Airport Police vs Romulus Police

[Gas Man]

Airport, Romulus Police Disagree On Patrols (http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/18147269/detail.html?rss=det&psp=news)

ROMULUS, Mich. -- Romulus police officers are being so aggressive that another police agency is warning drivers to be wary of a so-called “speed trap.”

Detroit Metropolitan police are outing Romulus officers who are pulling over drivers for speeding in the area of Interstate 94 around the airport.

"Under the bridge might be an unmarked Dodge Charger that’s there to nail you," said airport spokesman Mike Conway.

Conway said Romulus police are pulling over record-number of drivers in an effort to raise cash.

"To us, it’s more of a revenue generation for the city of Romulus than traffic safety enforcement," he said.

Conway said court records show the city has written 10,000 tickets since July 1st.

The Wayne County Airport Authority has even begun circulating fliers that read, "The Romulus Police Department has dramatically increased its patrols at the entrances and exits to Detroit Metropolitan Airport, using unmarked vehicles. Please be careful to observe all speed limits and traffic laws."

Airport officials said they plan on turning the flier into a billboard and will leave it up until the Romulus police stop targeting those entering and leaving the airport.

The airport police chief sent out an e-mail to officers telling them to park in front of a Romulus police patrol car if you see one and turn on overhead lights to warn drivers to slow down.

Romulus police said they are just doing their job and patrolling all of Romulus, including the area around the airport.

"We're going to be looking at those areas to make sure people are not speeding, to target traffic enforcement efforts in those areas to maintain safety and keep people safe on the roads,” said Romulus Lt. John Leacher. "That's our goal."

I can attest that they also do this on I-275 as well. Romulus police like many other police find something that works and they run with it. IT IS more about revenue than anything else. If it wasn't they would target other areas. :down:

[Particle Man]

and then they'll wonder why people hate the cops...

[Corey]

Would a Star Trek joke be too geeky and obvious?

[Particle Man]

Would a Star Trek joke be too geeky and obvious?

I was thinking it but figured I'd let it go :lol:

[OneSickPsycho]

Ok... and the point?

You break the law and get caught, you pay the fucking ticket and be a man. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this increased enforcement of laws.

[VatorMan]

Ok... and the point?

You break the law and get caught, you pay the fucking ticket and be a man. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this increased enforcement of laws.

If you design the law in order to increase enforcement-I see a problem. Reductions from 55 to 35 MPH zones are notorious speed traps.

[Mr Lefty]

Ok... and the point?

You break the law and get caught, you pay the fucking ticket and be a man. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this increased enforcement of laws.

Thank you... I was wondering the same thing

If you design the law in order to increase enforcement-I see a problem. Reductions from 55 to 35 MPH zones are notorious speed traps.

this doesn't say anything about recently reduced speed area's... :idk:

they found a place where people speed alot... and so they're writing alot of tickets... I don't see the problem. :idk:

[Phenix_Rider]

Thank you... I was wondering the same thing

this doesn't say anything about recently reduced speed area's... :idk:

they found a place where people speed alot... and so they're writing alot of tickets... I don't see the problem. :idk:

The airport cops are probably taking shit from businesses. The Town cops are scaring people away, and somebody knows somebody to lean on at the airport.

[OneSickPsycho]

If you design the law in order to increase enforcement-I see a problem. Reductions from 55 to 35 MPH zones are notorious speed traps.

Now THAT I can agree with... though, I don't think that seems to be the case here...

The airport cops are probably taking shit from businesses. The Town cops are scaring people away, and somebody knows somebody to lean on at the airport.

Might be the airport themselves... What I like about the article is that the local PD isn't bitching and moaning about the airport providing warnings... That at least gives the illusion that they really care about people obeying the law and aren't just about generating more revenue (though we know the truth).

[Homeslice]

I used to live in that general area.........Romulus is a joke, it has nothing going for it. Not surprised by this at all.

You would think with the increased crime and unemployment the bad economy is bringing, cops could find something better to do than sitting on their ass on the side of the road.

[Dnyce]

u speed and get caught-ticket time

only thing that i would be pissed about were if its a 45 zone, and it drops to 25 without a decent warning, and thats how they were giving the tickets, or they were giving tickets for 2--3mph over. other than that, fuck it, man up and....postpone it 2x, then try to fight it in court and hope the cop dont show up lol-then if all else fails, pay it.

[Particle Man]

I think we almost all agree that if you break the law and get caught, you accept the consequences. It's more the fact that rather than target a specific area because of a high accident rate with the specific purpose of raising awareness and increasing the safety factor, they target it specifically for revenue generation. THAT I can't agree with.

[LeeNetworX]

This would never happen in Vulcan.

[Papa_Complex]

Ok... and the point?

You break the law and get caught, you pay the fucking ticket and be a man. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this increased enforcement of laws.

The point is that this sort of enforcement does little or nothing to improve public safety, which is ultimately the primary job of police. It ties up officers who would be better used roaming and ticketing drivers in other areas who go unpunished, while performing acts that are more dangerous than simple speeding. Yes, I've been in the area ;)

[azoomm]

The point is that this sort of enforcement does little or nothing to improve public safety, which is ultimately the primary job of police. It ties up officers who would be better used roaming and ticketing drivers in other areas who go unpunished, while performing acts that are more dangerous than simple speeding. Yes, I've been in the area ;)

[Devil's advocate]

But, if people are chronically breaking the law in one area, wouldn't it make sense to position officers to ensure the law is followed THEN move on to another area? I love the idea of the warnings - as it keeps people following the law with the announced threat of penalty. It didn't change the law - just made it more obvious.

[OneSickPsycho]

The point is that this sort of enforcement does little or nothing to improve public safety, which is ultimately the primary job of police. It ties up officers who would be better used roaming and ticketing drivers in other areas who go unpunished, while performing acts that are more dangerous than simple speeding. Yes, I've been in the area ;)

Like I said, I know the reason they are doing it... However, how did Giuliani clean up NYC? He started giving tickets to jaywalkers... If you cannot manage the small things, how can you expect to manage the bigger things?

So... It stands to reason that if the increased ticketing in one area causes a behavior shift of the drivers in that area, then that would free up resources to allocate to another area.

My point is... just because there is a possibility of more severe crimes in the area, an officer should ignore someone breaking the law?

[Papa_Complex]

[Devil's advocate]

But, if people are chronically breaking the law in one area, wouldn't it make sense to position officers to ensure the law is followed THEN move on to another area? I love the idea of the warnings - as it keeps people following the law with the announced threat of penalty. It didn't change the law - just made it more obvious.

People are chronically breaking that particular law everywhere. Should they then limit their enforcement to one area, giving drivers the feeling that they can continue to break the same law, with impunity, elsewhere?

[OneSickPsycho]

[Devil's advocate]

But, if people are chronically breaking the law in one area, wouldn't it make sense to position officers to ensure the law is followed THEN move on to another area? I love the idea of the warnings - as it keeps people following the law with the announced threat of penalty. It didn't change the law - just made it more obvious.

Warnings don't work nearly as well as a big fatty ticket.

People are chronically breaking that particular law everywhere. Should they then limit their enforcement to one area, giving drivers the feeling that they can continue to break the same law, with impunity, elsewhere?

So the only solution is to either increase the number of patrols by 1000% so you can catch everyone, everywhere.... or completely do away with patrols because when you catch someone, there are 100 other motherfuckers some place else breaking the law?

My logic says that once a place is considered a speed trap, people will slow down in general... then, they can move on to another area.

[Papa_Complex]

So the only solution is to either increase the number of patrols by 1000% so you can catch everyone, everywhere.... or completely do away with patrols because when you catch someone, there are 100 other motherfuckers some place else breaking the law?

My logic says that once a place is considered a speed trap, people will slow down in general... then, they can move on to another area.

No, the solution is to get rid of stealth cars and targeted sweeps like speed traps, and make police visible to the public as they once were. You can't catch everyone but if you let them know that they're only likely to be caught breaking the law in a few select locations, they'll feel free to break it everywhere else.

The randomness of enforcement tends to reduce the probability that someone will break the law. The visible presence of officers has an obvious and immediate effect on how people drive. Speed has been shown to have less real effect on traffic collisions than do other bad driving practises, like inattentiveness. As I frequently say up here: Speed doesn't cause collisions, it merely magnifies the results of stupidity.

[azoomm]

No, the solution is to get rid of stealth cars and targeted sweeps like speed traps, and make police visible to the public as they once were. You can't catch everyone but if you let them know that they're only likely to be caught breaking the law in a few select locations, they'll feel free to break it everywhere else.

The randomness of enforcement tends to reduce the probability that someone will break the law. The visible presence of officers has an obvious and immediate effect on how people drive. Speed has been shown to have less real effect on traffic collisions than do other bad driving practises, like inattentiveness. As I frequently say up here: Speed doesn't cause collisions, it merely magnifies the results of stupidity.

So, you are for bleach in the pool? :)

I understand your point, and agree. Though, with so many laws on the books... can we go back to a more simple time when common sense prevailed? Like, when texting in your car wasn't an idea (for example).

[Papa_Complex]

So, you are for bleach in the pool? :)

I understand your point, and agree. Though, with so many laws on the books... can we go back to a more simple time when common sense prevailed? Like, when texting in your car wasn't an idea (for example).

I've been corresponding with various officials in Provincial government about this very issue, for some months now, because some representatives are trying to push through a whole shit-load of nanny laws that add needless complexity to our Highway Traffic Act. Where things like texting are involved we already have a law that covers it quite adequately. It's called, "Operation of a vehicle without due care and attention" (what you would refer to as 'careless driving'). Nothing more than enforcement of this law is needed, in order to correct this issue.

Instead they want to pass specific laws that cover the use of electronic devices, like Blackberry and GPS, in cars. What about the people who juggle a cup of coffee, newspaper, and cigarette while driving? Should we also pass a specific law to cover that? No because, as I said, that one law takes all into account.

[Corey]

I've been corresponding with various officials in Provincial government about this very issue, for some months now, because some representatives are trying to push through a whole shit-load of nanny laws that add needless complexity to our Highway Traffic Act. Where things like texting are involved we already have a law that covers it quite adequately. It's called, "Operation of a vehicle without due care and attention" (what you would refer to as 'careless driving'). Nothing more than enforcement of this law is needed, in order to correct this issue.

Instead they want to pass specific laws that cover the use of electronic devices, like Blackberry and GPS, in cars. What about the people who juggle a cup of coffee, newspaper, and cigarette while driving? Should we also pass a specific law to cover that? No because, as I said, that one law takes all into account.

I wish our state would follow that line of thought, but unfortunately, anything not specifically stated in a law becomes fodder for a legal loophole. The dipshit lawyers and self important assholes use the broad and vague wording of the law to effectively destroy any enforcement that's not specifically listed. It's why a cell phone bill gets pushed through to put a stop to dangerous behavior, and why people will continue to get off of such punishment by exploiting any vague or questionable wording in that specific law.

[Papa_Complex]

I wish our state would follow that line of thought, but unfortunately, anything not specifically stated in a law becomes fodder for a legal loophole. The dipshit lawyers and self important assholes use the broad and vague wording of the law to effectively destroy any enforcement that's not specifically listed. It's why a cell phone bill gets pushed through to put a stop to dangerous behavior, and why people will continue to get off of such punishment by exploiting any vague or questionable wording in that specific law.

In practise the charge "operation without due care and attention" is rarely placed until after a collision has occurred, but the charge is still valid. If it would be placed more often, then people would start to reform their behaviour. Instead we get 'feel good' laws like the recent racing and stunting law, and the currently proposed ones that limit the use of electronic devices, or the nimber of teenagers allowed in a car that is driven by a teen.

As I said in a recent letter to the leader of the opposition party if a law isn't going to be enforced, why bother passing it?

[Rider]

I can tell you that speeding tickets are ALL about money everywhere in Michigan. The speeding ticket I got 2 months ago was $150 for 5mph over the limit(50 in a 45).

[Papa_Complex]

I can tell you that speeding tickets are ALL about money everywhere in Michigan. The speeding ticket I got 2 months ago was $150 for 5mph over the limit(50 in a 45).

If that's what they are in Michigan then what are they in Ohio, a mileage tax?

[unknownroad]

My point is... just because there is a possibility of more severe crimes in the area, an officer should ignore someone breaking the law?

If there are crimes against persons and property going unsolved, then police resources should not be spent enforcing arbitrary traffic regulations just because it's more profitable.

[Gas Man]

I used to live in that general area.........Romulus is a joke, it has nothing going for it. Not surprised by this at all.

You would think with the increased crime and unemployment the bad economy is bringing, cops could find something better to do than sitting on their ass on the side of the road.

Exactly

The point is that this sort of enforcement does little or nothing to improve public safety, which is ultimately the primary job of police. It ties up officers who would be better used roaming and ticketing drivers in other areas who go unpunished, while performing acts that are more dangerous than simple speeding. Yes, I've been in the area ;)

Speeding isn't the issue, it is when speeding causes accidents. For example, my local pd in my city does as I'm about to describe. The chief of police assigns locations to step up enforcement due to increased accidents in said location. They do so, to lower accidents which is the real reason for traffic laws anyway. Then once that objective is met, they move on to the next problem location.

No, the solution is to get rid of stealth cars and targeted sweeps like speed traps, and make police visible to the public as they once were. You can't catch everyone but if you let them know that they're only likely to be caught breaking the law in a few select locations, they'll feel free to break it everywhere else.

The randomness of enforcement tends to reduce the probability that someone will break the law. The visible presence of officers has an obvious and immediate effect on how people drive. Speed has been shown to have less real effect on traffic collisions than do other bad driving practises, like inattentiveness. As I frequently say up here: Speed doesn't cause collisions, it merely magnifies the results of stupidity.

Exactly, they can curve traffic problem with pure presence. But romulus is sporting all blacked out chargers and such with no emblems, no top lights or anything. And they only patrol during good weather so they don't get wet.

I can tell you that speeding tickets are ALL about money everywhere in Michigan. The speeding ticket I got 2 months ago was $150 for 5mph over the limit(50 in a 45).

That is the problem. Its just that some cities like Romulus, Taylor, and a few others off the top of my head are more into the "revenue driven enforcement". Which is the real complaignt.

If there are crimes against persons and property going unsolved, then police resources should not be spent enforcing arbitrary traffic regulations just because it's more profitable.

That is also a large problem with this.

Trust me I have many family members that are cops. From local to county sheriff. Many of these cities are revenue driven to write tickets. They reward the officers with early retirement.

Further, they are usually writting (on the highway) "energy conservation" tickets aka 5 over on highways. They carry the full 5 over fine but no points, so most won't fight it. But the bottom line is not that they are protecting public safety as I outlined above, they are just hunting money.

[Papa_Complex]

Targeted enforcement in order to curtail an actual problem is one thing. Doing it in order to correct an issue that doesn't exist is either pure revenue generation, or a waste or resources (I tend to think that it's both).

[Avatard]

Would a Star Trek joke be too geeky and obvious?

Personally, I think that Romulus is just trying to find another way to ream us.

I'm here all week.

[Papa_Complex]

Just remember that Romulus ultimately killed Remus.

[Avatard]

Not as bad as I'm killing here.

Tip your waitresses.

[Corey]

Personally, I think that Romulus is just trying to find another way to ream us.

I'm here all week.

http://hornetsreport.com/HRForums/images/smilies/rimshot%5B1%5D.gif

[Particle Man]

Personally, I think that Romulus is just trying to find another way to ream us.

I'm here all week.

aeir, ae'r, maihi

:nee:

[Homeslice]

I can tell you that speeding tickets are ALL about money everywhere in Michigan. The speeding ticket I got 2 months ago was $150 for 5mph over the limit(50 in a 45).

And it's going to get even worse, with Michigan's economy bringing in less tax revenues. All those limp-wristed, overweight City Hall workers are going to start telling the police how to choose their priorities. :rolleyes:

[OneSickPsycho]

If there are crimes against persons and property going unsolved, then police resources should not be spent enforcing arbitrary traffic regulations just because it's more profitable.

Where is the evidence of that?

And it's going to get even worse, with Michigan's economy bringing in less tax revenues. All those limp-wristed, overweight City Hall workers are going to start telling the police how to choose their priorities. :rolleyes:

Maybe they should take a hard look at how they are taxing business OUT of Michigan...

[Particle Man]

Maybe they should take a hard look at how they are taxing business OUT of Michigan...

or maybe they should also look at how they're fucking with commuters who just move out of the state and say to hell with it.

[OneSickPsycho]

or maybe they should also look at how they're fucking with commuters who just move out of the state and say to hell with it.

Read the post I was responding to.

[HRCNICK11]

I have driven this section of freeway and its down right dangerous when a police officer is there. For two reasons its already bumper to bumper traffic and when people see a officer in the center they slow even when going under the limit.

When they see one on the side of the road they change lanes cause Michigan has a Law that states "you must move over OR slow down when law enforcement or a disabled car is on the side of the road". What sucks is people read the law " you must move over" and to keep from driving passed the officer on the side of the road they come to a stop and wait for a hole in traffic thats moving near 70mph then try gun it to get into the flow.

When cops are on site there are more crashes I have seen it several times. It is more dangerous to have them in that section of freeway period. They are not helping and they are going to get some one killed.

That being said I got a ticket in Indiana last month for 78 in a 70 and paid it with out complaint. The officer was doing his job and I was speeding. The officer was very nice and did not get all pissy. The lady at the office, when I called to find out the fine, was real nice and even asked about my town and its famous bar and grill.

[Particle Man]

Read the post I was responding to.

I did. I was using your post to make another point.

[OneSickPsycho]

I did. I was using your post to make another point.

Let's refrain from doing that.