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

[Moraff]

The connection is to the number of tickets challenged, not written. The officer has no control over how many are challenged.

No, but fuji is correct in that the officer can assume that a % of those tickets will be challenged, so if he wants more OT, then writing more tickets will most likely garner that OT for him.

and I suppose they can up that % by giving you the ticket for what you were doing instead of cutting you a break then and there. (ie you were 30 over, but they give you 15 instead)

That being said, I still have no problem with officers writing lots of tickets.

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

You think that cops are just going around writing tickets wrongfully and then cashing in at the court date?

That is EXACTLY what they are doing. It is common knowledge amongst cops and citizens in the know.

 

[masterchief]

That is EXACTLY what they are doing. It is common knowledge amongst cops and citizens in the know.

Well I guess everryone then is guilty in this supposed scam you all seem to have uncovered.

From the driver who broke the traffic law on purpose so that the cop was justified in writing the bogus ticket. To the driver for then requesting the ticketing officer be called to testify at the trial, to courts for arranging the trial date to coincide with the officers day off, to the crown attorney whos lowering of the charge before trial makes the officers mandatory attendance irellevant, to the police civillian oversight comittee who negociated the current contract.

Quite the conspiracy.

There is a difference of a few officers who are taking advantage of the system to work some more legitimate overtime to making it some sort of machivellian consipiracy.

How about drivers just dont break the law.

 

[fuji]

1) It's only a conflict of interest if the officer writes bogus tickets in order to get more court dates.

No, that would actually be corrupt. A conflict of interest exists even when an officer does not succumb to it. You might look up the meaning of the phrase "conflict of interest".

It is a conflict of interest because the incentives encourage an officer to do something that is corrupt. That does not mean officers WILL do something corrupt--most won't--but the conflict of interest remains.

2) If the fact that they earn OT for writing tickets gives the officer the incentive to write lots of tickets then I have no problem with the system as it stands. More tickets that are written, the better odds people will not break the law.

The incentive is for officers to write invalid tickets, as people are more likely to fight an unreasonable ticket than a reasonable one. Again, that does not mean that officers WILL do that--many have morals--but it is not good that we are tempting them with the choice.

It is a clear conflict of interest and it needs to be ended, and ended in a way that recognizes that the fault lies with the system and not the officers, and ended in a way that does ont leave them unfairly compensated.

 

[fuji]

The connection is to the number of tickets challenged, not written. The officer has no control over how many are challenged.

When you write something like this I have to wonder whether you have some sort of personal agenda. Why else would you go around stubbornly clamping your hands over your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, trying to deny the blindingly obvious?

Your claim would appear to be that the officer will spend the same time in court no matter how many tickets he writes, no matter how many of those tickets are invalid. Plainly that is utter bunk.

 

[fuji]

The police union and the government have already negotiated the contact they currently have in place.

I am sure overall it's a fair contract. I am equally sure that they got this particular bit wrong and it is in the public interest to see it fixed.

 

[fuji]

At an earlier part of the discussion I made a presumption that we would only discuss this in the context of legitimate tickets.

Well that was an invalid presumption. You made the wrong assumption that the problem could be solved by firing any officers who violate it. That neither solves the problem, nor resolves the conflict of interest.

So their damned if they do and their damned if they don't.

I am not interested in turning this into a discussion of whether or not any officers actually succumb to the conflict of interest. Plainly the flaw lies with the compensation system so there is no point in damning any officers--let's just fix their compensation package so they are not faced with a conflict of interest.

 

[masterchief]

It is a clear conflict of interest and it needs to be ended, and ended in a way that recognizes that the fault lies with the system and not the officers, and ended in a way that does ont leave them unfairly compensated.

Correct...but sadly most people instead find it easier (like the article) to go after the officers.

It's funny that at no point does the article (or most posters) ask about the responsibility of the province and the Police Serivces Board in this. Utlimatley they're the ones that are to blame for the system.

 

[viking1965]

Well that was an invalid presumption. You made the wrong assumption that the problem could be solved by firing any officers who violate it. That neither solves the problem, nor resolves the conflict of interest.



I am not interested in turning this into a discussion of whether or not any officers actually succumb to the conflict of interest. Plainly the flaw lies with the compensation system so there is no point in damning any officers--let's just fix their compensation package so they are not faced with a conflict of interest.

I'm sorry fuji but you're mistaken, that presumption must be made in order to engage in a rational debate focused on one issue; whether officers should be compensated for their time spent in court defending "legitimate" tickets. It's a line that must be drawn. The "solution" to bogus tickets is solely limited to the disciplining of the officers who perpetrate that act. Accordingly, the occurence of the bogus tickets cannot be used as an argument against the overtime incurred because people choose to challenge "legitimate" violations.

You can't use the presumption that some officers will write bogus tickets in order to increase overtime as a reason to prevent "honest" officers from being fairly compensated when they write legitimate tickets. You're punishing a whole class of individuals based on the actions of a few.

 

[viking1965]

When you write something like this I have to wonder whether you have some sort of personal agenda. Why else would you go around stubbornly clamping your hands over your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, trying to deny the blindingly obvious?

Your claim would appear to be that the officer will spend the same time in court no matter how many tickets he writes, no matter how many of those tickets are invalid. Plainly that is utter bunk.

No, my claim is that the officer has no control over how much time he spends in court. That is determined purely by the number of "offenders" who choose to challenge his tickets.

 

[fuji]

No, my claim is that the officer has no control over how much time he spends in court. That is determined purely by the number of "offenders" who choose to challenge his tickets.

And you don't think there's any connection between the number of tickets written, and how valid those tickets are, and the number of people who challenge??????????????

Seriously???????????????????????????????????

At the point where you refuse to see blatant fact essentially in the eyes of everyone reading this discussion you lose.

We're done.

 

[viking1965]

Why is it so hard for you to grasp the term called "capping"

Oh wait, its because you wanna keep making your $100K+ in court time.
Sorry, I mistook you for someone reputable

I completely understand the term, what I don't understand is why you would want to put "cap" on an activity that helps enforce the law and generate revenue.

I imagine snowplow drivers make a bit of OT too, should we stop plowing the streets once the drivers have reached an overtime cap?

 

[viking1965]

And you don't think there's any connection between the number of tickets written, and how valid those tickets are, and the number of people who challenge??????????????

Seriously???????????????????????????????????

At the point where you refuse to see blatant fact essentially in the eyes of everyone reading this discussion you lose.

We're done.

I don't dispute that there's a connection, but as long as the tickets are legitimate (yes, I stand by that presumption for the purpose of this discussion) the officer is enforcing the law and generating revenue.....What's the problem?

 

[fuji]

I don't dispute that there's a connection

Then there is a conflict of interest. Period. Full stop.

 

[AK-47]

I completely understand the term, what I don't understand is why you would want to put "cap" on an activity that helps enforce the law and generate revenue

For the same reason we cap NHL salaries, if you dont it gets out of control

I understand you dont want your salary capped, but life's a bitch these days we all have to tighten our belts

 

[masterchief]

For the same reason we cap NHL salaries, if you dont it gets out of control

I understand you dont want your salary capped, but life's a bitch these days we all have to tighten our belts

First of all "we" didn't cap NHL salaries. The team owners (which I'm sure your not one of) to maximize profits and minimize skyrocketing players costs implemented a salary cap for the teams payroll.

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Your analogy once again makes no sense.

A better anlogy would be that if people didn't go to games and give the owners money....they wouldn't throw large sums of it at the players....much like if people didn't get vehicular infractions and then request the officer to appear....they wouldn't have to come in on thier days off and get paid for it.

This is the fault of the system....and not the ticketing officer. But you seem to have an agenda.....

 

[viking1965]

For the same reason we cap NHL salaries, if you dont it gets out of control

I understand you dont want your salary capped, but life's a bitch these days we all have to tighten our belts

I'll say this one more time...I'm not LE.

The reason for Salary Caps in professional sports is competitive parity, so that a team like Edmonton can compete with the Rangers who might otherwise "spend" their way to a chanpionship.

Yes, you're right, we wouldn't want law enforcement and revenue generation getting out of control.

 

[masterchief]

Then there is a conflict of interest. Period. Full stop.

Well.....yes and kind of no.

One can argue since police forces are under the scrutiny of a civilian oversight committee (the TPS Board) there is some third party evaluation which does somewhat mitigate the conflict. As is the fact that police salaries are transparent under provincial freedom of information legislation.

Further more...since the calling of the officer to testify to the courts falls under the purview of the Crown Attorney...the conflict is even more diluted.

Unless some sort of mass collusion is uncovered.

It's not so black and white.

 

[AK-47]

First of all "we" didn't cap NHL salaries. The Team owners (which I'm sure your not one of) to maximize profits and minimize skyrocketing players costs implemented a salary cap for the teams payroll.

Oh whatever, you're arguing semantics. Yes I know the owners capped NHL salaries.....duh, the point is they needed to be capped or league spending would spiral out of control. End of story

Your analogy once again makes no sense

It makes perfect sense for those that have a grasp on reality

If they dont cap OT court costs the Toronto deficit will get even bigger, if thats possible under David Miller. And secondly I hate this sense of entitlement you cops have, so if I were mayor I'd cap your salaries just to teach you a lesson

 

[masterchief]

Oh whatever, you're arguing semantics. Yes I know the owners capped NHL salaries.....duh, the point is they needed to be capped or league spending would spiral out of control. End of story

No its not semantics…but an issue of facts. Once again you made erroneous comments and instead of admitting your fault you keep trying to confuse the issue. I think you need to get a better grasp on reality.

If they dont cap OT court costs the Toronto deficit will get even bigger, if thats possible under David Miller. And secondly I hate this sense of entitlement you cops have, so if I were mayor I'd cap your salaries just to teach you a lesson

For the last time...I'm not a cop...not even close. Maybe this will finally get through your moronic head.

And since your understanding of Toronto municipal policy is as stupid as your understanding of the issue…allow me to explain. The Mayor had nothing to do with the Police Budget….that’s the job of the Toronto Police Services Board that the has a seat on. That budget is then presented to the city council who votes on it.

The fact that Toronto is in a deficit has nothing to do with the costs of having Police Officers appear in court to testify as to why people like you feel entitled to think the laws do not apply to you…but more so that you and your left-leaning buddies keep voting in the same spend crazy NDP-er’s into office.