Dear Editor,
Re: Article by Don Patterson and rebuttal by Tim Argent April 20.
I have read both sides of this situation as presented by the Western Wheel, and feel compelled to put my two cents worth into the debate.
As a retired police officer, I have found it interesting, to say the least, in watching the present day police officers pull over vehicles for traffic stops. When I pulled someone over in my day on the streets of Calgary, one of the main concerns I had was to keep my butt out of the flow of traffic. I have stopped people in very inopportune places over the years, however, in just a traffic stop a quick word to the driver to pull over to the nearest side street or parking lot kept both of us much safer and in a better position to deal with the stop.
I have seen traffic stops on Deerfoot Trail on the center median, and in places that I would not have chosen to stop anyone. Others stop in busy traffic times on major thoroughfares. These can be dealt with by following the offender to a location that is much safer for the officer, the offending driver, as well as passing motorists.
A traffic stop is not worth being injured or killed for. Stopping someone on a bridge as compared to a regular two-lane roadway is not comparable. The bridge is much narrower with no curb space and guaranteed to slow traffic in a very inopportune place, particularly one as busy as the bridge in question. To say that the officer does not pick the spot is absolutely incorrect. The officer picks the spot regardless of when or where the offender stops. As mentioned all he/she has to do is tell them to move to a safer location.
As I am not privy to the exact dialogue of the situation Laird refers to, I cannot comment on the appropriateness of his remarks at the scene, however, he does have a good point. Something officers could learn a lesson from.
Ted Davis
Okotoks
