Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

nyc.streetsblog.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 156 posts

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#131

Post by hackeraccount »

palmotea wrote: post #106

> at more than 41 mph across the island Is Staten Island like Hawaii, where everyone drives slow? Because they're talking like 41 mph is super fast, but to me it's not that fast at all (here the interstate is 70 mph, arterial city streets are 40-50 mph, and people regularly speed).

If you get a camera ticket at 41 mph it's because you're driving in a zone where the limit is 30 which sounds pretty residential to me. Is that more or less dangerous then doing 76 mph on a highway? I don't know, it's the difference between hitting a pedestrian and another car so less dangerous for you but more dangerous for the other person involved.

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#133

Post by FireBeyond »

wahern wrote: post #127
FireBeyond wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FOP (Fraternal Order of Police). Also a thing in NY and NJ. Fun facts... the insignia you put on your license or on your car also has a thing like a registration tab... The FOP says its "to show your ongoing support", everyone else with a room temperature IQ knows its "to show you're 'paid up' on your protection money for the year". Oh, and some enterprising souls have created "counterfeit" FOP insignia and stick…

It's probably for the better they're taken down. In California, and perhaps NY and NJ, too, the status shows up on your DMV records, so when a cop runs your license or your plate (and I presume plates are scanned and run automatically), they'll see the discrepancy immediately. So someone is just asking for trouble by using fake stickers, just like if they went around flashing a gang sign when they're not actually a m…

That in itself blows my mind, why on earth should someone see your membership in this order? It's not a LE agency, and in many states the FOP allows membership for retired cops.

I do agree with what you're saying, though, but the issue to me is why that's even something that should show up when your plates are run, "Oh, you're a cop somewhere, or used to be".

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#134

Post by palmotea »

hackeraccount wrote: post #131
palmotea wrote: post #106

> at more than 41 mph across the island Is Staten Island like Hawaii, where everyone drives slow? Because they're talking like 41 mph is super fast, but to me it's not that fast at all (here the interstate is 70 mph, arterial city streets are 40-50 mph, and people regularly speed).

If you get a camera ticket at 41 mph it's because you're driving in a zone where the limit is 30 which sounds pretty residential to me. Is that more or less dangerous then doing 76 mph on a highway? I don't know, it's the difference between hitting a pedestrian and another car so less dangerous for you but more dangerous for the other person involved.

Seems like they should have phrased it differently, like "...he pilots a 4,800-pound RAM 1500 truck at more than 41 mph across through residential areas..."

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#135

Post by MiiMe19 »

iso1631 wrote: post #58
MiiMe19 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like guilty until proven innocent.

Not really, you are asked who was driving. If you are driving: You say "Me", then they give you the points You lie, say it "Bob", then you're guilty of perverting the course of justice. They then write to Bob, If Bob agrees, then he's also guilty of perverting the course of justice, but most of the time you'll both get away with it. If Bob disagrees, then they look more into it. If you refuse to answer then you're gu…

They could arrest you, because probable cause, but you would not have to plead guilty, which is what paying a ticket is. If speeding was an arrestable offense, they could arrest you but unless they could prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were driving they should not find you guilty. Plus what other commenter said about you can not force some one to incriminate themselves.

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#136

Post by nkrisc »

giantg2 wrote: post #103
nkrisc wrote: post #76

> The expert, former cop turned criminal justice professor Michael Alcazar, said Giovansanti should face “serious discipline.” But that’s not happening — an NYPD spokesperson shrugged off the suggestion of punishment because Giovansanti’s tickets are “not related to his job or his duties in the department.” This angers me. Police officers are granted special privileges that ordinary citizens are not, and should be he…

What that spokesperson is saying isn't the whole truth. Departments can discipline or terminate people who dont meet their character clause, including being a scofflaw. They only apply it in whatever way they feel benefits them.

That’s my point, essentially, that they chose not to fire such a BS reason that doesn’t even suffice.

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#137

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

nkrisc wrote: post #99
ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way we can trust an overweight doctor, a depressed therapist, a housecleaner who doesn't make their bed, or me to verify code I push to corporate repos even while I vibecode apps at home for fun without paying attention. I don't understand the basis for applying this standard to cops.

If I don't trust my doctor, I can ignore them and find a new doctor. If I don't trust my therapist, I can ignore them and find a new therapist. If I don't trust my housekeeper, I can fire them and hire a new housekeeper. If I don't trust a police officer, it doesn't matter. If they detain me and order me to step out of my vehicle, I have to comply under threat of the law and violence. I don't get to only listen to po…

Are you saying you don't trust the people I mentioned for the reasons I mentioned? That a doctor who has demostrated a reckless disregard for his health outside of the law etc. etc.? Like, I get why trust is more important in this context, but I don't think it's at all normal to assume someone can't do their job because of decisions they make in their personal life.

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#138

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

napoleond wrote: post #87
ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way we can trust an overweight doctor, a depressed therapist, a housecleaner who doesn't make their bed, or me to verify code I push to corporate repos even while I vibecode apps at home for fun without paying attention. I don't understand the basis for applying this standard to cops.

Each of those examples varies widely, and I don't think most people would treat each of them the same way. In general when the stakes are higher and the ambiguity of outcome is less clear, secondary signals become more important. Concretely: I don't give a shit if my housecleaner doesn't make their own bed as long as they make mine; the outcome I need is easy to verify and the stakes are fairly low so the secondary s…

In your version of the therapist example, you don't trust them to do their job because they are failing to do their job. This is fine by me. My issue is with punishing people at their job over actions taken outside of their job, as in the example under discussion.

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#139

Post by p_ing »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #128
p_ing wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, you have the right to face your accuser. Since that's not possible with a camera, photo-based enforcement becomes a non-moving violation. You can still point the finger at someone else when you get the ticket in the mail. Or just put a bunch of question marks in reply as it is on the State to prove their case, not for you to snitch on your own bad driving habits. At least that is how it works in the state…

That's obviously not true. Camera evidence is used as evidence of crimes all the time. Security cameras would be utterly worthless if they couldn't. Right to face your accuser in that context means that you have the right to cross-examine relevant witnesses about how that camera evidence was collected and applied.

Please read the remainder of the thread. Context matters. Pedantry, not so much.

Re: To Protect and Swerve: NYPD Cop Has 547 Speeding Tickets

#140

Post by wahern »

FireBeyond wrote: post #133
wahern wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably for the better they're taken down. In California, and perhaps NY and NJ, too, the status shows up on your DMV records, so when a cop runs your license or your plate (and I presume plates are scanned and run automatically), they'll see the discrepancy immediately. So someone is just asking for trouble by using fake stickers, just like if they went around flashing a gang sign when they're not actually a m…

That in itself blows my mind, why on earth should someone see your membership in this order? It's not a LE agency, and in many states the FOP allows membership for retired cops. I do agree with what you're saying, though, but the issue to me is why that's even something that should show up when your plates are run, "Oh, you're a cop somewhere, or used to be".

I don't remember if the DMV status is actually FOP, or something else, but I knew a lawyer who worked with a police union who had this status. But that's just icing on the cake compared to stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers%27_Bi...

I have a friend who's a union leader (as in actually runs a sizeable union) and, in the eyes of most people, a straight-up socialist. He convinced me public sector unions are a horrible idea precisely because of the above. I had known about the above, but I always had trouble squaring my support for the right to unionize with the problems with public sector unions. He basically gave me permission to call a spade a spade.

Post reply on HN