Fish and Game Conservation Officers

[hancoveguy]

Originally Posted by wifi

In NH, when a police vehicle is exercising his right to violate the law, he is required to use lights/sirens, per RSA 265:8 IIIa

Wrong...read it again and show us the quote that says that! The statute uses the word "may" in most of it's language and only specifies must for the following, neither of which have anything to do with a generic response to an emergency or otherwise-

(2) Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation.

(4) Disregard rules governing direction of movement or turning in specified directions.

This statute says nothing about when an officer is "violating the law". But ofcourse that doesn't matter, lets just bash the police because some "non-police" (trout troopers as it were) violated the law.

A carpenter messed up my shed not too long ago. He had an attitude, took my money and didn't build the shed per specifications... But you know carpenters, they ALL suck and do whatever they want and none of them know how to build things correctly. Oh wait, did I just lump every single carpenter into one category of incompetence because one or two are idiots? Well we do it with cops all the time so I guess thats okay...

[hancoveguy]

So is this going to be another thread that bashes the police?

My place is 500 feet from Green's Basin and I watched just the other day, a boat fly across the end of our cove into Green's at about 30 mph, completely disregarding the NWZ's. It is wrong and what the Fish and Game Personnel did was wrong and they shouldnt do it unless statutorily justified by some sort of emergency (which there does not seem to be here) Not to be sarcastic, but I can't conceive of an emergency in the fish and game realm that would justify this behavior outside of maybe a mutual aid call from real police or MP.

I would chock this up to individual ignorance and not the typical forum response of "all cops are arrogant, power crazed jerks that do whatever they want."

HCG

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Originally Posted by hancoveguy

So is this going to be another thread that bashes the police?

My place is 500 feet from Green's Basin and I watched just the other day, a boat fly across the end of our cove into Green's at about 30 mph, completely disregarding the NWZ's. It is wrong and what the Fish and Game Personnel did was wrong and they shouldnt do it unless statutorily justified by some sort of emergency (which there does not seem to be here) Not to be sarcastic, but I can't conceive of an emergency in the fish and game realm that would justify this behavior outside of maybe a mutual aid call from real police or MP.

I would chock this up to individual ignorance and not the typical forum response of "all cops are arrogant, power crazed jerks that do whatever they want."

HCG

Was the boat in your area around 5pm on Friday? I forgot to mention that the two conservation officers buzzed through the NWZ out by Hanson's Cove also. I know this because I was traveling in the same direction as them. I avoided them by going behind an island that I think is called Round Island ( not sure). All they were doing was looking through binoculars. There wasn't any emergency.

[hancoveguy]

Originally Posted by Green's Basin Girl

Was the boat in your area around 5pm on Friday? I forgot to mention that the two conservation officers buzzed through the NWZ out by Hanson's Cove also. I know this because I was traveling in the same direction as them. I avoided them by going behind an island that I think is called Round Island ( not sure). All they were doing was looking through binoculars. There wasn't any emergency.

That was the location but the incident was a week ago...I'm sure you are intimately familiar with the area GBG, so for others...the NWZ requires headway speed from the big rock that everyone swims on to well into Green's basin as well as all the way into Hanson Cove. The boat I saw blew the NWZ at the rock, the next one at Hanson Cove and presumably the 3rd one entering Green's...It was pretty blatant and it was a big boat, 28 ft or so..

HCG

[tis]

We were in Maine and a cop was in front of us. All of a sudden he put his lights on and we thought he was stopping the guy in front of him. But no, he passed him and after a bit turned his lights off and kept going. He was quite a way ahead of us, but every once in a while we would get a glimpse of him. He wasn't in a GREAT hurry to go anywhere. We were behind him for probably another ten minutes before we turned off. Guess that guy just wasn't going fast enough for him. I never saw that in my life before that.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by tis

We were in Maine and a cop was in front of us. All of a sudden he put his lights on and we thought he was stopping the guy in front of him. But no, he passed him and after a bit turned his lights off and kept going. He was quite a way ahead of us, but every once in a while we would get a glimpse of him. He wasn't in a GREAT hurry to go anywhere. We were behind him for probably another ten minutes before we turned off. Guess that guy just wasn't going fast enough for him. I never saw that in my life before that.

Maybe you guessed wrong!

What is much more likely is that he received a radio call to respond to something and that call was subsequently cancelled. Perhaps two officers were sent to the same call because it sounded serious and the first officer to arrive radioed the second one that he would not be needed. It could have been a car accident and the first one on scene said he could handle it. These types of things happen many times every day in every town!

A lot of times an officer will hear a fellow officer dispatched to a call and start to head that way in case the first officer needs help.

This again illustrates that most people don't understand how or what a police officer does on a daily basis so they choose to criticize with no factual basis for their rant.

[tis]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Maybe you guessed wrong!

What is much more likely is that he received a radio call to respond to something and that call was subsequently cancelled. Perhaps two officers were sent to the same call because it sounded serious and the first officer to arrive radioed the second one that he would not be needed. It could have been a car accident and the first one on scene said he could handle it. These types of things happen many times every day in every town!

A lot of times an officer will hear a fellow officer dispatched to a call and start to head that way in case the first officer needs help.

This again illustrates that most people don't understand how or what a police officer does on a daily basis so they choose to criticize with no factual basis for their rant.

You could be right, but it just didn't seem like it, since he put his lights on just long enough to go by the car and didn't even start to speed off. But I guess neither of us will ever know.

[jrc]

We can have a discussion about the police or other law enforcement people with it being bashing. Let's face it, there is a unwritten rule among LEO's that minor infractions by fellow LEO's will be ignored. HCG can you honestly say that you never pulled over someone for a minor traffic violation and gave them a little more leeway because they were a off duty LEO? Can you say that you never had the same courtesy applied to you?

Now I'm not saying this is a huge wrong, but it does clearly set up an us and them mentality, that colors interactions. One LEO explained his thought process to me. If during a traffic stop a citizen would have a 50/50 shot of getting a summons, a LEO would have a 1/99 shot and that 1% was for a real jerk.

He also explained why he though they were entitled to this professional courtesy. They are public servants, working in a dangerous job for low pay, most traffic citations are revenue driven, so why should they have to contribute this revenue.

You, he and all LEOs know that a huge percentage of traffic citations are for revenue first and safety second. In a real serious safety situation, most LEOs treat other LEOs like citizens.

[hancoveguy]

Originally Posted by jrc

We can have a discussion about the police or other law enforcement people with it being bashing. Let's face it, there is a unwritten rule among LEO's that minor infractions by fellow LEO's will be ignored. HCG can you honestly say that you never pulled over someone for a minor traffic violation and gave them a little more leeway because they were a off duty LEO? Can you say that you never had the same courtesy applied to you?

Now I'm not saying this is a huge wrong, but it does clearly set up an us and them mentality, that colors interactions. One LEO explained his thought process to me. If during a traffic stop a citizen would have a 50/50 shot of getting a summons, a LEO would have a 1/99 shot and that 1% was for a real jerk.

He also explained why he though they were entitled to this professional courtesy. They are public servants, working in a dangerous job for low pay, most traffic citations are revenue driven, so why should they have to contribute this revenue.

You, he and all LEOs know that a huge percentage of traffic citations are for revenue first and safety second. In a real serious safety situation, most LEOs treat other LEOs like citizens.

Jrc..I agree there is a level of professional courtesy as there is in all professions. Do you really think that when a doctor needs a medical procedure he/she is not extended some professional courtesy from a colleague. When you work in a bakery, you get free bread. But...I categorically disagree with your and many others' blanket assumption that traffic enforcement is revenue driven. IT IS NOT! I know many many colleagues in law enforcement and none of them have ever exhibited a propensity for ticketing motorists for the purpose (even secondarily) of generating revenue. Sure at the government level maybe if not probably but at the officer level it is not. There are NO quotas as quotas have been long established as illegal (brought on not by a recipient of a ticket but rather by police unions opposed to dept mandates on tickets and the elimination of officer discretion) As stated earlier, the purpose of routine traffic enforcement is to gain the voluntary compliance of the motoring public, not to generate revenue (and certainly not to line the pockets of insurance companies with surcharges) Check your local dept's stats on tickets issued. I am certain you will find a large if not massively disproportionate number of written warnings (no fine fee or penalty) versus the money fine (citation). LEO's as you call them are people too. They have mortgages and bills and have to pay insurance bills and school tuitions so accordingly they know what it is like to get a ticket/pay a fine and they also know that based on someone's driving history and criminal record (both of which are checked prior to the issuance of a ticket 99% of the time) one can tell if the person will modify their driving accordingly based on a written warning and the infraction being brought to their attention versus the habitual traffic offender who needs a large monetary reminder of the laws of the road.

Now, I absolutely respect your opinion and the opinion of all on the forum, but there is a large faction on here that wouldn't give a cop the benefit of the doubt if their life depended on it...oddly enough, someday it might (hopefully not).

Respectfully,
HCG

BTW.. for all of you with largely negative opinions of the police. I challenge you to go to your local police dept and go on a ride along and see what the average street cop deals with in an 8 hour period. Who knows, maybe this will support your opinion , but maybe it wont Either way you owe it to yourself to see whats on the other side before passing judgement.

[jrc]

It may not be the individual LEO that wants to raise revenue, but in this Ohio town the Chief is on board with it. Let's face it, it's a tax, you don't really believe that speed traps are placed where there is the most danger from speeding versus the most likelihood of speeding?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...her-taxes.aspx

BTW: LEO is short for Law Enforcement Officer, I intend it respectfully.

[hancoveguy]

Jrc, I didn't take your use of LEO as disrepectful, I apologize if thats how it sounded. I can't speak for one town in Ohio but every directed patrol (a superior choosing the radar or enforcement location) that I know of has either been a problem location (site of many accidents or near accidents) or the site of numerous resident complaints.

Its a shame that the chief in the town you are referring to is misusing police discretion. The future lack of the public's trust will support this.

HCG

[TiltonBB]

Hancoveguy is correct.

You can be cited in many states for "failing to keep right" if you travel in the left lane on a multi-lane highway and are not passing another vehicle.

Massachusetts Chapter 89 Section 4B reads in part:
"Upon all ways the driver of a vehicle shall drive in the lane nearest the right side of the way when such lane is available for travel, except when overtaking another vehicle or when preparing for a left turn."

I am not sure if there is a similar law in New Hampshire.

Years ago there were signs on the interstates titled "Lane Use" and it labeled the left lane as the "passing lane" and the rest of the lanes to the right as "travel lanes".

Maybe they should bring back those signs to educate the motoring public.

[hancoveguy]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Maybe you guessed wrong!

What is much more likely is that he received a radio call to respond to something and that call was subsequently cancelled. Perhaps two officers were sent to the same call because it sounded serious and the first officer to arrive radioed the second one that he would not be needed. It could have been a car accident and the first one on scene said he could handle it. These types of things happen many times every day in every town!

A lot of times an officer will hear a fellow officer dispatched to a call and start to head that way in case the first officer needs help.

This again illustrates that most people don't understand how or what a police officer does on a daily basis so they choose to criticize with no factual basis for their rant.

Dead on..this would be my guess. Only other theory is if this was on a highway. If on a multi-lane highway the law requires you to pass in the left lane and travel in the others. Thus making it illegal to travel for any great distance in the furthest left lane unless passing/overtaking. If the person was merely tooling along, the officer may have used his lights to move him out of the "passing" lane.

I do agree that we will probably never know and the officer may have in fact just been an ignorant dipstick. However, I believe we owe law enforcement the over all benefit of the doubt when a plausible explanation exists.

HCG

[tis]

Originally Posted by hancoveguy

Dead on..this would be my guess. Only other theory is if this was on a highway. If on a multi-lane highway the law requires you to pass in the left lane and travel in the others. Thus making it illegal to travel for any great distance in the furthest left lane unless passing/overtaking. If the person was merely tooling along, the officer may have used his lights to move him out of the "passing" lane.

I do agree that we will probably never know and the officer may have in fact just been an ignorant dipstick. However, I believe we owe law enforcement the over all benefit of the doubt when a plausible explanation exists.

HCG

Nope, not on a multi lane highway. Just a two way street with a yellow line.

I really don't care why he did it, we just thought it was obvious what he was doing. I don't think it was necessarily a bad thing. They have better things to do than follow someone who is not doing anything wrong, which this guy wasn't (that we could see). They do hold up traffic when they do that because it's now secret most people slow down when they see a cop.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by hancoveguy

Wrong...read it again and show us the quote that says that! The statute uses the word "may" in most of it's language and only specifies must for the following, neither of which have anything to do with a generic response to an emergency or otherwise-

(2) Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation.

(4) Disregard rules governing direction of movement or turning in specified directions.

This statute says nothing about when an officer is "violating the law". But ofcourse that doesn't matter, lets just bash the police because some "non-police" (trout troopers as it were) violated the law.

A carpenter messed up my shed not too long ago. He had an attitude, took my money and didn't build the shed per specifications... But you know carpenters, they ALL suck and do whatever they want and none of them know how to build things correctly. Oh wait, did I just lump every single carpenter into one category of incompetence because one or two are idiots? Well we do it with cops all the time so I guess thats okay...

The term "may" is used only to show that you as a LEO or EMS personnel may violate certain driving laws in the state of NH, only if you adhere to the conditions outlined within the RSA. I only found it used twice.

Can you explain to all of us laymen what "shall" means when written into a RSA in the State of NH.

For a LEO, your understanding of the law should be as clear as your interpretation of it.

For everyone else reading my post. The colored texts sections are mere highlighted sections within the entire RSA that WiFi linked and Hancoveguy parsed.

You will notice in the blue highlighted area that it lists the laws that can be violated by an emergency vehicle.

The Green section III and Sub-section (b) is a section that should be fully understanding for our resident LEO in what it means as it pertained directly to the list in section II. These are the provisions that need to be met in order violate the laws highlighted in blue.

The dark red paragragh holds violators in emergency vehicles responsible for their disregard of this RSA.

265:8 Emergency Vehicles
September 2, 2011 · Leave a Comment

I. A person driving an emergency vehicle, as defined in RSA 259:28, when responding to an emergency call or when in the pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section, but subject to the conditions herein stated.

II. (a) The driver of an emergency vehicle may:

(1) Park or stand notwithstanding the provisions of Title XXI.
(2) Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation.
(3) Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as he does not endanger life or property.
(4) Disregard rules governing direction of movement or turning in specified directions.
(b) Notwithstanding subparagraph II(a), any emergency vehicle approaching a school bus, which is stopped for the purpose of picking up or dropping off pupils, shall come to a complete stop before proceeding.

III. (a) The exemptions granted to an emergency vehicle in subparagraphs II(a)(1) and (3) shall apply only when such vehicle is making use of audible or visual emergency signals, or, in the case of a privately-owned vehicle being driven by a volunteer firefighter or other volunteer emergency personnel, when such vehicle is making use of audible or visual emergency signals, or when an emergency vehicle is in pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law.

(b) The exemptions granted to an emergency vehicle in subparagraphs II(a)(2) and (4) shall apply only when such vehicle is making use of both audible and visual emergency signals, or, in the case of a privately-owned vehicle being driven by a volunteer firefighter or other volunteer emergency personnel, when such vehicle is making use of both audible and visual emergency signals, or when an emergency vehicle is in pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law.

IV. Any person engaged in part-time law enforcement and who uses his own vehicle shall not display driving emergency lights when not on duty.

V. The provisions of RSA 265:8, II and III shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of his reckless disregard for the safety of others.

VI. A driver of a vehicle being driven on the ways of this state upon the approach from any direction of an emergency vehicle with the siren or flashing light in operation shall turn immediately as far as possible toward the right-hand side of the way and shall bring his vehicle to a standstill until such emergency vehicle has passed.

VII. Upon the immediate approach of an emergency vehicle making use of an audible or visual signal, every pedestrian shall yield the right-of-way to the authorized emergency vehicle. This paragraph shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway, nor from the duty to exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian.


Revisions
1939, 162:2. RL 119:20. RSA 263:40. 1955, 217:1. 1963, 330:1. RSA 262-A:7. 1977, 346:1. 1979, 443:1. 1981, 146:1; 322:1; 322:2; 479:29, 96:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1998.


Area of Law
Title XXI: Motor Vehicles
Chapter 265: Rules Of The Road

[LIforrelaxin]

HCG,

Trying to draw parallelism between a Dr. and professional Courtesy with LEO Profession Courtesy is just wrong. Profession Courtesy is extend to most people on a level that doesn't include, excusing the violation of laws and rules.

When I LEO officer "shows" Professional Courtesy to another LEO, for doing something that the general public would be fined for, or put in jail that is wrong and most definitely outside the bounds of Profession Courtesy. Professional Courtesy is not an excuse for allow another person to knowingly violate a law, any law, no mater how minor. It however has been shown to be the case within LEO organizations... it is also the reason for corruption in Law enforcement agencies. Internal Affairs divisions in large Law enforcement agencies didn't come about for no reason.

I don't have an issue with Police officer in General and have been known to freely talk with them. While most I feel do their jobs with good intentions, there are those that don't. Unfortunately the actions of the bad officers reflect a stronger image the good of the good officers... its just the way it is...