It was thrown out pretty quick once she got to court. If I remember the judge made a comment to the trooper about wasting time or something like that.
That would put an end to a lot of this BS.
Really creates a logical question regarding the efficacy of monetary fines with regards to changing supposedly unsafe traffic behavior.
Sure thing bud. Glad you got to see her copy of the citation like I did. In the description it said she was talking on the phone, distracted driving like @B00ger said. So while you are technically correct, talking on the phone was not illegal which makes distracted driving literally an offense just to make her have to go to court for no reason. It was on the stretch of I-40 near Warsaw. So yes, I stand by my original statement that she was written a ticket for something that he just disagrees with because he could.
There is no such charge as distracted driving. There is one about texting and driving, could that be it? If so a complaint should be made if the cop knew she wasn't texting.
No. It wasn't texting in driving. In the description it stated that she was talking on the phone. If it was texting and driving it was still an abuse of power. A complaint was made. I'll see if she can find the picture we took of it. I was pretty irritated. I wasn't trying to hijack the thread, but small instances like that is what costs LEO's public trust.
He even told me that he would've probably let it slide if he wasn't sitting right behind me.
fwiw...I liked my cop that wrote me up. He was relaxed, easy going, and smiling cause I think he knew it was a pretty good dueling burn-out.
doh
So we have another guys saying that distracted driving isn't a thing. I guess you think it is ok for someone to abuse their power. Writing a bogus ticket is still a bogus ticket, especially when one has to lose time at work to deal with it. I've had mostly good dealings with LEO as well. Apparently calling out BS makes one anti-LEO. Have a great day, bud.
I think it's fair to assume that anyone who chooses a profession within the criminal justice system is either, a) a strong proponent of consequences for breaking the law, or b) they are personally ambivalent about it but accept it in exchange for a decent salary, great benefits package and the ability to work for twenty years and collect a retirement check for forty.
And then some commoner comes along and ruins it all by making them stop breaking the law.
Fair 'nuff
Almost as if people with strong opinions on a subject can't seem to be able to change their minds, or sometimes even accept the opposing argument. Seems to be a pattern among human beings in general.
