Originally Posted by DannyZ71

I agree with you 100 %. But here is a possible problem. And that's the way the new law is written. Here, we have no such law. But when they first passed the seat belt law, it could not be a primary violation. In other words, an LEO had to see some sort of traffic violation before he could pull the vehicle over. And only then could the LEO also issue a citation for the seat belt violation. It was that way for a good number of years before they changed it so a seat belt could be a primary violation. This could possibly be the reason they're not actively enforcing that new law. It may require a primary violation be observed first. You'd have to check on how the new law is written.

Originally Posted by DannyZ71

It may be a Department mission statement, which is about as valuable as my used underwear, but there is no legal mandate to do so. You won't find it in any ordinance or statute. Most jurisdictions don't want the liability that goes with that.

Originally Posted by travroc

I was blasting on the interstate this morning on my way to work at 85mph today when I see another scoot closing in on me fast. Yep, it was a motor officer. He just blew right by me. I have had this happen to me more times than I can remember. If I was in my cage, I would have been pulled over for sure. The motor officers tend to overlook a speeding 2 wheeler around here in California more than they would a cage, and for that I am grateful. With all the money that Arnold needs, I am glad I have not been ticketed. If they really wanted to stick it to me, they could ticket me for illegal exhaust and use of a novelty helmet (non-DOT). I know California has a bad rap for all our stupid laws and regs, but at least the motor officers here in my area excercise a little discretion.

Do any of you notice the same trend or have different experiences in your area?

ohhhh....I must not forget to say this. Before the HDF Safety Police jumps on me for speeding and/or wearing a non-DOT helmet, step away from your scoot and plant your but in the safe confines of a cage and allow me to wear and ride how I see fit. Thanks........

Originally Posted by Lincoln33

In plain and simple english it is the responsibility of all police officers to protect people as well as their property. Your required "mandate" has been established through the court system that has held officers and departments criminally and civilly liable for failing to act or protect when able to do so. Your wrong on this one Z, now go buy you some new underwear and get over it.

Originally Posted by Eyespy

There is not single law enforcement agency in this country that possesses any duty to protect you, or any other individual. The same is true of their representatives and agents, including law enforcement officers. Were you or anyone on your behalf to challenge this legally, the officers and agencies would have the ruling of the SCOTUS to back them up.

Originally Posted by Eyespy

There is not single law enforcement agency in this country that possesses any duty to protect you, or any other individual. The same is true of their representatives and agents, including law enforcement officers. Were you or anyone on your behalf to challenge this legally, the officers and agencies would have the ruling of the SCOTUS to back them up.

Originally Posted by Devil Dog

Here we go again........

Originally Posted by Lincoln33

You obviously have not been keeping up with civil litigation and court precedence. Officers and departments have been held accountable for failing to protect victims or potential victims, for example domestic abuse victims. Several departments have paid out large settlements after being found liable for not providing or attempting to provide some kind of protection. States have enacted laws that require the police officer to affect an arrest even when the domestic battery victim doesn't want to prosecute. Here in Arkansas the law specifically says an officer can be held civilly liable and charged criminally for failing to enforce the domestic battery laws, in other words provide protection.
I don't feel constrained by these laws or feel the need to challenge them. I personally believe it's a police officers duty to make every effort to protect the public even when it's from themselves.