A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Ford Mustang
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

More power to the police in high speed pursuit



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 4th 07, 09:53 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
CobraJet[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default More power to the police in high speed pursuit

In article >, Brent P
> wrote:

> In article >, CobraJet wrote:
>
> > You cannot assume that the license plate on a pursued vehicle will
> > lead you later on to his doorstep where you can comfortably hook him
> > up. The car could be borrowed or stolen or have fictitious plates, and
> > the registered address can be stale. For some reason, people with
> > warrants tend to move around and not update their info. Hmm. How many
> > of you have been pulled over, and the officer asks you if the address
> > on your license is current? That is SOP.

>
> While I knew better than to make a plates argument and didn't. I've had
> to tell the officer that it was not current, they never asked. I had the
> same physical license for a very long time, like 8-10 years because I could
> just renew by mail and did so. It was so old that when I was carded
> people would give it a triple take because they were too young to even
> know that format once existed.


Uh, Brent, I'm talking in general terms as they apply to the
original scenario in this thread. I have no clue about your personal
experience, nor do I care, as it careens askew of the drift. Perhaps
you need to stir up some lye and douche the little rodent that has
taken up residence in your sphincter.

>
> > As this issue is one big gray fog, I see valid points from most of
> > the posters. The technology to shut off the ignition from satellite has
> > been included in cars built the last few years. The technology to read
> > a VIN "chip" on a moving vehicle with a scanner exists now. The use of
> > these two will eventually be established.

>
> So criminals will just steal older cars.


The older cars will be retrofitted when you renew your registration.

>
> > A public service from me. Realize that the law enforcement officer
> > does not know the situation when he pulls you over.

>
> That's my other argument against road-side taxation and why speed limits
> need to make sense to minimize stops. It puts the officer's life at risk
> to collect a little revenue.


I think you are confusing taxation with penalties. The former is a
surcharge levied against goods or wages, and disassociated from
criminal action. The latter is a fee exacted upon someone who has
broken a law, hopefully a deterrent to further disobedience.

>
> > When you are lit
> > up, try to pull over where passing traffic will not constitute a hazard
> > to the officer(s), who is looking at you and does not have eyes in the
> > back of his head.

>
> And there's the other risk to the revenue collection. Stops should be
> minimized to those that are actually needed and the officers wouldn't be
> put at risk so often.


It's virtually impossible for any officer to know which are "needed"
and which aren't prior to a stop. Envision the police pulling over
someone for failing to signal a lane change, and finding the driver way
over the Blood Alcohol level and still miles from home. Necessary? You
need some schooling in the streetside implementation of Probable Cause.

As far as revenue goes, you also need to understand that no agency
has bottomless funding. It costs money not only to respond to domestic
disturbances and overt crimes, but also to investigate covert criminal
activity and build cases for submission to the District Attorney's
office. This stuff adds up, and sometimes the well runs dry. Where's
the money gonna come from?

And what about the small agencies? How about Kid Yahoo's cousin
deciding to run from the law, and 3 of the 6 local PD's car get wrecked
in the process? How would you like to need emergency assistance in that
town and not get it because they have no bucks for replacement
vehicles?

>
> > Using the above and politeness will often go a long way towards a
> > lesser ticket, or maybe no ticket at all. You will often be asked where
> > you learned all that. Tell them someone that used to be in the system
> > mentioned it, and it made good sense.

>
> It's showing the submissiveness to the state. I don't particularly like
> it, but have done it in the past. It's a social-animal thing really. I
> would prefer to live in a free country again.


You're living in a dream if you think this country has ever been
"free". The ability to move about relatively unhindered has a price.
The U.S. has more taxes and fees than any other country in the world.
You PAY for your "freedom". Matter of fact, the "roadside revenue" that
you complain endlessly about is one of the *only* payouts that you can
actually avoid by your own actions.

If you are feeling overwhelmed by American society, I suggest
seriously looking into residing elsewhere. You will not be alone. There
are enclaves of former Americans all over the place. These days, the
Internet helps diffuse much of the homesickness.

Or, you could get retribution for being submissive to authority and
kill the next cop that pulls you over. Then, if you are still alive the
next day, you will find that you will be rewarded with that "free"
living you crave so much. Free meals. Free exercise time. Free showers
(don't drop the soap). For the rest of your life. ****, how cool is it
that fines levied on against speeders will pay for your very own cell?

Sounds really good, doesn't it, Brent? Really, really good. What are
you waiting for?


>
>
>
>


--
CobraJet
Ads
  #22  
Old May 4th 07, 09:58 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Spike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 413
Default More power to the police in high speed pursuit

On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:05:20 -0700, Ashton Crusher >
wrote:

>On Wed, 02 May 2007 11:58:44 -0700, Spike >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:35:34 -0500,
>>(Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, dwight wrote:
>>>
>>>> In this particular case, this 19 year old kid could have chosen to pull over
>>>> at any time in the 8-minute event without any lasting effects. Talk about
>>>> choices...
>>>

SNIP
>
>He said Johnston fired only once through her door and didn't hit any
>of the officers. That means the officers who were wounded likely were
>hit by their own colleagues, he said.[..]
>
>Assistant U.S. Attorney Yonette Sam-Buchanan said Thursday that
>although the officers found no drugs in Johnston's home, Smith planted
>three bags of marijuana in the home as part of a cover story.


Thanks. I appreciate being lumped in with the comparatively small
percentage of bad cops just as I am sure the good auto mechanics
appreciate being lumped in with the bad ones, good military love being
judged by the small numbers of bad, ete etc etc. Such stories are
always the headline grabbers, while the story of the cop who found the
lost child, or stopped to fix the chain on a child bike, helped an old
lady out of a snow bank, etc, will hardly ever be news worthy.
  #23  
Old May 4th 07, 10:28 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Spike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 413
Default More power to the police in high speed pursuit

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:49:56 -0400, "dwight" >
wrote:

>Let's see if I have this right...
>
>Police take off after a black Caddy doing 73mph in a 55mph zone, which leads
>to a high speed pursuit in the black Georgia night. The 19 year old yahoo
>behind the wheel of the Caddy is obviously of no mind to pull over. After


>8-minute chase around any number of other motorists (most of whom had the
>good sense to pull over to the side of the road) has to be a serious crime.
>The potential for disaster is all over that video.
>
>I would have dismissed this case from the start.
>
>dwight
>www.tfrog93.com
>


First, in this particular case, the suspect was in violation for the
initial offense AND for failing to stops, evading, etc, and took the
responsibility upon himself. This is much the same as walking into a
7/11 with a gun which you don't intend to use, but, because the clerk
tries to do something unexpected, the gun goes off and kills the clerk
or an innocent bystander.

As I see it, as a citizen of this country, one of our problems is that
we do not make the "criminal" take full responsibility for their
actions. We even take it to the point that it wasn't the criminal's
fault... he was brought up by abusive parents, or lived in a bad part
of town, or didn't get his ration of twinkies.

And while it's not your fault that you have not, or can't, until you
have been in the position of the cop, and experienced what he went
through at the time, you can't know what it's like. I'll never know
what it's like to be a surgeon who makes a decision which results in
someone being crippled for life because the surgeon though the best
decision was being made at the time.

Cops, surgeons, auto mechanics, etc.... We're all humans. we make the
best decisions we can, given our experiences and training. Most of the
time what we do is right, but sometimes it is wrong. The difference is
that not everyone has to make choices which risk the lives of others.
That is a major load to carry, and it takes special people who are
willing to make those choices, whether it's the mechanic who decides
torquing a bolt to the required degree, or a soldier in combat, or a
cop.

Bad cops, like bad surgeons, should be taken care of, but good cops,
good surgeons, etc, who make what they believe to be the best choices
under given circumstances should not be taken to the gallows.

Finally, as many of you will have experienced, if you think it is bad
in the US of A, go overseas. Places like Mexico where bribery of cops
is common practice on a traffic stop. Panama where the police had
orders to shoot on sight any shoplifter regardless of age. Many
countries where the culture mandates that you ignore your own rights
and tell a cop the truth no matter what the question.

Do we have problems? Yes. And we always will until Wells' "Big
Brother" society is commonplace. But, it could be a lot worse. We
could have total anarchy, where there are essentially no controls.


  #24  
Old May 4th 07, 10:38 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Brent P[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,639
Default More power to the police in high speed pursuit

In article >, CobraJet wrote:
> In article >, Brent P
> wrote:
>
>> In article >, CobraJet wrote:
>>
>> > You cannot assume that the license plate on a pursued vehicle will
>> > lead you later on to his doorstep where you can comfortably hook him
>> > up. The car could be borrowed or stolen or have fictitious plates, and
>> > the registered address can be stale. For some reason, people with
>> > warrants tend to move around and not update their info. Hmm. How many
>> > of you have been pulled over, and the officer asks you if the address
>> > on your license is current? That is SOP.

>
>> While I knew better than to make a plates argument and didn't. I've had
>> to tell the officer that it was not current, they never asked. I had the
>> same physical license for a very long time, like 8-10 years because I could
>> just renew by mail and did so. It was so old that when I was carded
>> people would give it a triple take because they were too young to even
>> know that format once existed.


> Uh, Brent, I'm talking in general terms as they apply to the
> original scenario in this thread. I have no clue about your personal
> experience, nor do I care, as it careens askew of the drift. Perhaps
> you need to stir up some lye and douche the little rodent that has
> taken up residence in your sphincter.


Let's see, you reply to my post with your personal experience or belief
that asking if an address is current is SOP. My personal experience is
180 degrees from that, and now you're saying I'm in the wrong for
replying to you. You engaged me in this conversation CJ, if you didn't
want me to respond and didn't care what I had to say, then why the ****
did you reply to my post?

>> > As this issue is one big gray fog, I see valid points from most of
>> > the posters. The technology to shut off the ignition from satellite has
>> > been included in cars built the last few years. The technology to read
>> > a VIN "chip" on a moving vehicle with a scanner exists now. The use of
>> > these two will eventually be established.


>> So criminals will just steal older cars.


> The older cars will be retrofitted when you renew your registration.


I see.... control by the authorities for all. Track and log everyone and
everything. If this goes in typical fashion you will proceed to
call me paranoid because I don't like this sort of thing.... but who is
really the paranoid? Those that opposes this sort of monitoring and
control or the those demanding it to stop those they are affraid of?

>> > A public service from me. Realize that the law enforcement officer
>> > does not know the situation when he pulls you over.


>> That's my other argument against road-side taxation and why speed limits
>> need to make sense to minimize stops. It puts the officer's life at risk
>> to collect a little revenue.


> I think you are confusing taxation with penalties.


Nope, I see things in their effective terms. There isn't a crime in going
75mph in 75mph traffic just because the sign says 55mph. It's just a tax
disguised as a penalty.

> The former is a
> surcharge levied against goods or wages, and disassociated from
> criminal action. The latter is a fee exacted upon someone who has
> broken a law, hopefully a deterrent to further disobedience.


When speed limits are set lower than the vast majority of people drive,
it is effectively a selectively applied tax on driving.

>> > When you are lit
>> > up, try to pull over where passing traffic will not constitute a hazard
>> > to the officer(s), who is looking at you and does not have eyes in the
>> > back of his head.


>> And there's the other risk to the revenue collection. Stops should be
>> minimized to those that are actually needed and the officers wouldn't be
>> put at risk so often.


> It's virtually impossible for any officer to know which are "needed"
> and which aren't prior to a stop.


Really? usually in these arguments I'm told that the officer will only go
after those bad people. That it is paranoia to think that one would be
picked out of the traffic stream if one is just going along with the
flow (which is over the posted limit). Glad you agree with me. It's a
risky way to go about collecting monies for one's employer.

> Envision the police pulling over
> someone for failing to signal a lane change, and finding the driver way
> over the Blood Alcohol level and still miles from home. Necessary? You
> need some schooling in the streetside implementation of Probable Cause.


You're missing the point. By making the speed limit such that nearly
every driver is a violator, it makes for a great number of stops where
then bad decisions may be made, where no stop was even needed because
there wasn't any unsafe driving (as defined by what is normal and
reasonable, and safe by the actions of those driving upon the road). Just
driving faster than arbitary taxation standard.

> As far as revenue goes, you also need to understand that no agency
> has bottomless funding. It costs money not only to respond to domestic
> disturbances and overt crimes, but also to investigate covert criminal
> activity and build cases for submission to the District Attorney's
> office. This stuff adds up, and sometimes the well runs dry. Where's
> the money gonna come from?


Those in elected office have no problem redirecting tax monies away from
police departments and other things people support and then whining for
a tax increase to keep the wanted services going. Far better than
redefining the vast majority of people as law breakers and then taking the
monies with armed man at the side of the road.

> And what about the small agencies? How about Kid Yahoo's cousin
> deciding to run from the law, and 3 of the 6 local PD's car get wrecked
> in the process? How would you like to need emergency assistance in that
> town and not get it because they have no bucks for replacement
> vehicles?


Well I guess they'll just have to drop the speed limit on the highway
just outside of the populated area of town from 50mph to 35mph and raise
some cash then, right? Of course that will result in more people that
run from the law and more wrecked police cruisers to pay for so they'll
have to drop it to 25mph and put a few RLCs and cut the yellow light
timing to maximize the number of violators... but then they'll be called
out for the increased number of (rear-end) collisions at the light, but
don't worry that can be used to justify more RLCs....

>> > Using the above and politeness will often go a long way towards a
>> > lesser ticket, or maybe no ticket at all. You will often be asked where
>> > you learned all that. Tell them someone that used to be in the system
>> > mentioned it, and it made good sense.


>> It's showing the submissiveness to the state. I don't particularly like
>> it, but have done it in the past. It's a social-animal thing really. I
>> would prefer to live in a free country again.


> You're living in a dream if you think this country has ever been
> "free".


Perhaps. But I know what it is supposed to be.

> The ability to move about relatively unhindered has a price.


Comrade, do you have your papers? This checkpoint is here for your
safety, comrade. Sorry comrade, your papers are not in order.... Remember
when we looked down on the soviet block nations for that sort of thing?
Now it's done here. Who really won that cold war?

> The U.S. has more taxes and fees than any other country in the world.


No ****.

> You PAY for your "freedom".


Someone has to pay the guards.

> Matter of fact, the "roadside revenue" that
> you complain endlessly about is one of the *only* payouts that you can
> actually avoid by your own actions.


If I include the harrassment from other drivers because I am going so
slow (posted limit), being rear ended, etc and so forth I hardly think I
am coming out ahead. I am simply denying the money to the government(s)
that created the problem, but I am not avoiding costs and taking on
greater risks to boot.

> If you are feeling overwhelmed by American society, I suggest
> seriously looking into residing elsewhere. You will not be alone. There
> are enclaves of former Americans all over the place. These days, the
> Internet helps diffuse much of the homesickness.


Ye olde love or leave it. How dare I want things done properly. I should
just shut the **** up and get the **** out.

> Or, you could get retribution for being submissive to authority and
> kill the next cop that pulls you over. Then, if you are still alive the
> next day, you will find that you will be rewarded with that "free"
> living you crave so much. Free meals. Free exercise time. Free showers
> (don't drop the soap). For the rest of your life. ****, how cool is it
> that fines levied on against speeders will pay for your very own cell?


Threats.... Always a good way to rule..... a third world police state
kleptocracy or a tyranny like China.

> Sounds really good, doesn't it, Brent? Really, really good. What are
> you waiting for?


Why do you have such a problem with liberty? Why are you so affraid of
your fellow citizens that you need them to be tracked, monitored,
controled, sheepdoged by men with guns and badges? Or is it that you don't
want real responsibilty? You prefer to look to a parental government to
tell you what you should do, how you should live, to protect you? Or is it
just laziness... some people appear to like being a dependent. Their
freedom, their liberty is a small price to pay for the need to not have
to worry about things. Or maybe you're on the other end of it all. Maybe
you get a perverse joy that comes with kicking people around, making
them beg and be submissive? Which are you CJ?



  #25  
Old May 4th 07, 10:40 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Spike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 413
Default More power to the police in high speed pursuit

On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:53:20 GMT, CobraJet > wrote:

>In article >, Brent P
> wrote:
>
>> In article >, CobraJet wrote:
>>
>> > You cannot assume that the license plate on a pursued vehicle will
>> > lead you later on to his doorstep where you can comfortably hook him
>> > up. The car could be borrowed or stolen or have fictitious plates, and
>> > the registered address can be stale. For some reason, people with
>> > warrants tend to move around and not update their info. Hmm. How many
>> > of you have been pulled over, and the officer asks you if the address
>> > on your license is current? That is SOP.

>>
>> While I knew better than to make a plates argument and didn't. I've had
>> to tell the officer that it was not current, they never asked. I had the
>> same physical license for a very long time, like 8-10 years because I could
>> just renew by mail and did so. It was so old that when I was carded
>> people would give it a triple take because they were too young to even
>> know that format once existed.

>
> Uh, Brent, I'm talking in general terms as they apply to the
>original scenario in this thread. I have no clue about your personal
>experience, nor do I care, as it careens askew of the drift. Perhaps
>you need to stir up some lye and douche the little rodent that has
>taken up residence in your sphincter.
>
>>
>> > As this issue is one big gray fog, I see valid points from most of
>> > the posters. The technology to shut off the ignition from satellite has
>> > been included in cars built the last few years. The technology to read
>> > a VIN "chip" on a moving vehicle with a scanner exists now. The use of
>> > these two will eventually be established.

>>
>> So criminals will just steal older cars.

>
> The older cars will be retrofitted when you renew your registration.
>
>>
>> > A public service from me. Realize that the law enforcement officer
>> > does not know the situation when he pulls you over.

>>
>> That's my other argument against road-side taxation and why speed limits
>> need to make sense to minimize stops. It puts the officer's life at risk
>> to collect a little revenue.

>
> I think you are confusing taxation with penalties. The former is a
>surcharge levied against goods or wages, and disassociated from
>criminal action. The latter is a fee exacted upon someone who has
>broken a law, hopefully a deterrent to further disobedience.
>
>>
>> > When you are lit
>> > up, try to pull over where passing traffic will not constitute a hazard
>> > to the officer(s), who is looking at you and does not have eyes in the
>> > back of his head.

>>
>> And there's the other risk to the revenue collection. Stops should be
>> minimized to those that are actually needed and the officers wouldn't be
>> put at risk so often.

>
> It's virtually impossible for any officer to know which are "needed"
>and which aren't prior to a stop. Envision the police pulling over
>someone for failing to signal a lane change, and finding the driver way
>over the Blood Alcohol level and still miles from home. Necessary? You
>need some schooling in the streetside implementation of Probable Cause.
>
> As far as revenue goes, you also need to understand that no agency
>has bottomless funding. It costs money not only to respond to domestic
>disturbances and overt crimes, but also to investigate covert criminal
>activity and build cases for submission to the District Attorney's
>office. This stuff adds up, and sometimes the well runs dry. Where's
>the money gonna come from?
>
> And what about the small agencies? How about Kid Yahoo's cousin
>deciding to run from the law, and 3 of the 6 local PD's car get wrecked
>in the process? How would you like to need emergency assistance in that
>town and not get it because they have no bucks for replacement
>vehicles?
>
>>
>> > Using the above and politeness will often go a long way towards a
>> > lesser ticket, or maybe no ticket at all. You will often be asked where
>> > you learned all that. Tell them someone that used to be in the system
>> > mentioned it, and it made good sense.

>>
>> It's showing the submissiveness to the state. I don't particularly like
>> it, but have done it in the past. It's a social-animal thing really. I
>> would prefer to live in a free country again.

>
> You're living in a dream if you think this country has ever been
>"free". The ability to move about relatively unhindered has a price.
>The U.S. has more taxes and fees than any other country in the world.
>You PAY for your "freedom". Matter of fact, the "roadside revenue" that
>you complain endlessly about is one of the *only* payouts that you can
>actually avoid by your own actions.
>
> If you are feeling overwhelmed by American society, I suggest
>seriously looking into residing elsewhere. You will not be alone. There
>are enclaves of former Americans all over the place. These days, the
>Internet helps diffuse much of the homesickness.
>
> Or, you could get retribution for being submissive to authority and
>kill the next cop that pulls you over. Then, if you are still alive the
>next day, you will find that you will be rewarded with that "free"
>living you crave so much. Free meals. Free exercise time. Free showers
>(don't drop the soap). For the rest of your life. ****, how cool is it
>that fines levied on against speeders will pay for your very own cell?
>
> Sounds really good, doesn't it, Brent? Really, really good. What are
>you waiting for?
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>

To respond in a very concise manner.... :0) Good One!

Seems that those who complain most about traffic enforcement are those
who desire to violate the laws society installs without fear of
punishment. And the best way to achieve that is to tie the hands of
those whose job it is to enforce the laws. The same people who will
scream the loudest when law enforcement doesn't protect them from
those who would violate those same laws.
  #26  
Old May 4th 07, 10:51 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Brent P[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,639
Default More power to the police in high speed pursuit

In article >, Spike wrote:

> Finally, as many of you will have experienced, if you think it is bad
> in the US of A, go overseas. Places like Mexico where bribery of cops
> is common practice on a traffic stop. Panama where the police had
> orders to shoot on sight any shoplifter regardless of age. Many
> countries where the culture mandates that you ignore your own rights
> and tell a cop the truth no matter what the question.


Why go to Mexico? Mexico in multiple ways is coming to us.

> Do we have problems? Yes. And we always will until Wells' "Big
> Brother" society is commonplace. But, it could be a lot worse. We
> could have total anarchy, where there are essentially no controls.


And interesting couple of choices. In anarchy we need to fight
off the small percentage of our fellow man who seek to control us and
take from us. For the other option, that same small percentage is in charge
where they control us, take from us at will, and we live at their mercy.



  #27  
Old May 4th 07, 10:58 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Gumby619[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default More power to the police in high speed pursuit


"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, CobraJet wrote:
>> In article >, Brent P
> wrote:
>>
>>> In article >, CobraJet wrote:
>>>
>>> > You cannot assume that the license plate on a pursued vehicle will
>>> > lead you later on to his doorstep where you can comfortably hook him
>>> > up. The car could be borrowed or stolen or have fictitious plates, and
>>> > the registered address can be stale. For some reason, people with
>>> > warrants tend to move around and not update their info. Hmm. How many
>>> > of you have been pulled over, and the officer asks you if the address
>>> > on your license is current? That is SOP.

>>
>>> While I knew better than to make a plates argument and didn't. I've had
>>> to tell the officer that it was not current, they never asked. I had the
>>> same physical license for a very long time, like 8-10 years because I
>>> could
>>> just renew by mail and did so. It was so old that when I was carded
>>> people would give it a triple take because they were too young to even
>>> know that format once existed.

>
>> Uh, Brent, I'm talking in general terms as they apply to the
>> original scenario in this thread. I have no clue about your personal
>> experience, nor do I care, as it careens askew of the drift. Perhaps
>> you need to stir up some lye and douche the little rodent that has
>> taken up residence in your sphincter.

>
> Let's see, you reply to my post with your personal experience or belief
> that asking if an address is current is SOP. My personal experience is
> 180 degrees from that, and now you're saying I'm in the wrong for
> replying to you. You engaged me in this conversation CJ, if you didn't
> want me to respond and didn't care what I had to say, then why the ****
> did you reply to my post?
>
>>> > As this issue is one big gray fog, I see valid points from most of
>>> > the posters. The technology to shut off the ignition from satellite
>>> > has
>>> > been included in cars built the last few years. The technology to read
>>> > a VIN "chip" on a moving vehicle with a scanner exists now. The use of
>>> > these two will eventually be established.

>
>>> So criminals will just steal older cars.

>
>> The older cars will be retrofitted when you renew your registration.

>
> I see.... control by the authorities for all. Track and log everyone and
> everything. If this goes in typical fashion you will proceed to
> call me paranoid because I don't like this sort of thing.... but who is
> really the paranoid? Those that opposes this sort of monitoring and
> control or the those demanding it to stop those they are affraid of?
>
>>> > A public service from me. Realize that the law enforcement officer
>>> > does not know the situation when he pulls you over.

>
>>> That's my other argument against road-side taxation and why speed limits
>>> need to make sense to minimize stops. It puts the officer's life at risk
>>> to collect a little revenue.

>
>> I think you are confusing taxation with penalties.

>
> Nope, I see things in their effective terms. There isn't a crime in going
> 75mph in 75mph traffic just because the sign says 55mph. It's just a tax
> disguised as a penalty.
>
>> The former is a
>> surcharge levied against goods or wages, and disassociated from
>> criminal action. The latter is a fee exacted upon someone who has
>> broken a law, hopefully a deterrent to further disobedience.

>
> When speed limits are set lower than the vast majority of people drive,
> it is effectively a selectively applied tax on driving.
>
>>> > When you are lit
>>> > up, try to pull over where passing traffic will not constitute a
>>> > hazard
>>> > to the officer(s), who is looking at you and does not have eyes in the
>>> > back of his head.

>
>>> And there's the other risk to the revenue collection. Stops should be
>>> minimized to those that are actually needed and the officers wouldn't be
>>> put at risk so often.

>
>> It's virtually impossible for any officer to know which are "needed"
>> and which aren't prior to a stop.

>
> Really? usually in these arguments I'm told that the officer will only go
> after those bad people. That it is paranoia to think that one would be
> picked out of the traffic stream if one is just going along with the
> flow (which is over the posted limit). Glad you agree with me. It's a
> risky way to go about collecting monies for one's employer.


Try going with the flow in Texas with Cali plates...happened to me 2 times,
I was in the middle of the pack both times....


>
>> Envision the police pulling over
>> someone for failing to signal a lane change, and finding the driver way
>> over the Blood Alcohol level and still miles from home. Necessary? You
>> need some schooling in the streetside implementation of Probable Cause.

>
> You're missing the point. By making the speed limit such that nearly
> every driver is a violator, it makes for a great number of stops where
> then bad decisions may be made, where no stop was even needed because
> there wasn't any unsafe driving (as defined by what is normal and
> reasonable, and safe by the actions of those driving upon the road). Just
> driving faster than arbitary taxation standard.
>
>> As far as revenue goes, you also need to understand that no agency
>> has bottomless funding. It costs money not only to respond to domestic
>> disturbances and overt crimes, but also to investigate covert criminal
>> activity and build cases for submission to the District Attorney's
>> office. This stuff adds up, and sometimes the well runs dry. Where's
>> the money gonna come from?

>
> Those in elected office have no problem redirecting tax monies away from
> police departments and other things people support and then whining for
> a tax increase to keep the wanted services going. Far better than
> redefining the vast majority of people as law breakers and then taking the
> monies with armed man at the side of the road.
>
>> And what about the small agencies? How about Kid Yahoo's cousin
>> deciding to run from the law, and 3 of the 6 local PD's car get wrecked
>> in the process? How would you like to need emergency assistance in that
>> town and not get it because they have no bucks for replacement
>> vehicles?

>
> Well I guess they'll just have to drop the speed limit on the highway
> just outside of the populated area of town from 50mph to 35mph and raise
> some cash then, right? Of course that will result in more people that
> run from the law and more wrecked police cruisers to pay for so they'll
> have to drop it to 25mph and put a few RLCs and cut the yellow light
> timing to maximize the number of violators... but then they'll be called
> out for the increased number of (rear-end) collisions at the light, but
> don't worry that can be used to justify more RLCs....
>
>>> > Using the above and politeness will often go a long way towards a
>>> > lesser ticket, or maybe no ticket at all. You will often be asked
>>> > where
>>> > you learned all that. Tell them someone that used to be in the system
>>> > mentioned it, and it made good sense.

>
>>> It's showing the submissiveness to the state. I don't particularly like
>>> it, but have done it in the past. It's a social-animal thing really. I
>>> would prefer to live in a free country again.

>
>> You're living in a dream if you think this country has ever been
>> "free".

>
> Perhaps. But I know what it is supposed to be.
>
>> The ability to move about relatively unhindered has a price.

>
> Comrade, do you have your papers? This checkpoint is here for your
> safety, comrade. Sorry comrade, your papers are not in order.... Remember
> when we looked down on the soviet block nations for that sort of thing?
> Now it's done here. Who really won that cold war?
>
>> The U.S. has more taxes and fees than any other country in the world.

>
> No ****.
>
>> You PAY for your "freedom".

>
> Someone has to pay the guards.
>
>> Matter of fact, the "roadside revenue" that
>> you complain endlessly about is one of the *only* payouts that you can
>> actually avoid by your own actions.

>
> If I include the harrassment from other drivers because I am going so
> slow (posted limit), being rear ended, etc and so forth I hardly think I
> am coming out ahead. I am simply denying the money to the government(s)
> that created the problem, but I am not avoiding costs and taking on
> greater risks to boot.
>
>> If you are feeling overwhelmed by American society, I suggest
>> seriously looking into residing elsewhere. You will not be alone. There
>> are enclaves of former Americans all over the place. These days, the
>> Internet helps diffuse much of the homesickness.

>
> Ye olde love or leave it. How dare I want things done properly. I should
> just shut the **** up and get the **** out.
>
>> Or, you could get retribution for being submissive to authority and
>> kill the next cop that pulls you over. Then, if you are still alive the
>> next day, you will find that you will be rewarded with that "free"
>> living you crave so much. Free meals. Free exercise time. Free showers
>> (don't drop the soap). For the rest of your life. ****, how cool is it
>> that fines levied on against speeders will pay for your very own cell?

>
> Threats.... Always a good way to rule..... a third world police state
> kleptocracy or a tyranny like China.
>
>> Sounds really good, doesn't it, Brent? Really, really good. What are
>> you waiting for?

>
> Why do you have such a problem with liberty? Why are you so affraid of
> your fellow citizens that you need them to be tracked, monitored,
> controled, sheepdoged by men with guns and badges? Or is it that you don't
> want real responsibilty? You prefer to look to a parental government to
> tell you what you should do, how you should live, to protect you? Or is it
> just laziness... some people appear to like being a dependent. Their
> freedom, their liberty is a small price to pay for the need to not have
> to worry about things. Or maybe you're on the other end of it all. Maybe
> you get a perverse joy that comes with kicking people around, making
> them beg and be submissive? Which are you CJ?
>
>
>



  #28  
Old May 4th 07, 11:02 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Brent P[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,639
Default More power to the police in high speed pursuit

In article >, Spike wrote:

> Seems that those who complain most about traffic enforcement are those
> who desire to violate the laws society installs without fear of
> punishment.


This tired old thing, and rather misplaced when aimed towards me.

I want the laws of society to match the reasonable and normal behavior
of those in the society. On the contrary, I am often the one person in
the immediate area that is obeying _ALL_ aspects of the vehicle code,
including the number on the sign that the vast majority of society
rejects as (and demonstrates it is not) the maximum safe speed of travel.

> And the best way to achieve that is to tie the hands of
> those whose job it is to enforce the laws.


The best solution is to have laws that are obeyed because they
make sense, not because someone with a badge and gun may issue a penalty.
It's really difficult to take an underposted speed limit seriously when
even the cops, those enforcing it, don't even bother to obey it.

> The same people who will
> scream the loudest when law enforcement doesn't protect them from
> those who would violate those same laws.


Again, quite the contary. I don't think law enforcement is going to do
anything to protect me. I have to protect myself. Not to mention the
cost of having law enforcement take that responsibility is far too high,
and not in just in money.

  #29  
Old May 5th 07, 06:17 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Spike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 413
Default More power to the police in high speed pursuit

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:38:48 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

SNIP
>
>I see.... control by the authorities for all. Track and log everyone and
>everything. If this goes in typical fashion you will proceed to
>call me paranoid because I don't like this sort of thing.... but who is
>really the paranoid? Those that opposes this sort of monitoring and
>control or the those demanding it to stop those they are affraid of?
>
>>> > A public service from me. Realize that the law enforcement officer
>>> > does not know the situation when he pulls you over.

>
>>> That's my other argument against road-side taxation and why speed limits
>>> need to make sense to minimize stops. It puts the officer's life at risk
>>> to collect a little revenue.

>
>> I think you are confusing taxation with penalties.

>
>Nope, I see things in their effective terms. There isn't a crime in going
>75mph in 75mph traffic just because the sign says 55mph. It's just a tax
>disguised as a penalty.


WRONGO, Brent. There are two forms of speed limits. One is posted, and
the other is governed by conditions (snow, traffic, wind, etc). Just
because the law says you can go 75mph does not mean it is safe to do
so, and therefore the "speed too fast for conditions" applies for the
safety of other motorists as well as yourself.
>
>> The former is a
>> surcharge levied against goods or wages, and disassociated from
>> criminal action. The latter is a fee exacted upon someone who has
>> broken a law, hopefully a deterrent to further disobedience.

>
>When speed limits are set lower than the vast majority of people drive,
>it is effectively a selectively applied tax on driving.


What you propose then is to remove all speed limits just because
somebody out there wants to go faster than the posted limit. Hiuman
nature says that no matter where you set the bar, there will be people
who want to pass it. Just look at the people who speed to get from
point A to point B compared to those who do not speed, and you see the
time saved is insignificant, so why do they speed? Human nature.
>
>>> > When you are lit
>>> > up, try to pull over where passing traffic will not constitute a hazard
>>> > to the officer(s), who is looking at you and does not have eyes in the
>>> > back of his head.

>
>>> And there's the other risk to the revenue collection. Stops should be
>>> minimized to those that are actually needed and the officers wouldn't be
>>> put at risk so often.


How about if we just tell the cops not to stop anyone so that they
will never be at risk?
>
>> It's virtually impossible for any officer to know which are "needed"
>> and which aren't prior to a stop.

>
>Really? usually in these arguments I'm told that the officer will only go
>after those bad people. That it is paranoia to think that one would be
>picked out of the traffic stream if one is just going along with the
>flow (which is over the posted limit). Glad you agree with me. It's a
>risky way to go about collecting monies for one's employer.
>
>> Envision the police pulling over
>> someone for failing to signal a lane change, and finding the driver way
>> over the Blood Alcohol level and still miles from home. Necessary? You
>> need some schooling in the streetside implementation of Probable Cause.

>
>You're missing the point. By making the speed limit such that nearly
>every driver is a violator, it makes for a great number of stops where
>then bad decisions may be made, where no stop was even needed because
>there wasn't any unsafe driving (as defined by what is normal and
>reasonable, and safe by the actions of those driving upon the road). Just
>driving faster than arbitary taxation standard.
>
>> As far as revenue goes, you also need to understand that no agency
>> has bottomless funding. It costs money not only to respond to domestic
>> disturbances and overt crimes, but also to investigate covert criminal
>> activity and build cases for submission to the District Attorney's
>> office. This stuff adds up, and sometimes the well runs dry. Where's
>> the money gonna come from?

>
>Those in elected office have no problem redirecting tax monies away from
>police departments and other things people support and then whining for
>a tax increase to keep the wanted services going. Far better than
>redefining the vast majority of people as law breakers and then taking the
>monies with armed man at the side of the road.
>
>> And what about the small agencies? How about Kid Yahoo's cousin
>> deciding to run from the law, and 3 of the 6 local PD's car get wrecked
>> in the process? How would you like to need emergency assistance in that
>> town and not get it because they have no bucks for replacement
>> vehicles?

>
>Well I guess they'll just have to drop the speed limit on the highway
>just outside of the populated area of town from 50mph to 35mph and raise
>some cash then, right? Of course that will result in more people that
>run from the law and more wrecked police cruisers to pay for so they'll
>have to drop it to 25mph and put a few RLCs and cut the yellow light
>timing to maximize the number of violators... but then they'll be called
>out for the increased number of (rear-end) collisions at the light, but
>don't worry that can be used to justify more RLCs....
>
>>> > Using the above and politeness will often go a long way towards a
>>> > lesser ticket, or maybe no ticket at all. You will often be asked where
>>> > you learned all that. Tell them someone that used to be in the system
>>> > mentioned it, and it made good sense.

>
>>> It's showing the submissiveness to the state. I don't particularly like
>>> it, but have done it in the past. It's a social-animal thing really. I
>>> would prefer to live in a free country again.

>
>> You're living in a dream if you think this country has ever been
>> "free".

>
>Perhaps. But I know what it is supposed to be.
>
>> The ability to move about relatively unhindered has a price.

>
>Comrade, do you have your papers? This checkpoint is here for your
>safety, comrade. Sorry comrade, your papers are not in order.... Remember
>when we looked down on the soviet block nations for that sort of thing?
>Now it's done here. Who really won that cold war?
>
>> The U.S. has more taxes and fees than any other country in the world.


But not higher....
>
>No ****.
>
>> You PAY for your "freedom".

>
>Someone has to pay the guards.
>
>> Matter of fact, the "roadside revenue" that
>> you complain endlessly about is one of the *only* payouts that you can
>> actually avoid by your own actions.

>
>If I include the harrassment from other drivers because I am going so
>slow (posted limit), being rear ended, etc and so forth I hardly think I
>am coming out ahead. I am simply denying the money to the government(s)
>that created the problem, but I am not avoiding costs and taking on
>greater risks to boot.
>
>> If you are feeling overwhelmed by American society, I suggest
>> seriously looking into residing elsewhere. You will not be alone. There
>> are enclaves of former Americans all over the place. These days, the
>> Internet helps diffuse much of the homesickness.

>
>Ye olde love or leave it. How dare I want things done properly. I should
>just shut the **** up and get the **** out.
>
>> Or, you could get retribution for being submissive to authority and
>> kill the next cop that pulls you over. Then, if you are still alive the
>> next day, you will find that you will be rewarded with that "free"
>> living you crave so much. Free meals. Free exercise time. Free showers
>> (don't drop the soap). For the rest of your life. ****, how cool is it
>> that fines levied on against speeders will pay for your very own cell?

>
>Threats.... Always a good way to rule..... a third world police state
>kleptocracy or a tyranny like China.


In some ways it beats the anarchy you seem to promote.
>
>> Sounds really good, doesn't it, Brent? Really, really good. What are
>> you waiting for?

>
>Why do you have such a problem with liberty? Why are you so affraid of
>your fellow citizens that you need them to be tracked, monitored,
>controled, sheepdoged by men with guns and badges? Or is it that you don't
>want real responsibilty? You prefer to look to a parental government to
>tell you what you should do, how you should live, to protect you? Or is it
>just laziness... some people appear to like being a dependent. Their
>freedom, their liberty is a small price to pay for the need to not have
>to worry about things. Or maybe you're on the other end of it all. Maybe
>you get a perverse joy that comes with kicking people around, making
>them beg and be submissive? Which are you CJ?
>
>

Because society needs controls, and someone has to be the controllers.
Obviously, you don't agree with following the rules, even though your
actions risk the safety of others. Now, if everyone thought the way
you do, we'd have total confusion. Every society in history has had
controls and enforcers. This is not the perfect dream world you would
have it be. While your driving may be perfect even without following
the rules, all it takes it someone else who is not so perfect, to
smear you and those you love all over the roadway.



  #30  
Old May 5th 07, 11:39 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
....
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default More power to the police in high speed pursuit

I don't see why the police chased him at all for a mere 73 mph. I routinely
travel at 91 mph and no one ever stops me.

sincerely,

John Corzine.

dwight wrote:

> Let's see if I have this right...
>
> Police take off after a black Caddy doing 73mph in a 55mph zone, which leads
> to a high speed pursuit in the black Georgia night. The 19 year old yahoo
> behind the wheel of the Caddy is obviously of no mind to pull over. After
> almost 8 minutes of the chase through light traffic, one police cruiser
> bumps the Caddy from behind, at which point yahoo loses control of the car
> and careens off the road into (what appears to be) a telephone pole.
>
> Bottom line, the yahoo (who, originally, was guilty of driving at 18mph over
> the posted speed limit) is now a quadraplegic.
>
> Yahoo sues the police officer who "caused the crash" under the terms of the
> 4th Amendment (some weird logic about unlawful seizure?).
>
> "In this case, both a lower court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
> Circuit ruled in favor of [the yahoo]. The 11th Circuit said that [the
> officer's] actions constituted deadly force and that it was unreasonable
> because the officer had no reason to think [yahoo] had done anything more
> than violate traffic laws. The police gave chase because they clocked him
> going 73 mph in a 55-mph zone.
>
> 'Far from being the cautious and controlled driver the lower court depicts,
> what we see on the video more closely resembles a Hollywood-style car chase
> of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent
> bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury,' wrote Justice Antonin
> Scalia.
> Scalia was incredulous that the lower courts had said Harris's case against
> Scott could proceed."
>
> (source: http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1241449/, among others)
>
> Now, I've viewed the video posted on the Supreme Court's website, and I have
> to say, "What the $*^&$# was that yahoo thinking?!?" The video is about 92MB
> and runs some 15+ minutes, showing what the onboard cameras of the police
> cruisers saw that night. First, you see the Caddy from the lead pursuit
> cruiser, then you get the same chase as seen from a second cruiser, the one
> which ultimately knocks the Caddy into the woods.
>
> (video at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio..._v_harris.rmvb)
>
> Watching the California Patrol in hot pursuit after a white Bronco doing
> 20mph for hours on end is one thing, but the chase in this video is typical
> of the ones being debated over recent years. At what point do the police
> engage in pursuit, and when do they just let the evil-doer go, hoping to
> pick him up later.
>
> The original crime here was not armed robbery or carjacking or leaving the
> scene of an accident, it was doing 73mph in a 55 zone. (Remember: I've said
> before that 72 is the magic number.) I have no idea why yahoo decided to try
> to escape, rather than simply pull over and accept the damn ticket.
>
> When the police officer is chasing down a speeder with siren and lights on,
> and the speeder just keeps on going, putting any number of other motorists
> in danger, the police officer can now use deadly force (i.e.: his front
> bumper) with a little more authority, thanks to today's Supreme Court
> ruling.
>
> I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that yahoo compounded his possible
> speeding ticket with resisting arrest (always a good generic criminal
> activity, when everything else fails). But then leading the police on an
> 8-minute chase around any number of other motorists (most of whom had the
> good sense to pull over to the side of the road) has to be a serious crime.
> The potential for disaster is all over that video.
>
> I would have dismissed this case from the start.
>
> dwight
> www.tfrog93.com


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
From the Land of the Police Pursuit Eeyore Driving 4 February 4th 07 06:27 AM
Police in pursuit of a stolen Dump Truck..................news footage Lufthansi Driving 1 July 21st 06 05:45 PM
1972 Beetle Loses Power at Sustained High Speed / RPMs [email protected] VW air cooled 11 April 23rd 06 02:37 PM
High speed pursuit of a BMW with an almost insane tragic ending ( Video-Clip ) [email protected] BMW 1 March 18th 06 03:12 AM
High speed police chase in California -> where is full video ofshooting? Some Guy Driving 2 May 17th 05 08:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.