It literally said it in black and white that a cop can speed in the pursuit of duty but he still must be safe. It specifically says that.
You just like fighting for the sake of fighting.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.
- Thread starter 101st
- Start date
You just like fighting for the sake of fighting.
Your claim was "no lights". HTF do you know if they are responding to a call? You don't. So you would have no complaint. Your complaint was no lights, and you know it. Weasel. In case you forgot:
I provided you the proof, and you cannot admit it. Weasel.
Nobody is proven innocent. Ever. You honestly do not understand the judicial system at all, do you?
I have not seen cops driving 100 mph to lunch. Or back to the station. Or just average patrolling.
Are you purposefully misquoting me?
I said I have not seen cops speeding at 100 mph to non emergencies such as lunch, station or just patrolling.
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.
A loophole. I was responding to and refuting your quoted statement. If you had simply stated that a officer needs to be on a call, I would never had responded. You stated they had to have their lights on. Numerous times. I took the time to post proof that you were wrong. Weasel. I can now fully understand your stance, and why.oh so you're trying to find a loophole now because you realized you were wrong eh?
Any discussion with you is pointless.
I have no idea what is in your pointy head. I can only respond to what you post. And I did. And you want to weasel out of it. And everyone here can easily see it.
Last edited:
Your reading comprehension sucks. Never said that it's not on the books. Never said anything about choosing which regulations, laws to obey.
I don't know how to make it any easier to understand than this.... Why is it an arrestable offense if no one was hurt or property damaged?
The only answer that any of you idiots can come up with is the it's dangerous. That's false. Road engineers and other egg heads decide what the safe speed for a roadway is. Anything above that is considered dangerous. By that standard five miles per hour over should also be an arrestable offense?
All misdemeanors in this state are arrestable offenses. In most cases the violator is given a summons to appear in lieu of arrest. Which is why, in this state, the failure to sign one is grounds for arrest because you are refusing to promise to appear before a magistrate or pay the fine.
This isn't just my opinion. This has been explained to me by people who are lawyers and others who are active and retired OSHP troopers.
And this is why shithouse lawyers lose every time.
Because the fucking legislature of whatever state you're arguing about decided it is so. How fucking hard is that to understand?
Jesus how old are you? 10?
Please provide a legal opinion of some kind, from ANYWHERE, that requires such. You are making this up.
Tell ya what. Howz about you ask someone here to off someone for you. Say for $10K. The potential victim doesn't even know it happened. No harm came to anyone, no property was damaged. How do you think that might play out for you? I can provide countless examples if you are not sure.
Thank you for the response.
I do not agree with all here but am respectfully agreeing to disagree and moving on.
Again, thank you for a respectful response.
A bit different here if monies were exchanged. Then it's deliberate attempted murder.
Of course, but according to our resident dipshit, no crime has occurred because nobody has been hurt yet
He clearly hasn’t yet begun to think this through and is just parroting ideas he heard from some dude he thought was cool. We’ve all been there so I feel for him but he’s wasting every opportunity to change/learn.
I don't care if you agree or disagree. That doesn't change reality or how wrong you are.
Let me guess, you don't drive.....you "travel"
LOL
That is not part of the "requirement". The entire argument is ridiculous, and has no basis in fact or law. If you can provide it, please do. Always willing to learn.
I knew you were one of those idiots. Don't try that in Ohio. The Highway Patrol here don't play nice.
Do that shit and give that lip, you'll be eating asphalt faster than you can say "I do not consent".
I do drive, and it is not a privilege. If I am traveling and not providing goods or services, then I am not preforming commerce.
These laws do not apply. Our forefathers recognized this as well as the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Do I speed? Yes, but I respectfully maintain a safe speed, to not endanger others ie travelling at excessive speeds in a residential neighborhood.
I do find myself traveling 10 over on highways and the like. Sometimes I may be 5 over in a 40 or 45 zone. I'd not want to cause property damage or personal injury by blatant behavior.
These laws do not apply. Our forefathers recognized this as well as the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Do I speed? Yes, but I respectfully maintain a safe speed, to not endanger others ie travelling at excessive speeds in a residential neighborhood.
I do find myself traveling 10 over on highways and the like. Sometimes I may be 5 over in a 40 or 45 zone. I'd not want to cause property damage or personal injury by blatant behavior.
How much less could you care?
It’s an arrestable offense, because that is what was decided by the government, regardless if you agree or not.
Can you really be this absurdly dense? For you I will rephrase: you can go 100 mph and if you don’t get stopped or run into someone then you get away with it. However, luck runs out and you will be emboldened to do it again and when you get stopped and you haven’t injured anyone or damaged any property, you can make your case of why you shouldn’t be arrested to the cop and judge, but it’s not going to end with your current views.
Yes, intelligent people determine what the speed limit is for a given section of road, based on many factors and it irrelevant if you agree or not.
Last edited:
oh so you're trying to find a loophole now because you realized you were wrong eh?
yeah, im sure theres pressing issues at the barracks that requires him to respond ASAP....right at the end of shift too, man thats convenient
you didnt provide proof of shit, and you know it cockfag....stop trying to find the "gotcha" thats suddenly going to make you correct.
just admit the L dude....you are wrong.....everyone can see you are wrong.....just own up to it and fucking move on.
Post 225, dodger.
P
Why? Is Ohio's youtube different?
Please come to Ohio and post the video to youtube
This is supposed to be a sovereign nation.
Destroyed by the reconstruction act of 1871.
So, have the engineers and eggheads come out and said that the people can drive 100 mph on the roads they designed. You said they had to say that. So, have they said that?
The autobahn has unlimited speeds only in northern Germany unless that has changed in the last six or so years. I don’t want toexaggerate, but the autobahn has characteristics of a billiard table, there just isn’t the ‘bump-bump’ that is common on even our best highways here. The smoothness of the autobahn is difficult to describe, it just needs to be experienced.
It would be interesting to compare the data of fatalities on the autobahn between north vs south, I would speculate more fatalities in the north.
There was a tv documentary about the life flight helicopters for the autobahn in the north, IIRC there were eight helicopters. They showed numerous crashes of Porsches, BMW, I think even a Ferrari was in the program. The narrator (not me) stated the helicopters are not going to these high speed crashes for rescue in most instances, but rather recovery. Incredible how unrecognizable these high end cars are when they crash at 160 - 200 + mph.
Well, thanks to DEI, they had to let women in.
"I had the right to remain silent. I did not have the ability." - Ron White
What speed is fast for you and what car are you driving and name/type of road/track? Please be honest and distinguish between your real car and road/track vs, your video car game and road.
Things don’t start to get fast until over 150mph. That’s when looking out the side of the car things are just a blur. 170 is the fastest I’ve been so far. Right now I’m driving a Toyota 86 that’s rev limited to 166mph and that bothers me.
I’ve never been able to top this car out on a circuit.
Here it is at 130 with a lot of revs to go.
I’ve never been able to top this car out on a circuit.
Here it is at 130 with a lot of revs to go.
Damn you ain’t kidding…. Haven’t been down there in years. But I got stopped there! Someone didn’t get a ticket
A law stating a man cannot have relations with his own wife is contrary to nature, contrary to human nature, contrary to God and God's nature, and contrary to natural objective purpose.
A law stating you cannot exceed a particular velocity on a public road, has a rationale and a basis beyond just "because we arbitrarily say so."
If you're okay with slavery and revenge killings, I am ultimately fine with the abolition of all traffic laws.
Why do you need to be okay with slavery? Because when you run an "optional" red light and exceed the "suggested" posted maximum in a particular area, and you kill somebody who matters to me, I will assume you will have also let your "optional" liability coverage lapse, thus you won't be able to pay the judgment I will obtain against you, and I will have you sold into slavery to satisfy the debt.
I am ultimately okay with people being sold into slavery to work off a judgment debt incurred by their negligence, recklessness, and certainly any wilful and wanton misconduct.
We as a society could abolish all traffic laws, make red lights optional and make speed limits suggestions, make insurance optional, I am not averse to that from a perspective of the constitution, however I have a right to impose slavery upon somebody who causes an injury and becomes subject to a judgment they cannot satisfy. If the person resists slavery, then in the real world they would be killed and the creditor would just take their wife or daughter.
I am ultimately not averse to living in that sort of world, but you should have a damn clear image of how that sort of world is going to work. You sort of strike me as those antifa anarchist wannabes who live with mommy and shout about how they want to abolish the police and how nobody can own property, property is theft, property is violence, they won't work, they don't have to work, they'll just take what they want.
Hint, in a world without police, if somebody is trying to steal my generator, damage my crops, steal my crops, etc., I'm going to beat them into submission and do whatever I feel like doing to them in the moment, which could vary from reducing them to slavery and selling them to somebody else, killing them on the spot, or scare them half to death before taking pity on them and letting them go with a valuable life lesson and soiled trousers. They're probably going to wish that police were coming and they could deal with police instead of me.
I follow certain federal gun laws I believe are immoral and unconstitutional, mostly because I don't intend to throw the opening pitch for a revolution, I won't turn out for a revolution if nobody else is going to show up, and I don't want to remembered as the "lunatic who killed a bunch of cops, federal agents, and National Guardsmen over gun laws" and I don't want the blood of those men on my hands, and I don't want to die when the second and third waves of responders arrive or the man hunt tracks me down. I don't deem it worth ending my life over.
If you feel strongly enough about your right to jaywalk that you want to jaywalk and murder the first officer who shows up to ticket you, then by all means, that can be your "contribution" to humanity, it can be what you are remembered for, and it can be what you discuss with God when you stand before Him at the judgment.
I place a fairly high value on human life and I want to be able to have as clean a conscience as possible when I go to answer to God, as I am ultimately responsible on some level for every life I ended or had a hand in ending.
If you're not able to differentiate and distinguish the order of magnitudes of difference between "a law that prevents you from having coitus with your own wife" [which would be worth violently resisting and ending soldiers/police over] vs a "traffic law involving speed limits on public highways" [which is not worth a lethal force confrontation] then that is on you and it is also an indicator of the failure of our nation's education to impart critical thinking skills as well as wisdom and discernment to you.
Laws serve to put all of society on notice as to the bare minimal level of conduct that is expected and to provide a mechanism for fairly and justly punishing wrong-doers so they can never say, "I didn't know, I wasn't on notice."
A fair system of courts provides a basis for the peaceful adjudication of disputes so we don't have multi-generational feuds the way they do in say Afghanistan or Yemen.
It doesn't really matter if 95% of people can navigate life without committing significant crimes, say seriously violent crimes or substantial property crimes that at common law would be felonies, because 5% of society is enough to cause chaos and ruin the lives of others. It is necessary to have some laws addressing the worst sorts of behavior such as robbery, kidnapping, rape, burglary, arson, murder, larceny, fraud, forgery, etc.
I'm not going to indulge your idiotic pseudo legal theories
Departments should not have ticket quotas and cities should not view police as a means to generate revenue through incessant ticketing of motorists who are otherwise not causing problems.
Tickets should be targeted against those who are demonstrably unsafe (doing something other than speed only) or who are creating obvious traffic hazards (speeding combined with dangerous maneuvers, following too closely, etc.).
I dont think his idea is moronic at all! I think you fought for his right to travel freely. I think its misunderstood, but definately not a "moronic" idea.
Do we really need LE to protect the streets we drive on? We didnt have these stringent traveling rules when we had horse and buggy.
If a guy runs a red light and t-bones you, what rule, policy, benefit, ability does LE provide in that? Think about what they actually cure and solve on the road? They provide the same protection as they do crime, drugs, rape, murder.....Notta! They file a report, so insurance pays, and not a lot more. They are solving nothing. People speed, people go through red lights, people do what they are gonna do. Only thing I see happen when LE pulls a person over is they cause a pinch point in traffic, or people die. It also allows them to start their violation games of your 4th amendment.
Last edited:
This is a game played where people notice the abscence of "n't" on couldn't care less, when they know what you mean.
It's a grammar game, played by tards that see fault in small grammar errors, usually followed with grammatical errors of their own, but because the internet brought it to their temporal lobe, they play the game.
Its a sheep game, played by sheep.
Last edited:
Ahhh, see that. You do agree with me. The only reason is that the government decided it. Just some arbitrary number that they came up with to incarcerate a citizen. They could easily have followed their graduated fine to a ridiculous number with the loss of license. But they decided to have the person arrested. What is the purpose of arresting the person for exceeding this arbitrary number? Deterrence? Bwaaaahahaha, sure!!! Keep believing that your government is looking out for your safety.
Stay in your lane old man. You are showing your IQ and it's probably closer to your shoe size than you think.
All that talk about fair. 99 mph and they write you a ticket but 100 you go to jail?
Sounds fair.
Brain washed. Just as they like it
