The problem with the law as it is
I got pulled over for tint today. Too dark on the front windows the CHP officer said. I told him that I did it to prevent theft and constant breakins on my car when I park it overnight, on call at the county hospital where I work. He said, he didn't care - and said he hears all sorts of excuses.
Thats how my day started. Since it is the law, I will abide by it and remove my tint. That said, who's to say the law is correct? Why can't we have tint on our cars? Is everything going to be legislated ad nauseum? And who decided this law and why was it decided that way?
The problem with these laws/ordinances as I see it is that it claims to be grounded in safety for officers. Tint prevents them from seeing into the car. The problem with this argument is that the law says its okay to tint the rear windows. The counterargument is that the front windows need to be free so the officer can see into the car as he/she approaches. While certainly logical, I tend to think that if someone wants to hurt an officer, they will do so, tint or no tint.
But anyways, I don't mind the law. I'll abide by it. That said, I saw 4 or 5 cars drive by this morning that had darker tint, were driving erratic, and speeding. The same cop passed them by.
Which brings me to the next point. If it is not enforced uniformly, than how can it not be subject to criticism? One can easily argue that the cops see an easy target and ticket it seeing that it was a quick revenue stream. 10 minutes to write a ticket, 100 dollars in the bank for the city. Otherwise, he'd have to go chase after the other erratic driving guy and pull him over.
I can't even count the number of times I've called the police to report drunk/reckless drivers and how they never get pulled over despite me following them for 15+ minutes. So why is it that I get pulled over driving to McDonald's?
The problem with the law as it is lies within the reward. For the city, there is no financial gain for arresting and prosecuting a drunk/reckless driver. There is, however, an easy financial gain for speeding and tint tickets. This is a cynical view, yes. But are we naive to think that that does not underly some of the thought process? In our society, moral righteousness seems to have taken a back seat to personal or monetary gain. So while we sit and watch 100s of our youth die in inner city struggle, we tell the cops to pull people over for tint and going 3mph over the limit.
In the end, I'm not protesting the ticket. I broke the law, I pay the consequences. But I am protesting the injustice. Why are we struggling to put cops in the street in Oakland, yet somebody pulled me over for tint at a McDonald's drive thru? I hope we figure it out soon - or else the veil of justice that is barely holding our urban society together will disintegrate.
Thats how my day started. Since it is the law, I will abide by it and remove my tint. That said, who's to say the law is correct? Why can't we have tint on our cars? Is everything going to be legislated ad nauseum? And who decided this law and why was it decided that way?
The problem with these laws/ordinances as I see it is that it claims to be grounded in safety for officers. Tint prevents them from seeing into the car. The problem with this argument is that the law says its okay to tint the rear windows. The counterargument is that the front windows need to be free so the officer can see into the car as he/she approaches. While certainly logical, I tend to think that if someone wants to hurt an officer, they will do so, tint or no tint.
But anyways, I don't mind the law. I'll abide by it. That said, I saw 4 or 5 cars drive by this morning that had darker tint, were driving erratic, and speeding. The same cop passed them by.
Which brings me to the next point. If it is not enforced uniformly, than how can it not be subject to criticism? One can easily argue that the cops see an easy target and ticket it seeing that it was a quick revenue stream. 10 minutes to write a ticket, 100 dollars in the bank for the city. Otherwise, he'd have to go chase after the other erratic driving guy and pull him over.
I can't even count the number of times I've called the police to report drunk/reckless drivers and how they never get pulled over despite me following them for 15+ minutes. So why is it that I get pulled over driving to McDonald's?
The problem with the law as it is lies within the reward. For the city, there is no financial gain for arresting and prosecuting a drunk/reckless driver. There is, however, an easy financial gain for speeding and tint tickets. This is a cynical view, yes. But are we naive to think that that does not underly some of the thought process? In our society, moral righteousness seems to have taken a back seat to personal or monetary gain. So while we sit and watch 100s of our youth die in inner city struggle, we tell the cops to pull people over for tint and going 3mph over the limit.
In the end, I'm not protesting the ticket. I broke the law, I pay the consequences. But I am protesting the injustice. Why are we struggling to put cops in the street in Oakland, yet somebody pulled me over for tint at a McDonald's drive thru? I hope we figure it out soon - or else the veil of justice that is barely holding our urban society together will disintegrate.
posted by Richard at 11:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home