Ok, I'm completely tired of getting tailgated by police officers. Today I had an officer completely on my ass for over 5 miles to the point that all I saw out of my rear view mirror was the Ford badge and grill from his new Explorer.
If the roles would have been reversed, there is no reason to believe he wouldn't have pulled my ass over for aggresive driving. If I would have sped up to get him off my ass, he would have pulled my ass over for speeding. If I would have grabbed my phone and filmed his ass I would have also been pulled over for distracted driving. All I could do was set my cruise control for the speedlimit and hope I didn't have to make any emergency stops and wind up with an explorer in my trunk.
WTF can an average civilian driver do to avoid such reckless endangerment from tailgating cops???
speakerphone- put it in your lap and call the police.
As much as I respect my LEOs, i'vs called in shifty driving. If you're in a hurry, turn on the overheads.
You could always file a complaint, I guess. Or call the chief and just ask what was up.
Maybe he just wanted to go faster. Unfortunately, you don't know what the result would've been. Could've been some free speeding or could've been a ticket. :huh:
Brake check. Gotta make sure they still work. Also, a black cat ran into the road so suddenly.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on August 31, 2012, 05:22:00 PM
Brake check. Gotta make sure they still work. Also, a black cat ran into the road so suddenly.
Too bad though an accident involving an officer is always YOUR fault
Quote from: r0tor on August 31, 2012, 05:27:51 PM
Too bad though an accident involving an officer is always YOUR fault
Yep.
Even if you get t-boned in your own driveway.
Does it happen much?
Quote from: r0tor on August 31, 2012, 03:15:10 PM
Ok, I'm completely tired of getting tailgated by police officers. Today I had an officer completely on my ass for over 5 miles to the point that all I saw out of my rear view mirror was the Ford badge and grill from his new Explorer.
If the roles would have been reversed, there is no reason to believe he wouldn't have pulled my ass over for aggresive driving. If I would have sped up to get him off my ass, he would have pulled my ass over for speeding. If I would have grabbed my phone and filmed his ass I would have also been pulled over for distracted driving. All I could do was set my cruise control for the speedlimit and hope I didn't have to make any emergency stops and wind up with an explorer in my trunk.
WTF can an average civilian driver do to avoid such reckless endangerment from tailgating cops???
I had this happen to me once. In my case, it was late at night, and I think he was testing me to see if I was drunk.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on August 31, 2012, 06:25:07 PM
Yep.
Even if you get t-boned in your own driveway.
LOL...?
Quote from: dazzleman on August 31, 2012, 06:55:50 PM
I had this happen to me once. In my case, it was late at night, and I think he was testing me to see if I was drunk.
That's when you're supposed to weave back and forth within your lane to show him you are keeping your tires warm.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on August 31, 2012, 06:59:30 PM
LOL...?
Years ago, to my next door neighbor. who was at the end of he driveway but not yet on the road, and the cop went around a stopped car to the right.
She got ticketed, but as I recall, the case did get dismissed.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on August 31, 2012, 07:11:55 PM
Years ago, to my next door neighbor. who was at the end of he driveway but not yet on the road, and the cop went around a stopped car to the right.
She got ticketed, but as I recall, the case did get dismissed.
Few people know that anyone, including civilians, can issue summonses, at least in my state. If something as blatant as that happened, I would most certainly issue a summons to the other driver.
Quote from: TurboDan on August 31, 2012, 08:43:51 PM
Few people know that anyone, including civilians, can issue summonses, at least in my state. If something as blatant as that happened, I would most certainly issue a summons to the other driver.
I don't know all the particualrs first hand, but I do know that the ticket was dismissed for one reason or another.
I do know that the paper ran the story that she had hit the cop, and that there was absolutely no way that could have happened, as i saw the car afterwards, and the skid marks where the impact happened.
So, do you want us to speculate why this particular LEO was riding your ass or are you just bitching? I mean, I can rattle off a list of potential reasons, any (or none) of which might be true.
I'd pull over and let him pass. No need to invite a roadside swine visit.
Quote from: Raza on August 31, 2012, 10:14:12 PM
I'd pull over and let him pass. No need to invite a roadside swine visit.
This
Whenever I get a tailgater, I just let off the gas and see how far they take it. Had one guy still on my ass all the way down to 30mph on the freeway. lols
Quote from: HotRodPilot on August 31, 2012, 11:31:52 PM
This
Whenever I get a tailgater, I just let off the gas and see how far they take it. Had one guy still on my ass all the way down to 30mph on the freeway. lols
Somehow, I don't see playing "who can be the bigger asshole" works well with most cops.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 01, 2012, 12:42:44 AM
Somehow, I don't see playing "who can be the bigger asshole" works well with most cops.
About the only thing he could get you for at that point would be failure to maintain minimum speed, if there is one on that highway in Washington. Then I'd be able to at least confront the dick about the tailgating, get his badge number, and then if the cop was a dick, call the department and report it.
Quote from: bing_oh on August 31, 2012, 09:05:57 PM
So, do you want us to speculate why this particular LEO was riding your ass or are you just bitching? I mean, I can rattle off a list of potential reasons, any (or none) of which might be true.
Speculate away...
Quote from: TurboDan on August 31, 2012, 08:43:51 PM
Few people know that anyone, including civilians, can issue summonses, at least in my state. If something as blatant as that happened, I would most certainly issue a summons to the other driver.
r0tor should issue a summons to the cop, and see how that turns out.... :lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on September 01, 2012, 08:49:33 AM
r0tor should issue a summons to the cop, and see how that turns out.... :lol:
Citizen's arrest!
Quote from: dazzleman on September 01, 2012, 08:49:33 AM
r0tor should issue a summons to the cop, and see how that turns out.... :lol:
I think I would then need to change my daily work route...
I wouldblike a programmable license plate holder though so I could type messages to officer assclown
Chances are you did something to attract undue attention. What this was who is to know.
The only real choice is to signal and pull off the road as if you're going somewhere. Taking revenge or trying to "get his badge number" is asking for trouble. The strategy is to minimize contact and time invested, not seek revenge or go on an altruistic quest.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 01, 2012, 11:28:49 AM
Chances are you did something to attract undue attention. What this was who is to know.
The only real choice is to signal and pull off the road as if you're going somewhere. Taking revenge or trying to "get his badge number" is asking for trouble. The strategy is to minimize contact and time invested, not seek revenge or go on an altruistic quest.
I'm guessing the cop became suspicious of r0tor for some reason, and decided to have a closer look. As I said earlier, this has happened to me. I do think the tailgating thing is obnoxious, though. If a cop is suspicious and wants to follow, I think that's perfectly legitimate, but do it at a safe distance. To be cynical, I think the tailgating for a noticeable distance is a tactic meant to provoke the driver into doing something that will give the cop a pretext to pull him over. I think r0tor played it right, and didn't give the cop a pretext to check him out further.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 01, 2012, 11:50:44 AM
I'm guessing the cop became suspicious of r0tor for some reason, and decided to have a closer look. As I said earlier, this has happened to me. I do think the tailgating thing is obnoxious, though. If a cop is suspicious and wants to follow, I think that's perfectly legitimate, but do it at a safe distance. To be cynical, I think the tailgating for a noticeable distance is a tactic meant to provoke the driver into doing something that will give the cop a pretext to pull him over. I think r0tor played it right, and didn't give the cop a pretext to check him out further.
It happened to me once years back. Turthfully, I'd rather he just pull me over if he thinks I'm doing something wrong or has a question for me. Playing games like the tailgating nonsense is juvenile, dangerous and unprofessional in my opinion.
I must say that most police officers in my area do not engage in such tactics and actually tend to drive very cautiously.
Quote from: TurboDan on September 01, 2012, 11:54:16 AM
It happened to me once years back. Turthfully, I'd rather he just pull me over if he thinks I'm doing something wrong or has a question for me. Playing games like the tailgating nonsense is juvenile, dangerous and unprofessional in my opinion.
I must say that most police officers in my area do not engage in such tactics and actually tend to drive very cautiously.
Yes, I agree about the tailgating. It's really not safe, and it gives the impression that the cop is on a power trip. Plus, I don't know what additional information he could gather by doing it; it seems a more surreptitious surveillance would be more effective if he's legitimately suspicious.
I've heard of the NJSP using this tactic to entrap speeders on the Palisades Parkway. I don't think it's official policy, but there were some rogue cops who were doing it. A guy I know (not 100% credible, IMO) said he was on the Palisades and a cop came racing up behind him, tailgated really close, and then when he sped up to move out of the way, the cop pulled him over and gave him 4 tickets for speeding, unsafe lane change, reckless and something else.
Quote from: TurboDan on September 01, 2012, 11:54:16 AM
It happened to me once years back. Turthfully, I'd rather he just pull me over if he thinks I'm doing something wrong or has a question for me. Playing games like the tailgating nonsense is juvenile, dangerous and unprofessional in my opinion.
I must say that most police officers in my area do not engage in such tactics and actually tend to drive very cautiously.
It tends to happen most to young males.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 01, 2012, 11:28:49 AM
Chances are you did something to attract undue attention. What this was who is to know.
The only real choice is to signal and pull off the road as if you're going somewhere. Taking revenge or trying to "get his badge number" is asking for trouble. The strategy is to minimize contact and time invested, not seek revenge or go on an altruistic quest.
Pretty decent overall life philosophy there, too.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on September 01, 2012, 03:25:36 AM
About the only thing he could get you for at that point would be failure to maintain minimum speed, if there is one on that highway in Washington. Then I'd be able to at least confront the dick about the tailgating, get his badge number, and then if the cop was a dick, call the department and report it.
Obstructing traffic. Or the dude suddenly notices a brake light is burnt out, or that you've painted over your reverse lights. Maybe the parking pass sticker on your windshield constitutes obstructed vision as well. maybe your muffler's too loud; who knows?
If a cop wants to pull you over, he's going to find a reason one way or the other. Once he pulls you over, he doesn't have to find much cause to search your car.
In other words: playing "who can be the bigger asshole" with a cop is pretty much always a losing proposition.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 01, 2012, 11:50:44 AMI'm guessing the cop became suspicious of r0tor for some reason, and decided to have a closer look. As I said earlier, this has happened to me. I do think the tailgating thing is obnoxious, though. If a cop is suspicious and wants to follow, I think that's perfectly legitimate, but do it at a safe distance. To be cynical, I think the tailgating for a noticeable distance is a tactic meant to provoke the driver into doing something that will give the cop a pretext to pull him over. I think r0tor played it right, and didn't give the cop a pretext to check him out further.
There's nothing "cynical" about it...there are various tactics used to "encourage" a violation, usually as a pretext for a stop and contact. Drunks in particular respond to certain driving habits of the vehicles around them. Also, it's not unusual for me to get a bit closer to a vehicle to look for various things like the license plate expiration sticker.
Realize than an officer needs reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle. I can't stop a vehicle just because I think it's "suspicious," for example...I still need that violation. Driving behind someone for a period of time, maybe a little closer than usual, will frequently make them nervous enough to commit at least a small violation if I think they're up to no good and want a closer look.
Quote from: bing_oh on September 01, 2012, 02:54:21 PM
There's nothing "cynical" about it...there are various tactics used to "encourage" a violation, usually as a pretext for a stop and contact. Drunks in particular respond to certain driving habits of the vehicles around them. Also, it's not unusual for me to get a bit closer to a vehicle to look for various things like the license plate expiration sticker.
Realize than an officer needs reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle. I can't stop a vehicle just because I think it's "suspicious," for example...I still need that violation. Driving behind someone for a period of time, maybe a little closer than usual, will frequently make them nervous enough to commit at least a small violation if I think they're up to no good and want a closer look.
The time it happened to me, I think the officer thought I was drunk. He followed me very closely for a long distance. He didn't pull me over, so I must have passed his test.
Quote from: r0tor on September 01, 2012, 07:37:56 AMSpeculate away...
He was on his way to a call that needed a rapid, but not emergency, response.
He was on his way to lunch and his girlfriend was gonna give him a zipper fuck.
He needed to take a major dump and you wouldn't get out of his frickin' way.
He was trying to make you paranoid enough to commit a violation because he thought you were a dirtbag.
His department has budget cuts and he was drafting to improve fuel economy.
He was bored and just felt like screwing with you.
Quote from: dazzleman on September 01, 2012, 02:57:59 PMThe time it happened to me, I think the officer thought I was drunk. He followed me very closely for a long distance. He didn't pull me over, so I must have passed his test.
I've worked midnight for years, so I do alot of drunk-hunting. Any seasoned midnight cop knows the tricks while fishing for a drunk. Sometimes the tricks get a violation, sometimes the driver "passes the test." :huh:
Quote from: bing_oh on September 01, 2012, 03:04:06 PM
I've worked midnight for years, so I do alot of drunk-hunting. Any seasoned midnight cop knows the tricks while fishing for a drunk. Sometimes the tricks get a violation, sometimes the driver "passes the test." :huh:
I wasn't drunk, so I guess it worked.
When I did my ride-along with my local police, I saw how irritated the officers get with people who actually follow the speed limit. Of course, the only reason they're following it most likely is that they have a cop behind them. But in this case, the cop wanted them to go faster, and didn't intend to pull them over for it. I've gotten pretty casual with my local cops; I drive around 10 mph or so above the speed limit and don't slow down if I see one. So far, it's working. If they pull me over, so be it. At this stage of the game, I don't have much to fear from them.
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 01, 2012, 01:49:32 PM
Pretty decent overall life philosophy there, too.
Trust me when I say it took me a long time to get there lol...
I set cruise at 5 over the limit, which is likely a mph or two short at 50-70mph. Sometimes I'll do up to 10over but usually not more than that for extended amounts of time. Like to pass a slow turd or whatever then come back down to cruise speed.
Quote from: bing_oh on September 01, 2012, 03:04:06 PM
I've worked midnight for years, so I do alot of drunk-hunting. Any seasoned midnight cop knows the tricks while fishing for a drunk. Sometimes the tricks get a violation, sometimes the driver "passes the test." :huh:
And I've worked nights for years and have been the subject of these little fishing expeditions more than once.
Quote from: bing_oh on September 01, 2012, 02:54:21 PM
Driving behind someone for a period of time, maybe a little closer than usual, will frequently make them nervous enough to commit at least a small violation if I think they're up to no good and want a closer look.
Smells exactly like entrapment to me...
Quote from: dazzleman on September 01, 2012, 12:01:51 PM
Yes, I agree about the tailgating. It's really not safe, and it gives the impression that the cop is on a power trip. Plus, I don't know what additional information he could gather by doing it; it seems a more surreptitious surveillance would be more effective if he's legitimately suspicious.
I've heard of the NJSP using this tactic to entrap speeders on the Palisades Parkway. I don't think it's official policy, but there were some rogue cops who were doing it. A guy I know (not 100% credible, IMO) said he was on the Palisades and a cop came racing up behind him, tailgated really close, and then when he sped up to move out of the way, the cop pulled him over and gave him 4 tickets for speeding, unsafe lane change, reckless and something else.
Funny you mention that highway, Dave. Actually, NJSP doesn't patrol the Palisades. That highway has its own dedicated police department: The Palisades Interstate Parkway Police. The department is widely known as a dumping ground for political patronage jobs and they've had a great many problems with the "quality" of the officers. They've been talking for years of disbanding it, though my hunch is that so many politicians' relatives and friends work there it's never going to happen.
I'm not surprised to hear there are less-than-reputable tactics being used, though I have never actually driven on that highway personally. It's on the opposite end of the state as me and I don't anyone who lives near it.
Quote from: r0tor on September 01, 2012, 09:26:22 PMSmells alot like entrapment to me...
Too bad you, like so many people, don't understand entrapment. Entrapment is when a representative of the government induces a person to commit a crime he or she otherwise would not commit, expressing the desire not to commit that crime but being persuaded to do so by the government representative. If I were to challenge a person to a drag race, telling them that I wouldn't do anything about it when they express no desire to do so, and then arrest them for reckless driving, that would be entrapment.
People love to call things "entrapment" when the police use subterfuge or various "unfair" tactics to catch people in the act, but it's simply not.
I smell entrapment. Or bacon. Not sure.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 01, 2012, 03:25:12 PM
And I've worked nights for years and have been the subject of these little fishing expeditions more than once.
Same here. I get back home late a lot of nights since I have to attend government public meetings, which tend to be at night. On one particular long road in a town adjacent to me that I have to drive through (2 lanes in each directions), the "test" consists of an officer driving in the lane NEXT to you, pretty much right on your tail. He's not tailgating you, but he's basically in your blind spot waiting for you to "mess up."
It's an obvious DWI detection tactic. That town is very aggressive with its drunk driving enforcement.
Quote from: bing_oh on September 01, 2012, 09:50:27 PM
Too bad you, like so many people, don't understand entrapment. Entrapment is when a representative of the government induces a person to commit a crime he or she otherwise would not commit, expressing the desire not to commit that crime but being persuaded to do so by the government representative. If I were to challenge a person to a drag race, telling them that I wouldn't do anything about it when they express no desire to do so, and then arrest them for reckless driving, that would be entrapment.
People love to call things "entrapment" when the police use subterfuge or various "unfair" tactics to catch people in the act, but it's simply not.
no, its subterfuge and unfair tactics, just not entrapment under the eyes of the law.
Quote from: bing_oh on September 01, 2012, 09:50:27 PM
Too bad you, like so many people, don't understand entrapment. Entrapment is when a representative of the government induces a person to commit a crime he or she otherwise would not commit, expressing the desire not to commit that crime but being persuaded to do so by the government representative. If I were to challenge a person to a drag race, telling them that I wouldn't do anything about it when they express no desire to do so, and then arrest them for reckless driving, that would be entrapment.
People love to call things "entrapment" when the police use subterfuge or various "unfair" tactics to catch people in the act, but it's simply not.
So if someone is driving down the highway at around the speed limit, you riding their bumper to get them to do something to give you reason to pull them over isn't entrapment? From what you posted, that sounds exactly like entrapment...
Quote from: thecarnut on September 01, 2012, 11:05:52 PM
So if someone is driving down the highway at around the speed limit, you riding their bumper to get them to do something to give you reason to pull them over isn't entrapment? From what you posted, that sounds exactly like entrapment...
He's not forcing them to go faster.
I think its an underhanded trick myself, but the law says its fair game.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 01, 2012, 11:26:42 PM
He's not forcing them to go faster.
I think its an underhanded trick myself, but the law says its fair game.
Yeah, in the eyes of the law, someone tailgating you doesn't necessarily "force" you to do anything differently, so it's not entrapment.
Still, I think it's a rather unprofessional way of "doing business," not to mention dangerous. If a deer jumps out in front of the guy being "purposely tailgated," that won't be a good situation when he slams on his brakes and the LEO's vehicle smashes into him.
Quote from: TurboDan on September 01, 2012, 09:44:03 PM
Funny you mention that highway, Dave. Actually, NJSP doesn't patrol the Palisades. That highway has its own dedicated police department: The Palisades Interstate Parkway Police. The department is widely known as a dumping ground for political patronage jobs and they've had a great many problems with the "quality" of the officers. They've been talking for years of disbanding it, though my hunch is that so many politicians' relatives and friends work there it's never going to happen.
I'm not surprised to hear there are less-than-reputable tactics being used, though I have never actually driven on that highway personally. It's on the opposite end of the state as me and I don't anyone who lives near it.
Interesting. Sounds like a typical corrupt New Jersey situation. What a waste to have a department dedicated to a single, short highway. No wonder taxes are so high.
Quote from: TurboDan on September 01, 2012, 11:53:01 PM
Yeah, in the eyes of the law, someone tailgating you doesn't necessarily "force" you to do anything differently, so it's not entrapment.
Still, I think it's a rather unprofessional way of "doing business," not to mention dangerous. If a deer jumps out in front of the guy being "purposely tailgated," that won't be a good situation when he slams on his brakes and the LEO's vehicle smashes into him.
I find it to be especially dangerous at night when I'm being blinded by the LEO's lights. :rage:
I had that happen to me on a windy road at night. It was very irritating and if I hadn't known the road like the back of my hand I would've been terrified as well.
Quote from: thecarnut on September 02, 2012, 12:59:35 AM
I find it to be especially dangerous at night when I'm being blinded by the LEO's lights. :rage:
I had that happen to me on a windy road at night. It was very irritating and if I hadn't known the road like the back of my hand I would've been terrified as well.
I remember a situation that happened when I was in high school to one of my buddies.
It's a red light. Buddy's on one side, police car on the other. My buddy is turning left with a left turn signal on. Light turns green, cop doesn't move. Buddy's thinking: "well, do I just go, he's not doing anything?"
They wait in a standoff. Cop eventually crosses the intersection just as it's turning red, but he was staring at my friend the whole time. Doubtlessly, if my friend had turned left, he would've gotten lit up for the "illegal" left turn in front of opposing traffic.
I'm a massive, massive, pro-law-enforcement guy, but I hate the BS that goes on out there sometimes, mostly because it makes all the good hard-working honest cops look like shit.
Maybe we should start tailgaiting cops just to make sure they are sober
Quote from: r0tor on September 02, 2012, 08:53:56 AM
Maybe we should start tailgaiting cops just to make sure they are sober
:lol:
Great idea. I nominate you to go first. Let us know how it turns out.
Quote from: TurboDan on September 02, 2012, 01:43:25 AM
I remember a situation that happened when I was in high school to one of my buddies.
It's a red light. Buddy's on one side, police car on the other. My buddy is turning left with a left turn signal on. Light turns green, cop doesn't move. Buddy's thinking: "well, do I just go, he's not doing anything?"
They wait in a standoff. Cop eventually crosses the intersection just as it's turning red, but he was staring at my friend the whole time. Doubtlessly, if my friend had turned left, he would've gotten lit up for the "illegal" left turn in front of opposing traffic.
I'm a massive, massive, pro-law-enforcement guy, but I hate the BS that goes on out there sometimes, mostly because it makes all the good hard-working honest cops look like shit.
I've been lucky to only have encountered nice cops, for the most part. Even the cops who have given me tickets were nice about it.
But I have heard some stories like this. I think younger people, especially males, are suseptible to this type of dickery from cops. That's probably also true for people who appear to be in the "wrong" neighborhood. But once you get past a certain age, and drive a respectable looking car, these issues tend to go away.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on August 31, 2012, 07:08:24 PM
That's when you're supposed to weave back and forth within your lane to show him you are keeping your tires warm.
If you're not breaking any other law and have an hour to kill, hell yeah. :lol:
Quote from: bing_oh on September 01, 2012, 03:01:09 PM
He was on his way to a call that needed a rapid, but not emergency, response.
He was on his way to lunch and his girlfriend was gonna give him a zipper fuck.
He needed to take a major dump and you wouldn't get out of his frickin' way.
He was trying to make you paranoid enough to commit a violation because he thought you were a dirtbag.
His department has budget cuts and he was drafting to improve fuel economy.
He was bored and just felt like screwing with you.
This- all of it. My department- probably almost 100% of the others in the US do too- has policies regarding what level of response is required and even allowed. Not every situation is covered in the policy so they cover "groupings" of call types. Only a handfull of calls types allow our people to drive with their lights or siren on. State law dictates what we don't-
Our insurance carrier governs the entire shebang by telling what they will and won't cover. On top of that if deputies violate the policies they're subject to disciplinary actions. So just saying "if he's in a hurry he should use his lights and siren" is probably not a reality. The funny thing is rotor - or someone else here like raza- would probably be here bitching if the guy had used his lights to get around him and then turned them off. I hear people bitch about it a couple times a week in our office. Sometimes it's just faster to go non-emergency because the lights and siren make people pucker and do incredibly stupid things.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 01, 2012, 09:53:41 PM
I smell entrapment. Or bacon. Not sure.
Probably smelling yourself there fatty. ;) :lol:
Quote from: r0tor on September 02, 2012, 08:53:56 AM
Maybe we should start tailgaiting cops just to make sure they are sober
Go ahead.
I
dare
you.
:lol:
Quote from: rohan on September 02, 2012, 02:51:02 PM
This- all of it. My department- probably almost 100% of the others in the US do too- has policies regarding what level of response is required and even allowed. Not every situation is covered in the policy so they cover "groupings" of call types. Only a handfull of calls types allow our people to drive with their lights or siren on. State law dictates what we don't-
Our insurance carrier governs the entire shebang by telling what they will and won't cover. On top of that if deputies violate the policies they're subject to disciplinary actions. So just saying "if he's in a hurry he should use his lights and siren" is probably not a reality. The funny thing is rotor - or someone else here like raza- would probably be here bitching if the guy had used his lights to get around him and then turned them off. I hear people bitch about it a couple times a week in our office. Sometimes it's just faster to go non-emergency because the lights and siren make people pucker and do incredibly stupid things.
Yet, if a civilian breaks the speed limit because he needs to be a certain place for work or has a turtle head popping out, an officer will ram a speeding ticket up his ass...
Quote from: r0tor on September 02, 2012, 03:39:51 PM
Yet, if a civilian breaks the speed limit because he needs to be a certain place for work or has a turtle head popping out, an officer will ram a speeding ticket up his ass...
Actually, I've been told more than once (by cops none the less) that the most effective excuse they hear is "sorry officer, but I really have to take a shit, like right now."
Quote from: r0tor on September 02, 2012, 03:39:51 PM
Yet, if a civilian breaks the speed limit because he needs to be a certain place for work or has a turtle head popping out, an officer will ram a speeding ticket up his ass...
That's against policy too. If you'd have said broom stick handle or night stick then it would be permissible.
But in general what are you saying? Police should never drive fast to a call?
Quote from: rohan on September 02, 2012, 05:25:55 PM
That's against policy too. If you'd have said broom stick handle or night stick then it would be permissible.
But in general what are you saying? Police should never drive fast to a call?
Haters gon' hate. 99% of cops are stand-up dudes. A few clowns make everyone look like assholes. Sucks.
Just call the police station and report it.
Quote from: rohan on September 02, 2012, 05:25:55 PM
That's against policy too. If you'd have said broom stick handle or night stick then it would be permissible.
But in general what are you saying? Police should never drive fast to a call?
I've been told by cops the laws are there for safety.
So if a police officer needs to break the speed limit, then he should have his flashing lights on. Otherwise, suffer like the rest of us.
In fact, nobody should ever break speed limits for any reason. Otherwise, the entire idea of speed limits is flawed. Oh wait, it is.
Quote from: TurboDan on September 03, 2012, 12:46:17 AM
Haters gon' hate. 99% of cops are stand-up dudes. A few clowns make everyone look like assholes. Sucks.
99% seems really high. Maybe something more like 14% and like 71% are in the middle, and like 15% are total assholes.
Actually, if you extrapolate using the pigs this forum, something around 25% are really good guys, 25% are okay, and 50% are major, racist, homophobic assholes.
Quote from: Raza on September 03, 2012, 09:23:33 AM
99% seems really high. Maybe something more like 14% and like 71% are in the middle, and like 15% are total assholes.
Actually, if you extrapolate using the pigs this forum, something around 25% are really good guys, 25% are okay, and 50% are major, racist, homophobic assholes.
:lol:
lol
Quote from: Raza link=topic=28012.msg1773832#msg1773832 date=1346685813
99% seems really high. Maybe something more like 14% and like 71% are in the middle, and like 15% are total assholes.
Actually, if you extrapolate using the pigs this forum, something around 25% are really good guys, 25% are okay, and 50% are major, racist, homophobic assholes.
LOL, there's only four on here, three if you consider Hounddog and Rohan as clones. :lol:
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111123022407/theclonewiki/images/archive/3/3e/20120722041014!CodyRexARCTroopers.jpg)
Quote from: Raza link=topic=28012.msg1773832#msg1773832 date=1346685813
99% seems really high. Maybe something more like 14% and like 71% are in the middle, and like 15% are total assholes.
Actually, if you extrapolate using the pigs this forum, something around 25% are really good guys, 25% are okay, and 50% are major, racist, homophobic assholes.
You left out sexist or mysoginistic. It's always obligatory to include that when you mention the other two.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=28012.msg1773832#msg1773832 date=134668581399% seems really high. Maybe something more like 14% and like 71% are in the middle, and like 15% are total assholes.
Actually, if you extrapolate using the pigs this forum, something around 25% are really good guys, 25% are okay, and 50% are major, racist, homophobic assholes.
I'm just trying to figure out which percentage I fall into... :confused:
:lol:
Quote from: r0tor on September 03, 2012, 08:40:14 AMI've been told by cops the laws are there for safety.
So if a police officer needs to break the speed limit, then he should have his flashing lights on. Otherwise, suffer like the rest of us.
And, then, we would get bitched at because we took too long responding to your calls...probably accompanied by some comment about having to finish our donuts. Lose/lose. I'll just continue to do things as I already do them and you can bitch about my speeding. I'll take the grief if it increases my chances of getting to an important call a little faster and maybe helping somebody or catching a shitbag.
Quote from: Raza on September 03, 2012, 09:23:33 AM
99% seems really high. Maybe something more like 14% and like 71% are in the middle, and like 15% are total assholes.
Actually, if you extrapolate using the pigs this forum, something around 25% are really good guys, 25% are okay, and 50% are major, racist, homophobic assholes.
So 78% better numbers then the general public. :ohyeah:
Quote from: r0tor on September 03, 2012, 08:40:14 AM
I've been told by cops the laws are there for safety.
So if a police officer needs to break the speed limit, then he should have his flashing lights on. Otherwise, suffer like the rest of us.
Police officers have been through intensive driving classes that make them world-class drivers on par with the likes of WRC and Formula 1 drivers. You, Joe Public, have not, which is why there are safety laws like speed limits in place to protect you and the rest of the public from itself.
Quote from: MX793 on September 03, 2012, 08:18:10 PMPolice officers have been through intensive driving classes that make them world-class drivers on par with the likes of WRC and Formula 1 drivers. You, Joe Public, have not, which is why there are safety laws like speed limits in place to protect you and the rest of the public from itself.
Well above average drivers, probably. World-class might be pushing it a bit, though. Appreciate the compliment, though. :ohyeah:
Quote from: bing_oh on September 03, 2012, 07:10:00 PM
And, then, we would get bitched at because we took too long responding to your calls...probably accompanied by some comment about having to finish our donuts. Lose/lose. I'll just continue to do things as I already do them and you can bitch about my speeding. I'll take the grief if it increases my chances of getting to an important call a little faster and maybe helping somebody or catching a shitbag.
If it's an important call, turn your flashers on. Safer and every bit as effective at getting a vehicle out of your way when you're in a hurry than riding their rear bumper.
Quote from: MX793 on September 03, 2012, 08:21:48 PM
If it's an important call, turn your flashers on. Safer and every bit as effective at getting a vehicle out of your way when you're in a hurry than riding their rear bumper.
As explained, state laws/guidelines plus insurance company edicts prevent them from doing so in many situations.
Quote from: MX793 on September 03, 2012, 08:21:48 PM
If it's an important call, turn your flashers on. Safer and every bit as effective at getting a vehicle out of your way when you're in a hurry than riding their rear bumper.
And potentially a violation of department policy or state statute or both. Like I said earlier most departments out there have pretty strict guidlines about when and why officers can use their lights. Then there's the calls that you "can't" run lights and siren because you don't want the bad guys to know your coming like alarms- domestics- robberies and break ins in progress- or if another officer is asking for assistance but is not in "immediate" danger- etc.
Quote from: bing_oh on September 03, 2012, 08:21:05 PM
Well above average drivers, probably. World-class might be pushing it a bit, though. Appreciate the compliment, though. :ohyeah:
Was he serious? I took it like he was ribbing us. I would say the average police officer is better then above average but that's my opinion. I do think officers who work outside cities or towns like sheriff deputies and township officers drive much better at a lot faster speed then their city-bound counterparts. On the other hand the guys working in cities probably do a lot better in real confined typed driving.
Quote from: rohan on September 03, 2012, 08:54:49 PMAnd potentially a violation of department policy or state statute or both. Like I said earlier most departments out there have pretty strict guidlines about when and why officers can use their lights. Then there's the calls that you "can't" run lights and siren because you don't want the bad guys to know your coming like alarms- domestics- robberies and break ins in progress- or if another officer is asking for assistance but is not in "immediate" danger- etc.
Hell, Randy, you know people think we can run lights and siren whenever we want to and do so to every hot call. They don't get that we're restricted by policy and state law, not to mention tactical considerations.
Yeah I know. They come in to our office every so often to complain about their local fire trucks running lights and siren to calls. Or state law doesn't let them run lights without sirens but no one cares about that when their getting woke up every few nights.
Quote from: rohan on September 03, 2012, 08:58:40 PMWas he serious? I took it like he was ribbing us. I would say the average police officer is better then above average but that's my opinion. I do think officers who work outside cities or towns like sheriff deputies and township officers drive much better at a lot faster speed then their city-bound counterparts. On the other hand the guys working in cities probably do a lot better in real confined typed driving.
I took it straight-faced...I'll take whatever compliment I can get, damnit! :rage:
Anybody can drive fast in a straight line, even you county black shirts, but you need mad skillz to work the tight corners and traffic we city cops do with ease! :lol:
Brown. :ohyeah:
Quote from: rohan on September 03, 2012, 09:10:51 PMBrown. :ohyeah:
My apologies...baby poop brown. :lol: "Black shirt" is a general derogatory reference to deputies in Ohio, since they all wear black shirts and gray pants because of the Buckeye State Sheriff's Association guidelines.
Quote from: thecarnut on September 02, 2012, 12:59:35 AM
I find it to be especially dangerous at night when I'm being blinded by the LEO's lights. :rage:
I had that happen to me on a windy road at night. It was very irritating and if I hadn't known the road like the back of my hand I would've been terrified as well.
Yeah man, when cops are driving near me let alone right on my bumper my heart rate is typically at least 40 BPM higher than normal. Cops scare the crap out of me on the road.
I am fundamentally against breaking the law to catch people breaking the law on the road. There are no excuses for that behavior at all in my book. You have to find a reason to pull me over 2 seconds behind me buddy.
Also, tailgating to drive quickly for a non-emergency call that "is important" is a load of shit to me. Either it's an emergency or it's not. In the latter case, you have to stick to the damn laws like the rest of us. We civilians need to be places quickly too sometimes.
Indeed. If it's so important you have to break the law to get there, then it's important enough for the light show (unless it's a tactical thing), damn the regulations and other excuses.
Not like tailgating people is an effective way to get somewhere faster anyway.
Hey, if cops didn't spend 90% of their time eating doughnuts and giving speeding tickets to people driving completely reasonably, people wouldn't slow to a crawl every time they saw a cop on the road.
Quote from: Rupert on September 03, 2012, 11:59:02 PM
Indeed. If it's so important you have to break the law to get there, then it's important enough for the light show (unless it's a tactical thing), damn the regulations and other excuses.
A government agency and its employees cannot pick and choose which state laws and policies they follow. If a cop throws on the light show and sirens when he's not supposed to and an accident occurs, you're facing millions of dollars in civil liabilities, plus the cop probably risks losing his job and entire career.
First sentence runs contrary to the rest. And what if an accident occurs when the cop is tailgating and speeding instead of using the lights? Don't you think that's more likely?
SOME CALLS IT IS UNWISE TO USE LIGHTS AND SIRENS
Have you guys stopped to think that maybe those calls (Break ins, drug busts, silent alarms) happen quite often, and Police cars shouldn't be making noise or too big of a show?
Quote from: bing_oh on September 03, 2012, 08:21:05 PM
Well above average drivers, probably. World-class might be pushing it a bit, though. Appreciate the compliment, though. :ohyeah:
I think he broke your sarcasm detector...
Quote from: TurboDan on September 04, 2012, 12:29:13 AM
A government agency and its employees cannot pick and choose which state laws and policies they follow. If a cop throws on the light show and sirens when he's not supposed to and an accident occurs, you're facing millions of dollars in civil liabilities, plus the cop probably risks losing his job and entire career.
Sure they can pick and choose, if the law allows (which it does, in all sorts of cases).
Quote from: Rupert on September 04, 2012, 02:14:38 AM
First sentence runs contrary to the rest. And what if an accident occurs when the cop is tailgating and speeding instead of using the lights? Don't you think that's more likely?
It doesn't matter which is more likely (I personally tend to think the use of lights/sirens would be more dangerous, personally, given the retarded manner in which people react when they see/hear them). It matters which will get the officers, the department and, in the end, the taxpayers in trouble.
If you disagree with statutory, administrative, insurance or attorney general guidelines of the use of lights and sirens in your state, contact your legislator, participate in a rule-making hearing or try to convince the AG otherwise. Police agencies aren't going to ignore these guidelines, even if doing so could be hypothetically "safer" in certain situations.
Excuses and pass-the-buck-age.
Plain and simple there are cases they need to use lights, and all other cases they need to obey all the same traffic safety laws that they enforce on civillians. If they want exemptions for " oh I have to take a shit" then all civillians should receive the same grace.
Since my particular case is a stretch of road where speeding tickets are given out like candy, I fully believe the prick was tailgating to try and get me to screw up.
Quote from: r0tor on September 04, 2012, 12:50:26 PM
Plain and simple there are cases they need to use lights, and all other cases they need to obey all the same traffic safety laws that they enforce on civillians. If they want exemptions for " oh I have to take a shit" then all civillians should receive the same grace.
Since my particular case is a stretch of road where speeding tickets are given out like candy, I fully believe the prick was tailgating to try and get me to screw up.
Incorrect. Lights and siren ard not required in most states to exceed the speed limit, etc.
QuoteSection 7B. The driver of a vehicle of a fire, police or recognized protective department and the driver of an ambulance shall be subject to the provisions of any statute, rule, regulation, ordinance or by-law relating to the operation or parking of vehicles, except that a driver of fire apparatus while going to a fire or responding to an alarm, or the driver of a vehicle of a police or recognized protective department or the driver of an ambulance, in an emergency and while in performance of a public duty or while transporting a sick or injured person to a hospital or other destination where professional medical services are available, may drive such vehicle at a speed in excess of the applicable speed limit if he exercises caution and due regard under the circumstances for the safety of persons and property, and may drive such vehicle through an intersection of ways contrary to any traffic signs or signals regulating traffic at such intersection if he first brings such vehicle to a full stop and then proceeds with caution and due regard for the safety of persons and property, unless otherwise directed by a police officer regulating traffic at such intersection. The driver of any such approaching emergency vehicle shall comply with the provisions of section fourteen of chapter ninety when approaching a school bus which has stopped to allow passengers to alight or board from the same, and whose red lamps are flashing.
There are other decisions that cover pursuit or pacing, etc. The stuff you're talking about, specifically tail gating is not permitted but if you have bad eyes like me it's the only way I can read your plate. :mrcool:
Quote from: Catman on September 04, 2012, 12:59:44 PM
Incorrect. Lights and siren ard not required in most states to exceed the speed limit, etc.
There are other decisions that cover pursuit or pacing, etc. The stuff you're talking about, specifically tail gating is not permitted but if you have bad eyes like me it's the only way I can read your plate. :mrcool:
Get your BMW cop motorcycle. I don't give a shit if motorcycles tailgate me, unless I'm also on a motorcycle.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 04, 2012, 01:13:39 PM
Get your BMW cop motorcycle. I don't give a shit if motorcycles tailgate me, unless I'm also on a motorcycle.
Correct
Quote from: Catman on September 04, 2012, 12:59:44 PM
Incorrect. Lights and siren ard not required in most states to exceed the speed limit, etc.
There are other decisions that cover pursuit or pacing, etc. The stuff you're talking about, specifically tail gating is not permitted but if you have bad eyes like me it's the only way I can read your plate. :mrcool:
Try taking off those sunglasses, doofus.
:lol:
I pay taxes for you to see an eye doctor... now go see one
Quote from: r0tor on September 04, 2012, 06:24:52 PM
I pay taxes for you to see an eye doctor... now go see one
I was told my citation book is so old I need a new one because they changed them.
Quote from: r0tor on September 04, 2012, 06:24:52 PMI pay taxes for you to see an eye doctor... now go see one
My health insurance doesn't cover vision...that's extra (and really expensive). Maybe Greg's is the same. :huh:
How in the world can vision be really expensive? The benefit itself is worth maybe a couple hundred bucks a year
Quote from: bing_oh on September 04, 2012, 08:41:50 PM
My health insurance doesn't cover vision...that's extra (and really expensive). Maybe Greg's is the same. :huh:
Really? That sucks. I mean, I know it's extra, but I thought it would be like mine; I get vision and dental for like $5 a month combined.
Quote from: bing_oh on September 04, 2012, 08:41:50 PM
My health insurance doesn't cover vision...that's extra (and really expensive). Maybe Greg's is the same. :huh:
You don't have a union "Cadillac" plan?
Quote from: Raza on September 05, 2012, 06:53:36 AM
Really? That sucks. I mean, I know it's extra, but I thought it would be like mine; I get vision and dental for like $5 a month combined.
Yeah, I think my dental is like $12 or something, and they throw in vision as a "freebie." I can also get any pair of glasses for $15 once a year. Last year I went to an "approved" store and got $600 Ray-Bans for $15.
How can vision be more then a couple bucks? You get an exam worth maybe $50 after insurance discount and a pair of glasses maybe worth $150 after discount. Anything outside of that usually falls back to your health plan.
Quote from: Catman on September 05, 2012, 09:39:40 AMYou don't have a union "Cadillac" plan?
Sure...at Cadillac prices.
I'm just glad that my insurance still pays for two dental exams/cleaning every year at no additional cost.
Quote from: r0tor on September 05, 2012, 02:55:27 PMHow can vision be more then a couple bucks? You get an exam worth maybe $50 after insurance discount and a pair of glasses maybe worth $150 after discount. Anything outside of that usually falls back to your health plan.
Pretty simple...they make it so ungodly expensive that it's not worth the cost unless you have a big family with lots of bad eyes. Vision is totally uncovered under my normal health benefits (outside of the HSA contribution we get from the city). Same with extended dental benefits...most people around my office don't get dental unless they're expecting something extremely expensive in the upcoming year (braces, dentures, wisdom teeth, etc). Even then, most guys do a pretty detailed cost analysis before they pony up. Higher prices = higher profit margin.
Quote from: Catman on September 04, 2012, 12:59:44 PM
Incorrect. Lights and siren ard not required in most states to exceed the speed limit, etc.
There are other decisions that cover pursuit or pacing, etc. The stuff you're talking about, specifically tail gating is not permitted but if you have bad eyes like me it's the only way I can read your plate. :mrcool:
No disrespect intrnded, but if you eyesight is poor enough that you need to tailgate to read a plate should you really be doing that job?
Quote from: MiataJohn on September 06, 2012, 09:26:21 AMNo disrespect intrnded, but if you eyesight is poor enough that you need to tailgate to read a plate should you really be doing that job?
You ever try to read a rusty license plate while driving down the road at night from several car lengths away? Even worse trying to read the expiration sticker. I've had surgery to correct my vision and I'm now better than 20/20 and still screw up plates now and then.
Quote from: bing_oh on September 06, 2012, 10:04:09 AM
You ever try to read a rusty license plate while driving down the road at night from several car lengths away? Even worse trying to read the expiration sticker. I've had surgery to correct my vision and I'm now better than 20/20 and still screw up plates now and then.
That's a bit different. Your earlier post ("if you have bad eyes like me") led me to believe you eyesight was less than 20/20.
That was Catman's post.
Quote from: Rupert on September 06, 2012, 01:07:26 PM
That was Catman's post.
Whatever :lol: :huh:
Cops are all alike..
My mistake.
no excuse for tailgating a person too closely... what if a t -rex or woolly mammoth was to jump out of the woods in front of the driver...
the officer has a responsibility to follow at a safe distance.... or I will shoot out your tires with my rear facing photon torpedos...
and then I will press a button turn my car into an spaceship and haul butt back to jupiter... this planet is getting too small.
Quote from: bing_oh on September 06, 2012, 10:04:09 AM
You ever try to read a rusty license plate while driving down the road at night from several car lengths away? Even worse trying to read the expiration sticker. I've had surgery to correct my vision and I'm now better than 20/20 and still screw up plates now and then.
One day when I am rear ended by a cop, it will be a relief when I find out it wad because he was petty enough to be trying to read my expiration date on my plate
I usually give them a tap from behind just so they know who is boss.
Quote from: Catman on September 07, 2012, 07:52:24 AM
I usually give them a tap from behind just so they know who is boss.
:whatshesaid:
Quote from: Catman on September 07, 2012, 07:52:24 AM
I usually give them a tap from behind just so they know who is boss.
:lol:
Quote from: Catman on September 07, 2012, 07:52:24 AMI usually give them a tap from behind just so they know who is boss.
Actually, I've discovered that push bumpers can take an impact between 20-25 mph. You've gotta "tap" with authority, damnit!
Quote from: Catman on September 07, 2012, 07:52:24 AM
I usually give them a tap from behind just so they know who is boss.
Yeah. Buddy!
I can tell when Dan has been drinking, because all of his posts suddenly contain some iteration of, "yeah, buddy".
:lol:
Quote from: Raza link=topic=28012.msg1774807#msg1774807 date=1346849616
Really? That sucks. I mean, I know it's extra, but I thought it would be like mine; I get vision and dental for like $5 a month combined.
Our county just gutted our general employee (deputies and corrections) during the last contract negotiations in August. Dropped dental completely- allows for up to $200 per employee with $200 more for entire family per year for optical. General health coverage pay in for everyone is now the same: $250 per month plus $50 per family member- $8k out of pocket and then insurance kicks in at 75% coverage. Plus all non-life threatening treatments must be "pre-authorized." So much for that "Cadillac Coverage" everyone claims public servants have. At least the deputies receive no raises this year and 1.9% next and 2.9% in the last year of this new contract- removed education and retention incentives- removed uniform allowances/dry cleaning services and removed all OT/extra pay for K9 handlers. :rolleyes: I have a hard time believing we'll be able to retain many of our top performers at this point over the next year or 2. I mean I can understand the county position because our individual insurance coverage costs about $16,200 per employee per year in the last quote we got but this seems a bit extreme. New "coverage" will cost the county about $13k per employee.
Quote from: Rupert on September 08, 2012, 02:24:04 AM
I can tell when Dan has been drinking, because all of his posts suddenly contain some iteration of, "yeah, buddy".
:lol:
Hahaha. Yeah last night was a rough one.
yeah buddy
Quote from: Rupert on September 09, 2012, 03:08:43 AM
yeah buddy
:lol:
I like the "yeah buddy" type drunks. They're a lot of fun. :partyon:
Quote from: rohan on September 08, 2012, 07:02:35 PM
Our county just gutted our general employee (deputies and corrections) during the last contract negotiations in August. Dropped dental completely- allows for up to $200 per employee with $200 more for entire family per year for optical. General health coverage pay in for everyone is now the same: $250 per month plus $50 per family member- $8k out of pocket and then insurance kicks in at 75% coverage. Plus all non-life threatening treatments must be "pre-authorized." So much for that "Cadillac Coverage" everyone claims public servants have. At least the deputies receive no raises this year and 1.9% next and 2.9% in the last year of this new contract- removed education and retention incentives- removed uniform allowances/dry cleaning services and removed all OT/extra pay for K9 handlers. :rolleyes: I have a hard time believing we'll be able to retain many of our top performers at this point over the next year or 2. I mean I can understand the county position because our individual insurance coverage costs about $16,200 per employee per year in the last quote we got but this seems a bit extreme. New "coverage" will cost the county about $13k per employee.
But you still get the protection money and funds from shakedowns, right?
Just kidding
Quote from: MiataJohn on September 09, 2012, 06:52:20 PM
But you still get the protection money and funds from shakedowns, right?
Well duuuh! We also get 10% of any tickets we write and $2.50 per arrest we make. :huh: Doesn't help the insurance issues though.
Quote from: rohan on September 10, 2012, 06:31:26 PM
Well duuuh! We also get 10% of any tickets we write and $2.50 per arrest we make. :huh: Doesn't help the insurance issues though.
:lol:
Good to see a sense of humor.
Quote from: rohan on September 10, 2012, 06:31:26 PMWell duuuh! We also get 10% of any tickets we write and $2.50 per arrest we make. :huh: Doesn't help the insurance issues though.
You guys need to renegotiate that in your contract. We get 15% and our pay scale depends on the level of offense...I bought my new house on money for felony arrests!
Quote from: bing_oh on September 10, 2012, 09:18:14 PM
You guys need to renegotiate that in your contract. We get 15% and our pay scale depends on the level of offense...I bought my new house on money for felony arrests!
must be union....
Quote from: bing_oh on September 10, 2012, 09:18:14 PM
You guys need to renegotiate that in your contract. We get 15% and our pay scale depends on the level of offense...I bought my new house on money for felony arrests!
Ha, there actually was a local police chief around here back in the day who held contests over who could make the highest number of arrests during a warrant sweep. Quite the character. He's long retired now, but he taught at my college and I took a couple of his classes. Lots of good stories.
Quote from: TurboDan on September 11, 2012, 12:05:29 AMHa, there actually was a local police chief around here back in the day who held contests over who could make the highest number of arrests during a warrant sweep. Quite the character. He's long retired now, but he taught at my college and I took a couple of his classes. Lots of good stories.
Reminds me of a time when one of my former departments had two new officers in field training at the same time, one with me, the other with another field training officer. Each year, we had a "picnic" (read "drunkfest"). So, the sgt. made it a competition who could get the most GOOD arrests (cheap pinches were verbotten!) during the course of the picnic. It was a good motivator for the two young guys, who were learning by doing, and encouraged things like contact with people (which is frequently a sticking point for new, inexperienced officers) and observation skills. There wasn't any "reward" beyond bragging rights, but it did motivate.
Insinuating that there are "bad" arrests?
Quote from: r0tor on September 11, 2012, 09:46:31 AMInsinuating that there are "bad" arrests?
Of course there's such a thing as a bad arrest. Cops are human. They make mistakes. There are also bad apples (though significantly fewer than some people would like to believe). I've never implied otherwise, let alone actually said so.
Quote from: bing_oh on September 11, 2012, 11:26:09 AM
Of course there's such a thing as a bad arrest. Cops are human. They make mistakes. There are also bad apples (though significantly fewer than some people would like to believe). I've never implied otherwise, let alone actually said so.
They're all bad apples. It's only a few that are rotten to the core, though. ;)
Quote from: Raza on September 11, 2012, 11:48:15 AMThey're all bad apples. It's only a few that are rotten to the core, though. ;)
Not my fault you don't like apples, Raza (and, as an extention, you also don't like mother's apple pie...
YOU DAMN DIRTY COMMUNIST HEATHEN!!! :rage: :lol:). Besides, I'm just as aspect of your personality made manifest, remember? So, which part of yourself do you hate? Hmmm...
I'm not going to dig through this entire thread again so i don't know if someone has asked since I last read it, but, to the board LEO's, if you bait someone into spending or whatever because you think something else might be going on do you let them off if you find that you were mistaken?
Quote from: TBR on September 16, 2012, 08:15:45 AMI'm not going to dig through this entire thread again so i don't know if someone has asked since I last read it, but, to the board LEO's, if you bait someone into spending or whatever because you think something else might be going on do you let them off if you find that you were mistaken?
How do you bait someone into speeding?
Quote from: bing_oh on September 16, 2012, 01:18:37 PM
How do you bait someone into speeding?
Spending, he said. :lol:
A buy 1 get 1 free sale?
Quote from: bing_oh on September 16, 2012, 01:18:37 PM
How do you bait someone into speeding?
Is that not one of the justifications I saw for a LEO tailgating?
Quote from: TBR on September 16, 2012, 08:43:54 PM
Is that not one of the justifications I saw for a LEO tailgating?
Oops.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on September 16, 2012, 05:33:20 PM
A buy 1 get 1 free sale?
free donut with a purchase of coffee
Quote from: TBR on September 16, 2012, 08:43:54 PMIs that not one of the justifications I saw for a LEO tailgating?
Not one that I gave...not even one of the smartass less-than serious ones. :huh:
In response to your original question, the answer is much like many answers in LE...it depends on the circumstances.
Quote from: bing_oh on September 17, 2012, 01:06:51 PM
Not one that I gave...not even one of the smartass less-than serious ones. :huh:
Pretty sure it was.
Quote from: bing_oh on September 01, 2012, 02:54:21 PM
There's nothing "cynical" about it...there are various tactics used to "encourage" a violation, usually as a pretext for a stop and contact. Drunks in particular respond to certain driving habits of the vehicles around them. Also, it's not unusual for me to get a bit closer to a vehicle to look for various things like the license plate expiration sticker.
Realize than an officer needs reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle. I can't stop a vehicle just because I think it's "suspicious," for example...I still need that violation. Driving behind someone for a period of time, maybe a little closer than usual, will frequently make them nervous enough to commit at least a small violation if I think they're up to no good and want a closer look.
Quote from: bing_oh on September 01, 2012, 03:01:09 PM
He was on his way to a call that needed a rapid, but not emergency, response.
He was on his way to lunch and his girlfriend was gonna give him a zipper fuck.
He needed to take a major dump and you wouldn't get out of his frickin' way.
He was trying to make you paranoid enough to commit a violation because he thought you were a dirtbag.
His department has budget cuts and he was drafting to improve fuel economy.
He was bored and just felt like screwing with you.
Quote from: Tave on September 24, 2012, 10:12:32 AMPretty sure it was.
I didn't say speeding, I said a violation.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 03, 2012, 04:50:17 PM
I didn't say speeding, I said a violation.
Is speeding not a traffic violation? And is it not a predictable response to tailgating?
Regardless, "encouraging" people to commit potentially dangerous violations by committing a potentially dangerous violation yourself seems like an all-around shitty way to go about enforcing traffic safety. I get how it might lead to a successful fishing expedition, but it's the kind of underhanded, disingenuous tactic that causes people to lose respect for law enforcement in the first place.
Quote from: Tave on October 04, 2012, 10:53:37 AMIs speeding not a traffic violation? And is it not a predictable response to tailgating?
Speeding is a violation, but not all violations are speeding. Your logic is unsound. It's also not a predictable response for the normal driver when the vehicle behind them is a marked police car.
QuoteRegardless, "encouraging" people to commit potentially dangerous violations by committing a potentially dangerous violation yourself seems like an all-around shitty way to go about enforcing traffic safety. I get how it might lead to a successful fishing expedition, but it's the kind of underhanded, disingenuous tactic that causes people to lose respect for law enforcement in the first place.
Most "encouraged" violations are minor. Minor lane violations, no turn signal, etc. You make it sound like it's encouraging people to do donuts in the middle of a crowded school playground. In short, you're being overly dramatic about a LE tactic that few people understand or even recognize is being used, but that tends to get very good results in catching some of the most dangerous violators like DUI's.
If a dui driver is seriously dangerous, it would be fairly obvious without needing to use any tactics
Eh, not really...
Quote from: r0tor on October 04, 2012, 06:12:43 PMIf a dui driver is seriously dangerous, it would be fairly obvious without needing to use any tactics
So, you're saying that a DUI driver who doesn't show indicators that are "fairly obvious" in the brief time they're observed by a LEO aren't dangerous and should be left to go about their business?
Quote from: bing_oh on October 04, 2012, 09:24:13 PM
So, you're saying that a DUI driver who doesn't show indicators that are "fairly obvious" in the brief time they're observed by a LEO aren't dangerous and should be left to go about their business?
I hate to say it, but yes. If someone is driving in an unsafe manner, they should be checked out. Barring that, I'm not particularly comfortable with "encouraging" violations for the purpose of conducting a fishing expedition when there's no evidence to suggest the driver is intoxicated.
I get WHY the tactics work and I do understand how the results may not necessarily be BAD, but you have to understand how it leaves a bad taste in the collective mouth of the public. It also makes police officers look like unprofessionals who are playing fast and loose with the law based on hunches.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 04, 2012, 01:49:43 PM
Speeding is a violation, but not all violations are speeding. Your logic is unsound.
That's not my logic. Obviously the word "violations" is plural and could encompass any number of traffic infractions.
QuoteIt's also not a predictable response for the normal driver when the vehicle behind them is a marked police car.
What if it's nighttime and they can't tell it's a police car?
QuoteMost "encouraged" violations are minor. Minor lane violations, no turn signal, etc. You make it sound like it's encouraging people to do donuts in the middle of a crowded school playground. In short, you're being overly dramatic about a LE tactic that few people understand or even recognize is being used, but that tends to get very good results in catching some of the most dangerous violators like DUI's.
"Few people understand?" Ah c'mon man, give us some credit, it's not rocket science. We're a fairly intelligent group of guys here, I think we all understand what you're doing and why.
They may be "minor" but they're violations for a reason. Turning without signaling can be very dangerous. Not to mention tailgating itself is dangerous and against the law in the first place. What happens if the person needs to stop suddenly?
Quote from: TurboDan on October 04, 2012, 11:35:23 PMI hate to say it, but yes. If someone is driving in an unsafe manner, they should be checked out. Barring that, I'm not particularly comfortable with "encouraging" violations for the purpose of conducting a fishing expedition when there's no evidence to suggest the driver is intoxicated.
I get WHY the tactics work and I do understand how the results may not necessarily be BAD, but you have to understand how it leaves a bad taste in the collective mouth of the public. It also makes police officers look like unprofessionals who are playing fast and loose with the law based on hunches.
I wonder if most people realize how many DUI's come from minor traffic violations not normally associated with DUI indicators. Many times, only the extremely high testers show what an untrained civilian would consider driving indicative of a DUI...and, sometimes not even then if the drunk is a particularly experienced one or, God forbid, a career alcoholic. After 13 years on patrol, with probably more than half of that on midnight shift, I think it's a little blase to call the indicators I see that indicated DUI to me as simple "hunches." There are countless such indicators, but many of them are not violations for which I can stop. It's that small violation that gets that vehicle stopped and me at the window talking to the driver that gets a DUI off of the road. If people have a problem with me making a stop on that small violation, fine...you're welcome to your opinion. Even if that violation is "encouraged" (and, note that I NEVER said or advocated than an officer violate the law to "encourage" a violation, and I especially never advocated legal entrapment), it's a valid tactic and totally and legally justified.
Quote from: Tave on October 05, 2012, 05:03:38 AMThat's not my logic. Obviously the word "violations" is plural and could encompass any number of traffic infractions.
What if it's nighttime and they can't tell it's a police car?
"Few people understand?" Ah c'mon man, give us some credit, it's not rocket science. We're a fairly intelligent group of guys here, I think we all understand what you're doing and why.
They may be "minor" but they're violations for a reason. Turning without signaling can be very dangerous. Not to mention tailgating itself is dangerous and against the law in the first place. What happens if the person needs to stop suddenly?
I can't think of a single instance where I got someone to speed by travelling closer than normal behind them. I can think of plenty of lane violations and no turn signals, but not a single speed. In fact, most of the time, people tend to slow down when I'm behind them. Let's not pretend that most people can't tell it's a cop behind them. After all, it's not rocket science and you're a pretty intelligent group of guys, right? ;)
As for the legality of tailgating and the need for someone to stop suddenly, if I'm travelling so close behind someone that I slam into them when they brake, then I'm in violation of Assured Clear Distance in Ohio and would get not just a ticket but at least a write-up from my department. I would never ride behind someone so close as to be unable to stop in a safe distance. There's a big difference between trailing someone in search of a violation and riding in their trunk.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 04, 2012, 09:24:13 PM
So, you're saying that a DUI driver who doesn't show indicators that are "fairly obvious" in the brief time they're observed by a LEO aren't dangerous and should be left to go about their business?
Contrary to police training and lawmaking, a dangerous level of alcohol to be driving does not always correspond to the set limit. Each body reacts different. A driver over the limit can be significantly more in control then a person under the limit depending on their body and mindset. Therefore, yea it should be fairly obvious if a person is actually dangerous or not...
Quote from: bing_oh on October 05, 2012, 07:01:13 AM
I can't think of a single instance where I got someone to speed by travelling closer than normal behind them. I can think of plenty of lane violations and no turn signals, but not a single speed. In fact, most of the time, people tend to slow down when I'm behind them. Let's not pretend that most people can't tell it's a cop behind them. After all, it's not rocket science and you're a pretty intelligent group of guys, right? ;)
As for the legality of tailgating and the need for someone to stop suddenly, if I'm travelling so close behind someone that I slam into them when they brake, then I'm in violation of Assured Clear Distance in Ohio and would get not just a ticket but at least a write-up from my department. I would never ride behind someone so close as to be unable to stop in a safe distance. There's a big difference between trailing someone in search of a violation and riding in their trunk.
In my personal favorite case one night after a cop ended up following me out of the bar, I did speed up because the assist cops headlights were blinding the shit out of me following so close. Then he went on his unsuccessful fishing expedition.
Quote from: r0tor on October 05, 2012, 07:00:17 PMContrary to police training and lawmaking, a dangerous level of alcohol to be driving does not always correspond to the set limit. Each body reacts different. A driver over the limit can be significantly more in control then a person under the limit depending on their body and mindset. Therefore, yea it should be fairly obvious if a person is actually dangerous or not...
So, you want to eliminate per se limits, either making the law nearly unenforceable because it would rely upon the personal opinion of "safe" being the same for a LEO, a judge, and 12 average citizens on a jury, and/or you want to give LEO's carte blanch and the law unevenly enforced in DUI by basing it only the LEO's opinion of "safe." Neither is a winning scenario. Despite youre belief, it's not always "fair obvious if a person is actually dangerous or not" by a limited sample of their driving. A drunk driver might do perfectly well down a flat, straight road, but screw up royally when they reach a busy intersection or an obstacle in their path. That's the biological nature of alcohol on the human body...it negatively effects reaction time, observation skills, and the ability of multitask (which is also the basis of the standardized field tests that detect intoxication), all of which are required to safely operate a motor vehicle.
BTW, have you ever drank right to a .08? I have, several times in training. People try to say that .08 is too low but I can tell you that .08 is flat-out drunk. I'm amazed by people who decide to drive at the legal limit, let alone at double or even more over the legal limit.
Quote from: r0tor on October 05, 2012, 07:03:10 PMIn my personal favorite case one night after a cop ended up following me out of the bar, I did speed up because the assist cops headlights were blinding the shit out of me following so close. Then he went on his unsuccessful fishing expedition.
So, you don't like that a cop followed you home from a bar. :huh:
I think people don't like "the number" because there is no way to really know if you've reached it. The difference between .079 and .08 could cost someone their license, job, thousands of dollars and potentially ruin their life.
With speeding for example, there's a posted limit, you have a speedometer in front of you, and if you go faster than the number on the sign, you know it and accept the risk. Alcohol isn't an exact science. A guy drinking a Bud Light isn't going to reach .08 after two beers, but what if I was drinking a Sam Adams IPA? Am I OK? I feel fine, but what would the number in the chemical test read out? What's the alcohol content of one mixed drink compared to another? What if I have a beer and then a rum and coke? I think if there was some way of knowing you were over the limit, it would seem like the entire exercise of DUI enforcement was more fair because people would have the opportunity to verify their compliance or noncompliance with the limit.
That's not really something in the purview of police officers, but I think it is the root cause of why people think DUI enforcement is unfair.
Bing -- I have no preconceived notions on this, so maybe you could share: Anecdotally, would you say most people you arrest for DUI are significantly over the limit or minimally over the limit? What's the ratio of one to the other, you think? Or is it about even?
I think the DUI laws are pretty cut and dry. If you're really concerned about legality, get a breathalyzer. Otherwise, always err on the side of caution and just don't drink right before you know you've got to drive.
Quote from: thecarnut on October 05, 2012, 11:02:37 PM
I think the DUI laws are pretty cut and dry. If you're really concerned about legality, get a breathalyzer. Otherwise, always err on the side of caution and just don't drink right before you know you've got to drive.
Precisely; subjective law is fodder for tyrants. Scientific study to conclusively conclude the effect of alcohol on each individual at the time of suspected infraction is unrealistic.
Quote from: TurboDan on October 05, 2012, 09:37:06 PM
I think people don't like "the number" because there is no way to really know if you've reached it. The difference between .079 and .08 could cost someone their license, job, thousands of dollars and potentially ruin their life.
With speeding for example, there's a posted limit, you have a speedometer in front of you, and if you go faster than the number on the sign, you know it and accept the risk. Alcohol isn't an exact science. A guy drinking a Bud Light isn't going to reach .08 after two beers, but what if I was drinking a Sam Adams IPA? Am I OK? I feel fine, but what would the number in the chemical test read out? What's the alcohol content of one mixed drink compared to another? What if I have a beer and then a rum and coke? I think if there was some way of knowing you were over the limit, it would seem like the entire exercise of DUI enforcement was more fair because people would have the opportunity to verify their compliance or noncompliance with the limit.
That's not really something in the purview of police officers, but I think it is the root cause of why people think DUI enforcement is unfair.
Bing -- I have no preconceived notions on this, so maybe you could share: Anecdotally, would you say most people you arrest for DUI are significantly over the limit or minimally over the limit? What's the ratio of one to the other, you think? Or is it about even?
Dan, that's a little lame. I find it hard to swallow the notion that DUI enforcement isn't "fair." I'm not sure what would be considered "fair" enforcement. DUI is an inherently dangerous offense, and the problem is that when people have had too much to drink, that's precisely the time when they're least able to make a fair judgment of their ability to drive. If somebody is going out drinking and intends to drive home, he should know how many drinks, approximately, it would take to put him over the limit. That's really the only way. I don't see how an arbitrary standard can be applied.
Quote from: TurboDan on October 05, 2012, 09:37:06 PMI think people don't like "the number" because there is no way to really know if you've reached it. The difference between .079 and .08 could cost someone their license, job, thousands of dollars and potentially ruin their life.
With speeding for example, there's a posted limit, you have a speedometer in front of you, and if you go faster than the number on the sign, you know it and accept the risk. Alcohol isn't an exact science. A guy drinking a Bud Light isn't going to reach .08 after two beers, but what if I was drinking a Sam Adams IPA? Am I OK? I feel fine, but what would the number in the chemical test read out? What's the alcohol content of one mixed drink compared to another? What if I have a beer and then a rum and coke? I think if there was some way of knowing you were over the limit, it would seem like the entire exercise of DUI enforcement was more fair because people would have the opportunity to verify their compliance or noncompliance with the limit.
That's not really something in the purview of police officers, but I think it is the root cause of why people think DUI enforcement is unfair.
Bing -- I have no preconceived notions on this, so maybe you could share: Anecdotally, would you say most people you arrest for DUI are significantly over the limit or minimally over the limit? What's the ratio of one to the other, you think? Or is it about even?
On average, one drink has about the same alcohol content as another. A beer has about the same alcohol content as a mixed drink or a glass of wine. There are slight variances, but nothing significant and nothing that would effect this conversation.
The simplest solution to your perceived problem is this...if you're going to drink, don't drive. If you're really that concerned about it, then why take the risk? I won't drive if I'm going to drink more than two beers. I know for a fact that two beers won'd put me anywhere near the legal limit, especially if I'm eating, but it's a simply enough rule for me. I'm unwilling to take the risk, not the risk of a citation/arrest and certainly not the risk of hurting or killing someone else on the road because I wasn't responsible enough to not drink and drive. If you don't know your limit, with absolute certainty, then it's irresponsible to take such a risk when the only reward is to have a few drinks.
As for your question, it's impossible for me to say. I arrest people close to the limit, way over the limit, and in between. The "squeakers" very near the limit are, realistically, probably more rare than most. Most DUI's we arrest are probably .10+. "Super" DUI's (.17+ under Ohio law) aren't as common, either. Most fall somewhere in between and their intoxication is generally pretty evident when you speak to them...even for an untrained observer.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 05, 2012, 09:29:11 PM
So, you don't like that a cop followed you home from a bar. :huh:
Does anybody?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 06, 2012, 05:57:10 PMDoes anybody?
I guess if you're drunk you have something to worry about. Otherwise, meh.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 06, 2012, 05:57:10 PM
Does anybody?
Maybe a hot female cop who wants to blow me like in a gazillion porn movies. Yes.
I think most of the people who think the .08 limit and DUI enforcement are unfair are more likely than most of the rest of us to be D-ing UI in the first place. ;)
Last time I checked, .08 is straight-up drunk for most non-fatasses.
Which is not to say I like cops "encouraging" violations. That's BS.
I'm in favor of super-strict DUI penalties.
About 6-7 years ago alcohol checks on weekend nights - starting Thursdays started being set randomly by police at night around the city. Penalty for DUI is a non-commutable 36 hour arrest. These have been famously effective and incorruptible (a first for Mexico) with politicians, stars and millionaires routinely getting caught and unable to weasel out.
Drunk driving and accidents are down and a cultural shift ensued where many people will take cabs to party and get drunk. You don't want to spend 36 hours in a mexican jail. Although for this they use probably the nicest holding facility in the country - it still sucks big time to be locked up with many other drunks, I know a lot of very close friends - including my current GF's sister who have been arrested. We've had people not show up at work on a Monday because they were locked up Sunday morning.
Quote from: Rupert on October 06, 2012, 09:58:48 PM
I think most of the people who think the .08 limit and DUI enforcement are unfair are more likely than most of the rest of us to be D-ing UI in the first place. ;)
Last time I checked, .08 is straight-up drunk for most non-fatasses.
Which is not to say I like cops "encouraging" violations. That's BS.
I don't think many people know what .08 feels like, though. I'll admit that I don't. I've never taken a breath test so I couldn't tell you what number corresponds to what type of "feeling" someone has. Honestly I would
like to know. For example, Bing talked about doing tests for his department where you get to a certain level, test and observe feelings and behavior. I'd love to be able to participate in such a test in a controlled and safe setting as a member of the public. I might mention something like this to my town's police chief. Maybe since I'm a member of the press (and he knows me pretty well) he'd be cool with setting something up as an example for an article, or something.
Personally, I'm paranoid about drunk driving. I never want to take even the slightest chance with it. It honestly stuns me how some of my friends don't think it's a big deal to drive home after how much they drink sometimes.
Quote from: TurboDan on October 06, 2012, 11:48:47 PMI don't think many people know what .08 feels like, though. I'll admit that I don't. I've never taken a breath test so I couldn't tell you what number corresponds to what type of "feeling" someone has. Honestly I would like to know. For example, Bing talked about doing tests for his department where you get to a certain level, test and observe feelings and behavior. I'd love to be able to participate in such a test in a controlled and safe setting as a member of the public. I might mention something like this to my town's police chief. Maybe since I'm a member of the press (and he knows me pretty well) he'd be cool with setting something up as an example for an article, or something.
Personally, I'm paranoid about drunk driving. I never want to take even the slightest chance with it. It honestly stuns me how some of my friends don't think it's a big deal to drive home after how much they drink sometimes.
I actually think it's a horrible idea for members of the general public to think they know what a .08 feels like. Unfortunately, I think far too many people would try to use that to gauge where they are and get as close to it as they feel is possible and still drive. As I said, having been at the .08 limit, I would never consider driving at that point...I'm legitimately drunk at .08 and being just under that limit wouldn't be any safer, even if it
is under the per se level. Better that people err severely on the side of caution when it comes to consuming before getting behind the wheel, IMHO. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't drive after more than two beers, even though I know I'd be well under the legal limit...that's a very smart way for anyone to deal with the issue, as opposed to the public thinking they "know" what a .08 feels like and thinking they can have "just one more" because they don't "feel" like they're there yet. In the end, I simply think that could give an already intoxicated person with impaired judgement a sense that they're driving legally and safely when they probably aren't, undermining the ongoing (and increasingly successful) effort we're putting into deterring DUI's and encouraging DD's.
Quote from: r0tor on October 05, 2012, 07:00:17 PM
Contrary to police training and lawmaking, a dangerous level of alcohol to be driving does not always correspond to the set limit. Each body reacts different. A driver over the limit can be significantly more in control then a person under the limit depending on their body and mindset. Therefore, yea it should be fairly obvious if a person is actually dangerous or not...
You have no idea what police training consists of on virtually any level let alone drunk driving enforcement. Not to mention a driver "over the limit" will never have as much control as he/she would have while being under the limit. Physiological responses aren't voluntary and you can't overcome the lack of judgment and response times not to mention the influenced ability to calculate responses to perceived dangers. It's way more then "I feel like I'm fine". If you have to ask yourself if you feel ok enough to drive you probably aren't.
The Dangers of Impaired Driving
Driving Skills Can Deteriorate Quickly If You Are Drinking
By Buddy T, About.com Guide
Updated September 28, 2012
About.com Health's Disease and Condition content is reviewed by the Medical Review Board
If you have only had a couple of drinks and are far from being legally intoxicated, it still probably is a good idea not to be driving a vehicle. Your driving can become impaired long before you reach the intoxication level.
All 50 states have passed laws (in fairness this was required by the federal government to continue receiving federal highway moneis) that set the legal limit for driving while intoxicated at a blood alcohol concentration of .08. The problem is your ability to react and perform, -- and therefore drive safely -- can become affected long before you reach the level for legal intoxication.
Most people think they can drive after having a couple of drinks, but tests show that even small amounts of alcohol can affect you physically and your driving skills.
At the .02 BAC Level
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), these are the typical effects felt at the .02 BAC level, or after one drink for women and two drinks for men:
?Some loss of judgment
?Relaxation
?Slight body warmth
?Altered mood
?Decline in visual functions (rapid tracking of a moving target)
?Decline in ability to perform two tasks at the same time (divided attention)
read the rest here:
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/dui/a/driving.htm
Quote from: bing_oh on October 05, 2012, 09:29:11 PM
BTW, have you ever drank right to a .08? I have, several times in training. People try to say that .08 is too low but I can tell you that .08 is flat-out drunk. I'm amazed by people who decide to drive at the legal limit, let alone at double or even more over the legal limit.
I actually disagree and I think the .08% law is too low and obviously so do many officers nationwide since OWI/OUIL/DUI/whatever have dropped sharply since it came into effect. We're also seeing an alarming rise in "super-drunk" (which is a retarded money grab law) drivers. For many years OUIL was .13% and when people started following the law it was lowered to 0.10% and then when it became harder to get drivers at that level it was again lowered to .08%. It's punitive law making. I've done the .08 test and I only failed one of the 5 tests they gave me (HGN and then it was only a slight deviation) and then did the walk and turn perfectly without any trouble. At 0.10% I failed miserably.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 06, 2012, 09:18:23 PM
I guess if you're drunk you have something to worry about. Otherwise, meh.
Whether I'm drunk or not, or whether or not I have anything to worry about, being stopped is still a hassle I'd rather not deal with; and having a cop on my tail apparently looking for a reason to stop me is an annoyance.
My point is: there aren't many scenarios (outside M3's porn movie fantasies) where getting undue attention from you guys is cause for happiness.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 07, 2012, 02:50:00 PM
Whether I'm drunk or not, or whether or not I have anything to worry about, being stopped is still a hassle I'd rather not deal with; and having a cop on my tail apparently looking for a reason to stop me is an annoyance.
My point is: there aren't many scenarios (outside M3's porn movie fantasies) where getting undue attention from you guys is cause for happiness.
Man, I was praying to get a cop's attention when I was doing 65 mph in a 30 mph road while being chased by some thugs in a black S-Class at night on the way to school. :mask:
Quote from: thecarnut on October 07, 2012, 03:14:07 PM
Man, I was praying to get a cop's attention when I was doing 65 mph in a 30 mph road while being chased by some thugs in a black S-Class at night on the way to school. :mask:
Most likely scenario in that case?
You'd get pulled over, tell the cop what was going on, and he wouldn't believe you. You'd get a ticket for reckless endangerment and probably get the car impounded for good measure.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 07, 2012, 03:21:42 PM
Most likely scenario in that case?
You'd get pulled over, tell the cop what was going on, and he wouldn't believe you. You'd get a ticket for reckless endangerment and probably get the car impounded for good measure.
Wouldn't he see the second car behind me doing the same speed?
Anyways, from the amount of bricks I was shitting, getting a ticket and the car impounded seems like it would've been a better option. :lol:
Quote from: thecarnut on October 07, 2012, 03:24:28 PM
Wouldn't he see the second car behind me doing the same speed?
Anyways, from the amount of bricks I was shitting, getting a ticket and the car impounded seems like it would've been a better option. :lol:
Maybe. maybe not- but he'd likely pull you over first, and since they get lied to everyday all the time, he'd likely not believe you anyways.
But yeah, it might still be the best option.
I'm not saying those guys aren't without their uses...
Quote from: rohan on October 07, 2012, 07:46:45 AM
You have no idea what police training consists of on virtually any level let alone drunk driving enforcement. Not to mention a driver "over the limit" will never have as much control as he/she would have while being under the limit. Physiological responses aren't voluntary and you can't overcome the lack of judgment and response times not to mention the influenced ability to calculate responses to perceived dangers. It's way more then "I feel like I'm fine". If you have to ask yourself if you feel ok enough to drive you probably aren't.
The Dangers of Impaired Driving
Driving Skills Can Deteriorate Quickly If You Are Drinking
By Buddy T, About.com Guide
Updated September 28, 2012
About.com Health's Disease and Condition content is reviewed by the Medical Review Board
If you have only had a couple of drinks and are far from being legally intoxicated, it still probably is a good idea not to be driving a vehicle. Your driving can become impaired long before you reach the intoxication level.
All 50 states have passed laws (in fairness this was required by the federal government to continue receiving federal highway moneis) that set the legal limit for driving while intoxicated at a blood alcohol concentration of .08. The problem is your ability to react and perform, -- and therefore drive safely -- can become affected long before you reach the level for legal intoxication.
Most people think they can drive after having a couple of drinks, but tests show that even small amounts of alcohol can affect you physically and your driving skills.
At the .02 BAC Level
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), these are the typical effects felt at the .02 BAC level, or after one drink for women and two drinks for men:
?Some loss of judgment
?Relaxation
?Slight body warmth
?Altered mood
?Decline in visual functions (rapid tracking of a moving target)
?Decline in ability to perform two tasks at the same time (divided attention)
read the rest here:
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/dui/a/driving.htm
General mood, levels of rest, and levels of distraction can cause worse driving then a .02 BAC
Quote from: bing_oh on October 05, 2012, 09:29:11 PM
So, you want to eliminate per se limits, either making the law nearly unenforceable because it would rely upon the personal opinion of "safe" being the same for a LEO, a judge, and 12 average citizens on a jury, and/or you want to give LEO's carte blanch and the law unevenly enforced in DUI by basing it only the LEO's opinion of "safe." Neither is a winning scenario. Despite youre belief, it's not always "fair obvious if a person is actually dangerous or not" by a limited sample of their driving. A drunk driver might do perfectly well down a flat, straight road, but screw up royally when they reach a busy intersection or an obstacle in their path. That's the biological nature of alcohol on the human body...it negatively effects reaction time, observation skills, and the ability of multitask (which is also the basis of the standardized field tests that detect intoxication), all of which are required to safely operate a motor vehicle.
BTW, have you ever drank right to a .08? I have, several times in training. People try to say that .08 is too low but I can tell you that .08 is flat-out drunk. I'm amazed by people who decide to drive at the legal limit, let alone at double or even more over the legal limit.
So, you don't like that a cop followed you home from a bar. :huh:
You have cameras mounted on your car that would capture dangerous driving. All the real drunks avoid roads cops are known to sit on.
Frankly, if I everleave a bar again and I have someone follow me and then tailgate me, I am calling the police on the police.
0.08% is fine to have as the strict legal limit. I do recognize however the most of the problem with DUI is alcoholics with sky high BAC.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 07, 2012, 08:18:36 PM
0.08% is fine to have as the strict legal limit. I do recognize however the most of the problem with DUI is alcoholics with sky high BAC.
I agree. The social drinker who maybe unknowingly brushes up against the limit and is careful about it is much less dangerous than a reckless alcoholic with a high BAC who has a total disregard for others on the road.
Quote from: dazzleman on October 07, 2012, 08:23:21 PM
I agree. The social drinker who maybe unknowingly brushes up against the limit and is careful about it is much less dangerous than a reckless alcoholic with a high BAC who has a total disregard for others on the road.
For that reason, I think the .10 limit was more reasonable.
At the very least, I think levels between .08 and .10 should be a lesser charge with no loss of license required.
Yeah, that's what our country needs. Less stringent DUI laws.
Quote from: hotrodalex on October 08, 2012, 01:09:21 AM
Yeah, that's what our country needs. Less stringent DUI laws.
At a certain point, increasing restrictions have more negative effects than positive ones. I think we're near that point on DUI now, if not past it.
Quote from: TurboDan on October 05, 2012, 09:37:06 PM
I think people don't like "the number" because there is no way to really know if you've reached it. The difference between .079 and .08 could cost someone their license, job, thousands of dollars and potentially ruin their life.
With speeding for example, there's a posted limit, you have a speedometer in front of you, and if you go faster than the number on the sign, you know it and accept the risk. Alcohol isn't an exact science. A guy drinking a Bud Light isn't going to reach .08 after two beers, but what if I was drinking a Sam Adams IPA? Am I OK? I feel fine, but what would the number in the chemical test read out? What's the alcohol content of one mixed drink compared to another? What if I have a beer and then a rum and coke? I think if there was some way of knowing you were over the limit, it would seem like the entire exercise of DUI enforcement was more fair because people would have the opportunity to verify their compliance or noncompliance with the limit.
That's not really something in the purview of police officers, but I think it is the root cause of why people think DUI enforcement is unfair.
Bing -- I have no preconceived notions on this, so maybe you could share: Anecdotally, would you say most people you arrest for DUI are significantly over the limit or minimally over the limit? What's the ratio of one to the other, you think? Or is it about even?
Frankly, I think the number should be lower and penalties harsher. But if you're worried at all, buy a breathalyzer.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 08, 2012, 01:11:35 AM
At a certain point, increasing restrictions have more negative effects than positive ones. I think we're near that point on DUI now, if not past it.
How so? I watch on a near weekly basis as people who have no business driving get into their cars and drive away. And if there's a sports game? Forget it. Stay off the roads until an hour after it finishes, because everyone driving is goddamn drunk. I don't understand the disconnect. These are two things that do not mix. Do one or the other, do not do both. I don't see how relaxing the laws would make the situation any better.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 08, 2012, 01:11:35 AMAt a certain point, increasing restrictions have more negative effects than positive ones. I think we're near that point on DUI now, if not past it.
Actually, if you look at countries like Germany where alcohol restrictions in general are much more lenient but DUI penalties are considerably harsher than here in the US, you see a dramatic decrease in the number of DUI's. As our German friends on here how common DUI's are in their country...
Quote from: TurboDan on October 08, 2012, 12:12:15 AM
For that reason, I think the .10 limit was more reasonable.
At the very least, I think levels between .08 and .10 should be a lesser charge with no loss of license required.
Seriously? There would be so many more people thinking it's OK to drive because all they will get is a ticket. If you get caught at a .09, you should get your license suspended.
I agree with Raza, having more strict DUI laws is something I'd support.
Quote from: thecarnut on October 08, 2012, 10:00:37 AM
Seriously? There would be so many more people thinking it's OK to drive because all they will get is a ticket. If you get caught at a .09, you should get your license suspended.
I agree with Raza, having more strict DUI laws is something I'd support.
Why? Until a few years ago when lobbyists from MADD paid off politicians to do their bidding, .09 was perfectly legal.
Lowering the limit to .08 had zero to do with anything other than one lobbying group funding enough campaigns to build up enough influence to get a law changed. You might defend the .08, but the same group is now gunning for .02. Hope you never plan on having a glass of wine with dinner again in your life. ;)
Quote from: Raza on October 08, 2012, 07:12:05 AM
How so? I watch on a near weekly basis as people who have no business driving get into their cars and drive away. And if there's a sports game? Forget it. Stay off the roads until an hour after it finishes, because everyone driving is goddamn drunk. I don't understand the disconnect. These are two things that do not mix. Do one or the other, do not do both. I don't see how relaxing the laws would make the situation any better.
The question here is: would those people have also been breaking the law under the older, higher limits? I'm going to go ahead and say yes. My point is that tightening the law doesn't make anything better, but it does make a certain portion of formerly law abiding people lawbreakers.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 08, 2012, 09:28:38 AM
Actually, if you look at countries like Germany where alcohol restrictions in general are much more lenient but DUI penalties are considerably harsher than here in the US, you see a dramatic decrease in the number of DUI's. As our German friends on here how common DUI's are in their country...
I'm always leery about using other countries with considerably different cultures as arguments for what we should do here.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 08, 2012, 09:28:38 AM
Actually, if you look at countries like Germany where alcohol restrictions in general are much more lenient but DUI penalties are considerably harsher than here in the US, you see a dramatic decrease in the number of DUI's. As our German friends on here how common DUI's are in their country...
I have long advocated this, with respect to DUI and speed laws.
We have this tendency, when we have a perceived problem, to lower the bar on what is illegal, but still maintain weak to non-existent penalties for breaking the law.
The most dangerous drivers are not the people who are bumping up against the limit and aware of their need to be careful, but those who are way beyond the limit and couldn't care less. And the penalties for those people are way too lenient, allowing them to continue to disregard the safety of others even being caught multiple times.
I favor having a limit that is at a level that is truly a danger, and then having very strict penalties for those who violate it.
Quote from: r0tor on October 07, 2012, 04:05:34 PM
General mood, levels of rest, and levels of distraction can cause worse driving then a .02 BAC
I was only quoting the first part of an entire article to not clog up the thread. ;)
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 08, 2012, 06:19:50 PM
The question here is: would those people have also been breaking the law under the older, higher limits? I'm going to go ahead and say yes. My point is that tightening the law doesn't make anything better, but it does make a certain portion of formerly law abiding people lawbreakers.
And my argument would be that they didn't tighten them enough.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 08, 2012, 09:28:38 AM
Actually, if you look at countries like Germany where alcohol restrictions in general are much more lenient but DUI penalties are considerably harsher than here in the US, you see a dramatic decrease in the number of DUI's. As our German friends on here how common DUI's are in their country...
Ask our German friends about the geographical characteristics of Germany, the civic planning in German cities, the frequency of foot vs car travel in a typical German day, and the role of public transportation in German life.
If Germany was 25 times its current size in terms of land area and built around personal automobile transportation, my guess is they would have a much larger DUI problem regardless of the severity of DUI punishments. I can give you endless examples of US bars that are located miles away from a residential neighborhood and aren't serviced by a cab company. How do patrons visit those bars?
Quote from: r0tor on October 07, 2012, 04:05:34 PM
General mood, levels of rest, and levels of distraction can cause worse driving then a .02 BAC
Which is why it's a good thing that the limit isn't .02. ;)
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 08, 2012, 01:11:35 AM
At a certain point, increasing restrictions have more negative effects than positive ones. I think we're near that point on DUI now, if not past it.
I'm OK with the .08 limit, but I do think the first-time penalties can be a bit harsh in some places. I would support a lesser penalty for first-timers, a very strict penalty for second offense, and permanent license suspension and jail time for third offense. Also a two- or three-tiered BAC-penalty system. This is based on my understanding that a lot of DUIs are repeats, and the biggest actual problems (i.e. not number of arrests, but number of accidents, etc.) are with people who drastically exceed the limit, and especially routinely drastically exceed the limit. Alcohol treatments of some kind should also be a part of this, especially for repeats.
Quote from: Rupert on October 12, 2012, 02:52:00 PM
I'm OK with the .08 limit, but I do think the first-time penalties can be a bit harsh in some places. I would support a lesser penalty for first-timers, a very strict penalty for second offense, and permanent license suspension and jail time for third offense. Also a two- or three-tiered BAC-penalty system. This is based on my understanding that a lot of DUIs are repeats, and the biggest actual problems (i.e. not number of arrests, but number of accidents, etc.) are with people who drastically exceed the limit, and especially routinely drastically exceed the limit. Alcohol treatments of some kind should also be a part of this, especially for repeats.
Agree on the "first time" issue. Also, in New Jersey, there is no "work permit" program. There is a mandatory license suspension for first time DWI and many people lose their jobs because of this, and their lives are effectively ruined when they never recover. I've seen it personally. I know a girl who was not even technically driving (she decided to 'sleep it off' in her car after a party and was arrested for DWI by a police officer who was passing by and saw her windows fogged) and lost her job, had to give up her apartment, move home and has not found a job since.
I'm usually not the "soft on crime" type, but DWI has been made into an emotional issue and the consequences on otherwise-law-abiding people who make a mistake are sometimes too harsh, in my view. People's lives are sometimes more affected by a single DWI than if they had committed a much more serious crime.
I had a room mate who got a DUI (his first) before I knew him, and it got him a year suspended license, required AA meetings (he wasn't an alcoholic), and a bunch of community service. I thought the year of suspended license was pretty harsh and the AA meetings pretty ridiculous, but on the other hand, he did drive drunk a lot before all that.
He ended up moving to Texas, where they apparently don't care about suspended licenses in far-away states. :lol:
Driving drunk a lot defines alcoholism (drinking despite known dire consequences)
Quote from: TurboDan on October 13, 2012, 12:15:18 AM
Agree on the "first time" issue. Also, in New Jersey, there is no "work permit" program. There is a mandatory license suspension for first time DWI and many people lose their jobs because of this, and their lives are effectively ruined when they never recover. I've seen it personally. I know a girl who was not even technically driving (she decided to 'sleep it off' in her car after a party and was arrested for DWI by a police officer who was passing by and saw her windows fogged) and lost her job, had to give up her apartment, move home and has not found a job since.
I'm usually not the "soft on crime" type, but DWI has been made into an emotional issue and the consequences on otherwise-law-abiding people who make a mistake are sometimes too harsh, in my view. People's lives are sometimes more affected by a single DWI than if they had committed a much more serious crime.
I think the laws should be reasonable, but I don't believe in going easy on people the first time, if they've done something dangerous. First off, most people are not first offenders, but multiple offenders being caught for the first time. I also think that the first time a person comes up against a consequence -- be it as minor as a detention at school or a more serious crime -- is the time when the penalty makes the strongest impression. Each succeeding time, the impact of the penalty is less. The whole "first time" mentality is the reason so many people have lengthy rap sheets for increasingly serious crimes before they're finally put away. This policy creates a long string of victims and potential victims before the harmful behavior is finally stopped.
I think our problem is that we respond to these problems by lowering the threshold of what it takes to be illegal, rather than stiffening the punishment for truly dangerous actions. Too many people are driving drunk and causing accidents at a BAC of 0.2 -- our response is to lower the legal threshold from 0.1 to 0.08, and treating it essentially the same as more deadly driving situations.
I think we should have more liberal guidelines on what is safe, but very strict punishment for those who violate it, rather than having a sort of cat-and-mouse game in which people who make a stupid decision that isn't really that dangerous can face consequences as bad as a habitual drunk who puts people's lives in danger all the time.
The problem with increasing the penalties is it would probably result in juries being reluctant to convict.
Quote from: Catman on October 13, 2012, 02:14:34 PM
The problem with increasing the penalties is it would probably result in juries being reluctant to convict.
They fixed this very easily in NJ by taking away the jury option for DWI cases. All cases are in front of a judge and no one else.
The reason they get to do this is because DWI is not a criminal offense in NJ. It's a motor vehicle offense. That also means police can legally use discretion enforcing DWI laws as well, which has led to all kinds of shenanigans with friends, relatives, politicians etc. getting a ride home instead of a ride to jail after being pulled over.
If someone drove to a bar, they're wrong to begin with. They are going with the intent to drink and drive. So I'm all for huge DUI penalties- they should have gotten a taxi, DD, or drunk at home.
If someone decides to have a drink or two with dinner, they should 'rest it out' somewhere before driving home- but most go to hang out with friends so should have someone do DD duty or whatever.
Quote from: TurboDan on October 13, 2012, 11:11:19 PM
They fixed this very easily in NJ by taking away the jury option for DWI cases. All cases are in front of a judge and no one else.
The reason they get to do this is because DWI is not a criminal offense in NJ. It's a motor vehicle offense. That also means police can legally use discretion enforcing DWI laws as well, which has led to all kinds of shenanigans with friends, relatives, politicians etc. getting a ride home instead of a ride to jail after being pulled over.
Yeah who really needs that pesky 6th Amendmant (7th and 14th as well) anyways?
Read this article and thought of this thread:
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/aaron-robinson-the-law-is-the-law-unless-youre-the-law-column
QuoteHad it been anyone but a police officer doing 78 mph on that city street just before killing an innocent motorist, it?s hard to believe that the judge would have just sent the driver off to traffic school
Quote from: rohan on October 21, 2012, 10:11:40 AM
Yeah who really needs that pesky 6th Amendmant (7th and 14th as well) anyways?
OK, I get how the 6th and 7th apply here- but the 14th? Isn't that a bit of a stretch?
Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 01, 2012, 12:43:21 PM
Read this article and thought of this thread:
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/aaron-robinson-the-law-is-the-law-unless-youre-the-law-column
Overall not a very good article. Sure some LEOs are bad drivers but generally yes, LEOs should have much more leeway in how they drive WRT a citizen (i.e., shouldn't be held to the same laws).
Quote from: GoCougs on December 01, 2012, 05:06:43 PM
Overall not a very good article. Sure some LEOs are bad drivers but generally yes, LEOs should have much more leeway in how they drive WRT a citizen (i.e., shouldn't be held to the same laws).
NO. The laws are for everyone's safety. (supposedly)
If the police officer has the lights and siren on (in official duty), THEN they can skip the laws. Otherwise they should follow all of them. If they don't like them, then they should complain to lawmakers.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on December 01, 2012, 07:59:39 PM
NO. The laws are for everyone's safety. (supposedly)
If the police officer has the lights and siren on (in official duty), THEN they can skip the laws. Otherwise they should follow all of them. If they don't like them, then they should complain to lawmakers.
Uh, the lawmakers make the laws that dictate flexibility/immunity/etc. WRT LEOs following traffic law...
Quote from: GoCougs on December 02, 2012, 02:07:36 AM
Uh, the lawmakers make the laws that dictate flexibility/immunity/etc. WRT LEOs following traffic law...
Sure they COULD but they USUALLY haven't. Which laws say cops can just speed when they want (no lights on, not responding)? Most places don't have anything on the books regarding- UNLESS they are performing duties. Thus the cop is "supposed to" follow the same laws as anyone else. (for example, driving home after a shift).
But in real practice, the cops themselves don't pull each other over, and if they did, the courts would shove it under the rug.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 01, 2012, 03:26:30 PM
OK, I get how the 6th and 7th apply here- but the 14th? Isn't that a bit of a stretch?
Key Clauses of the 14th Amendment
Four principles were asserted in the text of the 14th amendment. They were:
1. State and federal ciizenship for all persons regardless of race both born or naturalized in the United States was reaffirmed.
2. No state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of citizens.
3. No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty,or property without "due process of law."
4. No person could be denied "equal protection of the laws."
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/14th-Amendment-Summary.htm
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on December 01, 2012, 07:59:39 PM
NO. The laws are for everyone's safety. (supposedly)
If the police officer has the lights and siren on (in official duty), THEN they can skip the laws. Otherwise they should follow all of them. If they don't like them, then they should complain to lawmakers.
Uhg. Do we really need to cover this again? Not everything is this cut and dried. Please look back at posts by officers to explain this. ;)
Quote from: rohan on December 02, 2012, 08:28:04 PM
Key Clauses of the 14th Amendment
Four principles were asserted in the text of the 14th amendment. They were:
1. State and federal ciizenship for all persons regardless of race both born or naturalized in the United States was reaffirmed.
2. No state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of citizens.
3. No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty,or property without "due process of law."
4. No person could be denied "equal protection of the laws."
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/14th-Amendment-Summary.htm
Yes, I know what it is: what I don't get is how it would protect or condone the practice of an officer deciding whether or not to enforce laws based on whether or not the person found breaking them is a friend or in some position of influence. "Equal protection under the law" can also be read to mean "equally subject to the law."
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 02, 2012, 08:39:38 PM
Yes, I know what it is: what I don't get is how it would protect or condone the practice of an officer deciding whether or not to enforce laws based on whether or not the person found breaking them is a friend or in some position of influence. "Equal protection under the law" can also be read to mean "equally subject to the law."
Taking away jury option = violation of due process of law = 14th violation.
Quote from: rohan on December 02, 2012, 08:48:23 PM
Taking away jury option = violation of due process of law = 14th violation.
That's not what I mean.
Quote from: rohan on December 02, 2012, 08:29:37 PM
Uhg. Do we really need to cover this again? Not everything is this cut and dried. Please look back at posts by officers to explain this. ;)
It's never cut and dried when a Wilbur is involved right?
Quote from: Raza on December 03, 2012, 11:05:09 AMIt's never cut and dried when a Wilbur is involved right?
Nothing in real life is "cut and dried," Raza. The world is full of gray areas. And calling LEO's pigs isn't very nice (nor is it very creative, even when making it an obscure reference from a children's book).
Quote from: bing_oh on December 03, 2012, 09:13:28 PM
Nothing in real life is "cut and dried," Raza. The world is full of gray areas. And calling LEO's pigs isn't very nice (nor is it very creative, even when making it an obscure reference from a children's book).
is that what he was doing? I was thinking Famous dave's barbecue.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 03, 2012, 09:13:28 PM
Nothing in real life is "cut and dried," Raza. The world is full of gray areas. And calling LEO's pigs isn't very nice (nor is it very creative, even when making it an obscure reference from a children's book).
Charlotte's Web is far from obscure.
Quote from: Raza on December 04, 2012, 02:39:31 AMCharlotte's Web is far from obscure.
If you're going to make a (poor) attempt at an insulting comment, at least have the balls to let it fly instead of covering it up with some oddball reference (you're on a car forum full of guys, so I think children's book references could still be considered obscure...especially from a guy with no kids).
Quote from: bing_oh on December 04, 2012, 01:00:25 PM
If you're going to make a (poor) attempt at an insulting comment, at least have the balls to let it fly instead of covering it up with some oddball reference (you're on a car forum full of guys, so I think children's book references could still be considered obscure...especially from a guy with no kids).
Charlotte's Web is a beloved and long-lived tale. That's like saying a Dr. Seuss reference is obscure if you don't have any children.
Besides, how esoteric could it possibly be if you got it, Bing?
;)
Quote from: Raza on December 04, 2012, 01:18:29 PMCharlotte's Web is a beloved and long-lived tale. That's like saying a Dr. Seuss reference is obscure if you don't have any children.
Besides, how esoteric could it possibly be if you got it, Bing?
;)
Actually, my head is packed full of useless knowledge.
The Charlotte's Web thing is an aside anyway, as you well know. The point was that calling LEO's "pigs" is rather confrontational of you. :nono:
Quote from: bing_oh on December 05, 2012, 05:36:22 AM
Actually, my head is packed full of useless knowledge.
The Charlotte's Web thing is an aside anyway, as you well know. The point was that calling LEO's "pigs" is rather confrontational of you. :nono:
Yeah, but I did it in an adorable way.
Quote from: Raza on December 05, 2012, 07:23:58 AMYeah, but I did it in an adorable way.
Maybe it's just me, but I generally find grown men being "adorable" to actually be nauseatingly repulsive... :huh:
You also know he's that meek guy who barely says anything except he apologizes the entire time you have him pulled over and thanks you as you head back to the car everytime. We call those guys "AEATs". Pronounced "ates"
(Afraid of Everything Around Them)
Quote from: rohan on December 05, 2012, 06:29:20 PMYou also know he's that meek guy who barely says anything except he apologizes the entire time you have him pulled over and thanks you as you head back to the car everytime. We call those guys "AEATs". Pronounced "ates"
(Afraid of Everything Around Them)
I always assumed that Raza would be a highly nonconfrontational person IRL.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 05, 2012, 06:49:04 PM
I always assumed that Raza would be a highly nonconfrontational person IRL.
Only if we meet in an official capacity. I mean, a cop's got a gun and people will believe anything a cop has to say. Not to be trusted, not to be trifled with. When I get pulled over, I'm polite, I have my documents ready, and I'm honest. Seems to work. I mean, no sense in arguing with the copper or becoming infuriated; it's not like some cop writing tickets is going to be able to change an outdated and useless law. Might as well be mad at the rain for the clouds.
Unofficially, I'm pretty much the same guy you see here. Things may not always translate perfectly over the internet, but it's not far off. I don't doubt that we'd enjoy each other's company, though. I've always liked you pigs well enough that I'd be able to put aside our differences for at least five drinks. Drink six is a wildcard though.
Quote from: rohan on December 05, 2012, 06:29:20 PM
You also know he's that meek guy who barely says anything except he apologizes the entire time you have him pulled over and thanks you as you head back to the car everytime. We call those guys "AEATs". Pronounced "ates"
(Afraid of Everything Around Them)
As I recall, you're the one who won't let your wife venture into the wilds of normal life unless she's packing heat and I'm the one who's afraid of everything? At least I have the guts to leave my home without an arsenal.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 05, 2012, 06:05:04 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I generally find grown men being "adorable" to actually be nauseatingly repulsive... :huh:
Oh come now, we both know you found it endlessly endearing. :wub:
Quote from: Raza on December 08, 2012, 11:32:22 AM
As I recall, you're the one who won't let your wife venture into the wilds of normal life unless she's packing heat and I'm the one who's afraid of everything? At least I have the guts to leave my home without an arsenal.
hahahaha :lol: :clap:
Quote from: Raza on December 08, 2012, 11:32:22 AM
As I recall, you're the one who won't let your wife venture into the wilds of normal life unless she's packing heat and I'm the one who's afraid of everything? At least I have the guts to leave my home without an arsenal.
:rolleyes:
With the kids.
If you're going to paraphrase at least get the basics right.
You're also not a parent (or female) who goes to malls and such places with children in tow, and have to be responsible for their safety. You know malls and other stores- frequent targets of shooters? ;)
I try to avoid malls at all cost. I actually DO tend to think they're dangerous places. The attract anyone and everyone. One mall in my area happens to be near a bad town and the movie theater attracts gang members who occasionally stir up trouble. The parking lots of malls are notoriously dangerous.
Of places I would consider safe, a shopping mall would NOT be one of them.
Quote from: TurboDan on December 16, 2012, 03:52:29 PM
I try to avoid malls at all cost. I actually DO tend to think they're dangerous places. The attract anyone and everyone. One mall in my area happens to be near a bad town and the movie theater attracts gang members who occasionally stir up trouble. The parking lots of malls are notoriously dangerous.
Of places I would consider safe, a shopping mall would NOT be one of them.
I almost got mugged by some gangbanger type in the parking lot of a mall about 6 years ago. Other than that, I've never felt unsafe at a mall, though.
Oh, you mean a black person was walking in your general direction?
:lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on December 16, 2012, 03:55:25 PM
I almost got mugged by some gangbanger type in the parking lot of a mall about 6 years ago. Other than that, I've never felt unsafe at a mall, though.
Black friday last year somebody suffered an attempted mugging, but one of the victims party was armed and shot back... you know guns aren't bad... but who wields them makes a difference.
Quote from: dazzleman on December 16, 2012, 03:55:25 PM
I almost got mugged by some gangbanger type in the parking lot of a mall about 6 years ago. Other than that, I've never felt unsafe at a mall, though.
I once almost got crushed between two cars. Not intentionally, mind you.
There have been several "flash mob" incidents at Northland this year though; but I won't go to that mall anyways.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 17, 2012, 01:14:20 AM
I once almost got crushed between two cars. Not intentionally, mind you.
There have been several "flash mob" incidents at Northland this year though; but I won't go to that mall anyways.
Why- you don't roll gangsta or you just flyin the wrong colors?
Quote from: rohan on December 16, 2012, 08:02:16 AM
:rolleyes:
With the kids.
If you're going to paraphrase at least get the basics right.
You're also not a parent (or female) who goes to malls and such places with children in tow, and have to be responsible for their safety. You know malls and other stores- frequent targets of shooters? ;)
I live in Philadelphia. Statistically, the safest city in all the world that has never had swarms of children with brass knuckles beating the shit out of people for no reason ever. No, wait, that doesn't sound right.
Quote from: Raza on December 17, 2012, 09:25:45 AMI live in Philadelphia. Statistically, the safest city in all the world that has never had swarms of children with brass knuckles beating the shit out of people for no reason ever. No, wait, that doesn't sound right.
Sounds to me like you're not paranoid
enough...:huh:
Quote from: bing_oh on December 17, 2012, 10:25:37 AM
Sounds to me like you're not paranoid enough...:huh:
No one's ever accused me that before. :lol:
Quote from: Raza on December 17, 2012, 09:25:45 AM
I live in Philadelphia. Statistically, the safest city in all the world that has never had swarms of children with brass knuckles beating the shit out of people for no reason ever. No, wait, that doesn't sound right.
So remind me again which of those children are yours that you're responsible for their safety?
Until you can answer that you don't know shit about what you're talking about on any level. ;)
I've never felt unsafe at any mall or store.
Maybe I'm just the one everyone is afraid of... :lol:
Quote from: rohan on December 17, 2012, 03:07:06 PM
So remind me again which of those children are yours that you're responsible for their safety?
Until you can answer that you don't know shit about what you're talking about on any level. ;)
I don't have any kids nor do I want them. I'm not sure I see your point. I can get shot dead on the street just the same as anyone with kids.
Quote from: rohan on December 17, 2012, 08:38:23 AM
Why- you don't roll gangsta or you just flyin the wrong colors?
Nope, just a racist suburban white guy with better places to spend my money.
Quote from: Raza on December 17, 2012, 03:33:20 PM
I don't have any kids nor do I want them. I'm not sure I see your point. I can get shot dead on the street just the same as anyone with kids.
That you can't and don't see the point is sorta the point. ;)
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 17, 2012, 04:43:50 PM
Nope, just a racist suburban white guy with better places to spend my money.
yeah after reading that I can't for the life of me understand why you would want to avoid Northland. :lol:
Quote from: rohan on December 17, 2012, 05:11:02 PM
That you can't and don't see the point is sorta the point. ;)
Oh yeah. The argument that your argument is so stupid that it wins. Jeez, Randy, come up with a new one. :rolleyes:
Quote from: rohan on December 17, 2012, 03:07:06 PM
So remind me again which of those children are yours that you're responsible for their safety?
Until you can answer that you don't know shit about what you're talking about on any level. ;)
Sounds like you're accusing any parent who
doesn't carry a gun of being irresponsible.