In article >, 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...
>>
>>What we need to evaluate is the traffic stop itself. Governments see the
>>traffic stops as money making excerise and use underposted speed limits
>>to increase their revenues. Cops see it as a way to catch criminals. The
>>public in general is annoyed and hassled.
>>
>>But what happens when you get some kid or someone else who makes poor
>>decisions? He cannot afford being selected for taxation so he runs. What
>>about someone who's wanted on some stupid petty warrant? He runs too.
>>Most of these people that have warrants, the government can just go to
>>the address on their DL to find them. Instead it waits until they have an
>>interaction with law enforcement at the side of the road.
>>
>>High speed pursuits could be cut down by getting rid of selective
>>roadside taxation and just doing some simple police work to pick up
>>people with warrants.

> Nothing personal, Brent, but you objections to police activities in
> the area of traffic enforcement have been obvious for a long time.

If it wasn't personal, then you wouldn't mention it. You must somehow feel
that my dislike of checkpoints, defining the majority of drivers as
violators, etc and so forth is discrediting.

> It's the same old story. Many people want the cops out stopping the
> bad guys, as long as they are not the ones being stopped.

People don't understand that their own rights are tied to the rights of
the people they object to. I do, which is why I object to checkpoints,
traffic law that defines most people as violators so cops can pick and
choose, etc and so forth. I don't like selective enforcement and never
have.

> And if the
> suspect is injured, it's the cops fault for chasing them. In other
> words, they give tacit approval to people who break the laws society
> institutes.

What if it's just a bystandard that's injured? Then the suspect is blamed
for running...

> That's as bad as the "illegal immigrant" problem. If someone enters
> the country illegally, it's a crime. But the do-gooders want to give
> the "criminals" amnesty. Would they see it the same way if an
> "illegal" entered their home without permission, and demanded to be
> fed, clothed, educated, and their medical taken care of? And if that
> same illegal bore a child in that home and then demanded to be allowed
> to remain their forever, would the owner still see things the same
> way?

Search for immigration by the numbers on google video.

Did you know that cops often let illegals go for things they ticket and
arrest citizens for in some parts of the nation? Wasn't it the Austin TX
police that got an award from the Mexican government for just that? It's
part of bigger scheme IMO, but that's way OT.

> You don't want pursuits for traffic offenses because it's just another
> form of taxation and revenue collection....

Um no. I want the speed limits to make sense and set properly by the best
known engineering method available. This way, it doesn't define safe
drivers as violators of the law. Those still in violation are truely a
problem. When a speed limit is underposted, it is about revenue and
things other than safety.

> UNTIL.... your child is the one killed by a speeder.

Two children were killed last year in the chicago area on a road I am
familiar with. One was when Mrs. Magoo drove up on the sidewalk and ran
over the family. She was not speeding. The other was killed when a rental
truck being driven by someone fleeing the cops crashed into the car he
was riding in, going about 2X the normal traffic speed. The normal
traffic speed is anywhere from 5-15 over depending on traffic.

> One accident I will never forget... a
> father was walking with his two children to the store to buy the girl
> her birthday gift. A teen ripped out of a side street, slid sideways,
> off the pavement, and the girl took the full impact. The father had
> been able to push the boy aside.

That's not speeding, that's reckless driving. But what if it was Mrs.
Magoo? What then? What do you blame when the kid is killed by some moron
doing 35 in a 35? A couple cheap tickets for driving on the sidewalk and
failure to control? Because afterall, Mrs. Magoo just screwed up...
right?

> Now, how many times had he driven like that and not been stopped
> before he finally killed a child?

How would an underposted speed limit saved the child? It's a number on
the sign.

> But we never should have gone after
> him until he did more than just speed and break traction? Maybe if we
> had been able to stop him earlier, he might have learned a lesson and
> it never would have reached the level it did. Maybe not. But we never
> had the chance to find out because our pursuit limits were not more
> than 5mph in a residential area, and not more than 15mph over the
> posted on the highway.

You were chasing the kid at the time? That's not just exceeding the
speed painted on a sign, but something far from it. Why should the vast
majority of people who are not criminal, who don't do these things be
made violators of the law so that you can pick these people out and 'nip
em in the bud'? Mr. and Mrs. Magoo actually violate the vehicle code
time and time again and they aren't 'nipped in the bud', instead we are
all told to drive slower to avoid them!

> We've already raised a generation which has little or no respect for
> any kind of authority; not even parents, let alone the law. The ones

The problem is the society moved away from one where people took on
certain jobs but were still citizens themselves to one where there are
people and the authorities. The old way was based in a mutual respect,
the new way, authority uses fear of what it can do. The problem with fear
based authority is that there is a degeneration. There is no respect
because authority doesn't respect people, it rules over them.

I have had and have positions of responsibility. Many would say
authority, I won't use that word, because I don't rule people. The
position is one of responsibility, a burden. I don't enjoy it, but
someone has to do it. I expect people to behave themselves and I respect
them. Guess what, for the most part I get positive response and don't
have to monitor people and look for violations, and so forth. I don't
have to threaten or use fear. I explain things. It's amazing how well
that works. Sometimes debate, even argue, but I will not use fear.

But that's not society at large. We operate in a fear based system with
authorities. And the result we have is the degeration that a fear based
system creates. And then what do people do when they fear? They RUN. What
happens when they get over fear, they do the same wrong things over
again. Fear is poor tool.

Cops use fear as a tool in so many interactions with people. That isn't
helping things at all when other factors are raising people to be selfish
and rude. In fact, I've found it's completely flipped around, telling
people they are rude is considered bad, but being rude is ok. It's fine
to be an ass to someone but that other person has to be submissive and
turn the other cheek. Trying to figure out that all works into a bigger
picture.

> who were once the "bad guys" have become the "good guys". Why should
> they care or have respect for anything when they know the police
> aren't allowed to chase after them?

Did I argue that police shouldn't be allowed to chase? No. I argued that
police and government shouldn't rely on traffic stops to raise revenue
and catch criminals, because that would greatly cut down on the number of
chases. There's a huge difference that apparently went over your head.