More power to the police in high speed pursuit

In article >, dwight wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article >, Joe wrote:
>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>><huge snip>
>>>
>>> OK, Brent, I'll play along. Exactly what is your point in 50 words or
>>> less?
>>
>> Initially? That defining reasonable, normal, and safe behavior illegal has
>> negative consquences. One of those negative consquences with regard to
>> under posted speed limits is dangerous police chases that can result in
>> death or injury.
>
> The kid was doing 73 in a 55 zone. On a dark night.

My point is not specific to this case, but general.

> Let's say, for argument, that the speed limit along that stretch was raised
> to 70. My money says that this kid would THEN be doing 83, that the police
> STILL would have attempted to pull him over, and the he STILL would have
> taken off.

Obviously you didn't read the cited material. *shrug*

> Your argument is moot, if only the numbers are changed. I repeat, speed was
> not the mitigating factor here. Reckless driving, reckless endangerment of
> those around him, compounded by his idiotic choices once the police lights
> went on, all of these things made him a prime target for negative attention
> by the authorities. Not purely his speed.

by assumption and declaration. That's nice.

On Thu, 10 May 2007 02:06:16 GMT, CobraJet > wrote:

>In article >, Brent P
> wrote:
>
>> In article >, Joe wrote:
>>
>> > Nah, the insult was quite appropriate.
>>
>> Considering your demonstrated level of intelligence, the fact that's all
>> you can present is not surprising.
>>
>> >>> People like me? And you know me how? I called you a freakin' idiot
>> >>> because of the nonsense you posted. Unless you start googling my
>> >>> past posts, your only frame of reference is that I called you an
>> >>> idiot.
>>
>> >> Nonsense? You mean law, accepted engineering practice, engineering
>> >> studies, the federal manual on uniform traffic control devices?
>>
>> > The nonsense is your interpretation and explanation.
>>
>> Read it yourself and present your own then. Oh wait, that would actually
>> require some brains... much easier to just fling insults instead.
>>
>
> If everyone here has reading comprehension problems, and can do
>little more than insult you, then why the hell are you here? Are you a
>masochist?
>
> C'mon, if anyone agreed with you you'd be neutered.


He who is flogged by fate... and continues to hang around begging to
receive more... is a masochist.

Brent met a sadist on the street and begged, "beat me... beat me....",
and the sadist replied, "no!"

On Wed, 09 May 2007 21:14:09 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, CobraJet wrote:
>
>> If everyone here has reading comprehension problems, and can do
>> little more than insult you, then why the hell are you here? Are you a
>> masochist?
>
>Good question. The terminally stupid should be left their fate.
>
>> C'mon, if anyone agreed with you you'd be neutered.
>
>Others have already tried to explain it to you as well.

We;ve been trying to leave you to your fate but you keep coming back
for more.

In article >, Spike wrote:

> We;ve been trying to leave you to your fate but you keep coming back
> for more.

Coming back requires that one first leave.

On Thu, 10 May 2007 13:09:15 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, dwight wrote:
>
SNIP
>
>It is this basic mentality goes way beyond speed limits. It goes into the
>nature of government and wether or not a people remain free. Once you
>start accepting rule outside the law, the rule of force, rule by color of
>law, by doomsmen, freedom's days are numbered.
>
>Where else do you just accept this rule by color of law? I am sure it
>doesn't start or stop with driving related things.
>
>Would you just shrug your shoulders and go off to fight and die in an
>illegal war too?
>
>
As a member of the Armed Forces, it is/was not my decision to
determine whether or not a war is "illegal". My duty, and honor, is to
to serve my country. It is my personal ethics which compell me to hold
true to the oath I took when I joined. If that means going off to
fight, then that is my duty.

It is the President and the Congress who determine whether a war is
legal or not.

And if I go off to war, as I have done, in service to my country, and
die, I shall not have died in vain. I upheld my honor. What would make
my death in vain is those who cut and run before the job is done. Then
we shall all, all of us who served with honor, will have had our lives
wasted.

I have no idea whether you have ever served your country or just used
the internet to whine about your pet peaves, but, whether you agree or
disagree with armed conflict, you do not have the right to malign
those who serve simply because you believe a war is "illegal". Right
or wrong, the government decided to send the troops. The time for the
government to argue whether a war is legal or illegal is BEFORE the
troops are sent. Once they are sent, the nation should give all the
support they can in a drive for victory. To do any less is a total
diservice to those sent to fight and die.

You crossed the line on this one.

In article >, Brent P
> wrote:

> In article >, Spike wrote:
>
> > We;ve been trying to leave you to your fate but you keep coming back
> > for more.
>
> Coming back requires that one first leave.
>
>

Don't you sleep?

--
CobraJet

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, dwight wrote:
>
>>> I expect none of it to be read and the usual spew to be issued in
>>> response.
>
>> I read all of it, and I repeat - yet again - that I am not arguing
>> against
>> change. The ONLY point that I've ever made was that what you and I call
>> reality are wildly divergent.
>>
>> I see the sign that says 55, I see the police pulling over seemingly
>> random
>> speeders, and I see that as the reality.
>>
>> You pull out all kinds of links to show that all of this is merely
>> revenue
>> enhancement or links to show how the world SHOULD be, but that is not the
>> reality that I see with my own two little beady eyes.
>
>> I see the sign that says 55. That is my reality.
> Some people like being ruled, others resign themselves to it. Slavery
> isn't much different. Some slaves like being a slave, others resign
> themselves to it. Those of these two mentalities often have negative
> reactions to someone in the same situation but doesn't just accept his
> lot in life.
>
> What it comes down to is you don't like someone being uppity and saying
> the emperor has no clothes.

Oh, boy... Here we go...

> It is this basic mentality goes way beyond speed limits. It goes into the
> nature of government and wether or not a people remain free. Once you
> start accepting rule outside the law, the rule of force, rule by color of
> law, by doomsmen, freedom's days are numbered.

You just skipped over everything I wrote.

> Where else do you just accept this rule by color of law? I am sure it
> doesn't start or stop with driving related things.

Jet's right. You're paranoid and delusional.

> Would you just shrug your shoulders and go off to fight and die in an
> illegal war too?

At the very least, ADD.

Okay. I get it. You're off somewhere in your own little world, and there
really is no point in continuing.

Thanks, and have a nice day.

dwight

In article >, Spike wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2007 13:09:15 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, dwight wrote:
>>
> SNIP
>>
>>It is this basic mentality goes way beyond speed limits. It goes into the
>>nature of government and wether or not a people remain free. Once you
>>start accepting rule outside the law, the rule of force, rule by color of
>>law, by doomsmen, freedom's days are numbered.

>>Where else do you just accept this rule by color of law? I am sure it
>>doesn't start or stop with driving related things.

>>Would you just shrug your shoulders and go off to fight and die in an
>>illegal war too?

> As a member of the Armed Forces, it is/was not my decision to
> determine whether or not a war is "illegal". My duty, and honor, is to
> to serve my country. It is my personal ethics which compell me to hold
> true to the oath I took when I joined. If that means going off to
> fight, then that is my duty.
>
> It is the President and the Congress who determine whether a war is
> legal or not.
>
> And if I go off to war, as I have done, in service to my country, and
> die, I shall not have died in vain. I upheld my honor. What would make
> my death in vain is those who cut and run before the job is done. Then
> we shall all, all of us who served with honor, will have had our lives
> wasted.

> I have no idea whether you have ever served your country or just used
> the internet to whine about your pet peaves, but, whether you agree or
> disagree with armed conflict, you do not have the right to malign
> those who serve simply because you believe a war is "illegal". Right
> or wrong, the government decided to send the troops. The time for the
> government to argue whether a war is legal or illegal is BEFORE the
> troops are sent. Once they are sent, the nation should give all the
> support they can in a drive for victory. To do any less is a total
> diservice to those sent to fight and die.

> You crossed the line on this one.

Then you lack the basic understanding to even comprehend what has been
said. Too bad. So sad.

You want to be ruled. I want liberty. That's what it comes down to in the
end.

Since you won't listen to me, maybe you'll listen to a congressional
medal of honor recipient, twice over. At the time of his death the most
decorated Marine in US history, Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/ar...risaracket.htm

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/link...y_frazier.html

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during
that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big
Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a
gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe
for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent
place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in
the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of
Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking
House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican
Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras
right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped
see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested."
-Smedley Darlington Butler

In article >, dwight wrote:

> Okay. I get it. You're off somewhere in your own little world, and there
> really is no point in continuing.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. Try expanding your knowledge some day.
Things aren't as they seem, Alice.

> Thanks, and have a nice day.

At least you are learning to solve your own problems now.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Joe wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>><huge snip>
>>
>> OK, Brent, I'll play along. Exactly what is your point in 50 words
>> or less?
>
> Initially? That defining reasonable, normal, and safe behavior illegal
> has negative consquences. One of those negative consquences with
> regard to under posted speed limits is dangerous police chases that
> can result in death or injury.

OK, even though I disagree with it, I get your point. But a glittering
generality like that simply isn't true because it's a glittering
generality. In short, it's a trolling statement. Bait on a hook.