• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

Minor correction......I do get to choose which laws I will obey and which ones I'm not.

I make the choice based on the expected likelihood of getting caught and the most likely consequences if I do.
Yes, you are correct and you are also an adult in that you accept the consequences if caught.

The problem with the victim posters in this thread is they don’t want to accept that as an adult they are responsible for their lawbreaking choices and others that do the same thing and then they want to cry victim and bring out whataboutism of others in authority that don’t follow the rules. They are stuck in a child’s immaturity and mindset, “what about Bobby, how come he doesn’t get a spanking and I got the spanking that’s not fair, he was doing what I did! Not fair!”
 
There were 2 people willing to kill on scene.....only one of them brought a weapon with him, it also happened to be the same person who initiated the conflict

Stop acting like having a badge makes you a moral authority.
You really are a fool, I rarely call someone that. There is a reason police are armed and it is because of people like you. The same person who initiated the conflict was the cop? Because he initiated pulling the guy over by turning on his lights because he was doing a 100… The cop made the idiot drive 100+? It’s the cop’s fault the guy defied the cop’s command three times?

Fool, the cop used his weapon because the loser tried to kill him.
 
There were 2 people willing to kill on scene.....only one of them brought a weapon with him, it also happened to be the same person who initiated the conflict

Stop acting like having a badge makes you a moral authority.

We could have a discussion as to whether traffic violations such as speeding, or any moving violation, should be primary offenses, no offenses at all, or simply be factors for finding tort liability in the event of injury to persons or property, but your general legal worldview seems to be, "I am free to live in this society, benefit from the overall society, while deciding for myself which laws I obey based on my view of what is morally valid and constitutional, I am the final say in which laws I accept as valid."

It is an interesting perspective and it would make for an interesting society, but it would also lead to general chaos.

I decide I don't like my neighbor's dog urinating on my flowers so instead of talking to my neighbor, I shotgun his dog because I don't believe in the laws against cruelty to animals and I take the view "even if the dog is property and my neighbor's property, he came into my flower garden!"

My neighbor decides he doesn't like his 16 year old daughter wearing makeup and talking to guys around town so instead of talking to her, talking to his wife, and perhaps curtailing her ability to wear makeup and talk to guys around town, he honor kills her because he doesn't recognize the validity of laws that prohibit a father from killing his daughter over a matter of honor.

Everybody will decide for himself which laws fit within his own specific set of morals and values. If you don't accept a law is valid *and* constitutional, you're not obligated to abide by it, invoke your rights as a free man on the land and disregard the law.


Who is the state to tell me there is a burn ban today and I cannot have an open fire during an epic historic drought in a prairie state, I don't consent to this law, this is unconstitutional, I'm going to have a fireworks display, a bbq, and I'm going to burn leaves.

"Sorry about your barn and your hay fields Mr. Neighbor, I guess my fire burnt your stuff down."

"Oh don't worry about it, my cousins are coming over later to help me honor kill my niece for talking to a man on a dating app, when they get here I'll tell them you're responsible for my barn burning down and one of them will fire off a few rounds from his RPG at your garage and we'll be even, unless it starts a multi-generational feud."

"Lucky for me my 300 win mag is due back from the manufacturer who is finishing up warranty work, I'll be ready for your cousins. Oh wait, the manufacturer won't do the warranty work, I guess I have no choice but to kidnap the owner's wife, if only we had a court where this matter could be resolved, oh well."

Having 340 million people running around, deciding for themselves "well this law lacks moral authority and is unconstitutional by my standards, so I'm not going to abide by it" is a recipe for mayhem and chaos.

I'm not averse to anarchy, chaos, mayhem, but we should at least have a discussion as to how living in mayhem, chaos, and anarchy is going to unfold.
 
On the racetrack, you are correct. On the interstate where this guy was stopped with all the variables of slower moving traffic ahead and cars changing lanes - it’s reckless too fast.
False. The autobahn exists, so we have proof of how wrong you are, but thanks for confirming my indoc statement.
 
Driving a 100+ should not be an arrestable offense?? 🙄 Does someone have to be severely injured or killed from someone driving at reckless speeds and only then you agree there should be a penalty?

It’s the statute on the books passed by the legislature. Why is this difficult for you? If you don’t like the law work to get it eliminated.

Are you being obtuse just for the sake of being argumentative? Or you just don’t like laws in general because you’re rebellious?
None of that happened. React according IF it does.
 
Thousands of people are killed and injured each year due to excessive speed. So yes, your argument is indeed over.
More are killed by people driving too slowly.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ken226
We could have a discussion as to whether traffic violations such as speeding, or any moving violation, should be primary offenses, no offenses at all, or simply be factors for finding tort liability in the event of injury to persons or property, but your general legal worldview seems to be, "I am free to live in this society, benefit from the overall society, while deciding for myself which laws I obey based on my view of what is morally valid and constitutional, I am the final say in which laws I accept as valid."

It is an interesting perspective and it would make for an interesting society, but it would also lead to general chaos.

I decide I don't like my neighbor's dog urinating on my flowers so instead of talking to my neighbor, I shotgun his dog because I don't believe in the laws against cruelty to animals and I take the view "even if the dog is property and my neighbor's property, he came into my flower garden!"

My neighbor decides he doesn't like his 16 year old daughter wearing makeup and talking to guys around town so instead of talking to her, talking to his wife, and perhaps curtailing her ability to wear makeup and talk to guys around town, he honor kills her because he doesn't recognize the validity of laws that prohibit a father from killing his daughter over a matter of honor.

Everybody will decide for himself which laws fit within his own specific set of morals and values. If you don't accept a law is valid *and* constitutional, you're not obligated to abide by it, invoke your rights as a free man on the land and disregard the law.


Who is the state to tell me there is a burn ban today and I cannot have an open fire during an epic historic drought in a prairie state, I don't consent to this law, this is unconstitutional, I'm going to have a fireworks display, a bbq, and I'm going to burn leaves.

"Sorry about your barn and your hay fields Mr. Neighbor, I guess my fire burnt your stuff down."

"Oh don't worry about it, my cousins are coming over later to help me honor kill my niece for talking to a man on a dating app, when they get here I'll tell them you're responsible for my barn burning down and one of them will fire off a few rounds from his RPG at your garage and we'll be even, unless it starts a multi-generational feud."

"Lucky for me my 300 win mag is due back from the manufacturer who is finishing up warranty work, I'll be ready for your cousins. Oh wait, the manufacturer won't do the warranty work, I guess I have no choice but to kidnap the owner's wife, if only we had a court where this matter could be resolved, oh well."

Having 340 million people running around, deciding for themselves "well this law lacks moral authority and is unconstitutional by my standards, so I'm not going to abide by it" is a recipe for mayhem and chaos.

I'm not averse to anarchy, chaos, mayhem, but we should at least have a discussion as to how living in mayhem, chaos, and anarchy is going to unfold.

This is a pretty good summation of the Greco/Roman concept of retribution being best left to the state due to the societal impacts of personal retribution when combined with family grievance psychology.

I think that Federalism combined with power-player politics has really brought more legitimacy to the anarchists viewpoint, which is always a bad thing. As a police officer, government worker, or politician it's extremely important to evaluate your actions based on the possibility of them contributing to Civil War 2.

For example, pretext stops work. They cut down on crime as you take criminals, some of them violent, off the street. But when you pretext stop an average person and you start questioning them using trained psychological techniques you are contributing at that moment to the counter-societal account balance that many average people are starting to pay attention to.

ALPRS, automated traffic ticketing systems, drone overflights of your property for tax purposes, metropolitan camera networks of both public and private cams, AI based bank account scrutiny for even more taxation, cell phone monitoring schemes, etc etc etc. The machine just grows and grows and grows and grows. And it has a seat at the top in the control center for another Stalin, or Mao. Just waiting for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LawTalker
False. The autobahn exists, so we have proof of how wrong you are, but thanks for confirming my indoc statement.
Yes, I’m aware of the Autobahn I drove on it from Leipzig toward west Germany in a Mercedes for about 20 minutes at 120 mph and kept looking up at my rearview mirror for headlights coming from behind and I would slide over to right and an Audi R8 would whoosh by at probably 160 +.

The Autobahn though is irrelevant as this thread is about an event that happened in the US. You guys that are always saying “we” like you speak for everyone is always humorous…
 
Better drivers on the autobahn.

If America could magically poof an autobahn into existence, vehicle accident deaths would probably be in the millions for the first year.
This I agree with. You guys like to play to the lowest common denominator, rather than elevating the group. Then you get all these pussies who can somehow type with while gargling the state's balls.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 308pirate
We could have a discussion as to whether traffic violations such as speeding, or any moving violation, should be primary offenses, no offenses at all, or simply be factors for finding tort liability in the event of injury to persons or property, but your general legal worldview seems to be, "I am free to live in this society, benefit from the overall society, while deciding for myself which laws I obey based on my view of what is morally valid and constitutional, I am the final say in which laws I accept as valid."

It is an interesting perspective and it would make for an interesting society, but it would also lead to general chaos.

I decide I don't like my neighbor's dog urinating on my flowers so instead of talking to my neighbor, I shotgun his dog because I don't believe in the laws against cruelty to animals and I take the view "even if the dog is property and my neighbor's property, he came into my flower garden!"

My neighbor decides he doesn't like his 16 year old daughter wearing makeup and talking to guys around town so instead of talking to her, talking to his wife, and perhaps curtailing her ability to wear makeup and talk to guys around town, he honor kills her because he doesn't recognize the validity of laws that prohibit a father from killing his daughter over a matter of honor.

Everybody will decide for himself which laws fit within his own specific set of morals and values. If you don't accept a law is valid *and* constitutional, you're not obligated to abide by it, invoke your rights as a free man on the land and disregard the law.


Who is the state to tell me there is a burn ban today and I cannot have an open fire during an epic historic drought in a prairie state, I don't consent to this law, this is unconstitutional, I'm going to have a fireworks display, a bbq, and I'm going to burn leaves.

"Sorry about your barn and your hay fields Mr. Neighbor, I guess my fire burnt your stuff down."

"Oh don't worry about it, my cousins are coming over later to help me honor kill my niece for talking to a man on a dating app, when they get here I'll tell them you're responsible for my barn burning down and one of them will fire off a few rounds from his RPG at your garage and we'll be even, unless it starts a multi-generational feud."

"Lucky for me my 300 win mag is due back from the manufacturer who is finishing up warranty work, I'll be ready for your cousins. Oh wait, the manufacturer won't do the warranty work, I guess I have no choice but to kidnap the owner's wife, if only we had a court where this matter could be resolved, oh well."

Having 340 million people running around, deciding for themselves "well this law lacks moral authority and is unconstitutional by my standards, so I'm not going to abide by it" is a recipe for mayhem and chaos.

I'm not averse to anarchy, chaos, mayhem, but we should at least have a discussion as to how living in mayhem, chaos, and anarchy is going to unfold.
This dude called and wants his arguments/examples back.
1697823597726.png

More accurately some portions of society may act as you have stated.
A simplistic axiom is the shopping cart theory.

Many can and do operate though life and society without needing the threat of custodial intervention/incarceration.
Like many things/ideologies the masses are treated like kindergarten/prisoners as the result of the lowest common denominator.

Land of the free indeed...



R
 
Better drivers on the autobahn.

If America could magically poof an autobahn into existence, vehicle accident deaths would probably be in the millions for the first year.
Obviously the quality of the autobahn construction is exceptional. It was unnerving to be at 120 when I started from Leipzig, but there are not the uneven joints that exist on our highways and the curves are very subtle that facilitate high speed. Even so, after 20 minutes I slowed down as all it takes is a blowout or a seized wheel bearing and it’s all over for good.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ...
Even so, after 20 minutes I slowed down as all it takes is a blowout or a seized wheel bearing and it’s all over for good.

LOL WTF were you driving? A Trabant?

In 41 years of driving I have never had one of those events happen to me. Maybe because I don't drive pieces of shit. And with TuV vehicle inspection standards in Germany, the odds are even less.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: ...
Well, I can.

LOL I had some doofus in a 15 year old Ranger try to tailgate me going 80 the other day. A quick drop to 5th and burying the pedal brought 110 in a few secs.

ETA I think the Ranger was maxed out at 80
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tokay444
If the popo would have started the conversation with “hello sir, how are you doing today?” This incident would have never occurred.

Every interaction in your daily duties dealing with the public should be devoid of emotion or angst.

Instead we have a mentality defective weakling who gets worked into a feverish rage after fast moving shiny objects like a dog chasing a ball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bullfrog08
LOL WTF were you driving? A Trabant?

In 37 years of driving I have never had one of those events happen to me. Maybe because I don't drive pieces of shit. And with TuV vehicle inspection standards in Germany, the odds are even less.
No, it was a three year old Mercedes. You are probably right, but the passenger was the owner of the car and a friend. I was visiting and he invited me to come with him to Leipzig on a two day business trip he was attending. The evening before we returned to the west he got wasted after the meeting was over with his associates. In the morning he wasn’t in the best of shape and asked if I would mind driving and so I did. After we got underway he looked over and smiled and motioned up with his thumb a couple of times. His Mercedes would certainly do more than 120, but that was what I was comfortable with. There was no instability due to his car and quality of the road.

What unsettled me as I was driving was that he was a husband and father an engineer and the primary source of income for his family and I didn’t want the responsibility of the consequences if there was a mechanical issue (though remote as you correctly assert) and the fact I was not accustomed to driving those speeds as those roads conditions don’t exist in the US. Call me a fudd, but I was being the adult in realizing I wasn’t going to risk his life or mine with conditions I wasn’t accustomed to.

It certainly was a fun drive as even slowing down was only to 80 to 90.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Tokay444 and ...
I'm sure you have statistics that say the opposite from special interests that stand to gain from our shit method of traffic managment and speed enforcement
I will assume you are answering on behalf of the OP, and you don't have them either. Why bother posting? Making unsupportable claims serves no purpose, and makes you look ridiculous.
 
I will assume you are answering on behalf of the OP, and you don't have them either. Why bother posting? Making unsupportable claims serves no purpose, and makes you look ridiculous.
Where are the stats that bolster your claim?
 
  • Love
Reactions: Threadcutter308
No, it was a three year old Mercedes. You are probably right, but the passenger was the owner of the car and a friend. I was visiting and he invited me to come with him to Leipzig on a two day business trip he was attending. The evening before we returned to the west he got wasted after the meeting was over with his associates. In the morning he wasn’t in the best of shape and asked if I would mind driving and so I did. After we got underway he looked over and smiled and motioned up with his thumb a couple of times. His Mercedes would certainly do more than 120, but that was what I was comfortable with. There was no instability due to his car and quality of the road.

What unsettled me as I was driving was that he was a husband and father an engineer and the primary source of income for his family and I didn’t want the responsibility of the consequences if there was a mechanical issue (though remote as you correctly assert) and the fact I was not accustomed to driving those speeds as those roads conditions don’t exist in the US. Call me a fudd, but I was being the adult in realizing I wasn’t going to risk his life or mine with conditions I wasn’t accustomed to.

It certainly was a fun drive as even slowing down was only to 80 to 90.

80 is the defactor 85th percentile speed in most of the freeways in the western part of my state. It's actually pretty slow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tokay444
Where are the stats that bolster your claim?
THat thousands are killed due to speeding? It is available with a simple Google search, but I can provide it if you are that challenged and cannot do so yourself.


"NHTSA released new data on speeding, showing that speeding-related fatalities increased 8% from 2020 to 2021, with 12,330 people killed in 2021 speeding-related crashes. This represents 29% of all traffic fatalities in 2021. The estimated number of people injured in speeding-related crashes also increased by 7%. And 33% of motorcycle riders in fatal crashes were speeding, more than drivers of any other vehicle type."

I am a bit puzzled as to your motivation to argue such a thing. Many "speeders" are young inexperienced drivers and by themselves contribute significantly to traffic deaths each year. Increasing the speed at which they drive compounds the issue.
 
So what you are saying is that people that drive over a speed limit leads to bank robbery and hostage taking? Geeze man, your cheese has slid off your cracker.
There's already varying penalties for excess speed. Most states already have a point system and monetary system for punishment. Those carry over to your insurance premium. They have absolutely no reason to make it arrestable offense if no one has been hurt or property damage.
You sound well indoctrinated.

I more or less agree with you on arrest. I have seen a few on different interstates that deserved jail. Driving triple digits on I285 around Atlanta during daylight hours should get you a weekend on the county.

Once heard someone say, "The average driver in an average car is no longer driving at 100MPH, he's pointing.
 
But it's totally fine if you have a badge though, right?

The badge somehow makes you safer?
What an absolutely absurd statement. Police drive on sidewalks, medians, park across roadways blocking traffic, throw out devices on roadways to puncture tires, etc. Many things that you or I would be arrested for, but do so in performance of their duties. If you are complaining that there are some that speed NOT in the line of duty, that is absolutely possible. And is absolutely irrelevant.
 
But it's totally fine if you have a badge though, right?

The badge somehow makes you safer?
There are around 50 accidental police officer deaths each year. Most of them are traffic related.

There were 708,000 police officers employed in 2022. 54 deaths that year. 7.627 per 100k.

In the same period there were 12.9/100k deaths in the overall civilian population. So police line of duty deaths are 59% less than the genpop.

Policing is a motor vehicle heavy activity, so many people drive a car on duty far more than they do in their personal lives, which means a shift hours adjustment probably isn't necessary. It would probably slide the other way frankly. More time in the car as an officer than off duty.

Fairness - its important to be fair and actually ask whats going on instead of just assuming. Especially as our news media pushes us towards a Brownshirts-style national police force.
 
I was stopped by a sheriff’s deputy in September 2018 for apparently going 49 mph in a 35 mph zone within 300 feet of my house. I was returning from the hospital emergency room where I had been discharged and the pharmacy where I had filled my prescription.

I held my hands out the window with my license and concealed carry card and offered them to him when he approached. He asked me “where is your pistol?” and I said, “I have multiple pistols, one on my right hip and another in a compartment next to the steering wheel."

He said, “Do you know how fast you were going?”

I replied, “Well I’m a trial attorney and I know better than to make a party admission but no, I have no clue.”

He said, “You were going 49 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone.”

I said, “I don’t know if I was or wasn’t, I honestly can’t say how fast I was going, I really don’t know, I’m exhausted and want to get home, if you say I was doing 49 then I probably was and it is entirely possibly.”

He then asked, “you seem very unfocused and confused, what is wrong with you?”

I said, “I was just discharged from the hospital, I am miserably ill and sick.” [severe flu and possible Lyme disease, Lyme disease tests ultimately came back negative]

He asked, “why are you even out right now?”

I then said, “I am literally coming back from the hospital. I have my discharge papers on the passenger seat next to my prescription from the pharmacy, and I’m going home to go to sleep, which incidentally if you check my address we are almost within eyesight of my house. If you want to see my discharge papers I can hand them to you.”

He then said, “Sir, are you aware you’re subject to a restraining order and can’t be in possession of a firearm, step out of the vehicle please, I’m going to take your guns.”

I said, “Okay, but respectfully officer, that isn’t correct, I am not subject to any restraining order, I am the protected party of a restraining order issued in my protection against a stalker who is restrained for my protection.”

I stepped out, he took and unloaded my pistols, and then I asked, “may I get the restraining order paperwork from my glove box and show you the time-stamped document with the court seal which clearly shows me as the petitioner and the other individual as the respondent?” he said, “yes, get your paperwork.”

I handed him the papers, he said he was going to call the court which he did, he then verified, “okay I either read the entry on the computer wrong or somebody entered it in wrong, the clerk just verified what you said, you’re not subject to a restraining order.”

He then returned both of my pistols to me.

During his securing and unloading of my second pistol [at the time he took it] he ejected the round from the chamber into the weeds by the side of the road and he wasn’t able to immediately find it. He now spent about four or five minutes looking for the cartridge, apologized that it was apparently lost, and I said, “I wouldn’t fret too much, it is just a single round of ammunition.”

He then said, “Well, I’m real sorry about that and the misunderstanding on the restraining order. I’m not going to give you a ticket because you’re almost home and you seem really ill, so you should probably just go home, take the medicine, and go to sleep. I hope you feel better and have a better day and are doing better tomorrow."

I said, “that has been my plan the whole time.”

The encounter then ended.

Nobody was killed, maimed, beaten, tazed, maced, or even arrested. It may have helped that I didn’t vault out of my vehicle and scream and shout, “you’re fucking wrong mother-fucker, ain’t no restraining order on me, I didn’t do shit! You ain’t taking shit!"


Imagine that, nobody was killed, I was calm, he let me explain my perspective on the misunderstanding, he looked at my papers, he contacted the court, he apologized for the mistake, returned my pistols to me, he even knelt down and tried to find my round of ammunition, and then he wished me well and told me to go home.
Aaaand in all those words, some how not a single point was made

I respectfully beg to differ. His posting was merely an illustration of how the subject of a traffic stop can demonstrate politeness and civility; which can get the same consideration in return.

There is no guarantee that a police officer will be just as polite and civil in return. However, acting like an asshole with the first words out of one's mouth will almost always guarantee that a cop can be a bigger prick than you are.

With today's body-cams and dash-cams, a driver's demonstration of polite and respectful dialogue can go a long way in swaying a jury in a civil suit against a cop.

Anyone remember Officer David Harless? He was the asshole cop who stopped a CHL holder and threatened to shoot him. The video says it all. Yet the driver was the one who was the only adult on the scene. Notice how the other officer goes along with the "games" that Harless is willing to play.

I checked the Federal Court's website several years ago and the case was settled during the appellate process, which usually means that the plaintiff (the driver) got some money out of it.

Now anyone of us, me included, would like to take Harless's gun and shove it up his ass but doing so would get us into more trouble than what it's worth. The fact that the driver kept cool under threat of death is a testament to his common sense and acting rationally. And it was enough evidence to help the driver in a subsequent lawsuit.

It's too bad that the dick-headed cop was allowed to retire and keep his pension. IMHO, cops like this should lose everything they have ever worked for when they act this way.

Okay, you can criticize me for using a lot of words to make a point. I don't care. Hopefully, with the dialogue on this thread, we can all learn something and put it to use if ever needed.

 
The perp had beaten the system once and been given a get out of jail card and a payday. Thought he would take another ride, spin the wheel and see what the man would pay him this time. Found out.
 
I was stopped by a sheriff’s deputy in September 2018 for apparently going 49 mph in a 35 mph zone within 300 feet of my house. I was returning from the hospital emergency room where I had been discharged and the pharmacy where I had filled my prescription.

I held my hands out the window with my license and concealed carry card and offered them to him when he approached. He asked me “where is your pistol?” and I said, “I have multiple pistols, one on my right hip and another in a compartment next to the steering wheel."

He said, “Do you know how fast you were going?”

I replied, “Well I’m a trial attorney and I know better than to make a party admission but no, I have no clue.”

He said, “You were going 49 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone.”

I said, “I don’t know if I was or wasn’t, I honestly can’t say how fast I was going, I really don’t know, I’m exhausted and want to get home, if you say I was doing 49 then I probably was and it is entirely possibly.”

He then asked, “you seem very unfocused and confused, what is wrong with you?”

I said, “I was just discharged from the hospital, I am miserably ill and sick.” [severe flu and possible Lyme disease, Lyme disease tests ultimately came back negative]

He asked, “why are you even out right now?”

I then said, “I am literally coming back from the hospital. I have my discharge papers on the passenger seat next to my prescription from the pharmacy, and I’m going home to go to sleep, which incidentally if you check my address we are almost within eyesight of my house. If you want to see my discharge papers I can hand them to you.”

He then said, “Sir, are you aware you’re subject to a restraining order and can’t be in possession of a firearm, step out of the vehicle please, I’m going to take your guns.”

I said, “Okay, but respectfully officer, that isn’t correct, I am not subject to any restraining order, I am the protected party of a restraining order issued in my protection against a stalker who is restrained for my protection.”

I stepped out, he took and unloaded my pistols, and then I asked, “may I get the restraining order paperwork from my glove box and show you the time-stamped document with the court seal which clearly shows me as the petitioner and the other individual as the respondent?” he said, “yes, get your paperwork.”

I handed him the papers, he said he was going to call the court which he did, he then verified, “okay I either read the entry on the computer wrong or somebody entered it in wrong, the clerk just verified what you said, you’re not subject to a restraining order.”

He then returned both of my pistols to me.

During his securing and unloading of my second pistol [at the time he took it] he ejected the round from the chamber into the weeds by the side of the road and he wasn’t able to immediately find it. He now spent about four or five minutes looking for the cartridge, apologized that it was apparently lost, and I said, “I wouldn’t fret too much, it is just a single round of ammunition.”

He then said, “Well, I’m real sorry about that and the misunderstanding on the restraining order. I’m not going to give you a ticket because you’re almost home and you seem really ill, so you should probably just go home, take the medicine, and go to sleep. I hope you feel better and have a better day and are doing better tomorrow."

I said, “that has been my plan the whole time.”

The encounter then ended.

Nobody was killed, maimed, beaten, tazed, maced, or even arrested. It may have helped that I didn’t vault out of my vehicle and scream and shout, “you’re fucking wrong mother-fucker, ain’t no restraining order on me, I didn’t do shit! You ain’t taking shit!"


Imagine that, nobody was killed, I was calm, he let me explain my perspective on the misunderstanding, he looked at my papers, he contacted the court, he apologized for the mistake, returned my pistols to me, he even knelt down and tried to find my round of ammunition, and then he wished me well and told me to go home.
Such a white response. You could have got out and talked some smack, be fixin to whip some ass. Then been shot and ended up on a poster. Your mamma in court crying, rolling on the floor. Telling those white polices about how you were just getting your life turned around. But no, you missed your chance. :):)
 
Legally police are only allowed to speed when they are responding to a call with lights on......you know that's what im fucking about, don't play stupid.

Tell me, when was the last time you saw a statie doing 55 on the highway with his lights off?

Never.....the answer is never.....and if you say otherwise, everyone knows you are a fucking liar.

So if police can drive at 90+ when not responding to a call, how can they then claim it's "super dangerous" when I do it?
It’s because they have received special high intensity training and you haven’t had SHIT.

damm, I crack myself up :ROFLMAO:
 
Legally police are only allowed to speed when they are responding to a call with lights on

Sorry, you are quite wrong. Perhaps where you live.

......you know that's what im fucking about, don't play stupid.

Careful there, throwing stones and all...

Tell me, when was the last time you saw a statie doing 55 on the highway with his lights off?

I assume you mean the speed limit, and it was this morning on my way to work

Never.....the answer is never.....and if you say otherwise, everyone knows you are a fucking liar.

You ask my experience, and tell me the answer. And tell me if I answer truthfully, I am lying. You really have no idea how human conversations work, do you? :rolleyes:

So if police can drive at 90+ when not responding to a call, how can they then claim it's "super dangerous" when I do it?

Police "claims" are irrelevant. You really do not understand at all how our legal system works, do you?

Seems there are many things of which you have little understanding.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RTH1800
THat thousands are killed due to speeding? It is available with a simple Google search, but I can provide it if you are that challenged and cannot do so yourself.


"NHTSA released new data on speeding, showing that speeding-related fatalities increased 8% from 2020 to 2021, with 12,330 people killed in 2021 speeding-related crashes. This represents 29% of all traffic fatalities in 2021. The estimated number of people injured in speeding-related crashes also increased by 7%. And 33% of motorcycle riders in fatal crashes were speeding, more than drivers of any other vehicle type."

I am a bit puzzled as to your motivation to argue such a thing. Many "speeders" are young inexperienced drivers and by themselves contribute significantly to traffic deaths each year. Increasing the speed at which they drive compounds the issue.
There is zero rigor in government and insurance industry statistics re traffic speed. There is no cause effect analysis beyond exceeding posted + crash = speed did it.

It's completely self serving bullshit consumed by simpletons

If speed was so dangerous Germany would have a higher rate of fatalities per unit of distance driven than the US. In fact it's the reverse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tokay444 and Rthur
So if legislature passes a law that bans guns, and police go door to door, you handing yours over? .......or are you gonna "change the law"


No legislature is going to get rid of a law that generates them millions in revenue each year.
False equivalency.
 
There is zero rigor in government and insurance industry statistics re traffic speed. There is no cause effect analysis beyond exceeding posted + crash = speed did it.

It's completely self serving bullshit consumed by simpletons
Many have lived long enough to remember 55mph.
Now 65, 70, 75 and even 80.
Seat belts were sold as they gave a fuck about the drivers.
The decerning man would look to insurance company lobbying...

R
 
You like your, what if’s….

Are laws and by extension civilized society in general your issue? Would you rather have no laws or penalties and everyone just does what pops in their head, regardless of consequences to anyone else?

Four pages into this thread and you are clearly opposed by almost everyone replying to you…
A few posts back, he talked about serving time for a crime he did not commit. All people in prison are innocent. Just ask them.
 
There was no property damage or physical injury. A crime has to be committed for a legal arrest.
A crime consists of property damage or physical injury.
Speeding is not a crime, Reckless driving as well.
In Texas, for example, speeding is a crime, a class C misdemeanor, punishable by fines. However, non-compliance or resisting the efforts of a police officer or deputy is an arrestable offence. This driver had only a ticket coming until he decided to escalate the situation.
 
No, it was a three year old Mercedes. You are probably right, but the passenger was the owner of the car and a friend. I was visiting and he invited me to come with him to Leipzig on a two day business trip he was attending. The evening before we returned to the west he got wasted after the meeting was over with his associates. In the morning he wasn’t in the best of shape and asked if I would mind driving and so I did. After we got underway he looked over and smiled and motioned up with his thumb a couple of times. His Mercedes would certainly do more than 120, but that was what I was comfortable with. There was no instability due to his car and quality of the road.

What unsettled me as I was driving was that he was a husband and father an engineer and the primary source of income for his family and I didn’t want the responsibility of the consequences if there was a mechanical issue (though remote as you correctly assert) and the fact I was not accustomed to driving those speeds as those roads conditions don’t exist in the US. Call me a fudd, but I was being the adult in realizing I wasn’t going to risk his life or mine with conditions I wasn’t accustomed to.

It certainly was a fun drive as even slowing down was only to 80 to 90.
120 is still slow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 308pirate
No...no I'm not.....unless you can show me the law that permits cops to speed without lights on and without responding to a call

It is a state law. I have no idea what state you live in, other than confusion. But for your entertainment:

ARS 28-624. Authorized emergency vehicles


A. If an authorized emergency vehicle is driven in response to an emergency call, in pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of law or in response to but not on return from a fire alarm, the driver may exercise the privileges provided in this section subject to the conditions stated in this section.


B. If the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is operating at least one lighted lamp displaying a red or red and blue light or lens visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of five hundred feet to the front of the vehicle, the driver may:


1. Notwithstanding this chapter, park or stand.


2. Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as necessary for safe operation.


3. Exceed the prima facie speed limits if the driver does not endanger life or property.


4. Disregard laws or rules governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions.


C. The exemptions authorized by this section for an authorized emergency vehicle apply only if the driver of the vehicle while in motion sounds an audible signal by bell, siren or exhaust whistle as reasonably necessary and if the vehicle is equipped with at least one lighted lamp displaying a red or red and blue light or lens visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of five hundred feet to the front of the vehicle, except that an authorized emergency vehicle operated as a police vehicle need not be equipped with or display a red or red and blue light or lens visible from in front of the vehicle.


D. This section does not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons and does not protect the driver from the consequences of the driver's reckless disregard for the safety of others.

No one believes you

You speaking on behalf of the entire forum? How gracious of you. I seem to be getting a few "likes". So, wrong again. But consistent.

So the person enforcing the law can break the law they are arresting you for? Lol sure
As noted above, they are not breaking the law. They have a carve out. But this is AZ. The state of confusion could be entirely different. I suspect it in fact, is. I would bet on it. :rolleyes:
 
THat thousands are killed due to speeding? It is available with a simple Google search, but I can provide it if you are that challenged and cannot do so yourself.


"NHTSA released new data on speeding, showing that speeding-related fatalities increased 8% from 2020 to 2021, with 12,330 people killed in 2021 speeding-related crashes. This represents 29% of all traffic fatalities in 2021. The estimated number of people injured in speeding-related crashes also increased by 7%. And 33% of motorcycle riders in fatal crashes were speeding, more than drivers of any other vehicle type."

I am a bit puzzled as to your motivation to argue such a thing. Many "speeders" are young inexperienced drivers and by themselves contribute significantly to traffic deaths each year. Increasing the speed at which they drive compounds the issue.
 
It is a state law. I have no idea what state you live in, other than confusion. But for your entertainment:

ARS 28-624. Authorized emergency vehicles


A. If an authorized emergency vehicle is driven in response to an emergency call, in pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of law or in response to but not on return from a fire alarm, the driver may exercise the privileges provided in this section subject to the conditions stated in this section.


B. If the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is operating at least one lighted lamp displaying a red or red and blue light or lens visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of five hundred feet to the front of the vehicle, the driver may:


1. Notwithstanding this chapter, park or stand.


2. Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as necessary for safe operation.


3. Exceed the prima facie speed limits if the driver does not endanger life or property.


4. Disregard laws or rules governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions.


C. The exemptions authorized by this section for an authorized emergency vehicle apply only if the driver of the vehicle while in motion sounds an audible signal by bell, siren or exhaust whistle as reasonably necessary and if the vehicle is equipped with at least one lighted lamp displaying a red or red and blue light or lens visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of five hundred feet to the front of the vehicle, except that an authorized emergency vehicle operated as a police vehicle need not be equipped with or display a red or red and blue light or lens visible from in front of the vehicle.


D. This section does not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons and does not protect the driver from the consequences of the driver's reckless disregard for the safety of others.



You speaking on behalf of the entire forum? How gracious of you. I seem to be getting a few "likes". So, wrong again. But consistent.


As noted above, they are not breaking the law. They have a carve out. But this is AZ. The state of confusion could be entirely different. I suspect it in fact, is. I would bet on it. :rolleyes:
Are you a bicyclist?

Because, you seem like a………bicyclist.
 
I knew it....sovcit/shithouse lawyer

LOL

What an idiot
Babbling idiot I've been called before.
For standing up to conVID and the fiat monetary system collapsing before us.

Speeding and reckless driving are traffic violations. Can you show me otherwise? I am listening and eager to learn. I am always learning.
Please enlighten me if I am wrong, instead of calling me an idiot. I'd like not to loose respect for you, which I do hold for many of your posts.

For the record, with the exception of trolls, glowies, and bots, I have never resorted to name calling of any member here. We can all have differences of opinion, and still remain united. Again, I always strive for unity ..... as dumb as I am.....
 
I'm not averse to anarchy, chaos, mayhem, but we should at least have a discussion as to how living in mayhem, chaos, and anarchy is going to unfold.
"The problem with anarchy?

Leadership."
Owen Benjamin