Is the use of a radar detector morally justifiable?

[aspawloski4th]

By the way, for those wondering. I do not own a radar detector. I’m poor and unemployed. I’m just using my personal situation to defend the side of those who have them. If I’m more well to do someday. I will look into getting one.

 

[BobCatholic]

Being illegal doesn’t bode well for it being morally okay to use. Why would it be illegal in some states?

Illegality does not speak about the morality of an action. There are plenty of examples of laws which allow immoral actions, and prohibit morally neutral actions. By saying that illegal=immoral this is legal positivism, and I think this was condemned by the Church.

States make radar detectors illegal for one reason and one reason only: it cuts into their speeding ticket revenue. Thanks to leechy governments, police are becoming local versions of IRS agents. “enforce the law and make money doing so”

In the future, perhaps local police departments will be traded on the stock exchange.

 

[BobCatholic]

“you” are not personally being monitred by the government.

Really?

Then who am I monitored by? A private agency?

Of course this is monitoring by the government. It doesn’t matter it is on a public way or not. I’m being monitored using a technology that is invisible, namely radar. The police usually don’t stay out in easy view - many set up traps behind bushes, or behind billboards, etc. so that by the time you notice they are monitoring you, it is too late.

George Orwell was prophetic in “1984”

 

[BobCatholic]

I would still argure that it is immoral to use one for the purpose of evading the law. You dodged the question. What is a moral use?

I don’t speed and I have one. I like to know when I’m being monitored by the government looking for new victims to leech off of.

Is that a morally permissible use? I think so.

 

[Nick_in_MB]

“enforce the law and make money doing so”

That reminds me of what a local politician once told me about police down here.

Years ago, they’d pull you over if you were speeding, no change from today.
Except, if you had money on you, you could pay your fine right then and there to the police officer, and be on your way. And because you paid it right when you got pulled over, nobody but you or the police officer knew about it. Perfectly legal, and it didn’t hurt your insurance or add any points to you license.

It was only if you didn’t have any money that they would go through with the official way, and write a ticket.

 

[CWBetts]

I don’t speed and I have one. I like to know when I’m being monitored by the government looking for new victims to leech off of.

Is that a morally permissible use? I think so.

In other words, you refuse to accept the authority of the government as legitimite. The govenment can pass laws, but are not allowed to enforce said laws?

 

[Nick_in_MB]

I want to know how having a radar detector and knowing that a cop who is using his radar is close by is akin to refusing to accept authority.

 

[CWBetts]

I want to know how having a radar detector and knowing that a cop who is using his radar is close by is akin to refusing to accept authority.

Feeling the need to monitor police on your own, without authority i must add, is in its vary nature exhibiting a fprm of paranoia towards those in legitimate society. If you aren’t speeding, then what are you afraid of? This attitude that police are not to be trusted is deplorable.

 

[Nick_in_MB]

Feeling the need to monitor police on your own, without authority i must add, is in its vary nature exhibiting a fprm of paranoia towards those in legitimate society.

Without authority? You make it sound like we’re not allowed to do what we are saying we are allowed to do, monitor the activity of a public official.

If you aren’t speeding, then what are you afraid of?

Oppression of the government, legally done through the good ol’ boy system.

This attitude that police are not to be trusted is deplorable.

Not all police. But I’m not one to think that just because they’re a cop, they can be trusted.

Being a cop does give you some heightened level of respect due, but it doesn’t mean you can then drive well over the speed limit and think you can get away with it while off-duty. It doesn’t mean that, where illegal, you can hide behind a tree and then pull over a speeder that passed you by.

They too, like all public officials, have to obey the laws they are to make/enforce.

Like the councilman who was selling drugs out of his gas station.
wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3783468
Being a politician, a public official, doesn’t give you the right to break the law, in this case, distribute drugs. But, it does make it harder to enforce.
The state never once told the local police of their investigation. For all due purposes, the local police could/should have been able to be trusted with the information of the investigation. It’s not a matter of the state overruling local police. We don’t have that here. It’s “home rule.” Local city police maintain their city, county police maintain unincorporated areas. State maintain state highways, but don’t go on calls. All help out the other if they are in the area. That’s the law, so the Loris police should have been in on the investigation.
Yet, the state police didn’t feel they could be trusted, the good ol’ boy system of politics.

 

[Nick_in_MB]

And you asked earlier for the Catechism. Is this not appropriate?

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2.shtml#2242

2242
The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."48 “We must obey God rather than men”:49

    When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.50

I’m not talking about this if an officer is illegally pulling me over, and i know it, that I’m going to keep on going. That itself breaks a law, failing to stop for blue lights.

 

[BiologyBrain]

Illegality does not speak about the morality of an action. There are plenty of examples of laws which allow immoral actions, and prohibit morally neutral actions. By saying that illegal=immoral this is legal positivism, and I think this was condemned by the Church.

Actually, according to the CCC if something is illegal and that law is not contrary to natural law, performing that act is immoral b/c you aren’t following legitimate authority/law. Even if that something is in & of itself morally neutral, if there is a law against it, the Church would have us obey the law - not our gut feeling.

States make radar detectors illegal for one reason and one reason only: it cuts into their speeding ticket revenue. Thanks to leechy governments, police are becoming local versions of IRS agents. “enforce the law and make money doing so”

Could you please state any actual reference to this? This reeks of conspiracy theory/paranoia to me. Speeding can be dangerous. Having a device that allows you to discriminately (according to whether it indicates there’s radar nearby) and potentially endanger someone else’s life (where the radar isn’t present), isn’t nice, moral, or necessary. Contrary to popular belief the police agency doesn’t necessarily pocket the money from your fines/tickets. The money is spread out throughout the community/government - not just police. Cops don’t get paid by the ticket they write - they get paid by the hours they work. Whether they write 10 tickets or none, solve a big crime or not, etc - they get paid. Just like me working in the crime lab. Whether we get a conviction or not, I get paid just exactly the same.

 

[BiologyBrain]

Feeling the need to monitor police on your own, without authority i must add, is in its vary nature exhibiting a fprm of paranoia towards those in legitimate society. If you aren’t speeding, then what are you afraid of? This attitude that police are not to be trusted is deplorable.

I agree. If you aren’t speeding/doing something wrong. Why do you need a radar detector and/or to police the police? The main reason its ‘wrong’ for them to hide behind objects is for legal purposes… Lawyers love to play w/ these kinds of things. If you’re speeding & the cop is hidden, but still radars you - you’re still wrong. You were still doing something wrong. Just b/c he did something wrong as well does not negate the wrong you did. In other words - two wrongs do not make a right.

I agree that since there are rules about where they can position themselves to monitor traffic, they should stick to these rules and enforce them amongst themselves. Its not a bad thing for a citizen to bring the police wrongs to the attention of his/her superiors. However, I don’t think this is seriously a big enough issue to scream police brutality, corruption, and/or conspiracy against the people. You also must realize that the rules for different areas are different. Some agencies have more stringent rules about concealment than others. What you consider a police hiding spot, may actually be allowable legally. What’s a hiding spot from one direction, may be plainly visible from the other.

The big issue is that whether you have a radar detector or not, if the cop is hiding in a spot & you’re doing nothing wrong, its not going to be a burden on you. Ultimately, I don’t understand the obsession w/ radar detectors &/or police concealment. Why does it matter so much to you (anyone)?

 

[1holycatholic]

Of course this is monitoring by the government. It doesn’t matter it is on a public way or not. I’m being monitored using a technology that is invisible, namely radar.

If a police officer calculates your speed by watching you drive past landmarks and recording your time doing it they are using an invisible monitoring technology.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Feeling the need to monitor police on your own, without authority i must add, is in its vary nature exhibiting a fprm of paranoia towards those in legitimate society. If you aren’t speeding, then what are you afraid of? This attitude that police are not to be trusted is deplorable.

All police are not your friend.

None of the police are my friend when they light me up.

The very term “If you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about…” is the very term law enforcement use to get you to give up your 4th amendment rights to submit to searches.

Most people do not have a clue what their rights are.

Police and courts are put in place to catch, prosecute, and punish lawbreakers.

If you really think you go through life without breaking laws you are naive. Ignorance is no excuse. Certainly it is not a sin, but the courts do not deal in sin, they deal in civil authority.

One problem with people allowiong their rights to be trampled on is that eventually you have none.

You will probably throw up a platitude or two on this, but giving up your rights and allowing agressive law enforcement to walk on you is not the definition of being a good Catholic.

Eddie Mac

 

[CWBetts]

All police are not your friend.

None of the police are my friend when they light me up.

The very term “If you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about…” is the very term law enforcement use to get you to give up your 4th amendment rights to submit to searches.

Most people do not have a clue what their rights are.

Police and courts are put in place to catch, prosecute, and punish lawbreakers.

If you really think you go through life without breaking laws you are naive. Ignorance is no excuse. Certainly it is not a sin, but the courts do not deal in sin, they deal in civil authority.

One problem with people allowiong their rights to be trampled on is that eventually you have none.

You will probably throw up a platitude or two on this, but giving up your rights and allowing agressive law enforcement to walk on you is not the definition of being a good Catholic.

Eddie Mac

Using radar to monitor traffic is nat a violation of anyones civil rights. Anyone who thinks it is, is suffering from paranoid delusions. The police are ENTITLED to monitor traffic. It is part of their job. I am assuming that you don’t think that the police are given any authority to actually enforce laws. We should give police the benefit of the doubt. Are all cops good cops? Of course not, to think otherwise would be , in a word, idiotic. However until an officer proves himself corrupt, why should you immediately assume that all cops are? Again, the use of radar or laser to monitor traffic is not a violation of rights, but a reasonable tactic to ensure laws are being followed.

 

[Shin]

Using radar to monitor traffic is nat a violation of anyones civil rights. Anyone who thinks it is, is suffering from paranoid delusions. The police are ENTITLED to monitor traffic. It is part of their job. I am assuming that you don’t think that the police are given any authority to actually enforce laws. We should give police the benefit of the doubt. Are all cops good cops? Of course not, to think otherwise would be , in a word, idiotic. However until an officer proves himself corrupt, why should you immediately assume that all cops are? Again, the use of radar or laser to monitor traffic is not a violation of rights, but a reasonable tactic to ensure laws are being followed.

I see neither the use of radar to monitor, nor the use of radar detectors to monitor the monitors as a problem.

The authorities are there to keep an eye on things and prevent citizens behaving badly, and the citizens most certainly must keep an eye on the authorities or they will behave badly too.

There is a point where things go too far into the private sphere, but I don’t think radar or radar detectors are that point.

Now if someone was using electronic equipment to peer into another person’s house… that would be different. That’s where search warrants justly come in.

But even then I would support people being able to buy things to detect any such surveillance, as search warrants aren’t always right.

Openness. It’s a beautiful thing.

 

[pismopal]

Speaking as a retired professional traffic enforcement officer…I can say that traffic law enforcement is noble and purposefull in most cases. Radar is another subject altogether…it has become a taxing tool against motorists and the use of a detector is entirely justified IMO. There is a huge difference between unsafe driving and the punctillious enforcement of an arbitrary number representing a speed limit. I don’t see any moral issue at all.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Using radar to monitor traffic is nat a violation of anyones civil rights. Anyone who thinks it is, is suffering from paranoid delusions. The police are ENTITLED to monitor traffic. It is part of their job. I am assuming that you don’t think that the police are given any authority to actually enforce laws. We should give police the benefit of the doubt. Are all cops good cops? Of course not, to think otherwise would be , in a word, idiotic. However until an officer proves himself corrupt, why should you immediately assume that all cops are? Again, the use of radar or laser to monitor traffic is not a violation of rights, but a reasonable tactic to ensure laws are being followed.

This is the second time in this thread you have accused me of stating that radar violates my rights when I said no such thing and the second time you have implied that my post shows that I am mentally diseased.

Don’t do it again.

Traffic stops often turn into fishing expeditions. I gave an example of one earlier in this thread. They have asked me. I turn them down. My last post stated the few people stopped for traffic violations are familiar enough with their constitutional rights to stop nosy cops from gaining permission to search WHEN THEY DO NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE.

Cops do not deserve “the benefit of the doubt”. There are rules of evidence and the last time I checked we are innocent until proven guilty except when dealing with the IRS or when you are arrested under the unPatriot Act.

Eddie Mac

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Speaking as a retired professional traffic enforcement officer…I can say that traffic law enforcement is noble and purposefull in most cases. Radar is another subject altogether…it has become a taxing tool against motorists and the use of a detector is entirely justified IMO. There is a huge difference between unsafe driving and the punctillious enforcement of an arbitrary number representing a speed limit. I don’t see any moral issue at all.

The voice of reason.

Thank you, sir.

Eddie Mac

 

[wjp984]

If anyone here who insists that the speed limits are actually set for driver safety can produce proof I will listen.

Traffic laws especially speed limits are for revenue generation and have little to do with safety. Speed limits are easy to enforce with ladar and radar.

If you will notice there are traffic laws that are enforced and those that are not.

Enforce the laws that the left lane hogs are breaking and you will improve safety and eliminate a lot of angry drivers.

If traffic laws were about safety cell phones would be illegal.

If traffic laws were aboutr safety there would not be drivers on the road with 10-12 DUI convictions.

Eddie Mac

While I would love to agree with your assessment since I hate speed limits, I think the United States using the power of the power of federal funds in forcing Montana to implement a speed limit refutes this argument. Congress doesn’t get mony from Montana’s revenue from speeding tickets yet the forced them to implement one under penalty of reduced federal funding in the interest of highway safety.

Just because you take someone’s license away and even their car, does not mean they aren’t just going to buy another one and drive anyways. So ya, one can have 10 DUIS and still drive illegally. And yes they will be caught again for the umpteenth time. But as bad as this is, providing the person does not kill someone it just does not warrant more than a year or so in jail.