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
  #1  
Old May 1st 07, 12:49 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
dwight[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 519
Default More power to the police in high speed pursuit

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


Ads
  #2  
Old May 1st 07, 02:29 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Spike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 413
Default More power to the police in high speed pursuit

Better the crook go free than risk being sued seems to be the desire
of the liberal courts. Ya gotta wonder why any of us ever thought
about pinning on the badge and going forth to fight crime and/or evil.
The citizens, who have never walked in our shoes second guess what
should or should not have been done in that split second.

Bad cops should be punished for stepping outside the bounds of moral
decency... whether it's graft or abusing the power of the badge. But
a lot of damn good cops have been lost to second guessing. Sadly, it
only takes a small percent to make all look bad.

They say a camera doesn't lie, but what it records is dependent upon
the reviewer's bias, pro or con.

Yep, I am biased in favor of the cops. I've walked in those shoes and
know how fast something can go from being nothing to a full blown war.



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
>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
>

  #3  
Old May 1st 07, 03:12 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
dwight[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 519
Default More power to the police in high speed pursuit

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> Better the crook go free than risk being sued seems to be the desire
> of the liberal courts. Ya gotta wonder why any of us ever thought
> about pinning on the badge and going forth to fight crime and/or evil.
> The citizens, who have never walked in our shoes second guess what
> should or should not have been done in that split second.
>
> Bad cops should be punished for stepping outside the bounds of moral
> decency... whether it's graft or abusing the power of the badge. But
> a lot of damn good cops have been lost to second guessing. Sadly, it
> only takes a small percent to make all look bad.
>
> They say a camera doesn't lie, but what it records is dependent upon
> the reviewer's bias, pro or con.
>
> Yep, I am biased in favor of the cops. I've walked in those shoes and
> know how fast something can go from being nothing to a full blown war.


Reading the articles, it seems as though the video squashed all debate. The
majority obviously felt that the video alone was a compelling argument on
the side of the police. Having watched it, I agree wholeheartedly.

This ruling is made against the backdrop of the ongoing public debate over
high speed chases. I imagine that almost all such pursuits can be
second-guessed after the fact, as to whether or not continuing the chase was
warranted. I think that the police now show a very healthy respect for the
environment in which the chase takes place (or doesn't), which is a direct
result of that debate. But I'll give great weight to whatever decision the
police make in these cases.

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...

dwight

>
>
>
> 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
>>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
>>



  #4  
Old May 1st 07, 05:35 AM 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 >, 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.




  #5  
Old May 1st 07, 05:45 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
WindsorFox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 449
Default More power to the police in high speed pursuit

dwight wrote:
> "Spike" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Better the crook go free than risk being sued seems to be the desire
>> of the liberal courts. Ya gotta wonder why any of us ever thought
>> about pinning on the badge and going forth to fight crime and/or evil.
>> The citizens, who have never walked in our shoes second guess what
>> should or should not have been done in that split second.
>>
>> Bad cops should be punished for stepping outside the bounds of moral
>> decency... whether it's graft or abusing the power of the badge. But
>> a lot of damn good cops have been lost to second guessing. Sadly, it
>> only takes a small percent to make all look bad.
>>
>> They say a camera doesn't lie, but what it records is dependent upon
>> the reviewer's bias, pro or con.
>>
>> Yep, I am biased in favor of the cops. I've walked in those shoes and
>> know how fast something can go from being nothing to a full blown war.

>
> Reading the articles, it seems as though the video squashed all debate. The
> majority obviously felt that the video alone was a compelling argument on
> the side of the police. Having watched it, I agree wholeheartedly.
>


Then I have to wonder how the hell did it end up going so far to
begin with?? Must have been yahoo's family on the jury.


--
"Yes, it is a good thing you are handy, as
you clearly suck at being smart." - Herb
  #6  
Old May 1st 07, 05:56 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
.boB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default More power to the police in high speed pursuit

dwight wrote:

> Scalia was incredulous that the lower courts had said Harris's case against
> Scott could proceed."


And our "Justice System" strikes again.

>
> I'm no lawyer,


Thank god for that. There's way too many of those
knuckleheads running around loose.

>
> I would have dismissed this case from the start.


That's because you have a brain, and more than
half a gram of common sense.

--
..boB
2006 FXDI hot rod
2001 Dodge Dakota QC 5.9/4x4/3.92
1966 Mustang Coupe - Daily Driver
1965 FFR Cobra - 427W EFI, Damn Fast.

  #7  
Old May 2nd 07, 07:58 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 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.

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. 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.

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?

You don't want pursuits for traffic offenses because it's just another
form of taxation and revenue collection.... UNTIL.... your child is
the one killed by a speeder. 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.

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

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
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?
  #8  
Old May 2nd 07, 09:01 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
GILL[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default More power to the police in high speed pursuit

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.
>
> 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. 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.
>
> 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?
>
> You don't want pursuits for traffic offenses because it's just another
> form of taxation and revenue collection.... UNTIL.... your child is
> the one killed by a speeder. 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.
>
> Now, how many times had he driven like that and not been stopped
> before he finally killed a child? 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.
>
> 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
> 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?

Sounds like some people want to turn cops into UPS drivers. You report
to the cop shop and pick up your route each day for six or seven deliveries.
I was thinking, what if all cops were ordered to let all high speed
runners just go? If someone robs a bank or kills another person, they
just have to drive fast and reckless, and the police can't stop them.
I say let the police do their job.

--
Tropic Green Y2K Mustang GT 5spd
ATI P-1SC @10lbs MM Suspension
http://tinyurl.com/yjdb66
  #9  
Old May 2nd 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 >, 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.
  #10  
Old May 2nd 07, 10:58 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Bob Willard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 90
Default More power to the police in high speed pursuit

Spike wrote: <and I snipped>
>
> 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. 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.
>
> You don't want pursuits for traffic offenses because it's just another
> form of taxation and revenue collection.... UNTIL.... your child is
> the one killed by a speeder.


I have no objection to cops stopping cars for speeding/etc. when there
is a genuine issue of public safety; and I have no objection to the
high-speed pursuit of cars that don't stop when blue-lighted, regardless
of the reason for the original blue-light.

But we all know that some tickets are issued merely to raise money, and
every such ticket reduces the reputation of cops. Sorry, Spike, in my
book, revenue-driven ticketing is just plain wrong.

Worse even than the tickets issued solely for revenue is the attitude
shown by many cops: the attitude that if you don't support the cops in
every possible way and in every possible situation, then you are anti-cop.
That's wrong.

In this region, city and state cops are notorious for testlying and for
internal cover-ups. That's wrong.

The public's perception of cops is certainly not helped when some cops
are making in excess of $200,000 per year. But, no legislator dares to
even mention reducing the pay/benefits packages, out of fear of the clout
of cops. That's wrong.

I've found most cops to be good, moral, people. But there are wrongs in
police operations that need to be exposed and corrected, and the image of
individual cops continues to be limited by the image of the group.
--
Cheers, Bob
 




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 11:04 AM.


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