Remove the Warning as a punishment for crimes

Firestone Discussion
1

Some laws have a “warning” as a punishment for a breaking the law, often traffic violations. There are a few problems with this as listed below.

  1. You can not keep track of a warning
    If the first offense is a warning and the second is a citation how do you know when to give the citation? There is no way to track warnings, therefore, leading to a loop of violators being “warned” time after time.

  2. The officer can not bypass the first offense punishment
    If the officer witnesses a violator fail to yield at a stop sign and they nearly cause a motor vehicle collision then that violator gets the same punishment(a warning) as someone who just did not come to a complete stop.

  3. Violators continue to violate that traffic law since they get warnings time after time.

Now is the time to bring change.
The Warning should be removed as a punishment and should be solely dependant on the Officer and if the Officer wishes to issue a warning instead of a Citation.

Sign with your Support.

1 Like
2

Support
American_Honor
SCSO Corporal

1 Like
3

The warning may still be a punishment, however it could be proposed that law enforcement officers have the ability to ‘skip’ over this first punishment (a warning) and move right to a citation.

1 Like
4

That would work, we need some sort of resolution.

1 Like
5

Have a member of Congress work on drafting a bill which gives officers the ability to skip over the punishment in all bills that state a warning as a punishment. Obviously they can’t go through and amend every single bill by themselves then propose all of that shit in sessions, too much work.

2 Likes
6

So a bill to give officers discretion over giving a warning or not.

1 Like
7

Okay, I thought Law Enforcement Officers gave warnings to people but I guess not. I will work on remove/amending or doing something to fix the warnings.

2 Likes
8

Its called Officers Discretion

1 Like
9

I agree with the 1st point, there’s no way to know wether someone has been warned or not. The 2nd point is also quite valid, it’s really dumb to warn someone who nearly caused a motor vehicle accident.

With this being said, I agree that warnings should be given on the Officer’s discretion, however, they should not be removed, as it’d be unfair for someone with a clean record who failed to come to a complete stop at a a stop sign, to recieve a ticket and ruin their record.

But, yes it is an interesting topic that Congress should review.

1 Like
10

It’s perfectly fair, obey the law.

As for this whole thing, the reason warning clauses exist is because people will give a $200 citation the first time for forgetting to say, use a blinker. And let me teach you a trick; with citeable offenses, unless the bill defines a punishment for not doing a citation or warning respectively, you can do either or. Because false citation is not a crime, you skipping the warning step and going straight to citing them is fine because no one bothered to make a charge for you failing to comply with that rule e.e With offenses where it’s say a citation then arrest, you can’t do this (because that’d be false arrest you would have to cite first), but yeah this is a loophole in your benefit.

1 Like
11

Part of being a Law Enforcement Officer is knowing how to utilize the law to aid and protect
Citizens. Recently, I believe it’s safe to say that Law Enforcement Officers have not used it to render aid to citizens and help them, but rather utilize the law against the citizens.

What do I mean by this, you may ask.
Obviously, if one shows intent to obstruct a law enforcement officer, Felony Crimes, Etc constitute higher and immediate consequences. However, recently I’ve seen an increase in petty tickets, that really LEOs break during the course of their patrol. An example would be failure to use a blinker. This is a good routine stop, though, I rarely issue citations for small traffic violations. Rather, make my presence known and correct them.

You don’t always have to maximize the punishment against someone. In fact, that should only be the case in extremely rare cases. You can arrest someone for stepping onto a property with no prior warning and it be “justified”, due to the vague legislation’s’ found in our legal system, however, you could also ask them to move along and/or issue a citation.

I believe the Warning System is valuable. I believe that the first time you see someone commit a traffic violation, you correct them with minimal force and/or consequences, unless the suspect gives you reason to do otherwise, then after that, there’s intent which would continue to constitute higher consequences.

To Conclude, LEO’s should be trained more on how to use the law in the interest of the citizens both the ones they have stopped and the ones around the county. Stop utilizing the law against the citizens. Each individual of a department, regarding of who they are, is a representative. They represent their departments and their reputation on the daily. Spend the extra minute or two to implement a coaching moment, rather than just issue a consequence. Hell, I believe some department High Commands could utilize this method as well.

Thanks,

Deputy,
SouthernMorality.
Stapleton County Sheriffs office.

1 Like
12

The job of a LEO is not to be every citizens legal aide. In case you haven’t noticed the only way to enforce the law is to use it against people. And if people can’t obey the law it’s their own damn fault. Sure, the trespassing law is iffy, but you want to know a great to not get arrested for it-don’t go on restricted property! It really is that easy. And with things like the prison or FNG Base, you really have no excuse when it says DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PRISON, CHECKPOINT AHEAD, or FIRESTONE NATIONAL GUARD BASE, CHECKPOINT AHEAD. This is because checkpoint implies you need permission to enter that place, so if you aren’t literate enough to understand that you can sit in prison and reevaluate your existence. Also, I believe the FNG Base has a sign that says “Tresspassers will be shot.” You really can’t get more clear than that.

1 Like
13

The job of a Law Enforcement Officer is to maintain peace within the county. With all the hectic things that occur in county, I do not believe we should be nick-picking crimes. Many times, I implement very basic routine traffic stops for Improper lanes changes, failure to signal, and so forth. Though, rarely for such offenses do I issue citations. You see, most traffic stops occur with your more law abiding citizens in Firestone, hence they don’t usually have an extensive record, so why as a Law Enforcement Officer would you want to start adding to it, when you correct the individual, then let them off. Which, I see much more effective.

1 Like
14

No support.

2 Likes