"Chew out or write ticket, but not both"???

[Neobamboom]

I was recently on Socnet reviewing some of the threads and stumbled across something that I had never heard before that really intrigued me. A campus security officer was mentioning writing his first ticket, and stated that he chewed out the individual and then cited her. The thread turned into a debate on whether you should do as the Title says, "Chew out or write ticket, but not both". I've never seen it mentioned in any of the threads here, so I wanted to get your guys' opinions on that philosophy.

So what do you think?

[acreature]

When in doubt, lay ink on 'em.

[Drew27k9]

If I feel they deserve a ticket, that is what they get. If I want to give them a warning, they get a warning. I don't chew them out. I am not out there to put people down

[Old Trooper]

That was always my way of doing things- they either got a verbal warning (chewing out) or they got a piece of paper. Never both.

[Colonel]

"Chew out or write ticket, but not both"? I never do both.

[Neobamboom]

Old Trooper and Colonel (and any others that don't do both), why don't you do both?

[Babysmamadrama]

I rarely chew people out. But I have chewed the passenger out, gave the driver a ticket and then told him he would not have gotten it if his passenger had not run his mouth.

Talk about tossing the Apple of Discord. :D

Attitude is everything.

[Old Trooper]

Well, I always figured if I gave the driver paper, the judge would chew him out, or at least get into his pocket, which was even better

[mcsap]

If I deem the offense grave ( or extremely stupid) enough , I do both.

[acreature]

I get more complaints when I give a warning. As I am sure the other LEOs also.

[Seand442]

I have done both before but I guess my sparkling personality and amazing ability to bull**** has save me from the complaint fairy. I may knock a speeding ticket down from criminal to civil and that gives me the room to give them a tongue lashing. When they find out, they are not going to jail you could kick them in the nuts and they would be grateful. My dept requires I write paper on every stop so sometimes they get both. Just depends on my mood and the violation.

Remember, when all else fails: Dazzle them with brilliance and baffle them with bull****.

[michiganstud]

My motto:
Its not our jobs to punish. That's the courts job. Just cite em and kick em loose.

I don't tend to chew anyone ***....unless they really give me reason. Its all business, its nothing personal. Therefore chewing *** isn't needed.

Even those who say "i'm sorry", I just say "I don't need an apology, its not personal"

[acreature]

Even those who say "i'm sorry", I just say "I don't need an apology, its not personal"

"No need for an apology, you did nothing to me"

[corporal716]

At my old department we called it lecture and release. It was kind of an unwritten policy. If we gave you a long talking to about the violation we would let you go with a warning.

When clearing the stop with radio, we would either say 10-8 cite or 10-8 L&R (lecture and release).

Because of the racial profiling issue. One of your local agencies has taken away L&R. They are now required to document every stop. The only form they have for documenting stops is the cite. Now everyone they stop gets one. No more warning.

[K9Cop]

I don't "chew out" anyone concerning a traffic violation. As stated by another poster - it's not my job nor do I have the inclination or time to do so. I either give them a state citation, civil citation or a written warning.