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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
More power to the police in high speed pursuit
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
From the Land of the Police Pursuit | Eeyore | Driving | 4 | February 4th 07 05:27 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 02:12 AM |
High speed police chase in California -> where is full video ofshooting? | Some Guy | Driving | 2 | May 17th 05 08:55 AM |