Even moe stupid cop tricks
 

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:24:21 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>
>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't see the license to drive recklessly. Also with out audible
>>>> signal
>>>> and lights nobody has to yield to the cop. Hmm... maybe I should get
>>>> another beater car.
>>
>>> No one is talking about yielding.
>>
>> Why don't you read the first post of the thread again.
>
>I did. I still don't see your point. When they needed their lights, they
>turned them on. When they didn't, they turned them off.

Not at all. That is NOT what they did. They turned the lights on
only after causing people to swerve into oncoming traffic, most likely
in case there was a crash so they could ticket said drivers. As soon
as they saw there was no crash they turned them off and then STOPPED
AT A RED LIGHT. Clearly these guys were playing with their wienies.

*************************
Dave

Even moe stupid cop tricks
 

In article >, JohnH wrote:
>
>>> No, it gives certain vehicles priority. No one is trying to cheat
>>> you out of anything, regardless of how you are trying to twist this.
>>
>> Cops, cops' families, senators, mayors, aldermen, FOP contributors,
>> the list of special favors regarding the vehicle code goes on....
>
> Don't forget those dead guy parades. Just who do they think they... were?

Lately, funeral processions have been going on the interstates around
here and really fing up traffic.

Even moe stupid cop tricks
 

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't have to predict. I could have made it happen easily. He
>>>>> came
>>>>> that close to hitting me. had I done what I normally would have done,
>>>>> move right without accelerating, we would have likely collided.
>>>
>>>> Ok, Brent you win. Your superpowers are better than his.
>>>
>>> It's simple, I was there, you were not.
>>
>> And they made it to where they were going and you didn't wreck.
>
> If I gave a cop a scare like that he'd bust me, so would you.

Yep... unless you were in a police vehicle en route to a robbery in
progress.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

Even moe stupid cop tricks
 

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 05:56:03 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>
>"DTJ" > wrote in message
.. .
>> The other day I was driving through a small city in Illinois, when I
>> noticed a cop come out of a cross street through a red light. He
>> turned in front of me to go the other way. Fortunately I know enough
>> to recognize that if a cop is moving he is dangerous, so I avoided
>> killing him.
>>
>> He then turned his lights on, swerved to his right, cut in front of a
>> whole bunch of other cars, and came back my way. **** him if he
>> thinks I am moving over, he will probably just hit me and blame me.
>> So I simply allow him to cruise by on my right, cut me off, cut off
>> someone as he gets back right, et cetera. He then stops at the next
>> light in the left turn lane. Oh, he had turned off all signals
>> immediately after turning around.
>>
>> He then guns it and cuts off everyone when the light turns green. He
>> even almost hits the oncoming traffic who will eventually turn left
>> across our lanes. Still no lights.
>>
>> As I watch ****tard drive away, I notice a vehicle in front of me
>> swerve into my lane, almost hitting me, because ****tard asshole cop
>> number two comes barreling out of another side street without lights,
>> turns and skids across traffic again, almost hits oncoming traffic, as
>> he is turning on his lights. I thought they were supposed to use them
>> BEFORE endangering innocent people.
>>
>> He then turns his off and stops at the next red light. Mind you these
>> lights are about half the distance apart that Chicago streets on the
>> SOuth side are going East to West - IE. less than 1/16th of a mile.
>>
>> As that light is turning green, another idiot cop comes out from the
>> right again almost hitting asshole cop number two as he blows through
>> the intersection, both swerving right and left, one barely missing a
>> parked car.
>>
>> Seriously, do these guys go to the Charlie Chaplin school of driving
>> or what?
>>
>> Eventually we have about 5 squads stopped at the next light, waiting
>> so they can cut off more traffic, everyone in front of them wondering
>> which one they are going to pull a Rodney King on. I decided to take
>> another route and ended up blowing down a 30MPH street at 50MPH or so
>> knowing that there just aren't enough idiot cops around to actually
>> see another one.
>>
>> On the radio today it became apparent what was up. A donut shop, no
>> joke, had been in the process of being held up, and the "gunman" had
>> actually hit somebody and presumably made him drop his tray of donuts.
>> The victim wasn't even hospitalized. I guarantee had this been any
>> other business, the typical response time of 15 minutes or more would
>> have been the case.
>
>Sounds like some good driving to me. They were able to get three units to a
>felony in progress through traffic without hitting anything or anyone.
>That's what I mean about police vehicles not being ordinary traffic and why
>I always give them plenty of room to pass or turn anytime I see one.

Jay, please. Don't make a fool out of all police on this NG. If you
can't reply stating that the made some mistakes, don't comment,
please.

I was an EMS dispatcher, I've been trained in driving an ambulance,
and I voted to suspend my best/favorite/smartest/most heroic chief
ever because he broke a minor traffic law to help a passenger.

I understand the importance of allowing emergency crews some leniency,
but I also understand they have to keep the rest of the driving public
safe by doing certain things.

If an officer does not use lights or sirens to alert other cars of his
otherwise-illegal manuever, he's not someone who should be holding up
the law in my opinion.

I know firsthand that law enforcement officials make mistakes. I
learned this when I had a dispatcher tell me to "go ahead and wipe up
your car" after it was broken into. It took 90 minutes before I was
informed I could have taken the car in for fingerprinting, if I hadn't
cleaned up because the dispatcher told me to.

That happened earlier this month. My personal loss in part due to a
bad police-affiliated person: $550. It happens to people every single
day, I'm sure. I filed a grievance, the response: absolutely ****ing
nothing. Nada. No. Ignored.

See why us "populace" don't always have the best view of all officers?
Deny, Deny, Deny is not the best way to get people on your side.

It's not possible to both help and disregard the general public at the
same time. The CHiP's got 3 cars to a non-injury accident in under 15
minutes during a Friday afternoon commute last week. Police can do
amazing things without risking lives if they're given the chance.

While I hope police respond to all emergencies quickly, they should be
careful not to cause addition problems by not flipping a switch on
time.

Dave

Even moe stupid cop tricks
 

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:09:04 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>Using your psychic powers again?

You never have made a reasonable observation based on what you
personally saw? You're better than that dude.

Dave

Even moe stupid cop tricks
 

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:10:05 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>> Well, that's a new one on me. I haven't studied IL law, but in all of
>> the jurisdictions around here that exclusion is not present. Doesn't
>> stop the cops from firing down US-50 at 80+ with no lights on however.
>
>Just listen to me for once. I might know what I'm talking about sometimes.
>:o)

Sadly, it may be legal but it's sure not right. I followed a cop the
other day (being obtuse cause I post under my full name) to see them
returning to the county's dispatch office after weaving through
traffic without signals, which under Cali law isn't legal for anyone.

No, I'm not going to file a complaint. I was laughing my ****ing ass
off that I had kept up with them through heavy traffic without
breaking one single law.

It worked out nicely since I got to have dinner at In-N-Out with a
Dispatcher friend who was just leaving work, and like you pointed out,
no collision no foul. Why have speeding laws, why not just punish the
person responsible for a crash more?

Like you said, you might know what you're talking about, so explain
how speed limit laws prevent crashes, taking into account Autobahn
stats? They make someone like me scared more than anything. Do
police signal all the time over there? Even left turns?

Dave (gonna go to a bar, cause this isn't Texas) Hogan

Even moe stupid cop tricks
 

"DTJ" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:55:19 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>> ONLY in Texas. I don't believe the OP lives in Texas.
>>
>>No, you guys are all incorrect once again. In (625 ILCS 5/11-205) (Yes,
>
> No we aren't, nah nah nah nah boo boo!!
>
>>Illinois!) it says practically the same thing. To paraphrase, it says:
>>"The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to an
>>emergency call or when in the pursuit of an actual or suspected violator
>>of
>>the law...
>>
>> may:
>> 1. Park or stand, irrespective of the provisions of
>> this Chapter;
>
> Irrelevant...
>
>> 2. Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign,
>> but only after slowing down as may be required and
>>necessary for safe operation;
>
> Bingo! Thanks for proving us right. See, only after slowing down as
> may be required and necessary for safe operation does NOT MEAN blowing
> a red light and almost ramming cars forcing them to swerve into
> oncoming traffic. Gee, Jaybird, you must not have read what I said
> carefully enough, because there is no way you could defend what they
> did as being "necessary for safe operation".

You seem to have added a lot of almost's, nearly's, and other close calls
but I don't see anywhere in here where they caused an accident.

>
>> 3. Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as he
>> does not endanger life or property;
>
> They were endangering both life and property. The ability of drivers
> around them to avoid accidents notwithstanding, they were endangering
> everyone.

I realize you have that opinion of it, but I didn't see any physical or
property damage in your version of the events.

>
>> 4. Disregard regulations governing direction of
>> movement or turning in specified directions.
>
> They were doing this, and I have no issue with it, had they been doing
> so safely. They weren't, they were playing games.

I don't see a response to a robbery being a game.

>
>>This is the important part:
>>
>>(d) The exceptions herein granted to an authorized emergency vehicle,
>>other
>>than a police vehicle, shall apply only when the vehicle is making use of
>>either an audible signal when in motion or visual signals meeting the
>>requirements of Section 12-215 of this Act.
>
> Which they were not doing.

That's the only part of this post I agree with.

>
>>So, it says the same thing that Texas law does. All emergency vehicles
>>_except police vehicles_ are required to use a visual or audible signal
>>when
>
> BZZZT. Read again. It says the exceptions are granted to vehicles
> OTHER THAN a police vehicle. MEANING they are NOT GRANTED to police
> vehicles. You have to find the section (presumably 12-215) that
> covers cops.

What? Try your comprehension skills again. Try leaving out the police
vehicle part for a second. "The exceptions herein granted to an authorized
emergency vehicle...shall apply only when the vehicle is making use of
either an audible signal... etc... It says that they can only use those
four exceptions when they have their lights or siren on. When it says
"other than a police vehicle", it means that the police vehicle does not
have to have any lights or siren activated to use the exceptions.

>
>>the above exemptions apply. The OP says that they were going to a robbery
>>in progress, so they were perfectly legal in doing what they did.
>
> Nope.

You're the one who said this was because of a donut shop being held up. To
any of the rest of us, that's a robbery.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

Even moe stupid cop tricks
 

"DTJ" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:39:35 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>> How about just using lights and/or siren as appropriate BEFORE driving
>>> in an illegal manner, as the law requires?
>>
>>The law does not require that and in fact makes special clarification that
>>driving with lights and/or siren activated can sometimes be more
>>dangerous.
>>The activation of emergency equipment is not required and is left to the
>>discretion of the trained police vehicle operator (at least in Texas):
>
> As big as Texas is, Illinois is not part of it. :-)

But the law seems to be saying the same thing...

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

Even moe stupid cop tricks
 

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:39:35 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"N8N" > wrote in message
groups.com...
>>>
>>> JohnH wrote:
>>>> >> Sounds like some good driving to me. They were able to get three
>>>> >> units to a felony in progress through traffic without hitting
>>>> >> anything or anyone. That's what I mean about police vehicles not
>>>> >> being ordinary traffic and why I always give them plenty of room to
>>>> >> pass or turn anytime I see one.
>>>> >
>>>> > So the cop that nearly cliped my car as he did 90mph down a 45mph
>>>> > posted arterial road was just doing good driving?
>>>>
>>>> If I'm being held up I want the cops to have the accelerator to the
>>>> floor.
>>>> Perhaps you can let them know if you dial 911 to take their time, only
>>>> drive
>>>> posted speed limits and for pete's sake stay out of the left lane and
>>>> not
>>>> get near anyone else.
>>>>
>>>> (Then again I'm probably killfiled as you disagree with some things I
>>>> say)
>>>
>>> How about just using lights and/or siren as appropriate BEFORE driving
>>> in an illegal manner, as the law requires?
>>
>>The law
>
> ...in Texas...
>
>>does not require that

No, I posted earlier where Illinois law says the same thing as Texas law
about police vehicles.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

Even moe stupid cop tricks
 

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't have to predict. I could have made it happen easily. He
>>>>>> came
>>>>>> that close to hitting me. had I done what I normally would have done,
>>>>>> move right without accelerating, we would have likely collided.
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, Brent you win. Your superpowers are better than his.
>>>>
>>>> It's simple, I was there, you were not.
>>>
>>> And they made it to where they were going and you didn't wreck.
>>
>> If I gave a cop a scare like that he'd bust me, so would you.
>
> Yep... unless you were in a police vehicle en route to a robbery in
> progress.

I've seen cops do it for giggles too.