a ticket for falling because that people could die an cause someone else to die because he or she fell . what a fucking life we have to look forward too . hell you may just die because of a ticket too

How do people fall and kill other people?

Falling is an accident. Driving a car through a family of people because you were looking at a phone, instead of a road, is negligence.

[mick silver]

like i said ......... get a life and stay out of mine ... you ever heard that before . just saying every thing will kill you if you let it . that whats wrong with this country right now , way to many telling other what good for them

[solid]

like i said ......... get a life and stay out of mine ... you ever heard that before . just saying every thing will kill you if you let it .

That's what I thought I was arguing for. I just want to be left alone. That means .gov, police, and the assholes who are stupid enough to try and drive a truck through my life. What's good for me is to not die because of someone else's stupidity.