Above the law?
- Thread starter wieduwilt
- Start date
:lol::lol::lol: :beer:
The classic "LEO carrying their role" into personal life. Every thread in here has it.
On another note, you too can be above the law. Just depends on who you know and how much you want to potentially risk. We should start a "got away with xxxxx for yyyy" thread.
On another note, you too can be above the law. Just depends on who you know and how much you want to potentially risk. We should start a "got away with xxxxx for yyyy" thread.
:dw:
Every thread huh, and what qualifies you with the infinite wisdom to make such a statement?
Don't forget all 76 posts you have contributed. Wouldn't want to short change yourself. :bored:
And the fact that you didn't make one single post from 2004 to 2011, kinda throws the whole seniority thing out the window don't ya think?
Last edited:
He doesn't have to make posts to read threads. Wtf is the problem with all the insults on this thread... He can be active and not post. Hell I've lurked here for 2 years and only just now made an account...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Care to add anything useful to this thread or did you just want to chime in to defend something you have no knowledge of? You should stick to lurking. :bored:
Lets get back on topic kids.
The post count comment is about as influential as the following scenario:
LEO A eats 2000 donuts in 2 years
LEO B only eats 77 donuts in 8 years
Does the donut count really matter when determining the next chief or does the additional time on the "beat" give LEO B more credit?
You get my point. I've been around this site enjoying the hobby and reading about a common concern for those of us who drive with excessive "spirit" from time to time. In that same time frame, I have come to expect LEOs act like they do not commit crimes (of any nature, speeding or otherwise) when reading in this area. It gets old when there is no common understanding from fellow car enthusiasts. Make no mistake, I am not asking for sorrow for those of us who break the law but the condescending attitude exhibited gets redundant.
Enjoy your section of the site. I'll return to reading for the next 8 years after your interest in the hobby has faded away.
:nonono:
How about this scenario...
Cop A puts in work day in and day out, he may be relatively new by some standards but he has proven himself to his peers. Including the "veterans" who see themselves in this "new officer" when they were young bucks.
Cop B hides in the shadows, puts in no work, helps no one but himself, pokes his head in just to judge someone when he has no knowledge of the subject matter and thinks that just because he has "seniority" he is entitled to something.
Does the "time" in service really matter when the "time" is not well spent?
:beer:
Call it how you see it. I don't have the time or interest in arguing over something irrelevant. This isn't going to change your commentary on other people's situations/experience. Your remark on the "42 mph over" thread on page 8 makes that clear.
Take care
Take care
apparently you do, since you keep responding with drivel
The blind love of LEOs is about as ignorant as the blind hatred of them on this forum. Some of you will do anything to go out of your way to harass them, vice versa some of you will defend them to the death.
The OP's speeding, while hypocritical, does not justify that of the officer. While I am not an LEO and don't know the exact terms of "acting within occupational capacity", generally responding to a call requiring speeding, going through red lights, weaving, etc. requires lights/sirens. While I am not saying this cop was doing something wrong, on the same token we all have seen cops speeding for the sake of speeding, on the cell phone, weaving through traffic without signals, turning on the lights to run a red then turning them off, etc. There are bad apples out there.
OP: report the officer, then let it go. Accept that there is little you can do from your position against her. You cannot pull her over and write her a ticket, so stop stressing over things you cannot control.
The OP's speeding, while hypocritical, does not justify that of the officer. While I am not an LEO and don't know the exact terms of "acting within occupational capacity", generally responding to a call requiring speeding, going through red lights, weaving, etc. requires lights/sirens. While I am not saying this cop was doing something wrong, on the same token we all have seen cops speeding for the sake of speeding, on the cell phone, weaving through traffic without signals, turning on the lights to run a red then turning them off, etc. There are bad apples out there.
OP: report the officer, then let it go. Accept that there is little you can do from your position against her. You cannot pull her over and write her a ticket, so stop stressing over things you cannot control.
You are not a LEO, but you will state the following as an accepted fact. Interesting position.
Personally, I would have asked a LEO if there are situations they must respond to rapidly that do not require the use of their lights and sirens.
I did not mean to imply that as a "fact", merely what I believed to be true using experience and common sense. One would think that if they were not responding to a call, they should follow the same rules and regulations as other motorists. And if there were an emergency and they needed to drive what I would easily describe as "dangerously", they would alert other motorists of this need and request their assistance in moving aside by using the flashing lights and sirens.
It makes little sense to me why a properly operating police officer responding appropriately to an emergency would be doing 20+ over the speed limit, talking on the cell phone, not wearing a seat belt, tailgating and weaving through traffic without signaling, and only using the lights when stopped at a red light or when tailgating someone in the left lane to get them to move aside, then shutting them off.
I'll let a LE expert explain their policies on the use of lights and sirens to you, but I can think of a couple situations where their use would be ill advised.
Last edited:
In certain scenarios, the use of lights/sirens can greatly increase the chance of an accident involving other motorists, hence the reason some departments (CHP comes to mind) have modified their emergency response/pursuit policies.
And in certain scenarios the use of lights and/or sirens can tip off a suspect and cause them to flee a crime scene and escape apprehension. Again, not defending the officer in question in the OP's thread, but there are situations where emergency equipment can be detrimental.
Users who are viewing this thread
