To Protect and to Serve II

#13,578
#13,578
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Carl Pickens and 508mikey
#13,587
#13,587
Electric Orange said:
Click to expand...

Lets assume this is true (I don't know if it is or not, but it is within the realm of possibility).

So we have local and state police in this instance (potentially) being used (or allowing themselves to be used) as the militant wing of some political activist or political group.

Also, the exigency clause can be used as a backdoor way for your enemies or the police to circumvent needing a warrant to search your property.
 
#13,589
#13,589
Rasputin_Vol said:
Oh my God... a bike rider on campus.

This is a silly azz stop.
Click to expand...
You have any idea how many times I’ve come close to hitting a rider who is unseen at dark just heading to work? No cloth markings, no reflective gear or bike markings makes them invisible. I believe it is the safety of the rider that these laws are enforced and should be. We have bike lanes that are completely dark and dangerous. If I can see a rider, I can anticipate a rider by slowing down and knowing where they are.
Had one on my hood 5 years ago, he broke every law a bike rider could, at dark, no reflective markings and crossed in front on me not at a crossing. Not too smart to challenge a 2200lb vehicle in motion when you can’t be seen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#13,590
#13,590
NurseGoodVol said:
You have any idea how many times I’ve come close to hitting a rider who is unseen at dark just heading to work? No cloth markings, no reflective gear or bike markings makes them invisible. I believe it is the safety of the rider that these laws are enforced and should be. We have bike lanes that are completely dark and dangerous. If I can see a rider, I can anticipate a rider by slowing down and knowing where they are.
Had one on my hood 5 years ago, he broke every law a bike rider could, at dark, no reflective markings and crossed in front on me not at a crossing. Not too smart to challenge a 2200lb vehicle in motion when you can’t be seen.
Click to expand...
Similar to seatbelt and helmet laws. The person most effected is the individual choosing not to wear the protection. I'm not saying that you may not have those rare times where the accident could result in another person being injured in the process by some means, but I'm speaking about the overwhelming majority of times, its just going to be that person.

Also, we always talk about "don't hold court on the street". That is good advice for a civilian, but we rarely criticize the other side of that engagement, which is the law enforcement officer. Why is he going back and forth with someone over this trivial matter?
 
Last edited:
#13,591
#13,591
Rasputin_Vol said:
Similar to seatbelt and helmet laws. The person most effected is the individual choosing not to wear the protection. I'm not saying that you may not have those rare times where the accident could result in another person being injured in the process by some means, but I'm speaking about the overwhelming majority of times, its just going to be that person.

Also, we always talk about "don't hold court on the street". That is god advice for a civilian, but we rarely criticize the other side of that engagement, which is the law enforcement officer. Why is he going back and forth with someone over this trivial matter?
Click to expand...
I’ve watched plenty of interactions where the law enforcement officer was clearly wrong and acting under the color of law and should have lost their qualified immunity.
I also believe that some civil infractions are merely there for pc and fishing expeditions. I think it’s situational and involves the cops demeanor. Charges are frequently dropped by prosecutors because someone stepped outside the lines and they know it hoping to escape a civil lawsuit against the gov entity they work for.
I’m not sure if this person without the light did anything else to draw the attention of the police other than the obvious no light infraction. There might be nuances here I’m not aware of.
I can say if I were an officer, I wouldn’t be one long.
 
#13,592
#13,592
Rasputin_Vol said:
Similar to seatbelt and helmet laws. The person most effected is the individual choosing not to wear the protection. I'm not saying that you may not have those rare times where the accident could result in another person being injured in the process by some means, but I'm speaking about the overwhelming majority of times, its just going to be that person.

Also, we always talk about "don't hold court on the street". That is good advice for a civilian, but we rarely criticize the other side of that engagement, which is the law enforcement officer. Why is he going back and forth with someone over this trivial matter?
Click to expand...
Putting yourself and others at risk while on the streets isn’t a trivial matter. In Knoxville alone this year there have been at least 15 biker/pedestrians killed in similar situations
 
#13,595
#13,595
Rickyvol77 said:
Putting yourself and others at risk while on the streets isn’t a trivial matter. In Knoxville alone this year there have been at least 15 biker/pedestrians killed in similar situations
Click to expand...
So the pedestrian or biker put themselves in danger and paid the price. That's just what I was talking about.
 
Last edited:
#13,600
#13,600
Rickyvol77 said:
Well hopefully one of your loved ones would let get hurt or total their car because of one of these idiots
Click to expand...
So do you think making something illegal is going to make stupid people stop doing stupid things? As a former motorcycle rider, I was always amazed when I traveled to a state that didn't have helmet laws and saw how many people rode without a helmet flying down a highway at 70mph.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top