Toronto cops make mad loot writing tickets. Still think the system isn't corrupt?

[viking1965]

Are you stupid Viking???
Re-read what I wrote, I never said cops shouldnt be paid for OT or any other work, I'm merely saying it should be capped (or limited)

Why is this so hard for people to comprehend??!!

I'm saying it's impossible to cap because it's based on an uncontrollable factor.

What if in a given month he writes 40 citations and 10 of those get "challenged" causing him to make 40 hours in "court time", should he only be allowed to get paid for 20?

You can't cap his "pay" without capping his "work" and his "work" is determined by how many poeple challenge the tickets, an uncontrollable factor. Would you propose that we limit officers to only writing 10 tickets a month so they wouldn't go into "overtime"?

You're obviously smarter than I am, so 'splain to me how this would work?

 

[viking1965]

Actually I think people are getting a little bent out of shape on a non issue. It is not parking tickets that causes the overtime, it's all the other 700,000 charges laid each year. In fact I would bet you that the officer that topped the list most likely was involved in a large case involving non traffic charges. In a situation like that is it really fair to cap an officer on a complex case, doesn't that setup a dangerous precedent that might encourage people not to get involve directly?

The article is very vague on that matter, in fact all it does is try to say that since 85% of the charges laid in the City of Toronto are traffic related and as such tries to suck you in to believing that the particular officer was writing tickets at an alarming rate.

The article goes on to say that most there is a trend in cops making more than 100,000. Well everyone forgets that this reporting law was made many years and the average salary for a 1st class LEO has been raised several times to the point that it is not that hard to reach the reporting number. Add more senior LEOS to the equation and you get an even bigger problem.

I don't have a problem with LEO getting this kind of income. They have dangerous and often thankless jobs. I sooner see them get the money than some of the useless dickheads we have on City Council.

Law enforcement is not the area we need to cut the City budget with.



sean

Exactly, as is often the case, this thread is based not on a set of rationally considered facts, but on a "sound bite".

 

[AK-47]

I'm saying it's impossible to cap because it's based on an uncontrollable factor.

What if in a given month he writes 40 citations and 10 of those get "challenged" causing him to make 40 hours in "court time", should he only be allowed to get paid for 20?

You can't cap his "pay" without capping his "work" and his "work" is determined by how many poeple challenge the tickets, an uncontrollable factor. Would you propose that we limit officers to only writing 10 tickets a month so they wouldn't go into "overtime"?

You're obviously smarter than I am, so 'splain to me how this would work?

Real simple, he's only allowed so much OT and no more.
So if he goes over he just doesnt go to court, defendant gets off. It pretty much works like that now anyways, often cops just dont show up.

Only exception is a serious charge like DUI or whatever, but simple speeding or parking tickets would be capped with only so much OT allowed.

Its clear right now some officers are writing as many tickets as they can, in order to get as much court time as they can, and that is wrong and needs to be fixed

 

[masterchief]

I note that I am paid salary and while I normally work a 37.5 hour week now and then I am called on to work more, and I am not paid any extra for the overtime--that was understood to be part of the job when I took it, and my salary is high enough that I feel it's fair.

So you're fine if after your week of work your boss says because of someone else ineptitiude you have to come in on your weekend and work for free?

How about during your holidays?

Now instead of your cushy 37.5 hours you just did 7 straight nights without a day off in between (As most TPS officers do). Are you not entitled to be paid for then having to go to court on your time off?

 

[hunter001]

The courts should investigate some sort of video booths where a officier could go to testify without having to actually be in court. There could be a two video feed and could be onsite in local police stations. The cop could do his regular duties and only take the time he need to testify.

 

[viking1965]

Real simple, he's only allowed so much OT and no more.
So if he goes over he just doesnt go to court, defendant gets off. It pretty much works like that now anyways, often cops just dont show up.

Only exception is a serious charge like DUI or whatever, but simple speeding or parking tickets would be capped with only so much OT allowed.

Its clear right now some officers are writing as many tickets as they can, in order to get as much court time as they can, and that is wrong and needs to be fixed

What's wrong with officers "writing as many tickets as they can"? Isn't that part of their job? Doesn't that ostensibly reduce crime and add to the public coffers in the way of collected fines?

So we should begrudge the cop his OT pay in exchange for letting a "probably guilty" defendant get off. And now we've wasted all the administrative overhead of the citation and a court docket spot with no hopes of collecting a fine from the offender.

Yeah, I guess I was right, you're MUCH smarter than I am.

 

[viking1965]

The courts should investigate some sort of video booths where a officier could go to testify without having to actually be in court. There could be a two video feed and could be onsite in local police stations. The cop could do his regular duties and only take the time he need to testify.

In interesting idea hunter, but such a system might not necessarily be any cheaper than just paying the cops to appear in person.

 

[hunter001]

In interesting idea hunter, but such a system might not necessarily be any cheaper than just paying the cops to appear in person.

It may not be any cheaper but it might stop the weenies complaining that think the system is "corrupt". (Webcams and video feeds are not that expensive these days.)

 

[AK-47]

What's wrong with officers "writing as many tickets as they can"? Isn't that part of their job? Doesn't that ostensibly reduce crime and add to the public coffers in the way of collected fines?

So we should begrudge the cop his OT pay in exchange for letting a "probably guilty" defendant get off. And now we've wasted all the administrative overhead of the citation and a court docket spot with no hopes of collecting a fine from the offender.

Yeah, I guess I was right, you're MUCH smarter than I am

Sorry for calling you stupid, that was wrong

I'm not gonna argue this anymore other than to say yes its wrong to have cops writing too many tickets, especially when we have more pressing issues like gang shootings...etc

 

[viking1965]

It may not be any cheaper but it might stop the weenies complaining that think the system is "corrupt". (Webcams and video feeds are not that expensive these days.)

Exactly my point, most of "the weenies" would be happier paying $2Million for this system than $1Million in overtime. They just don't want to see it going into the cop's pocket (regardless of the fact that he's working hard for it).

BTW, yes, I completely made those figures up.

 

[viking1965]

Sorry for calling you stupid, that was wrong

I'm not gonna argue this anymore other than to say yes its wrong to have cops writing too many tickets, especially when we have more pressing issues like gang shootings...etc

Apology accepted...heat of the moment.

I agree that there should be no direct incentive to write more tickets. As I've argued above, I don't think that's what's in place here. Are there individuals taking advantage of the situation? That happens everywhere, but I don't think "the system" is corrupt.

I agree that "prioritization" of police activities is important, but even that becomes a "sticky" subject.

The person who lost a loved one due to a drunk driver (or other traffic offense) might feel that LE should be cracking down on those things and let the gang-bangers just kill each other.

 

[fuji]

Police officers are not "Exempt", and as such, in line with their contract

I am proposing that be changed. Presently their contract creates a conflict of interest which is unacceptable. It is fair that they be compensated for court time, so I am proposing a different scheme of compensating them for it, one that does not contain any conflict of interest.

To wit, a police officer would be expected to put in a certain number of court time hours over the year in return for an extra payment--but the size of the payment would not depend on the number of hours.

 

[fuji]

So you're fine if after your week of work your boss says because of someone else ineptitiude you have to come in on your weekend and work for free?

Yup. Happens all the time. I would take issue with the word "free", I was aware of the nature of the job when I accepted it and the salary is set high enough to make all of this reasonable. Presumably if I were entitled to say "fuck you" my salary would be lower.

How about during your holidays?

Yup. Does not happen often, we try and manage things to minimize the risk that all hell will break loose on a weekend, but whenever all hell breaks loose the company looks to me to get things under control.

Now instead of your cushy 37.5 hours you just did 7 straight nights without a day off in between (As most TPS officers do). Are you not entitled to be paid for then having to go to court on your time off?

I don't have "time off". It is more accurate to say I have hours that I am ordinarily in the office. I am paid an annual salary not an hourly rate.

 

[masterchief]

. I am paid an annual salary not an hourly rate.

And that is the choice you made when you took your job offer, much as any LEO did when they work under thier contract.

So it sounds more like your just envyous.

 

[viking1965]

I am proposing that be changed. Presently their contract creates a conflict of interest which is unacceptable. It is fair that they be compensated for court time, so I am proposing a different scheme of compensating them for it, one that does not contain any conflict of interest.

To wit, a police officer would be expected to put in a certain number of court time hours over the year in return for an extra payment--but the size of the payment would not depend on the number of hours.

Where is the conflict of interest? The officer does not make "court time" unless the offender challenges the citation, an action completely outside the officer's control.

You've contradicted yourself. The officer would be "expected to put in a certain number of hours", but "the payment would not depend on the number of hours". How does this work, exactly?

 

[fuji]

And that is the choice you made when you took your job offer, much as any LEO did when they work under thier contract.

So it sounds more like your just envyous.

I am not proposing they be paid any less, just that they be paid in a way that disconnects their pay from the number of tickets they write.

 

[fuji]

Where is the conflict of interest? The officer does not make "court time" unless the offender challenges the citation, an action completely outside the officer's control.

If an officer writes a bogus ticket it almost certainly will be challenged and therefore is well within their control.

You've contradicted yourself. The officer would be "expected to put in a certain number of hours", but "the payment would not depend on the number of hours". How does this work, exactly?

By paying them the same way I am paid: Providing them with an annual payment large enough to cover the amount of court time they are expected to put in--it would be the same amount for all officers who do the same job and would not depend on the number of tickets they actually write.

 

[masterchief]

I am not proposing they be paid any less, just that they be paid in a way that disconnects their pay from the number of tickets they write.

Ok, so what if they are called into to court to tesifty on a domestic abuse case, or any other type of need to testify in court? That is why they are called to appear before the court....to testify.

Your arguement makes no sense since it is the choice of the ticket recipient to go to court. The officer giving out the ticket (for a criminal infraction mind you) doesn't know automatically know that you'll chose to fight the ticket.

Wouldn't it just make sense to follow the law and not get a ticket? It just sounds more and more like sour grapes to me.

 

[viking1965]

Yup. Happens all the time. I would take issue with the word "free", I was aware of the nature of the job when I accepted it and the salary is set high enough to make all of this reasonable. Presumably if I were entitled to say "fuck you" my salary would be lower.

Right, and how high would the salary have to be be for you to agree to a potentially unlimited number of "court dates" on your days off?

Oh, and what about "business casual" incuding a Kevlar vest?

Yup. Does not happen often, we try and manage things to minimize the risk that all hell will break loose on a weekend, but whenever all hell breaks loose the company looks to me to get things under control.

And does that normally entail donning riot gear....when "all hell breaks loose"?

I don't have "time off". It is more accurate to say I have hours that I am ordinarily in the office. I am paid an annual salary not an hourly rate.

Law enforcement officers are "on duty" 24/7, even when not in uniform they are expected to "serve and protect".

 

[viking1965]

I am not proposing they be paid any less, just that they be paid in a way that disconnects their pay from the number of tickets they write.

The overtime is not caused by writing the ticket. Overtime only occurs if the offender challenges the ticket.