Police haters being faggots ITT

5/28/2010 11:46:28 AM

people who blindly follow authority lead being faggots ITT

5/28/2010 11:48:01 AM

Quote :

"If LE can't speed to catch a violator, when can they? What criteria needs to be met? "

I'm not saying the police shouldn't be allowed to speed, I'm saying they need to have a set maximum speed outside of an authorized high-speed chase. Something like 80 or 90, or maybe something variable like "no more than Speed Limit+30". They'd still be able to catch most any speeders, and even if the person does get away, almost being pulled over is enough to intimidate most people into slowing down for a decent stretch. There's just a point at which trying too hard to catch one speeder becomes more of a danger than that person speeding in the first place.

As for what you asked, authorizing a high speed chase would be for situations in which the person was suspected of committing pretty much anything more than just a traffic violation. Violent crimes, robberies, etc. Even drug offenses if you're into the whole drug war mess.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 11:51 AM. Reason : .]

5/28/2010 11:50:54 AM

Making it an 'authorized high speed chase' doesn't make it any safer

Accidents happen, get over it.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 11:52 AM. Reason : .]

5/28/2010 11:52:30 AM

Quote :

"Accidents happen, get over it."

I think the idea here is to prevent these sorts of accidents from occurring in the future.

5/28/2010 11:54:14 AM

^^So, then, you're opposed to all speed limits? After all, it's just accidents, and they happen.

Accident prevention is important, it just can't be taken too far.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

5/28/2010 11:54:28 AM

well it would have prevented this accident since this kind of chase wouldn't be authorized

Quote :

"There's just a point at which trying too hard to catch one speeder becomes more of a danger than that person speeding in the first place."

what we're talking about is BALANCE. in this situation - catching a mere speeder - the extra danger undertaken by the cop to catch said speeder kinda outweighs the benefit of catching the speeder. 2 lives v. issuing a speeding ticket. i just don't get why its so hard to see. but if you have a fleeing criminal or kidnapper or someone armed and dangerous, etc etc - then the danger (ie: speeding) undertaken by the cop becomes more and more reasonable.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 11:56 AM. Reason : .]

5/28/2010 11:54:31 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, they will hurt somebody, eh? Last I checked that Skylark didn't kill two people."

Ha, I thought the same thing. Killing people in order to save lives, it's fighting for peace or fucking for virginity.

Seriously though, hindsight is 20/20 I'm sure this trooper isn't kicking back with a beer thinking "Cotdamn that skylark got away!" and I'm sure he wouldn't have let it get that far had he known. I don't know, it's bad shit all the way around.

5/28/2010 11:55:47 AM

nah, they just happen, get over it

at what speed would the cop need to be travelling before it is considered reckless?

5/28/2010 11:56:04 AM

Quote :

"I think the idea here is to prevent these sorts of accidents from occurring in the future."

At the expense of law enforcement, emergency response, etc. No thanks.

Quote :

"well it would have prevented this accident since this kind of chase wouldn't be authorized"

And will just as likely cause this sort of accident when it is authorized.

Quote :

"^^So, then, you're opposed to all speed limits? After all, it's just accidents, and they happen. Accident prevention is important, it just can't be taken too far."

Putting words in someone else's mouth there?

5/28/2010 11:56:39 AM

^^^^please do not feed the troll

too late

5/28/2010 11:56:41 AM

^^^

Quote :

"Something like 80 or 90, or maybe something variable like "no more than Speed Limit+30". They'd still be able to catch most any speeders"

Quote :

"Putting words in someone else's mouth there?"

You were trying to justify recklessness by saying that accidents happen. This implied that we may as well not bother trying to prevent them. I just applied your argument consistently to a different situation, as the entire purpose of speed limits is accident prevention.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 11:59 AM. Reason : .]

5/28/2010 11:57:43 AM

Quote :

"And will just as likely cause this sort of accident when it is authorized. "

wat

5/28/2010 11:58:39 AM

So many people ITT have been the speeder more often than not. Opportunity to express your true distaste for law enforcement and join in on the witch hunt.

5/28/2010 11:59:00 AM

maybe it should be no faster than a kid could run or something.

5/28/2010 11:59:03 AM

Quote :

"At the expense of law enforcement, emergency response, etc. No thanks."

You have a point. Give them unlimited power and authority, then there will be no problems. I like the way you think.

5/28/2010 11:59:20 AM

Quote :

"You have a point. Give them unlimited power and authority, then there will be no problems. I like the way you think."

I like how you make your own conclusions and assumptions.

Quote :

"You were trying to justify recklessness by saying that accidents happen. This implied that we may as well not bother trying to prevent them. I just applied your argument consistently to a different situation, as the entire purpose of speed limits is accident prevention."

Like I said, you are putting words in my mouth.

The root of the problem is drivers education or lack there of. anybody can get a license here.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 12:02 PM. Reason : .]

5/28/2010 12:00:06 PM

Shouldn't you be belittling these guys for not having Macbooks in their cars or something

5/28/2010 12:00:45 PM

Quote :

"So many people ITT have been the speeder more often than not. Opportunity to express your true distaste for law enforcement and join in on the witch hunt."

LOL says the guy talking about others making their own conclusions...

5/28/2010 12:00:45 PM

Golovko is the most illogical motherfucker on the internet

Welcome to 2004

5/28/2010 12:01:29 PM

hahahaha. i'm so confused.

5/28/2010 12:02:34 PM

Quote :

"Golovko is the most illogical motherfucker on the internet Welcome to 2004"

You're so slow it hurts

5/28/2010 12:02:42 PM

jesus

i have go to leave this thread once and for all. losing. brain cells.

5/28/2010 12:03:18 PM

Quote :

"anybody can get a license here. "

And here comes the anti-American argument

Classic Golovko conversation ITT

5/28/2010 12:03:47 PM

Quote :

"The root of the problem is drivers education or lack there of. anybody can get a license here. "

I'd agree with you on that, at least. We let way too many retards on the road.

Unfortunately it probably wouldn't have helped this particular situation, in which the victim may not have even been able to see the cop coming before turning.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 12:05 PM. Reason : .]

5/28/2010 12:04:16 PM

Quote :

"And here comes the anti-American argument Classic Golovko conversation ITT"

You freedom hating mother fucker.

America is perfect! Fuck you and GTFO.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 12:05 PM. Reason : .]

5/28/2010 12:04:44 PM

Quote :

"Like I said, you are putting words in my mouth."

5/28/2010 12:05:08 PM

Quote :

"quote"

link

Quote :

"quote"

5/28/2010 12:06:06 PM

lucky for you a law was just proposed in NC to make engrish tests mandatory for obtaining a license

5/28/2010 12:06:21 PM

Quote :

"lucky for you a law was just proposed in NC to make engrish tests mandatory for obtaining a license"

?

5/28/2010 12:07:13 PM

that was of course in response to:

Quote :

"anybody can get a license here."

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 12:08 PM. Reason : .]

5/28/2010 12:07:53 PM

I like the fact that an actual law enforcement officer (Restricted) made a well thought out and reasoned response in this thread and it was just glanced over and never mentioned while the argument quickly denigrated in to the run of the mill "Fuck the Police, Fuck the Haters" argument that we see on here daily.

Ok, I have to give credit to one person. tromboner950 did respond and post a thought out response to him -- but no one else did.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 12:09 PM. Reason : ernie]

5/28/2010 12:07:59 PM

Fuck the mods

5/28/2010 12:08:27 PM

^^ the same argument he (restricted) posted though was brought up by someone else (i think, or was at least addressed by people like tromboner) before restricted arrived in the thread. you have to dig to find i though. its probably somewhere in the 3 pages of baseball/depth perception talk. but this idea:

Quote :

"'m not saying the police shouldn't be allowed to speed, I'm saying they need to have a set maximum speed outside of an authorized high-speed chase. "

was definitely brought up a few times in the beginning.

^ oh youuuuu and your issues with authority

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 12:13 PM. Reason : .]

5/28/2010 12:13:36 PM

Whatever man

NyM knows his role is tainted, he knows who had the voice of the people

He'll have to live with that for the rest of his moddom

I don't know how he sleeps at night

5/28/2010 12:21:28 PM

Golovko is doing a pretty bad job of trolling this thread

normally he pisses me off

but he's ignoring so many things that have already been established that i can only laugh

5/28/2010 12:40:08 PM

i know he's doing a freaking horrible job

its disappointing really

may have to bench him soon.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 12:41 PM. Reason : .]

5/28/2010 12:41:01 PM

oh, and as cadwackle said, Restricted was basically ignored because he wasn't saying anything new

5/28/2010 12:42:21 PM

Quote :

"normally he pisses me off"

5/28/2010 12:43:42 PM

Quote :

"My question to everyone is this: If LE can't speed to catch a violator, when can they? What criteria needs to be met? "

I mean obviously there has to be some criteria, if the speeder is going something like 120 mph then are cops allowed to go 160 mph to catch them? At some point you can surely see where it becomes unnecessary to pursue someone in the interest of public safety. Surely you could also see where different circumstances warrant different responses, I mean 120 mph on a controlled access interstate is much, much safer than 120 mph through stoplights, median crossovers, and T-intersections. What if it was a 35 mph zone through downtown, is ok to fly through downtown at 120 to catch an 80 mph speeder? Don't get me wrong though, I blame the system for justifying limitless speeds just as much as I blame the officer for not using his siren.

Also as I understand it, State Troopers, especially, are taught to take evasive maneuvers to the RIGHT when faced with a collision as not to lose control and end on the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic. This would mean that under these circumstances, the trooper's training taught him to swerve RIGHT or in the direction the lady was traveling. As I said, it's just as much the system's fault as his.

EDIT:

Here is a good, recent, example where a police officer decided to not pursue a vehicle in the interest of public safety and that vehicle ended up killing somebody. Nobody will ever blame that officer for the death of an innocent driver. http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=142743

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 1:00 PM. Reason : ]

5/28/2010 12:45:45 PM

Quote :

"Opportunity to express your true distaste for law enforcement and join in on the witch hunt."

It SHOULD be a fucking witch hunt. Government should have a hard time, individuals should have an easy time.

5/28/2010 12:51:38 PM

The point here is that police officers should, by being given more power and responsibility, suffer harsher consequences for their actions.

If a citizen would be charged with manslaughter for reckless driving that caused the death of an individual, then a police officer, who has the training and foresight to act appropriately, should be judged even harsher for his actions.

The reality is that in almost all cases of police misconduct, officers receive nothing more than a slap on the wrist when a civilian would receive serious jail time.

5/28/2010 12:53:48 PM

Quote :

"The point here is that police officers should, by being given more power and responsibility, suffer harsher consequences for their actions. If a citizen would be charged with manslaughter for reckless driving that caused the death of an individual, then a police officer, who has the training and foresight to act appropriately, should be judged even harsher for his actions. The reality is that in almost all cases of police misconduct, officers receive nothing more than a slap on the wrist when a civilian would receive serious jail time."

This isn't a case of misconduct. He was doing what he had been trained to do. IF you have a problem with this address the root of the problem, his training and what officers are expected to do in these situations. He was doing his job which ended tragically for an innocent civilian.

This isn't a clear cut case of an officer who should know better driving under the influence, killing someone, and getting off lightly because he's on the force.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

5/28/2010 12:57:09 PM

still doing a horrible job at trolling

please try harder

what do you think people use to challenge/question laws and procedures?

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 1:00 PM. Reason : .]

5/28/2010 12:59:35 PM

I don't agree with you, therefore YOU are trolling me!

5/28/2010 1:00:18 PM

Quote :

"He was doing what he had been trained to do."

Protect the citizens of the city? Yeah, it certainly sounds like he was doing that.

I would imagine that his training doesn't say "it is standard policy to travel more than double the speed limit through traffic lights to apprehend someone for a speeding ticket."

5/28/2010 1:00:25 PM

Quote :

"I would imagine that his training doesn't say "it is standard policy to travel more than double the speed limit through traffic lights to apprehend someone for a speeding ticket.""

You're right, he should match the speed of the speeder in hopes that he'll catch up.

5/28/2010 1:02:51 PM

wat

5/28/2010 1:03:44 PM

Heres the truth about what should have happened.

The laws are fine in place for law enforcement and speeding/running red lights etc.

The problem is this trooper did not follow his own policy, and technically did break the law. By law he has to be utilizing all of his emergency equipment. This means lights AND siren.

By policy: He may be able to go through red lights with his emergency equipment on, but he is supposed to safely clear an intersection just like everyone else for this very reason. Troppers and cops alike go through the same drivers and high speed training. I KNOW he was trained to approach a red light with caution and clear the intersection before entering it. Lights on or off.

And yes I'm a cop. Yes the trooper is at fault.

5/28/2010 1:03:54 PM

Quote :

"wat"

exactly.

^I didn't read any updated articles but the first draft didn't indicate it was a red light or if it was known if he had his siren on or not.

I do agree with you though if he did indeed run a red light and didn't have his sirens on then he is 100% at fault.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 1:07 PM. Reason : ^]

5/28/2010 1:04:55 PM