Cops turn left in front of fleeing rider to stop him... Holy cow.

[russell_bynum]

Yes. It's much better to ram them and just try to kill them outright.

 

Exactly.

 

All of 'em? Those "sportbike" guys? Does it matter which one I talk to, or are they all just a bunch of crooks?

 

Yep. All of them. Every single one. Actually...you have to sign an agreement when you buy a sportbike that says you'll always run, every time.

 

 

Yawn.

 

 

First, I don't believe that there are that many people who are willing to run. Second, of the portion who are, I don't think it will make any difference, because I doubt significant thought goes into such actions. Might it impact some? Sure.

 

Go hang out on some sportbike sites for a while. They're very aware of the fact that X county doesn't do pursuits...and even where it is allowed, they still have a good chance of getting away.

 

If we could kill little kids who cry in movies, I think fewer parents would bring their kids to movies. That doesn't make the practice any saner.

 

That's clearly an over-reaction. Just eject the kids and the parents from the theater. Problem solved.

 

 

Yawn.

 

I remain fascinated by your obsession with the idea that anyone who flees should be stopped by any means necessary, as if the actual societal cost of a crime increases greatly between hooning without getting caught and hooning but getting caught and fleeing. For someone who projects an image of individuality and independence, you sure seem caught up with immediate capitulation to the demands of authority.

 

My belief is that we should have fewer laws, and less restrictive laws, with swift and severe punishment for breaking the law. I also believe that our system can't work unless people respect law enforcement officers and frickin' stop when the red and blues come on. If you don't, you're saying "I did it...and I probably did a bunch of other stuff since the thing that you're pulling me over for isn't that big of a deal, and I don't care who I put at risk by forcing you to chase me."

 

I break laws that I feel are stupid and senseless all the time (70mph speed limit on roads so straight and open that you can see the curvature of the earth, etc), but when the red and blues come on, I stop. And I don't give the officer any sh*t even if I thought whatever I was doing was perfectly reasonable.

 

I agree that there are some things that aren't worth initiating a pursuit over. But I think that if we've got laws that we're not willing to enforce, we should just do away with those laws in the first place. If we've decided the laws are worth enforcing, then we enforce them by whatever means are necessary.

[smiller]

If we've decided the laws are worth enforcing, then we enforce them by whatever means are necessary.

Yeah, it works in China... why not here?

[Lawman]

I agree that there are some things that aren't worth initiating a pursuit over. But I think that if we've got laws that we're not willing to enforce, we should just do away with those laws in the first place. If we've decided the laws are worth enforcing, then we enforce them by whatever means are necessary.

 

It's good not to be all alone..

[Whip]

I agree that there are some things that aren't worth initiating a pursuit over. But I think that if we've got laws that we're not willing to enforce, we should just do away with those laws in the first place. If we've decided the laws are worth enforcing, then we enforce them by whatever means are necessary.

 

It's good not to be all alone..

 

 

 

It's a Texas thang......

[ericfoerster]

Yeah, it works in China... why not here?

 

We are headed to opposite way from a police state. It's all fun until you are the victim, then you want action right now.

I still contend we are becoming a nation of no laws and no accountability. Our whole moral fiber is being shredded for personal satisfaction and greed is taking over.

Just look at our CEO's, Presidents, school teachers, stock brokers, Insurance companies, and so on.

Are you actually satisfied with the direction our country is headed?

 

I'm sure not

[smiller]

Are you actually satisfied with the direction our country is headed?

No, and my next vote will indicate as such.

 

But I am satified with the Constitution.

[ericfoerster]

We are on the same page then

[rkd]

Not sure this was reported already, but the final outcome of the this case seems to have been:

 

• "The trooper was ordered to take a counseling session and later was exonerated."
  

Per http://www.thestate.com/news-extras/story/386957.html

[Fugu]

Are you actually satisfied with the direction our country is headed?

No, and my next vote will indicate as such.

 

But I am satified with the Constitution.

 

Too bad that we could do better with a blindfold and a phone book than with the presidential ballot we're going to be handed.

[ericfoerster]

In 2006, a trooper pulled into the path of a motorcyclist who was fleeing police and hit him head-on, flipping the motorcyclist over the patrol car. The trooper was ordered to take a counseling session and later was exonerated.

 

OH MY GOD...how can this be?

 

Most of the people here had him convicted.

You know all those egregious actions against all the tenets of the constitution and all.

 

(snicker)

[Lawman]

Not sure this was reported already, but the final outcome of the this case seems to have been:

 

• "The trooper was ordered to take a counseling session and later was exonerated."
  

Per http://www.thestate.com/news-extras/story/386957.html

 

Thanks for the update..Exactly what I hoped for and expected...

The weekend is off to a very good start!

[SeanC]

It's a Texas thang......

Faulty premises and illogical conclusions? Adding 1 + 1 and coming up with 17.625?

 

Okay, I'm just being cheeky. But there's a little bit of truth to it. I mean, let's re-cap: Russell's equating not ramming a fleeing motorcyclist head-on with a squad car with an unwillingness to enforce the law. He then concludes we may as well do away with the law unless we're willing to enforce it by whatever means necessary. On the other hand, he believes there are some laws it's okay to break all the time (the ones he deems stupid), yet somehow he and Eric -- who believes we're becoming a nation of lawlessness -- are in agreement (I haven't quite figured out the math on that one either...). Eric's responses thus far would seem to indicate that any criticism of police action is tantamount to society slipping into the abyss, i.e., you either support whatever tactics the police may choose, or you're anti-law, anti-accountability, anti-moral fiber, and quite possibly pro-greed.

 

I'm a big fan of the great state of Texas, but obviously there's a number of thangs I don't quite understand about the place yet. I'm picturing Pecos Bill saddling up a tornado and chasing after scofflaws with a 20mm chain gun. But then, I'm a Montanan who grew up in a state where exceeding the federal speed limit was considered an "energy conservation" violation (the fine for which set you back all of $5 bucks), where if you were crazy enough to lead cops on a chase, they'd let a cow or a pothole stop you first, and if they didn't catch you today, they'd pick you up tomorrow without worrying about society as we know it coming to a bitter end.

 

[ghaverkamp]

The key disagreement centers around the level of danger posed by the biker and the imminence of that danger. Some of us feel that experience--the fact that many chases of this sort end in death or mayhem--is enough to establish an imminent danger. Others see that as a more remote possibility, and demand, as I read it, that the danger has to be more particularized and immediate. I think they're saying--and I'm reading this with some bias--that it's not enough that someone engages in behavior that's generally dangerous to others, but that they must be convinced that it transcends the dangers that are generally attendant to a high-speed pursuit.

 

Some of us think that because the Supreme Court said it just last year.

 

We do not know if anything other than a traffic violation initiated the chase. Yet we're all pontificating about fundamental issues of justice, social responsibility, and the state's application of force in law enforcement. These are topics of great importance, but I see it as a little goofy that so many of us (me included) have been able to divine the truth from a few seconds of fuzzy video with pretty much zero information to place those few seconds in context.

 

I think most of us have made clear that there is much that we don't know.

[smiller]

It's a Texas thang......

Faulty premises and illogical conclusions? Adding 1 + 1 and coming up with 17.625?

Yep.

[motorman587]

This one of those post that I must say...............

[ghaverkamp]

OH MY GOD...how can this be?

 

Most of the people here had him convicted.

You know all those egregious actions against all the tenets of the constitution and all.

 

(snicker)

 

How can it be that a police officer was exonerated by a now-known corrupt and dysfunctional police department? It is one of those great puzzles we'll never understand. Since most such judgments come from peers and superiors, it's truly amazing whenever an officer sees actual discipline.

 

Beyond that, surely you're aware that there are no convictions for violations of the Constitution. The only recourse would be a federal civil suit, and for that, there would have to be damages sufficient to encourage an attorney to take the case and a defendant who wanted to pursue it.

[90%angel]

Dagnabit Sean, I think it's pretty clear.

 

In Texas, they don't like to clutter up things with a lot of pointless laws. Personal responsibility and all that. But the ones they do have, you better not break, or they'll hang you high, and not feel the slightest bit guilty about it. In fact, will probably celebrate over a nice plate of brisket.

 

In contrast to other places, that shall remain nameless *cough*Kaliforniastaan*cough, where we celebrate when the victim...ur, I mean perp gets away, the police are hanging high, and we grab our neighbor and sing kum bah yah over tofu.

 

Clearer?

 

[ericfoerster]

Eric's responses thus far would seem to indicate that any criticism of police action is tantamount to society slipping into the abyss, i.e., you either support whatever tactics the police may choose, or you're anti-law, anti-accountability, anti-moral fiber, and quite possibly pro-greed.

 

 

I don't think an internet discussion means we are headed into the abyss. I am taking stock of my surroundings and thats my take on things.

 

you either support whatever tactics the police may choose, or you're anti-law, anti-accountability, anti-moral fiber, and quite possibly pro-greed.

 

No sir, we were headed that way well before this site was even up and running.

 

We can think that we are doing good, but I think we are swirling around the drain opening. I think the next 10-20 years are going to be shocking.

[ghaverkamp]

Yawn.

 

I'm so sorry that I'm boring you. I have only so many responses to so many red herring.

 

I agree that there are some things that aren't worth initiating a pursuit over. But I think that if we've got laws that we're not willing to enforce, we should just do away with those laws in the first place. If we've decided the laws are worth enforcing, then we enforce them by whatever means are necessary.

 

The problem is that you don't recognize the dissonance in that statement.

[russell_bynum]

Okay, I'm just being cheeky. But there's a little bit of truth to it. I mean, let's re-cap: Russell's equating not ramming a fleeing motorcyclist head-on with a squad car with an unwillingness to enforce the law. He then concludes we may as well do away with the law unless we're willing to enforce it by whatever means necessary.

 

Correct. If we're going to have a law but decide that it isn't worth enforcing, then WTF is it there for?

 

On the other hand, he believes there are some laws it's okay to break all the time (the ones he deems stupid),

 

Correct. If I were King of the World, those laws wouldn't exist. But even if I think the law is stupid, when the and blues come on, I stop.

 

yet somehow he and Eric -- who believes we're becoming a nation of lawlessness -- are in agreement (I haven't quite figured out the math on that one either...).

 

I disagree with Eric there. We're a nation of too many stupid laws that don't make sense, don't do anything productive, and often aren't enforced anyway.

 

 

Eric's responses thus far would seem to indicate that any criticism of police action is tantamount to society slipping into the abyss, i.e., you either support whatever tactics the police may choose, or you're anti-law, anti-accountability, anti-moral fiber, and quite possibly pro-greed.

 

That's definitely not my position. But...when the red and blues come on, you stop. If you're in a traffic stop, you don't argue with the cop. If the cop says stop doing whatever it is you're doing, you stop. If the police are abusing their power by ramming/tasing/shooting people who are complying with their orders, then they need to be dealt with swiftly and severely.

[smiller]

Correct. If we're going to have a law but decide that it isn't worth enforcing, then WTF is it there for?

You honestly can't see any difference between a law not being worth enforcing and a law worth being enforced but with some reasonable limits attached? Is the second example not possible?

[russell_bynum]

Correct. If we're going to have a law but decide that it isn't worth enforcing, then WTF is it there for?

You honestly can't see any difference between a law not being worth enforcing and a law worth being enforced but with some reasonable limits attached? Is the second example not possible?

 

Reasonable limits...sure. I suspect our difference is in what we consider "reasonable".

[smiller]

Reasonable limits...sure. I suspect our difference is in what we consider "reasonable".

Well, deadly force for a refusal to stop wouldn't quite make the standard for me but yes, I suspect we may have a difference there.

[ericfoerster]

If the police are abusing their power by ramming/tasing/shooting people who are complying with their orders, then they need to be dealt with swiftly and severely.

 

 

And I agree

[russell_bynum]

Reasonable limits...sure. I suspect our difference is in what we consider "reasonable".

Well, deadly force for a refusal to stop wouldn't quite make the standard for me but yes, I suspect we may have a difference there.

 

Yep.

 

If you run and it's clear that you're running (vs. just not noticing that there's a LEO there)....lock and load. I know that's not a popular opinion in today's "nothing is anyone's fault" world and I'm sure Greg can quote supreme court decisions showing that they don't agree either. That's fine...I'm just talking about if I were King of the World.

[smiller]

If you run and it's clear that you're running (vs. just not noticing that there's a LEO there)....lock and load.

Well I could see that I guess. A sniper could take out that miserable scofflaw with less risk to the officer.

[russell_bynum]

If you run and it's clear that you're running (vs. just not noticing that there's a LEO there)....lock and load.

Well I could see that I guess. A sniper could take out that miserable scofflaw with less risk to the officer.

 

Don't be silly...there's no way we could ever afford enough snipers to cover everything.

[smiller]

More the pity.

[Lawman]

That's fine...I'm just talking about if I were King of the World.

 

Excellent idea!

 

Tom and I will try to work that into the manifesto..

[russell_bynum]

That's fine...I'm just talking about if I were King of the World.

 

Excellent idea!

 

Tom and I will try to work that into the manifesto..

 

[ghaverkamp]

If you run and it's clear that you're running (vs. just not noticing that there's a LEO there)....lock and load. I know that's not a popular opinion in today's "nothing is anyone's fault" world and I'm sure Greg can quote supreme court decisions showing that they don't agree either. That's fine...I'm just talking about if I were King of the World.

 

There are a number of things about Russell's kingdom that frighten me. Swift and severe penalties will be served, which suggests there's no place in the kingdom for due process. Those things only slow punishment, and there's no place for justice in the kingdom.

 

We will only have laws that aren't stupid. The King can't really enunciate what is and what isn't a stupid law, but apparently a 70 MPH speed limit on a straight highway is a stupid law. My attempt at a non-stupid assumption takes that to mean that there is a basic speed law. Just don't violate it, because punishment will be swift and severe (and the cop will always be right.)

 

In the Kingdom, we don't place limits on the law enforcers. Their orders are to enforce the (not yet codified -- but they won't be stupid) laws using "whatever means are necessary." Expect swiftness and severity to be carried out at the time of enforcement, because the officers will find that enforcement at apprehension will be more efficient than stupid laws requiring judicial process. Deadly force is necessary when and if deemed so by an officer.

 

In the Kingdom, where officers choose how best to enforce the law and enforcement is swift and severe, we don't care about whether we have caught and punished the guilty party, we care about whether we are enforcing the laws. As a result, expect forced confessions, torture during interrogations, and rampant findings of guilt through association. All of that is alright, because it's all necessary to properly enforce the laws swiftly and severely.

 

It's a happy land for those who enforce no stupid laws. It's a different story for everyone else, who must live in fear of what enforcement of what non-stupid law will impinge on their freedoms.

 

In Russell's Kingdom, guilt or lack thereof doesn't matter. Only the swift and severe enforcement of the laws by whatever means are necessary matters. And whatever "whatever means" means, it certainly means that there are no freedoms in the Kingdom for anyone. Except for the King.

Sounds wonderful.

[ericfoerster]

Russell's Kingdom  

 

Does American, Delta, or Southwest fly directly there?

 

Do I need a passport?

 

Are my dogs allowed in?

[SeanC]

If you run and it's clear that you're running (vs. just not noticing that there's a LEO there)....lock and load.

I think I've identified the source of disagreement here... See, we're all talking about the police while you're talking about a plot point in Police Academy.

 

I know that's not a popular opinion in today's "nothing is anyone's fault" world

So the choices are either embrace a "lock-n-load enforcement by whatever means necessary" mentality, or be willing to let everyone go because nothing will be anyone's fault? If that's the case, then you've disqualified yourself from any discussion about what constitutes reasonable force, Officer Tackleberry (now put that gun down before you hurt someone).

 

[ghaverkamp]

Does American, Delta, or Southwest fly directly there?

 

The stupid laws that govern civil air transportation do not exist in the Kingdom. Due to the high occurrence of "incidents," air travel to and from the Kingdom has been voluntarily suspended. There have been attempts to establish agreements, but the King has rejected them all as "stupid."

 

Do I need a passport?

 

Immigration laws are considered stupid in the Kingdom. The rule of "common sense" prevails. If you appear to belong in the Kingdom, no papers are required. If your presence is deemed threatening to an officer of the Kingdom, your unwelcome presence will be dealt with swiftly and severely by any means necessary. In the absence of law, the general wisdom is that it's best to look and act like the King in the Kingdom, if one wishes to avoid problems.

 

Are my dogs allowed in?

 

There are no animal control laws in the Kingdom. Just be sure to watch where you step.

[ghaverkamp]

If that's the case, then you've disqualified yourself from any discussion about what constitutes reasonable force, Officer Tackleberry (now put that gun down before you hurt someone).

 

ROTFL.

[Lawman]

 

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock cal 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

 

Greg's Utopia Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor! Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1 ? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to discuss with some friends over a latte and try to come to a consensus.

 

Russell's Kingdom - Bang!

 

Great State of Texas - Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Click.... (sounds of reloading) Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! click. Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?" Son: "You got him, Pop! Can I shoot the next one?" Wife: "You are not taking that to the taxidermist

[ghaverkamp]

Greg's Utopia

 

All that proves is that you haven't been following along.

[lawnchairboy]

[DiggerJim]

If we're going to have a law but decide that it isn't worth enforcing, then WTF is it there for?

This seems to be inconsistent with this statement (unless you've got a death wish):

On the other hand, he believes there are some laws it's okay to break all the time (the ones he deems stupid),

 

Correct. If I were King of the World, those laws wouldn't exist. But even if I think the law is stupid, when the and blues come on, I stop.

It would appear from your statements that it's the failure to stop, not the breaking of the law that justifies the lethal force (or in your words whatever "force deemed necessary" to enforce the law). Otherwise, the officer has no need to put the lights on when he tags you with radar coming at him doing 80. Since you're breaking the law (something you've acknowledged you do and he knows you did because his radar says so), he can ram you because, a) you might hit someone pulling onto that long straightaway from the field on your right & kill them so you're posing imminent danger to a possible farmer, and b) because he thinks it's the amount of force necessary to stop you from continuing to break the speed law - putting the lights on would just provide you with the opportunity to break another law (fleeing) and since you've already broken one (speeding), he doesn't need to bother with anything but killing you most efficiently...of course before you kill anyone else.

 

The intellectual dissonance in your position is eye-popping

[russell_bynum]

Greg's Utopia

 

All that proves is that you haven't been following along.

 

Or that Billy has a sense of humor.

[russell_bynum]

If that's the case, then you've disqualified yourself from any discussion about what constitutes reasonable force, Officer Tackleberry (now put that gun down before you hurt someone).

 

ROTFL.

 

Is it any surprise that Tack was my favorite Police Academy character?

[JerryMather]

Thank God we don't all live in Russellville where Russell & Lisa are the new King & Queen!

 

[russell_bynum]

Thank God we don't all live in Russellville where Russell & Lisa are the new King & Queen!

 

Did I not mention that we'd do away with silly things like national, state, county, and local parks and replace them with national, state, county, and local racetracks?

[90%angel]

Thank God we don't all live in Russellville where Russell & Lisa are the new King & Queen!

 

Hey, don't drag me into this...I don't agree with everything the King says...

[ghaverkamp]

Or that Billy has a sense of humor.

 

Actually just a lack of sense.

[russell_bynum]

Or that Billy has a sense of humor.

 

Actually just a lack of sense.

 

Lighten up, Greg. It's all good.

[ghaverkamp]

Lighten up, Greg. It's all good.

 

It's the same problem that comes through in all of these threads. Folks emotionally attached to their positions can't tolerate arguments against their positions, so they dream up misguided positions about others in the discussion. In this thread, you were the primary person trying to describe an ideal world. I certainly wasn't making an attempt to describe my ideal world, and it shouldn't be that hard for someone who's been following along to comprehend that.

[russell_bynum]

Lighten up, Greg. It's all good.

 

It's the same problem that comes through in all of these threads. Folks emotionally attached to their positions can't tolerate arguments against their positions, so they dream up misguided positions about others in the discussion. In this thread, you were the primary person trying to describe an ideal world. I certainly wasn't making an attempt to describe my ideal world, and it shouldn't be that hard for someone who's been following along to comprehend that.

 

Huh?

 

I was just tryin' to get you to stop saying Billy doesn't have any sense.

 

I understand your argument and I don't entirely disagree with its merits. And my "ideal world" isn't reality and never will be (For better or worse).

 

Mostly, I think we disagree about what's "Reasonable" and I think that's pretty much the root of it.

[ghaverkamp]

Mostly, I think we disagree about what's "Reasonable" and I think that's pretty much the root of it.

 

You and I may disagree on what we, individually, consider "reasonable." However, as a term of art, "reasonable" doesn't really hinge on what an individual believes.

 

I was just tryin' to get you to stop saying Billy doesn't have any sense.

 

He should have started off better than this: "Felons have the right to be arrested using the least amount of force neccessary to effect the arrest . . ." and this: "And yes I do have the right to use necessary force . . ."

 

He basically said it himself.

[Lawman]

There are a number of things about Russell's kingdom that frighten me. Swift and severe penalties will be served, which suggests there's no place in the kingdom for due process. Those things only slow punishment, and there's no place for justice in the kingdom.

 

We will only have laws that aren't stupid. The King can't really enunciate what is and what isn't a stupid law, but apparently a 70 MPH speed limit on a straight highway is a stupid law. My attempt at a non-stupid assumption takes that to mean that there is a basic speed law. Just don't violate it, because punishment will be swift and severe (and the cop will always be right.)

 

In the Kingdom, we don't place limits on the law enforcers. Their orders are to enforce the (not yet codified -- but they won't be stupid) laws using "whatever means are necessary." Expect swiftness and severity to be carried out at the time of enforcement, because the officers will find that enforcement at apprehension will be more efficient than stupid laws requiring judicial process. Deadly force is necessary when and if deemed so by an officer.

 

In the Kingdom, where officers choose how best to enforce the law and enforcement is swift and severe, we don't care about whether we have caught and punished the guilty party, we care about whether we are enforcing the laws. As a result, expect forced confessions, torture during interrogations, and rampant findings of guilt through association. All of that is alright, because it's all necessary to properly enforce the laws swiftly and severely.

 

It's a happy land for those who enforce no stupid laws. It's a different story for everyone else, who must live in fear of what enforcement of what non-stupid law will impinge on their freedoms.

 

In Russell's Kingdom, guilt or lack thereof doesn't matter. Only the swift and severe enforcement of the laws by whatever means are necessary matters. And whatever "whatever means" means, it certainly means that there are no freedoms in the Kingdom for anyone. Except for the King.

Sounds wonderful.

 

"so they dream up misguided positions about others in the discussion"

 

 

Greg,

If you didn't dream this up where did it come from?