• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYC mayor's SUV caught breaking traffic laws

TacticalEvilDan said:
If I take as a given that his security arrangements are a necessary evil, it is reasonable to me that his driver do certain basic things to make the job of someone trying to hurt the mayor more difficult. I have no more issue with this than I would with the mayor wearing a ballistic vest despite the fact that the average citizen is not allowed to.

If the question is the risk-benefit analysis of the tactics used, that would be a whole different story, but that's not what's happening here. This is like complaining that the Secret Service can walk into the White House armed while average citizens can not. Duly appointed authority figures are given powers that most of us do not have because it has been decided that they need them to do their job.
Click to expand...

I'll concede the tactic but not the timing. Of course he's important and famous and rich and he's the Mayor of New York which is one of very few Mayoral positions that will make you nationally famous. It's good security, as it should be. Perhaps if during his impassioned plea for greater safety, he should have mentioned that there were exceptions to the rule for important people and that this should not be viewed as permission for unimportant people to do it. Then this wouldn't be news, just the same old song.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Yes, or no: Is it your assertion that it is illegal for police officers acting in an official capacity to exceed the speed limit?
Click to expand...

police officers that are not on a code 3 emergency with their lights on with sirens are not allow to speed or break other traffic laws. the fact that they do is of no consequence if they do they are breaking traffic laws. just as they are breaking the law then they do it to run through a red light and not have to wait. which i have seen them do as well.
that is not the discussion here though that is a strawman.

it doesn't matter if you are a cop or the president of the US the law still applies to you as well. you don't get a special pass just because.

in this case the driver of the mayors car broke the law and should be cited the various fines of breaking those laws.
 
sangha said:
The civil code is just as much a part of the law as the criminal code is. As far as the CBS article goes, I didn't see the link. If you repost the link, I will read to determine if it applies.
Click to expand...

The big difference is a traffic code violation isn't criminal, an arrest, nor part of a criminal record. Past a media attempt at gotcha, it isn't changing anything and doesn't negate the security detail's duty to safeguard the mayor.

I don't link well, but it is a simple matter to GOOGLE/BING cbs news mayor runs stop sign.... several other sources say the same thing- if you can google NY traffic stuff I reckon ya can handle this....
 
ludin said:
read the OP so that you know what you are talking about. if you don't read the OP then you don't know what we are discussing and have 0 support for anything that you say.
if you had read the first post in this thread like i have then you would already know
that the driver of the car went through 2 or 3 stop signs and was speeding up to 15 mph over the posted speed limit. that is breaking the law.

so you are the only one in this thread that has failed to backup their assertion.
Click to expand...

Yes, or no: Is it your assertion that it is illegal for police officers acting in an official capacity to exceed the speed limit?

ETA: Missed this:

ludin said:
police officers that are not on a code 3 emergency with their lights on with sirens are not allow to speed or break other traffic laws. the fact that they do is of no consequence if they do they are breaking traffic laws. just as they are breaking the law then they do it to run through a red light and not have to wait. which i have seen them do as well.
that is not the discussion here though that is a strawman.

it doesn't matter if you are a cop or the president of the US the law still applies to you as well. you don't get a special pass just because.

in this case the driver of the mayors car broke the law and should be cited the various fines of breaking those laws.
Click to expand...

Can you point me to the portion of the law that restricts this authority specifically to circumstances when lights and siren are employed? This isn't a strawman, to me it's the whole point, because the protection detail is being provided by on-duty police officers.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
police officers that are not on a code 3 emergency with their lights on with sirens are not allow to speed or break other traffic laws. the fact that they do is of no consequence if they do they are breaking traffic laws. just as they are breaking the law then they do it to run through a red light and not have to wait. which i have seen them do as well.
that is not the discussion here though that is a strawman.

it doesn't matter if you are a cop or the president of the US the law still applies to you as well. you don't get a special pass just because.

in this case the driver of the mayors car broke the law and should be cited the various fines of breaking those laws.
Click to expand...

That first is not true. Example, on duty undercover officers and security details.
 
notquiteright said:
The big difference is a traffic code violation isn't criminal, an arrest, nor part of a criminal record. Past a media attempt at gotcha, it isn't changing anything and doesn't negate the security detail's duty to safeguard the mayor.

I don't link well, but it is a simple matter to GOOGLE/BING cbs news mayor runs stop sign.... several other sources say the same thing- if you can google NY traffic stuff I reckon ya can handle this....
Click to expand...


traffic laws are still laws this is what we call nit picking. the fact still remains that the driver of the SUV broke traffic laws in a non-emergancy situation in which any other person would be cited with moving violation and given that the speed was 15 mph or more over the speed limit probably reckless endangerment.

his license would be suspended.
 
clownboy said:
That first is not true. Example, on duty undercover officers and security details.
Click to expand...

no it isn't unless they are in an emergency situation or responding with lights and sirens to an emergency situation they still have to obey traffic laws. period end of story.
 
notquiteright said:
The big difference is a traffic code violation isn't criminal, an arrest, nor part of a criminal record. Past a media attempt at gotcha, it isn't changing anything and doesn't negate the security detail's duty to safeguard the mayor.

I don't link well, but it is a simple matter to GOOGLE/BING cbs news mayor runs stop sign.... several other sources say the same thing- if you can google NY traffic stuff I reckon ya can handle this....
Click to expand...

I never said a traffic code violation is criminal. I said that violating it was against the law.

BTW, you can be put in jail for speeding.

And I did Google the story and found one by CBS but it had no link or description of the rules concerning when and why police officers can disregard the law.

Mayor de Blasio’s Caravan Caught Speeding, Violating Traffic Laws « CBS New York
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Yes, or no: Is it your assertion that it is illegal for police officers acting in an official capacity to exceed the speed limit?
Click to expand...

you don't read very well do you. yes it is illegal for a police officer to break any traffic law unless he is responding to an emergency. that would mean that he has lights and sirens on.
since a police officer on duty or even off duty can act in official capacity he still has to follow the traffic laws.
 
sangha said:
I accept your surrender
Click to expand...

You're free to engage in whatever hallucinogenic fantasies you like, it doesn't change the fact that there's no point in having a discussion with you when you are incapable of answering a simple yes-or-no question about your position.
 
ludin said:
you don't read very well do you. yes it is illegal for a police officer to break any traffic law unless he is responding to an emergency. that would mean that he has lights and sirens on.
since a police officer on duty or even off duty can act in official capacity he still has to follow the traffic laws.
Click to expand...

Spotted your subsequent post, thought I edited it in fast enough to avoid confusion, apologies. Please go up and re-read.
 
BTW, for those of you who think these illegal maneuvers were justified by the need for security - Our previous mayor used to commute to work on the NYC subway.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You're free to engage in whatever hallucinogenic fantasies you like, it doesn't change the fact that there's no point in having a discussion with you when you are incapable of answering a simple yes-or-no question about your position.
Click to expand...

Gee, another response from you? And here I thought you said we were done :shrug:

I do not answer "Do you still beat your wife?" questions. They are dishonest, just as your leading question was dishonest.

BTW, since you seem to think these illegal maneuvers were justified by the need for security - Our previous mayor used to commute to work on the NYC subway.
 
sangha said:
Gee, another response from you? And here I thought you said we were done :shrug:
Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of people lying about me, and you lied about me when you implied I surrendered. Quit with the lies and I won't have to respond in order to clear up your deception.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I'm not a big fan of people lying about me, and you lied about me when you implied I surrendered. Quit with the lies and I won't have to respond in order to clear up your deception.
Click to expand...

I implied nothing. You said you were done, and that *was* a surrender. That's not an implication; It's a statement of fact

Now quit with the dishonest questions and post some evidence that what they did was legal
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Yes, or no: Is it your assertion that it is illegal for police officers acting in an official capacity to exceed the speed limit?

ETA: Missed this:



Can you point me to the portion of the law that restricts this authority specifically to circumstances when lights and siren are employed? This isn't a strawman, to me it's the whole point, because the protection detail is being provided by on-duty police officers.
Click to expand...

this is common knowledge i don't have to point out anything. you have to point out where they can break the law which they can't. they are under the same laws as everyone else unless they are responding to an emergency.

it doesn't matter if they are on protection detail or not. they are still required to follow any and all traffic laws.
 
ludin said:
traffic laws are still laws this is what we call nit picking. the fact still remains that the driver of the SUV broke traffic laws in a non-emergancy situation in which any other person would be cited with moving violation and given that the speed was 15 mph or more over the speed limit probably reckless endangerment.

his license would be suspended.
Click to expand...

Unless of course he/she was an on duty police officer performing his/her duties. That of course is the case here.
 
ludin said:
traffic laws are still laws this is what we call nit picking. the fact still remains that the driver of the SUV broke traffic laws in a non-emergancy situation in which any other person would be cited with moving violation and given that the speed was 15 mph or more over the speed limit probably reckless endangerment. his license would be suspended.
Click to expand...

'We' call it nitpicking? Some of we call it silly whining. but let's play, first NO ONE can cite anyone but a LE who witnessed the violation.(red light cameras are an exception) A citizen sees a car weaving in traffic and speeding, he calls 911 to report the car got off at a rest stop, the Cop arrives, but unless the Cop sees it he can't write it so no points for the driver, or any driver who changes lanes without signalling caught on civilian tape.

Now you are correct about a uniform cop having to obey traffic code when not on a call. (it isn't limited to emergency and he doesn't have to run on lights and siren as there are times a cop doesn't announce he is coming.)

You may not like it, but security details can and do receive special freedoms- if no one is endangered- to ensure they minimize risk. the NYPD has issued such a statement. Now should this be changed- I don't think so but I have a feeling the 'treat everyone the same' crowd does- have fun having at it...

I don't like 'duty' cops and highway patrol doing 20 over the speed limit- but a charge of reckless endangerment might be difficult to make stick- LE gets advanced training in driving...
 
clownboy said:
Unless of course he/she was an on duty police officer performing his/her duties. That of course is the case here.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see anyone post any evidence that the mayor's driver was allowed to break the law under the circumstances that existed in this event.
 
sangha said:
I have yet to see anyone post any evidence that the mayor's driver was allowed to break the law under the circumstances that existed in this event.
Click to expand...

Haven't yet seen any evidence that any law was broken here in the first place. Other than perhaps by the muckraking crew doing the following. By your position, the Secret Service and law enforcement officers on duty everywhere would be cited near continuously.
 
clownboy said:
Unless of course he/she was an on duty police officer performing his/her duties. That of course is the case here.
Click to expand...

wrong it doesn't matter if they are on duty or not. unless they are responding to an emergency or a call they are still required to obey any and all traffic laws.
 
clownboy said:
Haven't yet seen any evidence that any law was broken here in the first place. Other than perhaps by the muckraking crew doing the following. By your position, the Secret Service and law enforcement officers on duty everywhere would be cited near continuously.
Click to expand...

I have already posted the link which shows it is illegal to go through stop signs, speed and change lanes without signalling

Article 30 - NY Vehicle and Traffic Law - Speed Restrictions
 
clownboy said:
Haven't yet seen any evidence that any law was broken here in the first place. Other than perhaps by the muckraking crew doing the following. By your position, the Secret Service and law enforcement officers on duty everywhere would be cited near continuously.
Click to expand...

he ran through 2 or 3 stop signs and was speeding 15 mpg over the speed limit in is breaking the law traffic laws.
they are not responding to an emergency situation they do not have permission to break traffic laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom