vision2020
Officer discretion
- To: "Vision2020" <vision2020@moscow.com>
- Subject: Officer discretion
- From: "John Danahy" <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:39:28 -0800
- Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:45:27 -0800 (PST)
- Resent-From: vision2020@moscow.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <8yGLeC.A.evF.dU1g4@whale.fsr.net>
- Resent-Sender: vision2020-request@moscow.com
Chief Weaver certainly makes some valid points for "officer discretion", but
there are negative aspects of this too. People, knowing they will not be
ticketed, do not clear the sidewalks of snow leading the sidewalks to become
covered with ice. This endangers the people using the sidewalks, which is
why we have the ordinance requiring property owners clear their sidewalks.
In this case, officer discretion then defeats the purpose of the ordinance
and endangers the individuals who use the communities sidewalks.
Another negative side to this I have seen is the relatively common practice
of not ticketing teens consuming alcohol or drugs. The community has spent
thousands of tax dollars on a Dare program that teaches students the
consequences of consuming alcohol or drugs, but the students quickly learn
that "officer discretion" means there are no consequences. Thus officer
discretion works to undermine the very efforts of the same officers' work in
the Dare program.
John
John and Laurie Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com
Back to TOC