You are oversimplifying. You are also assuming the officer is able to get the plate of the runaway driver. over simplifying? A pursuit puts everyone on the road at risk of injury or death. And that is a huge fact. Going after a speeder is NOT worth the lives of people on the roads.
And while I will admit they might miss a plate or two the license plates are made to be seen. Reflective paint and all. If you got a cop who continually misses plates then its time the sucker gets glasses or tries another occupation.
I have many family and friends who are cops. Earlier I mentioned an incident here where a cop was killed while in a high speed pursuit of a speeder. Every cop I have talked too, while sympathetic to the cop's family, said it was clearly the cop's fault for continuing a pursuit that didnt warrant it.
Most states have already adopted clear rules as to when a cop can continue a pursuit. And speeding isnt even on the lists.
Slightly off topic here in the UK [Britain] We use a system of speed cameras that take yuor cars numberplates if you go too fast and even tho this is a good way of catching speeders it can ahve problems below are 2 examples.
Recently its come out that ambulance drivers were being taken to court for unpaid speeding fines because they were caught speeding while on the job answering emergency calls for help took a retrial before the fines were thrown out of the court
Also recently a police car was seen speeding apst red lights cars etc blue lights ablaze ant a taxi driver a few minuites later saw the same car and same driver exiting a chinese takeway with his.......Order of noodles and stuff
However despite this speed cameras are a very effective system of catching speeder i wonder why america doesant try a similar system themselves
As for the OP's story it sounds like a typical game of Cowboys that the american police reguly play.
Only in America (or, come to think of it, maybe Britain) could this moronic criminal actually have a chance to be win a lawsuit because he was hurt while running from the cops. Poor Baby. LINK I hate it when people try to defend scum like this by saying he was only speeding or only ran a red light not like he robbed a bank or something. He broke the law and then refused to pull over and accept responsibility for that choice. More people die or get injured in car accidents caused by speeding and running red lights than bank robberies, yet people treat them like they are lesser crimes and the police should not enforce them if you run. If you commit a crime and you or someone else is hurt in the commission that crime you are the one responsible not the cops who were trying to stop you.
Meh if I had the goverment power's to myself the guy would be publically executed.
I guess that's why me and Mao get along so well.
I'd also have his family moved to the patty fields to do hard labor.
I strongly disagree with the use of speed cameras. What if the car is being driven by someone other than the owner? I've been in cases where my friend didn't want to drive so he gave me his keys. Also, catching someone for a traffic violation is a good way to run their record and if they have a warrant. Also, if they are drunk the speed camera will not know.
As a future cop (hopefully) I find that offensive. But I'll let it go because you obviously have no clue what your talking about.
I witnessed those acts. How can you say I have no clue?
Just last weekend i witnessed 4 fully grown police officers, throw, with great force, a young teen girl face first into a paddy-wagon.
All this because she was crying about her boyfriend getting arrests. It was the most excessive use of force Ever. The only people who piss me off more than police, are security guards (We have had dozens of people killed and comotosed over here because of over zealouis bouncers.
Once police remember that they are out there to solely PROTECT the public, not belt the crap out of it, i will start paying police officers respect. Until then, i will give them the same respect as any other petty thug.
At my sisters wedding i was kicked out of my motel room because my cousins were tresspassing and they couldnt find them, and as soon as they kicked me out, they arrested me for loitering in a public place. In that time i was assulted by two security guards in witness by the police, when i asked to press charges i was told "you really dont want to do that, trust me".
Ive been pulled over purely because i was driving my car late at night (im a night filler, i work nights)
Been accused of stealing just for having groceries in my car.
Been searched for drugs because my eyes were bloodshot, been searched for knives just because of my age.
Ive had my car searched because i was at my local fishing spot
I have, and always will be, a law abiding citizen, but being pulled over and reprimanded, for doing absolutly nothing wrong is very insulting.
Wow, your smart. You figured out there are bad cops out there, good for you. There are bad people in the world, get used to it. You guys are acting like every cop is abusing his power, maybe thats not what you meant but it is certainly how it sounds. If you think america would be better without cops your an idiot plain and simple. They really get no respect at all.
Someone who runs away from cops deserve HEAVY punishment. It should start at 5 firm years in jail if you try to run away for more than 30 seconds (I could understand that someone initial reaction, a "reflex" might be wrong, but after 30 seconds, this is planned).
I don't care if the individual is just deadly greedy and trying to escape a tiny fee, if he is hiding a corpse or whatever, running away from cops put everyone's life in danger...and if a cops see you running, they should arrest you all the more, since if you run, there is a good possibility there is a good reason for you to run, thereby all the extra ressources to arrest you, using copters if needed, are in order.
Running away from a cops is wronger then drinking & driving and should be punished accordingly, IMO. You are putting other lives in danger for no good reason or you are adding 1 criminal activity to a list if you hide a corpse or whatever; in either case, this should be punished, heavily. Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. More peoples die to cars accidents than to guns in NA!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
You are oversimplifying. You are also assuming the officer is able to get the plate of the runaway driver. over simplifying? A pursuit puts everyone on the road at risk of injury or death. And that is a huge fact. Going after a speeder is NOT worth the lives of people on the roads.
And while I will admit they might miss a plate or two the license plates are made to be seen. Reflective paint and all. If you got a cop who continually misses plates then its time the sucker gets glasses or tries another occupation.
I have many family and friends who are cops. Earlier I mentioned an incident here where a cop was killed while in a high speed pursuit of a speeder. Every cop I have talked too, while sympathetic to the cop's family, said it was clearly the cop's fault for continuing a pursuit that didnt warrant it.
Most states have already adopted clear rules as to when a cop can continue a pursuit. And speeding isnt even on the lists.
Kai
So in those states if the police won't chase speeders whats the point of having speed limits at all ? Might as well starting going 150 in a school zone since no one is going to try and stop you.
DOAC is still the MMO I judge other games by, My first and still my favorite.
I strongly disagree with the use of speed cameras. What if the car is being driven by someone other than the owner? I've been in cases where my friend didn't want to drive so he gave me his keys. Also, catching someone for a traffic violation is a good way to run their record and if they have a warrant. Also, if they are drunk the speed camera will not know.
I'm totaly with you on this one, I think they are completely ignoring the spirit of the law, in favor of trying to get the city a few extra bucks.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
"Harris sped off, weaving past other cars and going through red lights.
He turned into a parking lot, hit the cruiser of another deputy,"
That's reckless endangerment and assault with a deadly weapon. As soon as he ran a red light and hit an officer, that became MUCH MORE than any regular ol' speeding ticket. He was endangering the lives of others and he had to be removed from the road at all costs. He ran, he paid the price in more ways than he thought he would.
You are oversimplifying. You are also assuming the officer is able to get the plate of the runaway driver. over simplifying? A pursuit puts everyone on the road at risk of injury or death. And that is a huge fact. Going after a speeder is NOT worth the lives of people on the roads.
And while I will admit they might miss a plate or two the license plates are made to be seen. Reflective paint and all. If you got a cop who continually misses plates then its time the sucker gets glasses or tries another occupation.
I have many family and friends who are cops. Earlier I mentioned an incident here where a cop was killed while in a high speed pursuit of a speeder. Every cop I have talked too, while sympathetic to the cop's family, said it was clearly the cop's fault for continuing a pursuit that didnt warrant it.
Most states have already adopted clear rules as to when a cop can continue a pursuit. And speeding isnt even on the lists.
Kai
So in those states if the police won't chase speeders whats the point of having speed limits at all ? Might as well starting going 150 in a school zone since no one is going to try and stop you. Because the officer who sees a speeder will get his tag then the speeder gets a visit from the police during a warrant sweep. Here they have warrant sweeps about once a week on random days.
And as for speeding cameras and maybe your friend borrows your car and speeds then you get a ticket in the mail. That's between you and your friend. If he was dumb enough to speed in your car then he should accept responsibility and pay the fine. If he doesnt then you know he isnt really a good friend.
There are suppose to be provisions in place to stop police abusing their power, in my country, those provisions dont work.
We have a police man who punched a inmate, whiole in a cell, in the head, that inmate is now dead, and tghe entire police force is threatening to strike because that officer has to stand trial. Police refusing to protect me to protect their right to kill prisoners !!!
There was a man arrested at the cricket by 9 police officers for chanting 'aussie, aussie, aussie' at an austrlaian match.
Numerous people have been arrested for starting mexican waves.
Police officers are used at private musical festivals to stop fence jumpers (there job is NOT to protect some companies profits)
Bad people normally go to gaol, they dont to police the streets.
Fence jumpers at private music festivals are stealing and the job of the police IS to prevent crime, so I don't see that as any less reasonable that say police stopping looters at a high street bomb scene. I agree with pretty much everything else you're saying.
The police can often be guilty of acting above the law - but then, who's going to arrest them? The story of the police threatening to strike is just sickening. What kind of precident would that set if the governemnt buckled to that? I'm not sure the government really has much option other than sacking any strikers and calling in the army to cover their jobs in those sorts of circumstances.
And as for speeding cameras and maybe your friend borrows your car and speeds then you get a ticket in the mail. That's between you and your friend. If he was dumb enough to speed in your car then he should accept responsibility and pay the fine. If he doesnt then you know he isnt really a good friend.
Kai
The speed camera system isn't as bad a people are pointing out. In the UK you can appeal if you weren't the driver or if you feel a mistake has been made - of course that could end up being more expensive than just paying the fine, if it goes to court. link
There was a lot of fuss when they were introduced and many concerns of them just being about raising some extra money, so now there are strict rules about having signs to warn of the cameras and clearly visible cameras. Generally you only have yourself to blame if you get caught this way.
Realm of Freedom? Are you from fantasy land by chance? I cannot wait until you get your wish and there are no cops anywhere. Then you will know true fear my friend. It's coming just look at all the open jobs in law enforcement. Go ahead sing "La la la I am free" but when the piper comes for his dues I would suggest not wetting your pants friend.
There aren't any cops round here. Even if you call for them, they won't come. I'm not sure that "I know true fear" although I do get burgled quite regulalry.
We also have a problem with the number of deaths and injuries caused by high speed pursuits. It seems to me all policemen want to do is the glamorous part of the job. The high speed pursuits, the shoot outs. Getting one to actually solve real crime, as in people doing bad things to other people, seems like a lost cause.
They are all too busy chasing speeders, or checking cars outside school to see if the children under the age of 9 are using seat boosters. Or if you are driving while using a mobile phone, or some other heinous threat to society more worthy of their efforts
Meanwhile the same gypsies keep nicking my stuff and children are buying imported guns and shooting eachother outside school.
The speed camera system isn't as bad a people are pointing out. In the UK you can appeal if you weren't the driver or if you feel a mistake has been made - of course that could end up being more expensive than just paying the fine, if it goes to court. link There was a lot of fuss when they were introduced and many concerns of them just being about raising some extra money, so now there are strict rules about having signs to warn of the cameras and clearly visible cameras. Generally you only have yourself to blame if you get caught this way.
Ah yes, the guilty until proven innocent approach. You are guilty and we will penalise you. Should you in any way attempt to even prove your innocence we will most likely penalise you more.
It improved alot for making the cameras more visible, a least I don't have to do any erratic braking on blind corners anymore. However you should note that the latest generation of average speed cameras are not clearly visible. As soon as the public is not actively making trouble, they return to their usual form.
I don't think anyone believes that now the cameras have to painted dayglow yellow, instead of camoflage green, hidden in the trees, that speed camera's purposes are no longer primarily a method of gaining revenue.
It's just after a while and the initial shock, people get used to bending over for it. After all, what are you going to do about it?
They call them safety camera's but I find them inherantly dangerous. When you get close to one, instead of paying attention to the other traffic on the road, you must take your eyes off the road to check your speed. Speeding cars brake suddenly, people swerve lanes to avoid them. You are looking at your speedo, and the drivers around you are all pulling crazy manouvers or likewise watching their control panel. Tax money > driver safety.
Ah yes, the guilty until proven innocent approach. You are guilty and we will penalise you. Should you in any way attempt to even prove your innocence we will most likely penalise you more. It improved alot for making the cameras more visible, a least I don't have to do any erratic braking on blind corners anymore. However you should note that the latest generation of average speed cameras are not clearly visible. As soon as the public is not actively making trouble, they return to their usual form. I don't think anyone believes that now the cameras have to painted dayglow yellow, instead of camoflage green, hidden in the trees, that speed camera's purposes are no longer primarily a method of gaining revenue. It's just after a while and the initial shock, people get used to bending over for it. After all, what are you going to do about it? They call them safety camera's but I find them inherantly dangerous. When you get close to one, instead of paying attention to the other traffic on the road, you must take your eyes off the road to check your speed. Speeding cars brake suddenly, people swerve lanes to avoid them. You are looking at your speedo, and the drivers around you are all pulling crazy manouvers or likewise watching their control panel. Tax money > driver safety.
Actually, I do agree with you on these points. We certainly don't have the system down perfectly, but I think if done correctly that the cameras can be useful in helping the police to concentrate their resources on other matters. (I hear you on the burglary issue....we don't place nearly enough priority on that in this country.)
I don't really have an easy answer for the appeal system. If you make it too easy, then everyone will use it, guilty or not. There is already reasonable proof that your car was speeding, so there's some basis for "guilty until proven innocent" in this case - if it's your car, you should be responsible for knowing who's driving it. I don't think it would be any different than if a police car clocked you speeding, when it would be your word against theirs, so I wouldn't say that was the fault of the camera. What appeal system would you see being more fair, without putting too much extra burdain on the taxpayers?
The cameras must be visible, and well sign posted. I've come across cameras without warning, and they can be dangerous. An appeal on these grounds should put the responsibility with the traffic authorities to check such things.
When I was at school, we had a system of punishment.
Those who misbehaved had to do certain jobs. Clean up litter. Do the laundry. Wake everybody up in the morning.
If no one did anything wrong, the laundry would go unwashed, the gardens fill with litter and everyone would sleep through class.
Consequently, even if you weren't doing anything wrong, from time to time you were going to get busted anyway. The community needed it's penalties, regardless of wether anyone had done anything worth penalising, the jobs needed doing.
The system works, and justice comes in second place.
It's the same with speed cameras, parking tickets too. The government needs tax. If no one trips the speed camera's because they are too visible now, or because everyone now drives safely, they must develop a new way to penalise people. Find a new bugbear to curtail.
It won't ever end, you can't impliment a "just" society. If you have a car then you have an asset that can be taken away from you. Pay a small fine or lose your expensive vehicle. They've got you. Safe driving isn't the issue with speed cameras. Road deaths have gone up not come down since their introduction.
It sucks, but governments need taxes in order to operate. There isn't anyway around this. The only question is who is going to pay, and how much.
I really dont care about speeding. I have a radar detector and buy a new one every 5 years to keep up with technology. I have had one for as long as I can remember. Plus I always check my rear view when I go fast. Its called defensive speeding.
I take that back, I did get stopped one time for speeding when I had my Jeep with the huge knobby tires. My speedometer was off around 5 miles per hour. He let me go with a warning.
How about if they put more effort into stopping burglary and claimed a % of the insurance that the insurance companies didn't have to pay because the police actually caught the thieves?
Except that all the money insurance companies pay comes from the policy holder, who is already paying the police to stop burglary.
So then I would be paying taxes to the police to get them to stop crime, and paying second insurance taxes to the police to stop crime.
How about since I am paying them to stop crime already and they aren't doing it, that I stop paying them. How about I continue to hire private security whenever I need protection services. I see no reason at all to pay for both. But then, what choice do I have?
I really dont care about speeding. I have a radar detector and buy a new one every 5 years to keep up with technology. I have had one for as long as I can remember. Plus I always check my rear view when I go fast. Its called defensive speeding. I take that back, I did get stopped one time for speeding when I had my Jeep with the huge knobby tires. My speedometer was off around 5 miles per hour. He let me go with a warning.
Are RADAR detectors legal in america ?
Most states they are legal. I think Georgia I have to disconnect it and a few others. Here in Florida, they are legal. It has saved my ass numerous times.
I really dont care about speeding. I have a radar detector and buy a new one every 5 years to keep up with technology. I have had one for as long as I can remember. Plus I always check my rear view when I go fast. Its called defensive speeding. I take that back, I did get stopped one time for speeding when I had my Jeep with the huge knobby tires. My speedometer was off around 5 miles per hour. He let me go with a warning.
Are RADAR detectors legal in america ?
I believe they are in the gray area of "technically legal but don't let a cop see it."
I really dont care about speeding. I have a radar detector and buy a new one every 5 years to keep up with technology. I have had one for as long as I can remember. Plus I always check my rear view when I go fast. Its called defensive speeding. I take that back, I did get stopped one time for speeding when I had my Jeep with the huge knobby tires. My speedometer was off around 5 miles per hour. He let me go with a warning.
Are RADAR detectors legal in america ?
I believe they are in the gray area of "technically legal but don't let a cop see it."Mine is on the front dash totally visible. Here they dont care.
Getting back to the topic, lets look at a few details:
Did the Cadillac collide with the deputy's car, or did the deputy's car collide with the Cadillac? There is no dispute, however, about whether Harris stopped after the collision.
He did not.
Instead, he fled up another highway "reaching speeds of at least 90 miles per hour."
There is also no dispute about whether Harris should have refrained, as he was fleeing, from repeatedly crossing double-yellow lines and passing cars on the wrong side of the highway. He did not.
Nor is there a dispute about whether Harris stopped when he came to red lights. He did not.
Now, it could have been that I would be saying that the chase ended when Harris drove his Cadillac head-on into a van full of high school kids.
He did not -- thank God. He killed no one that night.
You see, Deputy Scott made a decision. Realizing Harris posed a threat to innocent people, he secured approval from his supervisor to try to stop Harris with a "Precision Intervention Technique," which is designed to bump a fleeing vehicle at such an angle that it spins to stop. Because Harris was driving so fast, however, Scott could only manage to bump the Cadillac in the rear. He waited to do so where the road was flat and free of traffic.
The Cadillac careened off the pavement and rolled over.
Harris, of course, should have fastened his seat belt. Alas, he did not. He is now a paraplegic.
Even so, you might have thought Harris would end up in court, considering all the things he did not do. And he did. But he is not the one in trouble. Deputy Scott is.
Harris sued him. He argues Scott's action that night violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from "unreasonable" seizures. The case was argued in the Supreme Court on Monday.
If common sense governed in this case, there would be no case. Deputy Scott acted reasonably under the circumstances. But common sense has not governed in this case, federal judges have.
Over the years, federal judges have encrusted the common sense language of the Constitution with convoluted legalisms. The Fourth Amendment guarantee against "unreasonable" seizures is no exception.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, ruling against Scott, decided the relevant encrustation in this case was a Supreme Court precedent called Tennessee v. Garner. It examined an instance where a policeman shot a fleeing unarmed burglar as he climbed a fence. "A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him in the head," ruled the Supreme Court.
At the same time, the Supreme Court said: "Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force."
With telling irony, the 11th Circuit decided that Harris in his speeding car was "unarmed" and "non-dangerous," but that Scott unconstitutionally endangered him by turning his sheriff's car into an instrument of "deadly force."
It would be nice to believe the judges who decided this case in the lower courts put the legitimate interests of law-abiding citizens above the claimed rights of reckless lawbreaker.
As a future cop (hopefully) I find that offensive. But I'll let it go because you obviously have no clue what your talking about.
I witnessed those acts. How can you say I have no clue?
Just last weekend i witnessed 4 fully grown police officers, throw, with great force, a young teen girl face first into a paddy-wagon.
All this because she was crying about her boyfriend getting arrests. It was the most excessive use of force Ever. The only people who piss me off more than police, are security guards (We have had dozens of people killed and comotosed over here because of over zealouis bouncers.
Once police remember that they are out there to solely PROTECT the public, not belt the crap out of it, i will start paying police officers respect. Until then, i will give them the same respect as any other petty thug.
At my sisters wedding i was kicked out of my motel room because my cousins were tresspassing and they couldnt find them, and as soon as they kicked me out, they arrested me for loitering in a public place. In that time i was assulted by two security guards in witness by the police, when i asked to press charges i was told "you really dont want to do that, trust me".
Ive been pulled over purely because i was driving my car late at night (im a night filler, i work nights)
Been accused of stealing just for having groceries in my car.
Been searched for drugs because my eyes were bloodshot, been searched for knives just because of my age.
Ive had my car searched because i was at my local fishing spot
I have, and always will be, a law abiding citizen, but being pulled over and reprimanded, for doing absolutly nothing wrong is very insulting.
Wow, your smart. You figured out there are bad cops out there, good for you. There are bad people in the world, get used to it. You guys are acting like every cop is abusing his power, maybe thats not what you meant but it is certainly how it sounds. If you think america would be better without cops your an idiot plain and simple. They really get no respect at all. SyrupBoy you already sound like a bad cop.....
Comments
And while I will admit they might miss a plate or two the license plates are made to be seen. Reflective paint and all. If you got a cop who continually misses plates then its time the sucker gets glasses or tries another occupation.
I have many family and friends who are cops. Earlier I mentioned an incident here where a cop was killed while in a high speed pursuit of a speeder. Every cop I have talked too, while sympathetic to the cop's family, said it was clearly the cop's fault for continuing a pursuit that didnt warrant it.
Most states have already adopted clear rules as to when a cop can continue a pursuit. And speeding isnt even on the lists.
Kai
Slightly off topic here in the UK [Britain] We use a system of speed cameras that take yuor cars numberplates if you go too fast and even tho this is a good way of catching speeders it can ahve problems below are 2 examples.
Recently its come out that ambulance drivers were being taken to court for unpaid speeding fines because they were caught speeding while on the job answering emergency calls for help took a retrial before the fines were thrown out of the court
Also recently a police car was seen speeding apst red lights cars etc blue lights ablaze ant a taxi driver a few minuites later saw the same car and same driver exiting a chinese takeway with his.......Order of noodles and stuff
However despite this speed cameras are a very effective system of catching speeder i wonder why america doesant try a similar system themselves
As for the OP's story it sounds like a typical game of Cowboys that the american police reguly play.
I witnessed those acts. How can you say I have no clue?
Meh if I had the goverment power's to myself the guy would be publically executed.
I guess that's why me and Mao get along so well.
I'd also have his family moved to the patty fields to do hard labor.
Comm---errr I win!
I witnessed those acts. How can you say I have no clue?
Just last weekend i witnessed 4 fully grown police officers, throw, with great force, a young teen girl face first into a paddy-wagon.
All this because she was crying about her boyfriend getting arrests. It was the most excessive use of force Ever. The only people who piss me off more than police, are security guards (We have had dozens of people killed and comotosed over here because of over zealouis bouncers.
Once police remember that they are out there to solely PROTECT the public, not belt the crap out of it, i will start paying police officers respect. Until then, i will give them the same respect as any other petty thug.
At my sisters wedding i was kicked out of my motel room because my cousins were tresspassing and they couldnt find them, and as soon as they kicked me out, they arrested me for loitering in a public place. In that time i was assulted by two security guards in witness by the police, when i asked to press charges i was told "you really dont want to do that, trust me".
Ive been pulled over purely because i was driving my car late at night (im a night filler, i work nights)
Been accused of stealing just for having groceries in my car.
Been searched for drugs because my eyes were bloodshot, been searched for knives just because of my age.
Ive had my car searched because i was at my local fishing spot
I have, and always will be, a law abiding citizen, but being pulled over and reprimanded, for doing absolutly nothing wrong is very insulting.
Wow, your smart. You figured out there are bad cops out there, good for you. There are bad people in the world, get used to it. You guys are acting like every cop is abusing his power, maybe thats not what you meant but it is certainly how it sounds. If you think america would be better without cops your an idiot plain and simple. They really get no respect at all.I kinda agree with outctrl here.
Someone who runs away from cops deserve HEAVY punishment. It should start at 5 firm years in jail if you try to run away for more than 30 seconds (I could understand that someone initial reaction, a "reflex" might be wrong, but after 30 seconds, this is planned).
I don't care if the individual is just deadly greedy and trying to escape a tiny fee, if he is hiding a corpse or whatever, running away from cops put everyone's life in danger...and if a cops see you running, they should arrest you all the more, since if you run, there is a good possibility there is a good reason for you to run, thereby all the extra ressources to arrest you, using copters if needed, are in order.
Running away from a cops is wronger then drinking & driving and should be punished accordingly, IMO. You are putting other lives in danger for no good reason or you are adding 1 criminal activity to a list if you hide a corpse or whatever; in either case, this should be punished, heavily. Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. More peoples die to cars accidents than to guns in NA!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
And while I will admit they might miss a plate or two the license plates are made to be seen. Reflective paint and all. If you got a cop who continually misses plates then its time the sucker gets glasses or tries another occupation.
I have many family and friends who are cops. Earlier I mentioned an incident here where a cop was killed while in a high speed pursuit of a speeder. Every cop I have talked too, while sympathetic to the cop's family, said it was clearly the cop's fault for continuing a pursuit that didnt warrant it.
Most states have already adopted clear rules as to when a cop can continue a pursuit. And speeding isnt even on the lists.
Kai
So in those states if the police won't chase speeders whats the point of having speed limits at all
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Keywords in the article:
"Harris sped off, weaving past other cars and going through red lights.
He turned into a parking lot, hit the cruiser of another deputy,"
That's reckless endangerment and assault with a deadly weapon. As soon as he ran a red light and hit an officer, that became MUCH MORE than any regular ol' speeding ticket. He was endangering the lives of others and he had to be removed from the road at all costs. He ran, he paid the price in more ways than he thought he would.
And while I will admit they might miss a plate or two the license plates are made to be seen. Reflective paint and all. If you got a cop who continually misses plates then its time the sucker gets glasses or tries another occupation.
I have many family and friends who are cops. Earlier I mentioned an incident here where a cop was killed while in a high speed pursuit of a speeder. Every cop I have talked too, while sympathetic to the cop's family, said it was clearly the cop's fault for continuing a pursuit that didnt warrant it.
Most states have already adopted clear rules as to when a cop can continue a pursuit. And speeding isnt even on the lists.
Kai
So in those states if the police won't chase speeders whats the point of having speed limits at all
And as for speeding cameras and maybe your friend borrows your car and speeds then you get a ticket in the mail. That's between you and your friend. If he was dumb enough to speed in your car then he should accept responsibility and pay the fine. If he doesnt then you know he isnt really a good friend.
Kai
Fence jumpers at private music festivals are stealing and the job of the police IS to prevent crime, so I don't see that as any less reasonable that say police stopping looters at a high street bomb scene. I agree with pretty much everything else you're saying.
The police can often be guilty of acting above the law - but then, who's going to arrest them? The story of the police threatening to strike is just sickening. What kind of precident would that set if the governemnt buckled to that? I'm not sure the government really has much option other than sacking any strikers and calling in the army to cover their jobs in those sorts of circumstances.
The speed camera system isn't as bad a people are pointing out. In the UK you can appeal if you weren't the driver or if you feel a mistake has been made - of course that could end up being more expensive than just paying the fine, if it goes to court. link
There was a lot of fuss when they were introduced and many concerns of them just being about raising some extra money, so now there are strict rules about having signs to warn of the cameras and clearly visible cameras. Generally you only have yourself to blame if you get caught this way.
There aren't any cops round here. Even if you call for them, they won't come. I'm not sure that "I know true fear" although I do get burgled quite regulalry.
We also have a problem with the number of deaths and injuries caused by high speed pursuits. It seems to me all policemen want to do is the glamorous part of the job. The high speed pursuits, the shoot outs. Getting one to actually solve real crime, as in people doing bad things to other people, seems like a lost cause.
They are all too busy chasing speeders, or checking cars outside school to see if the children under the age of 9 are using seat boosters. Or if you are driving while using a mobile phone, or some other heinous threat to society more worthy of their efforts
Meanwhile the same gypsies keep nicking my stuff and children are buying imported guns and shooting eachother outside school.
Ah yes, the guilty until proven innocent approach. You are guilty and we will penalise you. Should you in any way attempt to even prove your innocence we will most likely penalise you more.
It improved alot for making the cameras more visible, a least I don't have to do any erratic braking on blind corners anymore. However you should note that the latest generation of average speed cameras are not clearly visible. As soon as the public is not actively making trouble, they return to their usual form.
I don't think anyone believes that now the cameras have to painted dayglow yellow, instead of camoflage green, hidden in the trees, that speed camera's purposes are no longer primarily a method of gaining revenue.
It's just after a while and the initial shock, people get used to bending over for it. After all, what are you going to do about it?
They call them safety camera's but I find them inherantly dangerous. When you get close to one, instead of paying attention to the other traffic on the road, you must take your eyes off the road to check your speed. Speeding cars brake suddenly, people swerve lanes to avoid them. You are looking at your speedo, and the drivers around you are all pulling crazy manouvers or likewise watching their control panel. Tax money > driver safety.
Actually, I do agree with you on these points. We certainly don't have the system down perfectly, but I think if done correctly that the cameras can be useful in helping the police to concentrate their resources on other matters. (I hear you on the burglary issue....we don't place nearly enough priority on that in this country.)
I don't really have an easy answer for the appeal system. If you make it too easy, then everyone will use it, guilty or not. There is already reasonable proof that your car was speeding, so there's some basis for "guilty until proven innocent" in this case - if it's your car, you should be responsible for knowing who's driving it. I don't think it would be any different than if a police car clocked you speeding, when it would be your word against theirs, so I wouldn't say that was the fault of the camera. What appeal system would you see being more fair, without putting too much extra burdain on the taxpayers?
The cameras must be visible, and well sign posted. I've come across cameras without warning, and they can be dangerous. An appeal on these grounds should put the responsibility with the traffic authorities to check such things.
When I was at school, we had a system of punishment.
Those who misbehaved had to do certain jobs. Clean up litter. Do the laundry. Wake everybody up in the morning.
If no one did anything wrong, the laundry would go unwashed, the gardens fill with litter and everyone would sleep through class.
Consequently, even if you weren't doing anything wrong, from time to time you were going to get busted anyway. The community needed it's penalties, regardless of wether anyone had done anything worth penalising, the jobs needed doing.
The system works, and justice comes in second place.
It's the same with speed cameras, parking tickets too. The government needs tax. If no one trips the speed camera's because they are too visible now, or because everyone now drives safely, they must develop a new way to penalise people. Find a new bugbear to curtail.
It won't ever end, you can't impliment a "just" society. If you have a car then you have an asset that can be taken away from you. Pay a small fine or lose your expensive vehicle. They've got you. Safe driving isn't the issue with speed cameras. Road deaths have gone up not come down since their introduction.
It sucks, but governments need taxes in order to operate. There isn't anyway around this. The only question is who is going to pay, and how much.
Car owners are easy prey.
I really dont care about speeding. I have a radar detector and buy a new one every 5 years to keep up with technology. I have had one for as long as I can remember. Plus I always check my rear view when I go fast. Its called defensive speeding.
I take that back, I did get stopped one time for speeding when I had my Jeep with the huge knobby tires. My speedometer was off around 5 miles per hour. He let me go with a warning.
Except that all the money insurance companies pay comes from the policy holder, who is already paying the police to stop burglary.
So then I would be paying taxes to the police to get them to stop crime, and paying second insurance taxes to the police to stop crime.
How about since I am paying them to stop crime already and they aren't doing it, that I stop paying them. How about I continue to hire private security whenever I need protection services. I see no reason at all to pay for both. But then, what choice do I have?
Most states they are legal. I think Georgia I have to disconnect it and a few others. Here in Florida, they are legal. It has saved my ass numerous times.
This is the one I have. LINK
I believe they are in the gray area of "technically legal but don't let a cop see it."
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
I believe they are in the gray area of "technically legal but don't let a cop see it."Mine is on the front dash totally visible. Here they dont care.
Getting back to the topic, lets look at a few details:
Did the Cadillac collide with the deputy's car, or did the deputy's car collide with the Cadillac? There is no dispute, however, about whether Harris stopped after the collision.
He did not.
Instead, he fled up another highway "reaching speeds of at least 90 miles per hour."
There is also no dispute about whether Harris should have refrained, as he was fleeing, from repeatedly crossing double-yellow lines and passing cars on the wrong side of the highway. He did not.
Nor is there a dispute about whether Harris stopped when he came to red lights. He did not.
Now, it could have been that I would be saying that the chase ended when Harris drove his Cadillac head-on into a van full of high school kids.
He did not -- thank God. He killed no one that night.
You see, Deputy Scott made a decision. Realizing Harris posed a threat to innocent people, he secured approval from his supervisor to try to stop Harris with a "Precision Intervention Technique," which is designed to bump a fleeing vehicle at such an angle that it spins to stop. Because Harris was driving so fast, however, Scott could only manage to bump the Cadillac in the rear. He waited to do so where the road was flat and free of traffic.
The Cadillac careened off the pavement and rolled over.
Harris, of course, should have fastened his seat belt. Alas, he did not. He is now a paraplegic.
Even so, you might have thought Harris would end up in court, considering all the things he did not do. And he did. But he is not the one in trouble. Deputy Scott is.
Harris sued him. He argues Scott's action that night violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from "unreasonable" seizures. The case was argued in the Supreme Court on Monday.
If common sense governed in this case, there would be no case. Deputy Scott acted reasonably under the circumstances. But common sense has not governed in this case, federal judges have.
Over the years, federal judges have encrusted the common sense language of the Constitution with convoluted legalisms. The Fourth Amendment guarantee against "unreasonable" seizures is no exception.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, ruling against Scott, decided the relevant encrustation in this case was a Supreme Court precedent called Tennessee v. Garner. It examined an instance where a policeman shot a fleeing unarmed burglar as he climbed a fence. "A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him in the head," ruled the Supreme Court.
At the same time, the Supreme Court said: "Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force."
With telling irony, the 11th Circuit decided that Harris in his speeding car was "unarmed" and "non-dangerous," but that Scott unconstitutionally endangered him by turning his sheriff's car into an instrument of "deadly force."
It would be nice to believe the judges who decided this case in the lower courts put the legitimate interests of law-abiding citizens above the claimed rights of reckless lawbreaker.
They did not.
Nuff said
I witnessed those acts. How can you say I have no clue?
Just last weekend i witnessed 4 fully grown police officers, throw, with great force, a young teen girl face first into a paddy-wagon.
All this because she was crying about her boyfriend getting arrests. It was the most excessive use of force Ever. The only people who piss me off more than police, are security guards (We have had dozens of people killed and comotosed over here because of over zealouis bouncers.
Once police remember that they are out there to solely PROTECT the public, not belt the crap out of it, i will start paying police officers respect. Until then, i will give them the same respect as any other petty thug.
At my sisters wedding i was kicked out of my motel room because my cousins were tresspassing and they couldnt find them, and as soon as they kicked me out, they arrested me for loitering in a public place. In that time i was assulted by two security guards in witness by the police, when i asked to press charges i was told "you really dont want to do that, trust me".
Ive been pulled over purely because i was driving my car late at night (im a night filler, i work nights)
Been accused of stealing just for having groceries in my car.
Been searched for drugs because my eyes were bloodshot, been searched for knives just because of my age.
Ive had my car searched because i was at my local fishing spot
I have, and always will be, a law abiding citizen, but being pulled over and reprimanded, for doing absolutly nothing wrong is very insulting.
Wow, your smart. You figured out there are bad cops out there, good for you. There are bad people in the world, get used to it. You guys are acting like every cop is abusing his power, maybe thats not what you meant but it is certainly how it sounds. If you think america would be better without cops your an idiot plain and simple. They really get no respect at all. SyrupBoy you already sound like a bad cop.....