Even moe stupid cop tricks

In article >, SD Dave wrote:

<in reply to jaybird>
> 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?

I saw very few cops in my driving during my limited time in Germany. The
few I did see made cops in IL look like clowns.

"SD Dave" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

And I think that's the opinion of a lot of other people in here too. The OP
said that in his opinion what they did looked reckless. I'm pretty sure
that it did, but that's what happens when any car drives outside the normal
limits of what our laws say. My point in responding to this is that the law
allows certain vehicles to do things outside those normal limits because
they have different priorities. If everyone drives normally, it is quite
easy to anticipate where cars are going to be if you're driving through them
or around them.

>
> 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.

Dispatchers aren't cops, so I'm not quite sure why they would tell you to do
that. I wouldn't touch anything on a car or inside a structure until after
the cops are done with their investigation.

>
> 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.

Yep, they sure can.

>
> 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.

And when they choose not to, people should be familiar with the
circumstances not only outlined in the law, but taught to police vehicle
drivers.

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

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 06:56:53 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>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.

This is the point where I can either get upset, start calling you
names, degrade this into a childish mess for the next few months, or
just ignore you.

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

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 20:09:08 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>And I think that's the opinion of a lot of other people in here too. The OP
>said that in his opinion what they did looked reckless. I'm pretty sure
>that it did, but that's what happens when any car drives outside the normal
>limits of what our laws say. My point in responding to this is that the law

That is not true. I frequently see cops doing things that are safe.
I have seen them exceed the posted limit, makes turns without signals,
and blow through red lights. A lot of the time it doesn't matter to
me because those things can be done without endangering people. That
is not the case with what I saw.

>allows certain vehicles to do things outside those normal limits because
>they have different priorities. If everyone drives normally, it is quite

True. And a cop's first priority is ALWAYS, without question, to
PROTECT AND SERVER. When a cop endangers people simply because he is
responding to a call, that is ignorant. These cops could have pulled
out of those side streets like I see most cops do, without endangering
anyone. They chose not to because they are pricks, plain and simple.

On the point above, most cops I see blow red lights do so by
approaching the light at a fast rate, braking into the intersection,
giving themselves enough leeway to stop before they hit somebody, or
cause somebody to have to swerve into someone else. Then, as soon as
they see that people are paying attention and are not going to hit
them or someone else, they move through the intersection. Total time
to do so is always less than 2 seconds in the cases I have seen this.

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

In article >, jaybird wrote:

> And I think that's the opinion of a lot of other people in here too. The OP
> said that in his opinion what they did looked reckless. I'm pretty sure
> that it did, but that's what happens when any car drives outside the normal
> limits of what our laws say. My point in responding to this is that the law
> allows certain vehicles to do things outside those normal limits because
> they have different priorities.


So, lets say you see someone who appears to be doing some reckless with
his car on the public road. You pull him over and find out he's an
experienced SCCA racer. He knows exactly where the limits of his car are
and can handle it perfectly. (much like a some people who are/were
regulars of r.a.d, not me BTW) Would this fly with you and you'd let him
go? I think not.

> If everyone drives normally, it is quite
> easy to anticipate where cars are going to be if you're driving through them
> or around them.

That's how lane discipline leads to greater safety. However, without it
one can still make good predictions. You wouldn't accept that
from a civilian as a reason why he can drive faster and violating all
sorts of other aspects of the vehicle code. I am doing the same, except I
am going to be consistant about it. I find Cops can't drive even half as
well as claimed, well maybe if they weren't driving crown vics it might
help, but that's something else entirely.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
news
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
>> And I think that's the opinion of a lot of other people in here too. The
>> OP
>> said that in his opinion what they did looked reckless. I'm pretty sure
>> that it did, but that's what happens when any car drives outside the
>> normal
>> limits of what our laws say. My point in responding to this is that the
>> law
>> allows certain vehicles to do things outside those normal limits because
>> they have different priorities.
>
>
> So, lets say you see someone who appears to be doing some reckless with
> his car on the public road. You pull him over and find out he's an
> experienced SCCA racer. He knows exactly where the limits of his car are
> and can handle it perfectly. (much like a some people who are/were
> regulars of r.a.d, not me BTW) Would this fly with you and you'd let him
> go? I think not.

If there were a provision for that in the law. I don't know that there is
anything in it that says SCCA racers have to respond to emergencies.

>
>> If everyone drives normally, it is quite
>> easy to anticipate where cars are going to be if you're driving through
>> them
>> or around them.
>
> That's how lane discipline leads to greater safety. However, without it
> one can still make good predictions. You wouldn't accept that
> from a civilian as a reason why he can drive faster and violating all
> sorts of other aspects of the vehicle code. I am doing the same, except I
> am going to be consistant about it. I find Cops can't drive even half as
> well as claimed, well maybe if they weren't driving crown vics it might
> help, but that's something else entirely.

I agree completely.

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

"DTJ" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 06:56:53 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> This is the point where I can either get upset, start calling you
> names, degrade this into a childish mess for the next few months, or
> just ignore you.

Yeah, I think we're about done. We've both reached our limit once again.

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

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)

Sheesh, I've been within 10 blocks of the police department and watched
them take over half an hour to respond to a 9-11 call.

> Aunt Judy likes it in the rear:
> Sheesh, I've been within 10 blocks of the police department and watched
> them take over half an hour to respond to a 9-11 call.

Of course. No donuts were in danger...

In article >, jaybird wrote:

> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:

>>> said that in his opinion what they did looked reckless. I'm pretty sure
>>> that it did, but that's what happens when any car drives outside the
>>> normal
>>> limits of what our laws say. My point in responding to this is that the
>>> law
>>> allows certain vehicles to do things outside those normal limits because
>>> they have different priorities.

>> So, lets say you see someone who appears to be doing some reckless with
>> his car on the public road. You pull him over and find out he's an
>> experienced SCCA racer. He knows exactly where the limits of his car are
>> and can handle it perfectly. (much like a some people who are/were
>> regulars of r.a.d, not me BTW) Would this fly with you and you'd let him
>> go? I think not.
>
> If there were a provision for that in the law. I don't know that there is
> anything in it that says SCCA racers have to respond to emergencies.

Legality and safety aren't the same thing.