Police did not break law in runaway-ramp stop - Hawaii News

Hmmmm. Police aren't required to "set an example"?

I once received a speeding ticket for going 6 miles over the limit on Saddle Road. I saw the same officer that issued that ticket to me a few days later doing at LEAST 20 miles over the speed limit in the same location. I figured he was on his way to some emergency even though he was not running his emergency lights. Driving into downtown Kailua, who do I see sitting outside Andy's Drive Inn having coffee with Policemen from three other Marked vehicles? YUP you guessed it. So.... hmmmm Coffee Break is considered an exemption for On-Duty Police Officers??
Interesting.

Hookoa wrote:

Hmmmm. Police aren't required to "set an example"?
I once received a speeding ticket for going 6 miles over the limit on Saddle Road. I saw the same officer that issued that ticket to me a few days later doing at LEAST 20 miles over the speed limit in the same location. I figured he was on his way to some emergency even though he was not running his emergency lights. Driving into downtown Kailua, who do I see sitting outside Andy's Drive Inn having coffee with Policemen from three other Marked vehicles? YUP you guessed it. So.... hmmmm Coffee Break is considered an exemption for On-Duty Police Officers??
Interesting.

We are not "required" to set an example but we should and most of us do. That's why if a police officer breaks the law you will often hear judges say, "You should have known better and you are held to a higher standard." And the sentence will typically be harsher when the defendant had a position of public trust.

On its surface the incident of an officer speeding to a personal break is obviously an example of "Do as I say and not as I do." I was not there so I don't know if all of the facts are known to you.

It may be a stretch but I have been responding to a call for service only to have dispatch advise me to disregard. Either another unit took the call or it was cancelled.

And there are calls that require an expedited response but without the use of emergency equipment (lights/siren) unless they are needed to safely go through an intersection or pass other vehicles.

But based on what you observed I would agree that it appears the officer abused his authority or at the very least, used poor judgment.

Having said all that I still believe that many of the "How come they can do that and I can't" complaints are motivated by resentment at being cited for an infraction/violation or a negative experience (arrest) with the police.

Slow down, park legally, get a Bluetooth and be more courteous and you will rarely if ever hear the words, "How do you plead?"

Today's column should be entitled "Police getting away with stuff". First they are clearly stopped right where the sign says "don't stop", yet the spokesman says "Nope, they weren't there". Uhhhhh yes they were, we have a picture. If you are going to lie at least make sure there aren't pictures.

Next a cop is talking on his cell phone, that is obviously not police business going on. That is not how police talk to the dispatcher or other police, they have radios for that.

This headline should be, "Police SAY they did not break law." No law is given to support the use of areas with this signage being used for traffic enforcement.

And, it shows bad judgment.

Sign here.

Bob wrote:

Today's column should be entitled "Police getting away with stuff". First they are clearly stopped right where the sign says "don't stop", yet the spokesman says "Nope, they weren't there". Uhhhhh yes they were, we have a picture. If you are going to lie at least make sure there aren't pictures.
Next a cop is talking on his cell phone, that is obviously not police business going on. That is not how police talk to the dispatcher or other police, they have radios for that.

Firstly, no where in the article does it state that a spokesperson or anyone else on the HPD said the officers were not parked at the sign.

Secondly, if you knew anything about current procedures for the vast majority of law enforcement agencies you would know that we use our cell phones extensively. One of the main reasons is to not tie up the dispatchers/radio in the event of an emergency.

I never fault people for not knowing something but at least state that you are giving an opinion when you don't know the facts.

low standards wrote:

This headline should be, "Police SAY they did not break law." No law is given to support the use of areas with this signage being used for traffic enforcement.
And, it shows bad judgment.

It's called an exemption. You don't want to hear that because we can and you can't. You don't care about the many legitimate reasons why we park our cars in no parking zones and use cell phones while driving.

But let us take 10 seconds longer than you think reasonable to respond to your call to 911 and you'll be the first to say, "There's never a cop around when you need one."

And then when it's you committing the violation you'll say, "Don't you have anything better to do?"

Grow up. Start worrying more about being responsible and accepting responsibility. And pay the ticket.

pali wrote:

<quoted text>
It's called an exemption. You don't want to hear that because we can and you can't. You don't care about the many legitimate reasons why we park our cars in no parking zones and use cell phones while driving.
But let us take 10 seconds longer than you think reasonable to respond to your call to 911 and you'll be the first to say, "There's never a cop around when you need one."
And then when it's you committing the violation you'll say, "Don't you have anything better to do?"
Grow up. Start worrying more about being responsible and accepting responsibility. And pay the ticket.

Who are you saying grow up to? It should be the person who received the ticket and the cop. They were both in the wrong. As the saying goes one wrong doesn't make another right. The cop sounds like he/she is kinda brainless for using this spot as their trap. Shows that they have no common sense. Does this mean that the person who got the ticket should not have got the ticket...NO. BOTH were wrong!!! PERIOD.

waaaaaahhhhh!!!!!! put your life on the line and become an officer or if you have no honor or courage then just shut the beep up and worry about yourself and let the officers do what they need to do! bunch of whining clowns

Pali, I love it. Keep it going, they will run out of steam soon

Well put!

kapaa wrote:

waaaaaahhhhh!!!!!! put your life on the line and become an officer or if you have no honor or courage then just shut the beep up and worry about yourself and let the officers do what they need to do! bunch of whining clowns

kapaa wrote:

waaaaaahhhhh!!!!!! put your life on the line and become an officer or if you have no honor or courage then just shut the beep up and worry about yourself and let the officers do what they need to do! bunch of whining clowns

Another idiot just rambling with no sense at all. I have served you moron!!! Why don't you!! I bet a million dollars you never have!!! It is always the ones that say "serve" before you can talk about common sense that never have served a day in their pathetic little lives.
This whole thing is just a common sense issue and those involved obviously had none and that includes you!!!!

Our agencies radio comms dont work for much of the area we patrol so we rely on our cell phones quite a bit. Pali is right, if you dont understand the details involved in modern day policing dont make assumtions. Civilians always think they understand law enforcement just cause they watch cops shows on TV.

pali wrote:

<quoted text>
Firstly, no where in the article does it state that a spokesperson or anyone else on the HPD said the officers were not parked at the sign.
Secondly, if you knew anything about current procedures for the vast majority of law enforcement agencies you would know that we use our cell phones extensively. One of the main reasons is to not tie up the dispatchers/radio in the event of an emergency.
I never fault people for not knowing something but at least state that you are giving an opinion when you don't know the facts.

Pay the ticket MoronP

MoronPatrol wrote:

<quoted text>
Who are you saying grow up to? It should be the person who received the ticket and the cop. They were both in the wrong. As the saying goes one wrong doesn't make another right. The cop sounds like he/she is kinda brainless for using this spot as their trap. Shows that they have no common sense. Does this mean that the person who got the ticket should not have got the ticket...NO. BOTH were wrong!!! PERIOD.

MoronPatrol wrote:

<quoted text>
Who are you saying grow up to? It should be the person who received the ticket and the cop. They were both in the wrong. As the saying goes one wrong doesn't make another right. The cop sounds like he/she is kinda brainless for using this spot as their trap. Shows that they have no common sense. Does this mean that the person who got the ticket should not have got the ticket...NO. BOTH were wrong!!! PERIOD.

Perhaps you're right.

But it seems only one of the two is paying for their transgression. The other is protected.

MoronPatrol wrote:

<quoted text>
Who are you saying grow up to? It should be the person who received the ticket and the cop. They were both in the wrong. As the saying goes one wrong doesn't make another right. The cop sounds like he/she is kinda brainless for using this spot as their trap. Shows that they have no common sense. Does this mean that the person who got the ticket should not have got the ticket...NO. BOTH were wrong!!! PERIOD.

Actually (and factually), they were not both in the wrong as the officer(s) are not prohibited from parking there while on duty and while conducting traffic enforcement.

And I, unlike you, was not there so I do not know exactly where the solos were parked at the time they observed the violation. Most of the time the location where a unit is parked and where it ends up making the stop are different.

Oh, and to answer your question ending in a preposition - I was referring to anyone who whines. Next?

MoronPatrol wrote:

<quoted text>
Another idiot just rambling with no sense at all. I have served you moron!!! Why don't you!! I bet a million dollars you never have!!! It is always the ones that say "serve" before you can talk about common sense that never have served a day in their pathetic little lives.
This whole thing is just a common sense issue and those involved obviously had none and that includes you!!!!

Easy cowboy. You need to relax or the next person serving you will be a nurse.

MoronPatrol wrote:

<quoted text>
Another idiot just rambling with no sense at all. I have served you moron!!! Why don't you!! I bet a million dollars you never have!!! It is always the ones that say "serve" before you can talk about common sense that never have served a day in their pathetic little lives.
This whole thing is just a common sense issue and those involved obviously had none and that includes you!!!!

BTW, low class judging your own posts or the ones replying directly to you.

fishcop wrote:

Our agencies radio comms dont work for much of the area we patrol so we rely on our cell phones quite a bit.

I hope you are documenting this in writing, and making union grievances continuously (if you have a union).
Maybe you should make an OSHA complaint too.
Somebody could get killed with your agency having such disregard for your safety.

fishcop wrote:

Our agencies radio comms dont work for much of the area we patrol so we rely on our cell phones quite a bit. Pali is right, if you dont understand the details involved in modern day policing dont make assumtions. Civilians always think they understand law enforcement just cause they watch cops shows on TV.<quoted text>

DLNR?
Be safeout there.