No, I completely understand what you are trying to say. You are saying that the side of the road is where all traffic violations should be adjudicated (context considered) and that you are willing to allow LEOs to decide who is wrong or right and to what extent as well. Well the LEO in this instance did just that. He decided that in his opinion the person in question was wrong and cited him. The trouble with the slippery slope upon which you tread is where is the oversight? The court is where the context should be taken into consideration, most judges are actually reasonable IF you are contrite about these things. They want to see growth and maturity about what has occurred. Presently in most areas the LEO does have the leeway to write a citation for a lesser offense if, in his judgement, it is warranted, then he will advise you to see him before traffic court actually begins so that he may "help" you with your ticket. This is another area where context comes into play. Present him with a decent explanation of your offense and the ticket may go away. The NY State Police have recently had this authority taken away from them. If you are doing 65 in a 55, you can no longer be written for the lesser offense of 64 in a 55, which keeps it to a two point violation (<10 over the posted limit). Nobody gets the deal anymore, because everybody got a deal before, effectively rendering traffic laws toothless.
As to the cowboy attitude, speed does NOT save lives. Arriving safely does. Blowing off stop signs, speeding through residential districts or school zones, tailgating because someone won't move out of your way, these are all macho BS attitudes we don't need on the streets. The problem is youth is indestructable and attracted to the fast and flashy. It is one of the things that draws people to this job. Hey, I can drive as fast as I want to calls. We are all inherently adrenaline junkies to some extent. The trouble with that is, you are playing against the law of averages. It is not a matter of IF you wreck your vehicle, but when. The "cowboy" attitude is that whole loner thing, only "we" can save this person regardless of what laws "we" violate to do it. Everybody has a cool code 3 story to tell.
As an industry we allow anybody to drive an ambulance, which can be up to eight tons of high speed steel rolling down the street. The smaller the service the more likely it is to occur. Some places have instituted raising the age to drive to as high as 23 to minimize the youth factor, other places allow anyone with a driver's license to drive. There is no standard as to training. You do not have to take an EVOC or EVDT course, because they can be expensive. Police and fire departments have standards with regards to operating their vehicles, they are written and enforcible. Driving the vehicles is taught at their respective academies. In EMS vehicle operation is a joke. There is no acceptable standard. The "Due Regard" mantra we all chant is so open to interpretation as to be almost meaningless, because what I term due regard may not be your interpretation. I am almost too cautious when operating code. I've been accused of being a "granny." Such an insult to my masculinity, darn. The reason I drive the way I do is because I have had to go to court to defend my driving after being T-boned by a 19 year old jackass who blew through a stoplight and hit us at seventy in a thirty-five. Spent a couple of days in the hospital, and had the oppurtunity to look into my mother's eyes when she came to see me in the Trauma room at the regional trauma center. That was so much fun.
Lawyers like shades of gray, juries like black and white answers. When you discuss the vaguaries of courtroom law it has nothing to do with the jury. Juries receive specific instructions about what the law says a crime entails. It is then up to the jury to decide if the lawyers have painted the proper picture for them to convict or acquit. The jury just doesn't get together and say guilty or not. Their answer is black and white. The system was designed this way to alleviate guilty feelings on the part of jurors and to protect the rights of the accused. Either a defendant is clearly guilty or not in the eyes of a jury. Any other answer results in a hung jury or a mistrial. Public perception of guilt is another matter entirely.
I am not seeking universal agreement on this. There never will be such a thing. I fully understand what you and Stevo are trying to say, but the side of the road is not where context needs to be considered. I have never had an LEO be unreasonable with me at anytime I have been stopped. I have no points on my license, not to say I haven't afforded myself the oppurtunity, but it has been clean for over ten years. I attribute this almost wholly on obeying the rules of the traffic stop, pull over immediately to where it is safe for the LEO, hands where they can be seen, no funny movements, all documents in order and presented quickly, no BS explanations, sign and accept the citation politely, leave without being an ***. Then I go to court and plead my case. It works. I realize the officer is just doing his job and that is what rankled me about this thread. There was almost universal condemnation for this officer becuase he stopped this guy on the way to a call. People seemed willing to overlook the fact he was breaking the law. They are also willing to overlook the fact we, collectively, are painted with the same brush... "Speeding EMT runs stop sign, kills family etc..." This is the kind of publicity we as an industry can do without. We know better, we should try to do better.
