Why is the Sutton, Massachusetts police chief still employed after being accused of setting a ticket quota? Because of the difference between “us” and “them.”
If he were treated like his victims he’d be out of a job already.
Massachusetts RMV will revoke the license of a driver said by a police chief to be an “immediate threat” to public safety. For example, showing a bad attitude during a traffic stop is a clear sign that the driver is an immediate threat. Being defiant instead of contrite in traffic court months after getting a speeding ticket has also been an immediate threat to public safety.
Can we afford the risk of having a police chief who may have set a a ticket quota? I don’t think so. He’s an immediate threat.
Of course I’m not advocating doing away with factfinding. I’m simply suggesting the same “shoot first, ask questions later” policy police use.
First, revoke the driver’s license.
Second, charge a nonrefundable fee for the privilege of pleading not guilty.
That fee earns the driver a mock trial where there are no witnesses and the defendant is presumed guilty. More on that another time.
Meanwhile, sauce for the goose and all that.
The opinions expressed in belong to the author and do not necessarily represent those of the National Motorists Association or the NMA Foundation. This content is for informational purposes and is not intended as legal advice. No representations are made regarding the accuracy of this post or the included links.
