 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / November 2006LEO death rate declines
Fewer law enforecement officers were killed in the line of duty in 2005 than in 2004. But a cop was still more likely to be killed in an accident than by a criminal. I don't know how they rate DUIs that hit cops, we had two last year, but no other deaths.  Signaturedillon If you can't figure out how to unmunge my address, email me and I'll explain it. > Fewer law enforecement officers were killed in the line of duty in > 2005 than in 2004. But a cop was still more likely to be killed in an > accident than by a criminal. I don't know how they rate DUIs that hit > cops, we had two last year, but no other deaths. Maybe if cops would quit pulling over people for speeding and having all those flashing lights on the side of the road distracting the drivers, they wouldn't get hit... I've seen a lot more accidents nearly happen because of people slamming on their brakes because a cop was either on the side of the road running radar or because he had someone pulled over and the flashing lights distracted the drivers than I have seen accidents caused (or nearly caused) by someone going a few miles over the speed limit... >>Fewer law enforecement officers were killed in the line of duty in >>2005 than in 2004. But a cop was still more likely to be killed in an [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > lights distracted the drivers than I have seen accidents caused (or nearly > caused) by someone going a few miles over the speed limit... Perfect! Then when they quit pulling people over for speeding it gives people the opportunity to complain "why don't the cops pull the speeders over". When they reduce the number or lights flashing on the cars, then when the idiot plows into them, they can use the excuse, "Well, if he had more lights flashing, I wouldn't have hit him". FWIW, a little over 16% of all fatal crashes in Virginia are attributed to violation of a speed law. >>>Fewer law enforecement officers were killed in the line of duty in >>>2005 than in 2004. But a cop was still more likely to be killed in an >>>accident than by a criminal. I don't know how they rate DUIs that hit >>>cops, we had two last year, but no other deaths. >> Maybe if cops would quit pulling over people for speeding and having all >> those flashing lights on the side of the road distracting the drivers, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> nearly >> caused) by someone going a few miles over the speed limit... > Perfect! Then when they quit pulling people over for speeding it gives > people the opportunity to complain "why don't the cops pull the speeders > over". When they reduce the number or lights flashing on the cars, then > when the idiot plows into them, they can use the excuse, "Well, if he had > more lights flashing, I wouldn't have hit him". People don't need a reason to complain. They'll always find one. There's a real problem with the issue of speeding when an apparent majority of the cops on the road seem to believe that speed limits don't apply to them, whether they're on emergency calls or not. There's a bigger problem with the public, virtually all of the public, believes the same thing. I guarantee that, on any given day, if I'm doing the speed limit, that more than half of the cars I'll see that day, are going faster than I am, many significantly faster. By imposing speed limits we know people will not comply with, and failing to enforce them as posted, we replace the rule of law with the rule of police. The cop, not the law or the courts, decides which, of all the violaters, gets the ticket. A police state, even on such a limited basis, is not what it's supposed to be about. Good cops don't like it. Bad ones take advantage of it. Everybody loses. > FWIW, a little over 16% of all fatal crashes in Virginia are attributed to > violation of a speed law. By this, I presume you mean were at least partly the result of speeding. If you're speeding and I pull out in front of you without warning, is my death attributed to speeding or to my failure to yield right of way? Lee >>>>Fewer law enforecement officers were killed in the line of duty in >>>>2005 than in 2004. But a cop was still more likely to be killed in an [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > People don't need a reason to complain. They'll always find one. Now this I agree with. > There's a real problem with the issue of speeding when an apparent majority > of the cops on the road seem to believe that speed limits don't apply to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > than half of the cars I'll see that day, are going faster than I am, many > significantly faster. I think a lot of this is regional and/or local. Some areas are more strict on speed enforcement than others. I know in Va., the State Police are relatively strict on the posted speed limits. Going through Va., you should stay pretty close to whats posted. Trust me. People call agencies and complain on officer's driving all the time. Some complaints are legit. Some are not. > By imposing speed limits we know people will not comply with, and failing to > enforce them as posted, we replace the rule of law with the rule of police. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > you're speeding and I pull out in front of you without warning, is my death > attributed to speeding or to my failure to yield right of way? I just recently revamped a lesson plan for the local academy and got that stat from some of my research. In Virginia, there is some caselaw and perhaps statutory law that EXCESSSIVE speed relinquishes the right of way. "Excessive" is very subjective and this is something I don't deal with on a daily basis but I know I have seen it in the past. > Perfect! Then when they quit pulling people over for speeding it gives > people the opportunity to complain "why don't the cops pull the speeders > over". When they reduce the number or lights flashing on the cars, then > when the idiot plows into them, they can use the excuse, "Well, if he > had more lights flashing, I wouldn't have hit him". Having lights that are flashing so brightly as to blind someone's vision at night is not necessarily the smartest thing to do in my opinion... Although I attempt to move over to the other lane when I see this, sometimes traffic is such that this is not possible... The glare from the flashing lights is such that if the cop is standing between the car that has been pulled over and the road, you sometimes cannot see him... If the lights were less intense, it might not be as bad... Personally, I think that if you cannot pull the individual over in an area that does not create a hazard for other traffic, you should either let him go or wait until there is an area where he can be directed to pull off at the next exit ramp or something... My personal philosophy is to not pull over until I can get to an area where I can be very clear of the road so that I'm not likely to get hit nor is the officer (assuming he has the brains to move his vehicle well off the road also)... Driving 4x4 vehicles, I'll pull off the emergency lane and well onto the grass if at all possible... I've only had one case over the years where there was not a way to pull off the local busy street and by the time I found a side street to turn off on, the cop was so pissed off that he pulled his gun on me... We got into a yelling match and the best I can figure is that he didn't have enough tickets to write me up on everything that he thought that I should be charged with and then he left... Very weird situation... > FWIW, a little over 16% of all fatal crashes in Virginia are attributed > to violation of a speed law. Perhaps *attributed*, but was it really a *cause* of the accident... If someone is going 10 mph over the speed limit and another car changes lanes into it, the real cause of the accident is not the speeding but rather the idiot who didn't look before he changed lanes... It's quite possible that this might get written up as being the fault of the speeder though... Now, of those fatal crashes in Virginia, perhaps a more interesting statistic might be what percentage of those resulted from people not wearing their seat belts... Also, what percentage was attributable to speeding, but road / weather conditions paid a significant factor? Maybe it's not so much the fact that one is speeding, but rather going too fast for the given road conditions... You can make statistics show whatever you want, dependent upon whatever you are wanting to show in the first place... >> Perfect! Then when they quit pulling people over for speeding it >> gives people the opportunity to complain "why don't the cops pull the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > not create a hazard for other traffic, you should either let him go or > wait until there is an area where he can be directed to pull off at the Nice theory but it doesn't always work that way. Most of the officers I know are trained AND practice pulling people over in safe locations( well lit, location where they can pull out of the traffic lane, etc) but the motorist continues on past the vacant parking lots and stops in the roadway, or on a blind hill, or curve, etc. As for the lights, again my point is, if you cut down on the glare then some fool will claim "he/she didn't see the car". If you make the lights more intense, "he/she was blinded by the glare". No win situation. So you feel if the police cannot get a drunk driver to stop in a safe location, just let him/her go? > next exit ramp or something... My personal philosophy is to not pull > over until I can get to an area where I can be very clear of the road so > that I'm not likely to get hit nor is the officer (assuming he has the > brains to move his vehicle well off the road also)... Driving 4x4 > vehicles, I'll pull off the emergency lane and well onto the grass if at > all possible. I think that is appropriate, however, I would suggest one step further. If you are in an area where stopping would be dangerous, activate your four way flashers and continue on at a reasonable speed until you can get to a safe place to stop. This signals the officer you know he/she is behind you and trying to pull you over. Continuing at a safe speed indicates you are not trying to elude. Of course, the above suggestions are applicable only if you are certain the officer is trying to stop you. If it appears the officer is responding to an emergency, just do the best you can reasonably do under the circumstances to get out of the way. >> FWIW, a little over 16% of all fatal crashes in Virginia are >> attributed to violation of a speed law. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > possible that this might get written up as being the fault of the > speeder though... Then the fatality would be attributed to improper lane change and not excessive speed. > Now, of those fatal crashes in Virginia, perhaps a more interesting > statistic might be what percentage of those resulted from people not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > whatever you want, dependent upon whatever you are wanting to show in > the first place... Sure, but going to fast for existing conditions is still attributable to excessive speed. If a person is doing 65mph on an icy Interstate highway and loses control and crashes, while not violating a posted speed limit, they are still driving too fast in which case excessive speed was the primary cause to the crash. SignatureI have never met a liberal street cop. > Nice theory but it doesn't always work that way. Most of the officers I > know are trained AND practice pulling people over in safe locations( > well lit, location where they can pull out of the traffic lane, etc) but > the motorist continues on past the vacant parking lots and stops in the > roadway, or on a blind hill, or curve, etc. Some people just don't look in their rear view mirror that often and probably don't see the cops until after the lights have been flashing for awhile... Considering some of these drivers though, perhaps that's a good thing since it means that there is more *potential* time that they could at least be paying attention to the road in front of them instead of the various distractions inside of their car (cell phone, radio, etc)... Of course, one could argue that if you are driving quite a bit faster than the rest of traffic, you *should* be paying attention more to what is in front of you than behind you... Back in my sports car days, often my first indication of cop behind me was his flashing lights reflecting off the outside edge of my glasses, not the reflection of them in my mirrors... Well ... that or having a couple of cop cars waiting for me in the next town since the original cop's car couldn't go as fast as he clocked me at... > So you feel if the police cannot get a drunk driver to stop in a safe > location, just let him/her go? If the process of stopping him causes more danger than he probably would have caused, yeah... I kind of liked the Louisiana approach to drunk drivers... They just had roads with a lot of curves in them and plenty of pine trees... The problem kind of solved itself... > I think that is appropriate, however, I would suggest one step further. > If you are in an area where stopping would be dangerous, activate your > four way flashers and continue on at a reasonable speed until you can > get to a safe place to stop. This signals the officer you know he/she > is behind you and trying to pull you over. Continuing at a safe speed > indicates you are not trying to elude. Yeah, I do that also... And if at night, I turn the interior lights on in my car so that he can see that I'm not trying to hide something in the meantime... I just consider it a tax on the use of the roads... I don't mind it so much when I get a speeding ticket if it is justified, but when I *know* that I wasn't speeding and I get pulled over, I tend to be rather pissed... Hell, if I'm going to have to *pay* for it, I might as well have the fun of *doing* it... > Of course, the above suggestions are applicable only if you are certain > the officer is trying to stop you. If it appears the officer is > responding to an emergency, just do the best you can reasonably do under > the circumstances to get out of the way. Yeah, if I notice them coming up behind me, I pull to the right to let him pass... If he doesn't pass, I figure he needs some money... > Then the fatality would be attributed to improper lane change and not > excessive speed. *Supposedly* it should happen that way, but I wouldn't guarantee that it always happens that way... I'm a realist enough to know that the real truth doesn't always come across in legal matters... > Sure, but going to fast for existing conditions is still attributable to > excessive speed. If a person is doing 65mph on an icy Interstate > highway and loses control and crashes, while not violating a posted > speed limit, they are still driving too fast in which case excessive > speed was the primary cause to the crash. Unfortunately, it's not always that clear cut... I've seen cases where you're driving along perfectly well and then all of a sudden, you encounter conditions that significantly increase the pucker factor... It could be hydroplaning, it could be an encounter of ice where the shadows hadn't allowed the sun to melt it that day... Sometimes sh.t happens... Personally, I would attribute deaths due to speeding more to conditions where the driver lost control of the vehicle due to the speed instead of cases where he just happened to have an accident while also speeding... Of course, there is more kinetic energy that needs to be dissipated at higher speeds, so even if you would have had the same accident at a lower speed, your probability of injury at an increased speed is greater... <snip> > > I think that is appropriate, however, I would suggest one step further. > > If you are in an area where stopping would be dangerous, activate your > > four way flashers and continue on at a reasonable speed until you can > > get to a safe place to stop. This signals the officer you know he/she > > is behind you and trying to pull you over. Continuing at a safe speed > > indicates you are not trying to elude. Maybe that's what OJ was doing. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Maybe that's what OJ was doing. With a disguise and a large amount of cash to boot. >> Nice theory but it doesn't always work that way. Most of the officers >> I know are trained AND practice pulling people over in safe locations( [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > faster than the rest of traffic, you *should* be paying attention more > to what is in front of you than behind you... Distracted driving is becoming more of a cause of crashes now. Several states have banned cell phone use by the driver while moving. I still remember in my drivers ed class being taught to "scan", front, inside mirror, outside mirror. Driving is a privalidge, not a right and additionally, it is a responsibility. If people are not will to accept that premise, then they should not be driving. >> So you feel if the police cannot get a drunk driver to stop in a safe >> location, just let him/her go? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > drivers... They just had roads with a lot of curves in them and plenty > of pine trees... The problem kind of solved itself... I doubt the "Lousiana approach" is a sanctioned policy. Might be all well and fine until the drunk over corrects and takes out an oncoming vehicle or runs over a pedestrian on the side of the road. I can assure you, that if an officer let a drunk driver go, simply because there was no place to pull him over and that drunk went on to kill someone, that officer would soon be hearing terms such as "deriliction of duty". The Chief or Sheriff would most likely be hearing terms such as vicarious liability. > Yeah, I do that also... And if at night, I turn the interior lights on > in my car so that he can see that I'm not trying to hide something in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to be rather pissed... Hell, if I'm going to have to *pay* for it, I > might as well have the fun of *doing* it... .....and around here, the judge asks "So how did you and Mr. _________ get along?" If the answer is the driver gave the officer a bunch of crap, any thoughts of reducing the charge and/or fine are out the window. But......as long as you're having fun *doing* it...... >> Of course, the above suggestions are applicable only if you are >> certain the officer is trying to stop you. If it appears the officer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yeah, if I notice them coming up behind me, I pull to the right to let > him pass... If he doesn't pass, I figure he needs some money... I have never met an officer who made the first cent off any traffic stops. All of the ones I know get paid the same whether they write 1 ticket or 10. >> Then the fatality would be attributed to improper lane change and not >> excessive speed. > > *Supposedly* it should happen that way, but I wouldn't guarantee that it > always happens that way... I'm a realist enough to know that the real > truth doesn't always come across in legal matters... Whenever there is a fatal crash around here, a regiona crash team is activated. These people do far more than just "write a report". They are Crash Reconstructionist, that use laser plotting and survey devices and are actually able to input the data to determine speed, trajectory, direction of travel, etc. >> Sure, but going to fast for existing conditions is still attributable >> to excessive speed. If a person is doing 65mph on an icy Interstate [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > higher speeds, so even if you would have had the same accident at a > lower speed, your probability of injury at an increased speed is greater... Under that theory, there would never be any deaths due to excessive speed. Simply the road conditions were inadequate to handle 100mph or it was mechanical failure because the car couldn't corner the curve at a 100 mph. > I have never met an officer who made the first cent off any traffic stops. > All of the ones I know get paid the same whether they write 1 ticket or > 10. Yep. The big money is in drugs. And lawnmowers. "The investigation found that since 1998, "sworn officers, employees, and associates of the Henry County Sheriff's Office engaged in a continuous scheme to steal narcotics, firearms and other contraband from the seized evidence property room," a statement by Mr. Brownlee's office said. "The defendants took cocaine, crack cocaine, marijuana, and firearms, and then sold the stolen drugs and guns back into the community." Mr. Brownlee said at a news conference today that the scheme involved officers and former officers working with drug dealers to distribute and sell Ketamine, cocaine, marijuana and steroids. The members of the department worked with a drug ring to take a variety of items seized from criminals, including not only controlled substances, but also firearms, cash, automotive equipment and even lawnmowers, the indictment said." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/us/02cnd-sheriff.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Isn't this near your neck of the woods? >>I have never met an officer who made the first cent off any traffic stops. >>All of the ones I know get paid the same whether they write 1 ticket or [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Isn't this near your neck of the woods? Yup....about 50 miles south of me. I don't know any of the people involved other than seeing them on the news from time to time. I am personally glad to see that mess cleaned up. Interestingly, the sheriff has said he will continue on in his elected position despite a call for his resignation from the county board of supervisors. I suspect if he maintains that stance, impeachment will be forthcoming. Since he is under indictment for a felony, he cannot lawfully carry or possess a firearm. >I have never met an officer who made the first cent off any traffic stops. >All of the ones I know get paid the same whether they write 1 ticket or 10. You're just not old enough or looking in the right places. When I was younger, there were two cities down here whose entire budget came from traffic tickets. It's fair to say they were speed traps well known to the locals, but very few visitors got through either city without leaving some money behind. Further, to this day, some police departments still use traffic tickets as a measure of who is doing their job and who isn't. On one hand, it makes sense. How else do you measure performance for a traffic officer. Such a performance measure can, and sometimes does, create a bad situation, particularly when the majority of drivers do not, normally, obey speed limits. The same system exists for prosecuting attorneys who are evaluated on the basis of the number and ratio of convictions. Not only does the system make it more likely that an attorney will press for conviction even when evidence of guilt is weak, the system also encourages plea bargaining on cases that require a bit more time and effort to prosecute successfully. It increases the chances that the innocent will be convicted and decreases the chance that the guilty will receive the full measure of punishment the system suggests. > The members of the department worked with a drug ring to take a variety of > items seized from criminals, including not only controlled substances, but > also firearms, cash, automotive equipment and even lawnmowers, the > indictment said." They were probably using the lawn mowers to transport the drugs and/or proceeds. Clearly a justified confiscation. > Interestingly, the sheriff has said he will continue on in his elected > position despite a call for his resignation from the county board of > supervisors. I suspect if he maintains that stance, impeachment will be > forthcoming. Since he is under indictment for a felony, he cannot > lawfully carry or possess a firearm. Sounds like a good case for retention without bond. Lee >>I have never met an officer who made the first cent off any traffic stops. >>All of the ones I know get paid the same whether they write 1 ticket or 10. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > locals, but very few visitors got through either city without leaving some > money behind. I do appreciate your compliment on my age (or least your perception of it) :) However, I don't plan to make a study of how speed fines are disbursed. Too many other things to do. I know some states have enacted some anti-speedtrap laws, I think by limiting the amount of local budget can be acquired through traffic fines, or something like that. > Further, to this day, some police departments still use traffic tickets as a > measure of who is doing their job and who isn't. On one hand, it makes > sense. How else do you measure performance for a traffic officer. Such a > performance measure can, and sometimes does, create a bad situation, > particularly when the majority of drivers do not, normally, obey speed > limits. Certainly that is ONE measure of an officer's performance. We do not set "quotas" but if I have a shift of employees that are writing 5 tickets per shift each, and one employee that writes 1 ticket a month, then that is ONE measure of job performance. However, if that employee who is just writing 1 ticket per month but clearing a bunch of misdemeanors and felonies, then obviously he/she are spending their time elsewhere and will not catch any grief from me. Some people like traffic, some like criminal work. I am certainly not going to discourage someone from clearing criminal cases by demanding the write more tickets. The employee who is doing nothing but drilling holes in the air....they may need some motivation. > The same system exists for prosecuting attorneys who are evaluated on the > basis of the number and ratio of convictions. Not only does the system make [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that the guilty will receive the full measure of punishment the system > suggests. I am not involved in the evaluation of our prosecuting attorneys. >>The members of the department worked with a drug ring to take a variety of >>items seized from criminals, including not only controlled substances, but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They were probably using the lawn mowers to transport the drugs and/or > proceeds. Clearly a justified confiscation. Processing the marijuana? >>Interestingly, the sheriff has said he will continue on in his elected >>position despite a call for his resignation from the county board of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sounds like a good case for retention without bond. Not familiar with that term. The office of Sheriff is a Constitutional position in Va. I look for him to ultimately resign. It would be best for the department and the first step towards putting the department back on track. That situation caught a LOT of people off guard, even the locals. I had not caught wind of any problems there, but, I have never had any interaction with anyone in that agency. > I doubt the "Lousiana approach" is a sanctioned policy. Might be all > well and fine until the drunk over corrects and takes out an oncoming > vehicle or runs over a pedestrian on the side of the road. Oh, it might not be officially sanctioned, but it's rather effective... There are a *lot* more pine trees in Louisiana than there are cops... Plus, the pine trees are on duty 24x7... It's a very cost effective means of dealing with people who don't know how to drive when they're drunk... I was driving on a local 4 lane road the other night, enough after sunset that it had already gotten dark... It's a fairly new road and nothing has been built up around it yet and as such, traffic is rather infrequent on it... The speed limit is 50 or so which means that 60 is the normal speed... Its also not surprising to see people doing 80 or better on it... Because of some deer in the area, I tend to only do around 50-60 at night on this road... I was in the left lane and had just come over a hill and there was a cop who had a car stopped... The median of that road does not have a curb, the concrete goes flush with the grass and the grass is very solid... Thus, there was no reason why the two vehicles should not be in the grass instead of in the left lane... There were no emergency lanes on that road, so when I say that they were in the left lane, I mean that they were *completely* in the left lane, not even partly off the side of the road... Luckily, I was driving my truck and it sits up high enough off the ground that I could see a bit over the small hill... Someone driving a sedan might not have seen them until too late... I'm not sure who was the bigger idiot in this case -- the drive of the car that stopped in the left lane right after the hill without pulling off the side of the road or the cop who didn't tell him to move it off the road once he saw that the driver was going to stop in the middle of the road... Don't they have a PA system on most of the cars? I have encountered ones that do and they'll tell you to pull over into the next parking lot or whatever so that you don't block traffic... >>I doubt the "Lousiana approach" is a sanctioned policy. Might be all >>well and fine until the drunk over corrects and takes out an oncoming [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > tell you to pull over into the next parking lot or whatever so that you > don't block traffic... Your guess is as good as mine. The driver might have just stopped there and the officer was trying to get him/her to move to a different location. Maybe the driver was hard of hearing. Maybe the driver did not understand English. Maybe the driver had some medical condition (such as insulin shock) that made it unadviseable to move. I have seen diabetics that had no idea where they were or what was going on around them until you "sweetened them up" a bit. Maybe the driver was just stupid. Who know other than the driver and the officer that stopped him/her and they are not participating in this message thread. > > I doubt the "Lousiana approach" is a sanctioned policy. Might be all > > well and fine until the drunk over corrects and takes out an oncoming [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > tell you to pull over into the next parking lot or whatever so that you > don't block traffic... Was the cop stopped in the middle of the road also? If so, it may just be a case of "moron cop". I know that many people think that *all* cops are morons and some people think that cops are infallible, but I'm here to tell you, neither group is right. > Was the cop stopped in the middle of the road also? If so, it may just > be a case of "moron cop". I know that many people think that *all* cops > are morons and some people think that cops are infallible, but I'm here > to tell you, neither group is right. Yep, they were both stopped in the middle of the road... A couple hundred feet further down the road, it wouldn't have been as much of a problem, but they were right at the bottom of a small hill and if you weren't paying close attention, you would probably hit them... Luckily, the road has so little traffic on it that they were probably able to get away with it... On the other hand, maybe it's because that route does not get a high percentage of soccer moms on it... >>Was the cop stopped in the middle of the road also? If so, it may just >>be a case of "moron cop". I know that many people think that *all* cops [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > it... On the other hand, maybe it's because that route does not get a high > percentage of soccer moms on it... hey Grummy, Maybe the US can follow the lead of some European countries when it comes to traffic enforcement. http://speedbandits.dk/ > hey Grummy, > Maybe the US can follow the lead of some European countries when it > comes to traffic enforcement. > http://speedbandits.dk/ Heidi Svendson "Head Bandit". Yeah, you know, not all agencies have good tactical training or practices... Not to mention the protests here from the Christian, Muslim and Feminist nutbars in America, that think anyone gives a sh.t what they think. > hey Grummy, > Maybe the US can follow the lead of some European countries when it > comes to traffic enforcement. > > http://speedbandits.dk/ OK... *I* would slow down for *that*... <dirty-old-man-grin> For some reason, I suspect that they don't use that technique during the winter up there... >> hey Grummy, >> Maybe the US can follow the lead of some European countries when it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >For some reason, I suspect that they don't use that technique during >the winter up there... To quote Chevy Chase "the weather's a little nippley" Signaturedillon If you can't figure out how to unmunge my address, email me and I'll explain it. > hey Grummy, > Maybe the US can follow the lead of some European countries when it > comes to traffic enforcement. The problem is that we have too many of these types of drivers here in the US... http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4343490.html For the most part, you figure that if you are going to get run over by a car, the odds tend to favor it being while you are crossing the parking lot... Once you get in the building, I would suspect that most people feel that they're pretty safe from dying from being hit by a car... The woman *claimed* that her brakes failed... On a 2004 car, no less... More likely her fuckin' cell phone rang and she was trying to answer it and drove into the building... <chop> Take a ride along or arrange for one. You are talking out your a.s on this one. This has nothing to do with the war of northern aggression, or the second ammendment. It has to do with doing a shitty f.cking job that you wouldnt do, and you are second or third guessing those who do, in fact, do the job. > You are talking out your a.s on this one. No, I'm making an observation based on quite a few years of experience driving and seeing accidents nearly caused because cops had people pulled over in locations that posed safety hazards... > It has to do with doing a shitty f.cking job that you wouldnt do, > and you are second or third guessing those who do, in fact, do the > job. Well, maybe if I liked donuts a bit better, I *might* consider it... <snicker> If you think that a cop running radar is anything put an attempt to increase the city's coffers, you're just kidding yourself... And you're right, I would not be a traffic cop -- I like to think that I have higher morals than to harass people who might be going a few miles over a speed limit that was not determined from a safety standpoint, but rather a revenue standpoint... I would not make a good cop because I would only enforce the laws that I considered just... > > You are talking out your a.s on this one. > > No, I'm making an observation based on quite a few years of experience > driving and seeing accidents nearly caused because cops had people > pulled over in locations that posed safety hazards... And I have had a kid die in my hands, with no cops anywhere in sight for more than 45 minutes. Cops who work rural beats call their lights "drunk magnets" because drunks fix on the lights and hit them. > > It has to do with doing a shitty f.cking job that you wouldnt do, > > and you are second or third guessing those who do, in fact, do the > > job. > > Well, maybe if I liked donuts a bit better, I *might* consider it... > <snicker> It is a job I couldn't do either. The guys who do the job deserve our support and respect. We can sit back and pull all kinds of woulda, shoulda, coulda out our a.s, but when you boil it down to gravy, we need cops, and they need us. There is no good reason for it to be an adversarial relationship, except for selfishness. > If you think that a cop running radar is anything put an attempt to > increase the city's coffers, you're just kidding yourself.. That is an assertion I never made nor proposed. > And you're > right, I would not be a traffic cop -- I like to think that I have > higher morals than to harass people who might be going a few miles over > a speed limit that was not determined from a safety standpoint, but > rather a revenue standpoint... I would not make a good cop because I > would only enforce the laws that I considered just... Many cops are no different. Some are badge heavy, but time sorts them out. Use a narrower brush. > Use a narrower brush. Well said Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ > Cops who work rural beats call their lights "drunk magnets" because drunks > fix on the lights and hit them. Well, considering the number of near accidents that I've seen in situations where I had no reason to believe that the people involved were drunk, I'm not surprised... > We can sit back and pull all kinds of woulda, shoulda, coulda out our a.s, > but when you boil it down to gravy, we need cops, and they need us. Well, certain parasites are beneficial to the host organism also, but they're still a parasite... Not so sure that is the type of logic that you're wanting to get into though... <grin> > There is no good reason for it to be an adversarial relationship, except for > selfishness. Unfortunately, it seems that too many of the cops *want* an adversarial relationship... Not all of them, of course, but perhaps the ones that you are more likely to encounter in a traffic stop... > Use a narrower brush. Perhaps, but one could argue that the sample set that one encounters in traffic stops is skewed towards what you classify as "badge heavy"... A confrontational approach might work for some people, but for the rest of us, it just might result in a confrontational response... Kind of like the Waco kooks, come to think of it... They could have arrested Koresh with minimal trouble pretty much any other way than by storming his compound dressed as a bunch of jackbooted thugs... Oh well, Reno got what she was after -- a confrontation and the passage of the Brady Bill...
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.