Is this anyone on the forum? E30 fatal accident.

[mrsleeve]

So everything should be baned that might be remotely harmful for a person ????

[tom d]

^ bottom line

[TwoJ's]

in theory i would not argue your point, but in practice it's a different matter. the problem as i see it is money. if someone is very seriously hurt in an accident due to the lack of using a seat belt, then it becomes a public money problem. it is the public that picks up the expense of medical support, either by higher medical cost, higher insurance cost, or higher tax expense.

So with that logic, tobacco, alcohol, fast food etc. Should all be illegal because they cost the public so much.

[mrsleeve]

No 2a debate needed was not even going in that direction. I was not referring to convicts retaining/regaining their rights either (thats an entirlely different debate).

I am talking about preserving ours as free men, to infringe on my freedoms in the guise of protecting me from either myself or others is what I find unpalatable. This is my fundamental core belief on which my values and convictions are based upon. Its not the job of the state to take care of me that is my responsibility

Edit:
The original topic of this thread falls into this argument, and its very sad that a man lost his life because some ass hat made more bad decisions and tried to run rather than man up and take responsibility for his previous actions at least we can take some solace in the fact he will have to pay for both crimes now.

[Raxe]

I sure as shit have better things to do than hunt down dangerous convicted felons, as far as I'm concerned they lost their freedom when they were charged. I'm willing to give up some "rights" and let the police force take care of that, after all that's what my tax money pays them to do.

I can tell you're on the verge of turning this into another second amendment debate, but that has nothing to do with this story.

[mrsleeve]

If you're cool with armed convicted felons driving around, more power to you. Personally I'm happy the police are making an effort to keep them off the streets.

Agreed, though I am not willing to give up my rights and freedoms and hand personal responsibility for myself t over too the State. Limiting Law Enforcement and having a few of the bad guys out there, is the price we have to pay for having a free society. I guess this is where we differ

better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer - William Blackstone

goggle the Blackstone formulation

[Raxe]

^
See thats where we differ, many Americans believe its not the job of the govt to help or protect us from the inherent risks involved with day to day life. While you seem glad let go of your freedoms to in order to shift the responsibility for your self on to someone/something else, I/we are NOT...................

If you're cool with armed convicted felons driving around, more power to you. Personally I'm happy the police are making an effort to keep them off the streets.

[kingston]

Rest in peace Joseph Dale Smith. Poor guy. :(

[mrsleeve]

^
See thats where we differ, many Americans believe its not the job of the govt to help or protect us from the inherent risks involved with day to day life. While you seem glad let go of your freedoms to in order to shift the responsibility for your self on to someone/something else, I/we are NOT...................

Where did anyone say "fuck the police"? That poster didn't say that and clearly doesn't mean it. He just wonders about the viability of police chases, and is a bit confused about how they go down. I agree that they can't start just letting everyone speed off without giving chase... then everyone would start doing it. It is all up to the officer(s) to make a judgement call about whether it is worth chasing after a guy. It's an opportunity cost thing, and they are trained to make the decision. There indeed are situations where it is more prudent to give up chase and turn to radio/helicopter/other units to get them.



So you're saying that it should be legal to talk on/use a cell phone whilst driving? Maybe in the rural areas you drive that would be fine, but in areas with a lot of traffic, some people simply can't drive and use their phone at the same time. I see it all of the time... someone is driving shittily and when you pass them, they are oblivious because they're using their phone.




Arguing that people using their phones doesn't hamper their driving is foolish. The law is there because someone on their phone is endangering the lives of all of the other people on the road, not to generate revenue.

BUT, something like the seat belt law is unconstitutional in my opinion, and I believe that it is complete bull shit. I am doing nothing to endanger someone else if I'm not wearing my seat belt. It's a fucking personal choice and they are chipping away at our freedom by enforcing the law. I got pulled over for a seat belt while I was on a two mile trip in traffic so I was maxing out at about 15 mph. I almost always wear it, but in this case it just wasn't needed. The cop told me that on that specific shift, he was out to exclusively ticket people for not wearing their belts. I got very angry about that one.

yes the only reason those laws are passed are for the sole reason of making money for the municipality.

If you are to ban cell usage than you need to ban more than 1 person in a car as you can get just as heated and drive as shitty while talking to them in person, I see that all the time too.

Driving is a responsibility and you aught to know when to hang it up, because conditions warrant it. I drive in some of worst urban environments on the east coast in a low visibility (pick up sized truck) all the time. Philly, NYC, Newark, ABE, even DC and Baltimore on occasion when I am working I fucking hate it and dont use the phone unless I have to in those environments. So dont pigeon hole me as a rural hick that dose not really know what hes ranting about

there is a time and a place, and blanket banning is the issue, if you are driving shitty while on the phone then ticket for that, not just the blanket use of the phone. Punish shitty driving/decision making regardless of the cause....................... In the point of the thread, if there was not a BLANKET ban (to make cash for the municipality that is prolly broke) to justify the cop doing his job then we would not be having this debate now would we.

Again I am not bashing the cops here, and the ass hat was breaking the law an made the decision to run too boot, BUT its the reasoning for the law that is the issue and if it was not in place in general this would have never happened. The law is not there for the safety of us all its there to generate revenue. So the easy 100 bucks for the local govt, cost someone their life, and that same govt hundreds of thousands of dollars in housing and prosecution costs


Tom: If you are legal while driving a lack of seat belt injury dose not = public money, its why you pay your fucking insurance premiums, and have to have it, as a condition of you driving your car.

[Raxe]

Dumbest argument ever.

The very fact you're debating whether it was the police officers fault or the fault of the law makers is obscene, how about IT WAS THE CRIMINALS FAULT? It's absolutely ridiculous how many Americans would much sooner shift blame to the people trying to help them instead of the people who hurt them. It's shameful, really.

[tom d]

BUT, something like the seat belt law is unconstitutional in my opinion, and I believe that it is complete bull shit. I am doing nothing to endanger someone else if I'm not wearing my seat belt.

in theory i would not argue your point, but in practice it's a different matter. the problem as i see it is money. if someone is very seriously hurt in an accident due to the lack of using a seat belt, then it becomes a public money problem. it is the public that picks up the expense of medical support, either by higher medical cost, higher insurance cost, or higher tax expense.

[TwoJ's]

Whenever a thread involving police is started, you can basically bet your life there will be at least two people that have nothing more to add than "Fuck the police."

I wonder if they know how stupid that really makes them look? Last I checked, it was in the police officer's job description to pursue and detain criminals? Now, its pretty safe to assume that if a driver tries to escape police, there's a damn good chance they're hiding something from the law that would put them behind bars (that means its illegal, kids), and that person probably deserves to be in jail. So when a police officer pursues this person, they typically have a set speed in regards to the scenario (city vs country) in which they stop pursuing. I"m guessing these vehicles were not doing 100mph, damage like that could be something as slow as a 40mph vs 40mph impact; ie not very fast.

So to all the idiots that have nothing to contribute, think before you post "Fuck the Police". K? Thanks.

* and on the flip side; if the driver had gotten away, pulled out his gun and shot 4 kids at a bus stop, the same naysayers would be screaming, "Why didn't the police officers STOP them?????"

Where did anyone say "fuck the police"? That poster didn't say that and clearly doesn't mean it. He just wonders about the viability of police chases, and is a bit confused about how they go down. I agree that they can't start just letting everyone speed off without giving chase... then everyone would start doing it. It is all up to the officer(s) to make a judgement call about whether it is worth chasing after a guy. It's an opportunity cost thing, and they are trained to make the decision. There indeed are situations where it is more prudent to give up chase and turn to radio/helicopter/other units to get them.

^
Its not the cop I am taking the issue with its the law and the primary purpose of it, that he was using to justify him doing his job that is the issue

So you're saying that it should be legal to talk on/use a cell phone whilst driving? Maybe in the rural areas you drive that would be fine, but in areas with a lot of traffic, some people simply can't drive and use their phone at the same time. I see it all of the time... someone is driving shittily and when you pass them, they are oblivious because they're using their phone.

Arguing that people using their phones doesn't hamper their driving is foolish. The law is there because someone on their phone is endangering the lives of all of the other people on the road, not to generate revenue.

BUT, something like the seat belt law is unconstitutional in my opinion, and I believe that it is complete bull shit. I am doing nothing to endanger someone else if I'm not wearing my seat belt. It's a fucking personal choice and they are chipping away at our freedom by enforcing the law. I got pulled over for a seat belt while I was on a two mile trip in traffic so I was maxing out at about 15 mph. I almost always wear it, but in this case it just wasn't needed. The cop told me that on that specific shift, he was out to exclusively ticket people for not wearing their belts. I got very angry about that one.

[mrsleeve]

^
Its not the cop I am taking the issue with its the law and the primary purpose of it, that he was using to justify him doing his job that is the issue

[ayemattyyy]

This is why scum like this are lucky I didn't choose to join the police force... because I personally wouldn't have the restraint from holding back on wailing into them when I caught them.

RIP to the innocent victim that lost their life.

And leave the cops out of this. They were doing their job.

Mugshots.

[Ryan...]

Your point is semantics at best. While guy had reason to RUN. If there was not a pointless law passed solely to generate revenue (You know cell phone laws, seat belt laws, ect...) were not in place then the cop would not have been going after him causing the dude to run right???


Like I said the cop is not at fault 1 bit, I am not saying that, at all, the guy who ran is, one bad decision after another, but I trust my point has been made.

Point taken, I agree. My statement wasn't based solely towards you <3