Prev: What Hath God Wrought?
Next: Vancouver's biggest bike show Sunday
From: CindiK on 12 Aug 2010 12:55
On Aug 12, 7:35 am, "Vito" <v...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> "CindiK" <cindi.k...(a)gmail.com> wrote
>
>  saddlebag <saddle...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> >http://www.kirotv.com/news/24588059/detail.html?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss
>
> one source said the patches looked like this:
>
> http://www.denizensofdoom.net/images/geekyPatch.gif
>
> Whateve happened to DoD??

Apparently, there's a DoD group on Facebook.
From: CindiK on 12 Aug 2010 13:15
On Aug 12, 5:18 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> On 8/12/2010 5:55 AM, saddlebag wrote:
>
> >http://www.kirotv.com/news/24588059/detail.html?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss
>
> Looks like Seattle needs to give the plod a remedial course in pursuit
> driving and review the pursuit policies.
>
> Police have radios, helicopters, and other police for a reason.  The
> proper technique for dealing with such a situation is teamwork, not
> street racing.  This jackass screwed the pooch and he _deserves_ to be
> mocked.

New York State has an "unlawful fleeing" law now.
And motorcycle checkpoints.
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1536&issue_id=72008
From: Beav on 12 Aug 2010 18:18


"Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chicks(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:LMmdnXMM_p3iev7RnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> "saddlebag" <saddlebag(a)aol.com> wrote in message
> news:f1e120b3-bbbc-4773-9517-b89dc87f5298(a)p7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.kirotv.com/news/24588059/detail.html?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss
>
> I'm a little surprised that a charge of "willfully not rendering
> assistance" is possible. It was my understanding that generally I'm under
> no obligation to help a dying person on the street, etc. It was my
> understanding that legislatures and courts generally stayed away from the
> "failure to be a good samaritan" legislation.
>
> I'll look that one up.
>
> Personally, I don't disapprove of the mocking behavior. He blew a chase
> scenario, so a little teasing in one form or another is understandable.
> But at the same time, they should have called for help or quickly arranged
> to have someone else do it (for obvious reasons, they wouldn't want to use
> their own cellphones).

I imagine that the trooper would've been in radio contact with his base. If
communications suddenly cease, they're probably going to think something
isn't as it should be and send assistance and if communicati9n DIDN'T cease,
he'l probably have told them himself.

>
> They were really screwed on the "calling for help" scenario, though, if
> they used their own cellphones. LE would definitely have used the call as
> evidence of guilt for the behavior that caused the wreck.

Good enough reason to have a "Pay as you go" phone.

> They were kind of pinned because if they called for help they would
> definitely be prosecuted for the other behavior.
>
> I can actually think of more than one scenario where that could happen.
> Let's say that I'm a kid in high school, on the track team, who just
> shoplifted a pop and some twinkies. A donut-fed police officer chases
> after me. I'm able to outrun him, but then he keels over of a heart
> attack yards behind me during the foot chase. The choices are all
> unpleasant at that point. Simply escaping is a horrible moral choice.
> But rendering aid is a horrible practical choice. Personally, I'd help
> the guy or gal and take what comes from it. But I do understand that not
> everybody would make the same choice.

Yeah, most of us wouldn't put ourselves IN that position in the first place.

--
Beav

From: J. Clarke on 12 Aug 2010 18:53
On 8/12/2010 6:18 PM, Beav wrote:
>
>
> "Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chicks(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:LMmdnXMM_p3iev7RnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>> "saddlebag" <saddlebag(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:f1e120b3-bbbc-4773-9517-b89dc87f5298(a)p7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>> http://www.kirotv.com/news/24588059/detail.html?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss
>>
>> I'm a little surprised that a charge of "willfully not rendering
>> assistance" is possible. It was my understanding that generally I'm
>> under no obligation to help a dying person on the street, etc. It was
>> my understanding that legislatures and courts generally stayed away
>> from the "failure to be a good samaritan" legislation.
>>
>> I'll look that one up.
>>
>> Personally, I don't disapprove of the mocking behavior. He blew a
>> chase scenario, so a little teasing in one form or another is
>> understandable. But at the same time, they should have called for help
>> or quickly arranged to have someone else do it (for obvious reasons,
>> they wouldn't want to use their own cellphones).
>
> I imagine that the trooper would've been in radio contact with his base.
> If communications suddenly cease, they're probably going to think
> something isn't as it should be and send assistance and if communicati9n
> DIDN'T cease, he'l probably have told them himself.
>
>>
>> They were really screwed on the "calling for help" scenario, though,
>> if they used their own cellphones. LE would definitely have used the
>> call as evidence of guilt for the behavior that caused the wreck.
>
> Good enough reason to have a "Pay as you go" phone.
>
>> They were kind of pinned because if they called for help they would
>> definitely be prosecuted for the other behavior.
>>
>> I can actually think of more than one scenario where that could
>> happen. Let's say that I'm a kid in high school, on the track team,
>> who just shoplifted a pop and some twinkies. A donut-fed police
>> officer chases after me. I'm able to outrun him, but then he keels
>> over of a heart attack yards behind me during the foot chase. The
>> choices are all unpleasant at that point. Simply escaping is a
>> horrible moral choice. But rendering aid is a horrible practical
>> choice. Personally, I'd help the guy or gal and take what comes from
>> it. But I do understand that not everybody would make the same choice.
>
> Yeah, most of us wouldn't put ourselves IN that position in the first
> place.

I am reminded of an incident. Names are changed to protect the
innocent, guilty, and all flavors in between. Joe was driving down
Felcher Ave in his father's Land Rover. Felcher Ave runs parallel to
the beach with a low stone revetment between them. Officer Turvy
notices him speeding and lights up. Joe takes a right across the
revetment and heads down the beach the other way. Officer Turvy
attempts to follow. Turvy, driving a Ford LTD instead of a Land Rover,
fails to successfully cross the revetment. Joe goes down to the ramp
and drives back up and comes down Felcher and all innocent-like stops
and says to Officer Turvy "what seems to be the problem, officer?"
Turvy replies "you know damned well what the problem is, but if you'll
get me off of here and not tell anybody then I won't tell anybody what I
was doing when I got here". So Joe pulled the cruiser off the revetment
and Turvy drove off and that was the end of that.



From: Scott on 12 Aug 2010 20:19
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:44:11 -0700 (PDT), in rec.motorcycles, CindiK
<cindi.knox(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>From the article:
>All motorcyclists were directed by three portable variable message
>signs (VMSs) to exit the Interstate into the rest area. Once in the
>rest area, riders were directed to a coned-off area, where they were
>inspected by members of the State Police Motorcycle Unit, SP-SIU, and
>DMV-FIU. Traffic tickets were subsequently written by troopers and
>other law enforcement officers. Safety violations, such as illegal
>helmets and unlicensed operation, were the primary focus of officers,

Sounds like profiling to me, about as defensible as profiling for ricers,
luxury cars, or farm trucks. Or were they checking for safety violations,
helmet/belt usage and unlicensed operation of ALL legal motor vehicles that
day?

Too bad those portable signs tend to wash out in sunlight, have too-small
type, blink their messages too fast or too slow to read at highway speeds,
or are just not high on a rider's list of priorities. I've seen way more
broken or incorrect message signs than I've seen working and correct ones.

I'm pretty sure that signs of that type are not included in the statute
describing official road signage, and carry no more legal force than the
signs telling me to vote for Pedro.

--
'82 CB900F
'04 FSC600 (SWMBO)
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: What Hath God Wrought?
Next: Vancouver's biggest bike show Sunday