SEATBELTS

Since when are LT's writing UTC's to on duty deputies for not wearing their seatbelts. It is only getting worse.

Since when do deputies NOT have to wear seatbelts? It's the LAW!

When has that happened?

Since when are LT's writing UTC's to on duty deputies for not wearing their seatbelts. It is only getting worse.

Since there is a law that you have to wear seatbelts and there is also a policy, what makes us any different then anyone else. Now me personally, I wouldn't do it unless I received an order to do so. I would however take you aside and chew your a?? out an if you did it again. Woe is you.

Since when are LT's writing UTC's to on duty deputies for not wearing their seatbelts. It is only getting worse.

Since there is a law that you have to wear seatbelts and there is also a policy, what makes us any different then anyone else. Now me personally, I wouldn't do it unless I received an order to do so. I would however take you aside and chew your a?? out an if you did it again. Woe is you.
How about posting your name so I can keep an eye out for you. I want to make sure you are always wearing your seatbelt, but I am willing to bet you don’t. If a LT gave one to an on duty Deputy then I am willing to bet it was personal.

I am not in Law Enforcement and never will be' especially if it is like all the complaining you guys do on the forum. I thought there was a thing called professionally courtosy. I never heard of an officer writing another a ticket or arresting one. But may be I was wrong. And for the last poster that would pull him to the side and chew his a##....you sound like an a## remember that might be the A## that saves yours. (just a thought)

Granted it is a traffic infraction but there is such a thing as a verbal warning. If the Lt already gave the deputy a warning then it's ALMOST understandable. If not then it's just plain lowdown dirty, assinine loserville of the LT.

Since when are LT's writing UTC's to on duty deputies for not wearing their seatbelts. It is only getting worse.


FAKE

Since when are LT's writing UTC's to on duty deputies for not wearing their seatbelts. It is only getting worse.

Since there is a law that you have to wear seatbelts and there is also a policy, what makes us any different then anyone else. Now me personally, I wouldn't do it unless I received an order to do so. I would however take you aside and chew your a?? out an if you did it again. Woe is you.
How about posting your name so I can keep an eye out for you. I want to make sure you are always wearing your seatbelt, but I am willing to bet you don’t. If a LT gave one to an on duty Deputy then I am willing to bet it was personal.

Apparently you can't read. Same goes for Outsider Lookin' In.

I don't condone what the LT did if indeed it happened. I have asked around and haven't found anyone to verify it yet.

I said in my post that I wouldn't do it unless I was ordered to. If the Sheriff walked up to me and told me to write you a ticket for not wearing your seatbelt, you can bet I would.

Minus that order, since I'm a supervisor, it would be my job to tell you to wear it. To do any less would be negligence on my part as well as a violation of policy and if I caught you ignoring my order you would have hell to pay. You would probably rather I wrote you the ticket.

As for wearing my seatbelt, yes I do, always and always have since it became policy. Which I can bet is longer than you have been in Law Enforcement. So I won't have to worry about you writing me a ticket. Of course if you can't write any better than you read I guess none of us has anything to worry about. Do we?

As for Outsider Lookin' In, sometimes doing my job requires me to be an A##. That's just part of being a supervisor. If my guys and girls do what their suppose to do then no one has anything to worry about from me.

Guestttttttttttt, that would make you a good supervisor. I'm glad there are still a few out there.

1st of all, I still dont believe this has actually happened unless somebody can give me names of those involved.

2nd, I would like to remind everybody that, while on duty, LEOs are exempt from traffic laws. Otherwise you would deserve tickets for speeding, run red lights, etc. Seatbelts are part of 316 and not required for LEOs in the performance of their duties.

1st of all, I still dont believe this has actually happened unless somebody can give me names of those involved.

2nd, I would like to remind everybody that, while on duty, LEOs are exempt from traffic laws. Otherwise you would deserve tickets for speeding, run red lights, etc. Seatbelts are part of 316 and not required for LEOs in the performance of their duties.

We are exempt from traffic laws, but have a more restrictive agency policy to abide by. I suggest you look closely at our policy which, if violated, could result in disciplinary actions.

No we are exempt from CERTAIN traffic laws.

1st of all, I still dont believe this has actually happened unless somebody can give me names of those involved.

2nd, I would like to remind everybody that, while on duty, LEOs are exempt from traffic laws. Otherwise you would deserve tickets for speeding, run red lights, etc. Seatbelts are part of 316 and not required for LEOs in the performance of their duties.

We are exempt from traffic laws, but have a more restrictive agency policy to abide by. I suggest you look closely at our policy which, if violated, could result in disciplinary actions.

You are only exempt from a few traffic laws while in the active performance of your duties. This does not include while on routine patrol and you don't feel like sitting at a red light so you cut through a gas station parking lot to avoid the light. On the other hand, if you were responding to an emergency and traffic was backed up and it was safer to cut through said parking lot for a quicker response this is excusable. Just like exceeding the speed limit, going the wrong way on a one way street, things like that. Under no circumstance are you exempt from wearing your seatbelt unless you have a doctor's excuse on record that a seatbelt is detrimental to your health and safety if worn by you while in a vehicle. Short answer, wear your freakin seatbelt!

The statute does not say "some" or "certain" traffic laws... it says "shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter while in teh performance of their duties."

If I am on the clock, I'm in the performance of my duties.

Kids,
Don't get all wrapped around the axle on seat belt use. Here is what you should really be concerned with -
Some, if not all insurance carriers view lack of seat belt use as a mitigating factor when calculating how much to pay on a claim. Consider this - you are responding to a call without a seat belt and have a crash. The insurance company will reduce their pay out because your negligent act (not wearing the belt) made your injuries worse. Figure a cost of 25 to 50 percent. Not really worth it. I'll wear the belt just for that reason.

The statute does not say "some" or "certain" traffic laws... it says "shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter while in teh performance of their duties."

If I am on the clock, I'm in the performance of my duties.

So if someone is on the clock and they need to get to Krispy Kreme before they close (I know, they don't, just a hypothetical), you think that you're exempt if you run 75 mph because you're on duty?

Apparently whoever wrote the statute assumed that police officers would display at least a minimal amount of common sense but obviously they were wrong. They should have been more explicit in defining "in the performance of your duties".

It's frightening that some of you protect and serve if you aren't any smarter than that.

The statute does not say "some" or "certain" traffic laws... it says "shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter while in teh performance of their duties."

If I am on the clock, I'm in the performance of my duties.

Then why is it we can receive a traffic citation from the FHP in connection with a traffic crash or at least being shown at fault. Before you spout off about that which you are obviously not an expert, you might check case law etc. Not all statutes have the corrections that come from case law.

Case law states that while you are on the clock you are covered by insurance etc. It however does not allow you to violate traffic laws just because you want to. It allows you to disregard traffic laws only when necessary to carry out your official duties and with due care. Not wearing your seatbelt is not exercising due care. I guess you don't know that you can be held liable for injuries sustained when you cause an accident when it can be proven you acted recklessly, even if you were on the clock.

Don't let the badge go to your head. You are only making responsible officers look bad. If you want to be irresponsible then go to work for Mayberry. I hear their hiring and this way you probably won't have to worry about not being able to work your side job when we have a thunderstorm either.

Besides policy trumps the statute. And for your info, we are self insured and the policy associated with our insurance states no seatbelt, no payout for injuries and Blue Cross sent a notice to the SO that if an Officer was injured in a traffic crash because of failure to wear the seatbelt, no payout would be made from your health insurance. Do you want to take that chance.

The statute does not say "some" or "certain" traffic laws... it says "shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter while in teh performance of their duties."

If I am on the clock, I'm in the performance of my duties.
You are, in the opinion of this deputy, a total and complete moron. I hope you aren't on my shift.

The statute does not say "some" or "certain" traffic laws... it says "shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter while in teh performance of their duties."

If I am on the clock, I'm in the performance of my duties.

You need to dig deeper and check again.

Thank you everyone that participated in my experiment. This post was made up by me just to see the responses. What's funny is i have been hearing some guys saying they know who the LT is.....NO YOU DON'T....because it never happened...it just goes to show that you can't believe a thing you read on this forum. Once again thanks.

Most of the people who answered your little experiment ,said when did this happen ,or this is not true , so i would say most of us know the dept better than you , so since this was a lie you made up what does that say about you. Your little gotcha moment fell flat.

It says that he is one of the people that likes to start rumors about others.

It says that he is one of the people that likes to start rumors about others.
Thank you dear.

Most of the people who answered your little experiment ,said when did this happen ,or this is not true , so i would say most of us know the dept better than you , so since this was a lie you made up what does that say about you. Your little gotcha moment fell flat.
And you've never lied on this forum? You're a hypocrite.

You are one sick puppy.

Thank you everyone that participated in my experiment. This post was made up by me just to see the responses. What's funny is i have been hearing some guys saying they know who the LT is.....NO YOU DON'T....because it never happened...it just goes to show that you can't believe a thing you read on this forum. Once again thanks.

Your an IDIOT. I just read through EVERY POST and not one said they KNEW who the Lt. was but many asked WHO it was. Several indicated they thought the original post was BS as well. I'm surprised that you didn't throw a name in there to somehow make you "experiment" work. What a moron!

Thank you everyone that participated in my experiment. This post was made up by me just to see the responses. What's funny is i have been hearing some guys saying they know who the LT is.....NO YOU DON'T....because it never happened...it just goes to show that you can't believe a thing you read on this forum. Once again thanks.

Your an IDIOT. I just read through EVERY POST and not one said they KNEW who the Lt. was but many asked WHO it was. Several indicated they thought the original post was BS as well. I'm surprised that you didn't throw a name in there to somehow make you "experiment" work. What a moron!

I am glad you wasted your time reading every post (that was one of the points). And you are right nobody said they knew who it was ON THIS SIGHT dumb@##...and I did not say that I saw some of the guys typing about who it was...if you take the time to read the whole post i said earlier it states, "I have been HEARING (you know with my ears; dumb@##) some of the guys saying they know who the LT is". Just remember everyone talks in the hallways the lockerroom gym, even away from work, so go ahead and waste your time reading every post and wait for the next time. Now who is the MORON!!! Lookin forward to hearing from you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dude you got way too much time on your hands. You need to stay surfing porn and stay OFF this site just so you can TRY and stir crap. What a loser.