 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2008Why cops are useless tax collectors.
In many a thread, it's come up about how I would 'change my tune' the moment I was a victim of a crime. My response has been that the cops would only be good for creating paperwork my insurance company may want and nothing more. Now this story.... http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2139.asp California: Meter Maids Ticket Stolen Car 29 Times http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/24/BAS8U31UA.DTL <...> If you want an example of just how screwed up things can be in the big city, look no further than the case of Michelle Vuckovich and her stolen Honda Civic. Vuckovich's odyssey started back on Sept. 26, when the 37-year-old video game producer's 2000 Civic was stolen out of her South San Francisco apartment garage. She called police right away, and within 30 minutes a cop had taken her statement and filed a report. The make and license plate then went out on a statewide computer list of stolen cars. But apparently nobody noticed, because a few weeks later, Vuckovich got a citation in the mail indicating the car had been ticketed by a San Francisco parking control officer on Union Street just hours after she had reported it stolen. <...> In all, Vuckovich's stolen car got ticketed 29 times in San Francisco while it was listed as stolen. After getting three parking tickets in the mail at once, Vuckovich called San Francisco police to find out what was going on. The officer she talked with couldn't understand why parking officers hadn't run the license plate to see if the car was stolen. So Vuckovich called the Department of Parking and Traffic to ask for herself. The person on the phone had some theories, but no good answer. Frustrated, Vuckovich and a friend decided to try to find the car themselves. They drove around San Francisco for three hours scouting areas based on the addresses on the tickets, and were just about to give up when they spotted the car on Folsom Street at Sixth Street. Exactly one month after it had been stolen. They called the SFPD, whose headquarters are two blocks away, and waited. It was an hour before officers arrived. They didn't appear to be too interested in catching the thieves, however, and didn't even search the car before releasing it back to Vuckovich, she says. <....> ------------------------------------ I assume the followup story will be the government trying to hold her responsible for the 29 parking tickets. >They didn't appear to be too interested in catching the thieves, however, >and didn't even search the car before releasing it back to Vuckovich, she [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I assume the followup story will be the government trying to hold her >responsible for the 29 parking tickets. Maybe that guy who got banned from the mall in Florida got into the wrong car by mistake and has been driving it around all this time thinking it was his? :) But seriously, there is no excuse for the cops simply turning the car over to her. At the very least they should have staked out the car for a few days to see if the thief returned to it... >>They didn't appear to be too interested in catching the thieves, however, >>and didn't even search the car before releasing it back to Vuckovich, she [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >over to her. At the very least they should have staked out the car for >a few days to see if the thief returned to it... That's not the way the police operate. A friend of mine who operates a computer service business recently had an individual bring a laptop to him for service, as it was broken. Turns out the failure was that the individual couldn't log in to it, so my friend told the customer he'd have to work on it for a day or two. After the customer left, he called the police, because something in the laptop's case identified the owner as being a local prominent business woman. The police basically told my friend to "detain" the individual when he returned for the laptop, and that he should call them AFTER, and most certainly not before, the guy is back on premises. Even though my friend had set up a specific time for the individual in question to return for the laptop, the police were not interested in expending any more effort than necessary to deal with the situation.  SignatureHalf drunk is a waste of money. Scott in SoCal: > >They didn't appear to be too interested in catching the thieves, however, > >and didn't even search the car before releasing it back to Vuckovich, she [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > over to her. At the very least they should have staked out the car for > a few days to see if the thief returned to it... But, Scott, that would require actual work on the part of the cops. 'Ya can't expect that out of them when there's traffic tickets to write and donuts to vacuum up..... ;) SignatureLoco Laura demonstrates how inconsistent its thinking is: "and besides there is no way to enforce slow driving speed limits. THINK" --Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, 1/30/06 Message ID: <1138602667.405570.55400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >But seriously, there is no excuse for the cops simply turning the car >over to her. At the very least they should have staked out the car for >a few days to see if the thief returned to it... Don't be silly. Cops don't have time to solve property crimes (unless the victim is a cop or connected). SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > They didn't appear to be too interested in catching the thieves, however, > and didn't even search the car before releasing it back to Vuckovich, she > says. You mean they actually released the car back to her without first collecting on all 29 tickets plus penalties? If she keeps driving it in SF, she'll soon find a Denver Boot on her car. They were using those way back when I lived in SF in the eighties. >> They didn't appear to be too interested in catching the thieves, however, >> and didn't even search the car before releasing it back to Vuckovich, she [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If she keeps driving it in SF, she'll soon find a Denver Boot on her car. > They were using those way back when I lived in SF in the eighties. That was my comment at the end. She will be held responsible for those tickets. It got released to her probably because 'stolen property' and 'impound yard' are two different departments. > In many a thread, it's come up about how I would 'change my tune' the > moment I was a victim of a crime. My response has been that the cops [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > I assume the followup story will be the government trying to hold her > responsible for the 29 parking tickets. First off cops or police officers have never been collectors of tax revenues or fines in my experience. I've run across polices in a few eastern european countries that do on the spot collection but haven't seen it in the USA. Second is that auto theft is both frequent and somewhat down the list of prioroties in San Francisco and other cities. It would be nice if the real cops had the resources and time of those on CSI and the other television series to treat every crime equally, but the real world doesn't work that way. >> In many a thread, it's come up about how I would 'change my tune' the >> moment I was a victim of a crime. My response has been that the cops [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >television series to treat every crime equally, but the real world >doesn't work that way. So speeding tickets and parking violations are more "significant" violations than automobile theft? Are you out of your mind? The freakin' car was tickets 29 times for parking violations, and it was listed as a stolen car!!!! Are you stupid enough to entrust your safety to a group of individuals who can't get tag information about a stolen vehicle into the system where the police can actually do something about it? Glad to see that stupidity is an international trait. -- Sarcasm is my sword Apathy is my shield On Jan 1, 10:57 pm, "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)" <drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> wrote: > >> In many a thread, it's come up about how I would 'change my tune' the > >> moment I was a victim of a crime. My response has been that the cops [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > So speeding tickets and parking violations are more "significant" > violations than automobile theft? There are only so many police offers that can be assigned to any one type of crime. Certain officers are meter maids. Others track sexual deviants. And others track murderers, robbers. And still others deal with property crime. There are only so many officers to go around in any given jurisdiction and they all cannot be investigating all crimes at one time. So some crimes get attention more quickly than others. And with crimes like auto theft you basically get to wait your turn because there are not enough cops to do the job. And it is not unusual for police resources to be redirected to hot-button issues like serial rapists, mass murders, etc. Californians have themselves to thank for limitations on public services such as police work. Idiotic and shortsighted reductions in tax revenue like Proposition 13 only serve to reduce the amount of money to be spent on public services. The result is that the PD is in a constant state of performing a form of police-based triage. > Are you out of your mind? The freakin' car was tickets 29 times for > parking violations, and it was listed as a stolen car!!!! Are you > stupid enough to entrust your safety to a group of individuals who > can't get tag information about a stolen vehicle into the system where > the police can actually do something about it? In California you get what you pay for. Californians love running their state by proposition and referendum but are unwilling to responsibility for funding their states and localities. > Glad to see that stupidity is an international trait. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > So speeding tickets and parking violations are more "significant" > > violations than automobile theft? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > any given jurisdiction and they all cannot be investigating all crimes > at one time. This isn't some random car sitting in the street. It's a stolen car that is being driven around by the people that stole it. Cops give chase at 100+ mph to catch people like this, and here's one just sitting up on a pedestal for them. >> > So speeding tickets and parking violations are more "significant" >> > violations than automobile theft? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Cops give chase at 100+ mph to catch people like this, and here's one >just sitting up on a pedestal for them. That must be why they didn't do anything with this car; they weren't able to get enough "air time" -- Sarcasm is my sword Apathy is my shield >> > So speeding tickets and parking violations are more "significant" >> > violations than automobile theft? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Cops give chase at 100+ mph to catch people like this, and here's one > just sitting up on a pedestal for them. But where's the thrill of the chase? >On Jan 1, 10:57 pm, "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver >(Hector Goldstein)" <drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] >unusual for police resources to be redirected to hot-button issues >like serial rapists, mass murders, etc. Then pull the meter maids and re-assign them to the recovery of stolen vehicles. For God's sake, tie your IT systems together so that as the vehicle's license number is recorded for the parking ticket, it's flagged as a stolen vehicle. By the way, if the shoes were reversed, and this were some how a snafu on the part of a civilian, it would be the civilian's responsibility to clean the mess up, most likely with the threat of incarceration if it's not resolved. >Californians have themselves to thank for limitations on public >services such as police work. Idiotic and shortsighted reductions in >tax revenue like Proposition 13 only serve to reduce the amount of >money to be spent on public services. The result is that the PD is in >a constant state of performing a form of police-based triage. Regardless of the cause, I think it's a major statement as to the woeful inadequacies of the police department that they can't tie together a stolen vehicle with a parking violation, not just once, but 29 times! You're content with this level of incompetency from a department who's purpose is "to protect and serve?" >> Are you out of your mind? The freakin' car was tickets 29 times for >> parking violations, and it was listed as a stolen car!!!! Are you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >their state by proposition and referendum but are unwilling to >responsibility for funding their states and localities. So this is an issue restricted to California? Good to know that the police agencies in the other 49 states don't demonstrate such ineptitude. Just another reason to stay out of Cali. :-) >> Glad to see that stupidity is an international trait. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - -- Sarcasm is my sword Apathy is my shield > First off cops or police officers have never been collectors of tax > revenues or fines in my experience. I've run across polices in a few > eastern european countries that do on the spot collection but haven't > seen it in the USA. You are unfamiliar even with the small town speed trap that funds the town's operations? You must have the same sort of internet wired cave that OBL has! > Second is that auto theft is both frequent and somewhat down the list > of prioroties in San Francisco and other cities. Property crime is always down the list.... it's just property. Today on the radio I heard a story someone jumped off a bridge taking a police dog with him. The guy survived, the dog didn't. Of course that dog was a 'cop', a citizen's dog... well that's just a property crime. Anyway, the point of paying taxes for a police force is to deter the theft of property and recover it when it is reasonable to do so. Failure of a police department to do so renders it a waste of taxpayer money. I don't know about you, but when a stolen car is ticketed for parking illegally, it is reasonable that it be recovered. When someone I knew told me how the chicago police wrote him a letter to tell him where is car was after it had been reported stolen, I thought that was pretty lazy. But at least when the cops went to write it up as adbandoned, they knew it was a stolen car and wrote the letter. But this story topped that by a couple standard deviations. > It would be nice if > the real cops had the resources and time of those on CSI and the other > television series to treat every crime equally, but the real world > doesn't work that way. Do they have a telephone? See, when the first parking ticket was written they make a call... 'we've recovered your car'. Or has the telephone become a special piece of equipment? Or maybe you're refering to the 'hot sheet'? That list of stolen cars.... is that too high tech for a big city police force? And it's not that they failed to check it once, they failed to check TWENTY NINE times. On Jan 1, 11:02 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <6be58922-604d-4466-be56-de2adb620...@v32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > > First off cops or police officers have never been collectors of tax [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > town's operations? You must have the same sort of internet wired cave that > OBL has! You should look up the definition of collector before attempting a response. Maybe in your city the police collect on the spot, but not in mine. > > Second is that auto theft is both frequent and somewhat down the list > > of prioroties in San Francisco and other cities. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I don't know about you, but when a stolen car is ticketed for parking > illegally, it is reasonable that it be recovered. Your sentence doessn't make much sense as written. However I htink I understand what you are trying to say. And yes it is reasonable to exxpect that it be reccovered, but the real question is when. And given that California voters have constricted the police resources by limiting tax revenues with idiotic steps like proposition 13 I would fully expect that automobile recovery will be way down the list. > When someone I knew told me how the chicago police wrote him a letter to > tell him where is car was after it had been reported stolen, I thought [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > police force? And it's not that they failed to check it once, they failed > to check TWENTY NINE times. > On Jan 1, 11:02 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > response. Maybe in your city the police collect on the spot, but not > in mine. Now the old 'not in my city' routine. Anything to keep your head in the sand I suppose. And as far as definitions go, they are collecting the way taxes were collected ages ago, with a weapon and a government license (badge). >> > Second is that auto theft is both frequent and somewhat down the list >> > of prioroties in San Francisco and other cities. >> Property crime is always down the list.... it's just property. Today on >> the radio I heard a story someone jumped off a bridge taking a police dog [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> I don't know about you, but when a stolen car is ticketed for parking >> illegally, it is reasonable that it be recovered. > Your sentence doessn't make much sense as written. However I htink I > understand what you are trying to say. And yes it is reasonable to > exxpect that it be reccovered, but the real question is when. When? The cop is standing next to it writing a ticket. How much lazier do you need to be? And they didn't do this once, they did it TWENTY NINE TIMES. > And > given that California voters have constricted the police resources by > limiting tax revenues with idiotic steps like proposition 13 I would > fully expect that automobile recovery will be way down the list. It's pretty clear you are government/authoritarian apologist and nothing will convince you that government can do any wrong or fail to provide even the basic things it is supposed to. >> When someone I knew told me how the chicago police wrote him a letter to >> tell him where is car was after it had been reported stolen, I thought >> that was pretty lazy. But at least when the cops went to write it up as >> adbandoned, they knew it was a stolen car and wrote the letter. But this >> story topped that by a couple standard deviations. >> > It would be nice if >> > the real cops had the resources and time of those on CSI and the other >> > television series to treat every crime equally, but the real world >> > doesn't work that way. >> Do they have a telephone? See, when the first parking ticket was written >> they make a call... 'we've recovered your car'. Or has the telephone >> become a special piece of equipment? Or maybe you're refering to the 'hot >> sheet'? That list of stolen cars.... is that too high tech for a big city >> police force? And it's not that they failed to check it once, they failed >> to check TWENTY NINE times. Well? > In article <bddf8b76-b220-4b6a-be9d-7b2a1ad5b...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > > On Jan 1, 11:02 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > taxes were collected ages ago, with a weapon and a government license > (badge). The police officer is NOT COLLECTING any money for a fine. He is only documenting in a ticket that he observed the perp committing a crime (or traffic violation). The perp gets a piece of paper and a court date. On that court date evidence will be presented from both sides for the court to consider in determining whether the perp screwed up. If the perp violated one of societies traffic laws then he will get to pay a fine. If the perp is fortunate enough to be posessed of a long attention span then he may learn from the courtroom lesson. If not I'm sure he will be back for a repeat performance. >> In article <bddf8b76-b220-4b6a-be9d-7b2a1ad5b...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: >> > On Jan 1, 11:02 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > The police officer is NOT COLLECTING any money for a fine. I've had an IL state trooper ask if I wanted to pay on the spot in cash. (exact change only). Believe it or not it's the law in IL to pay cash on the spot or give up the DL or bond card. > He is only > documenting in a ticket that he observed the perp committing a crime [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > attention span then he may learn from the courtroom lesson. If not I'm > sure he will be back for a repeat performance. Traffic court? Evidence? HA! Due process for driving related 'violations' went out years ago. That must be a nice cave you have. Hell, Cali even takes peoples cars on mere officer accusation alone. The last story I read featured a corvette owner who was being accused of street racing some 15 months earlier. Never ticketed, never pulled over. Just 15 months later the cops show up at the door and take the vette. On Jan 2, 12:20 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <31718157-aecd-43a1-b3ee-88262233f...@e50g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > >> In article <bddf8b76-b220-4b6a-be9d-7b2a1ad5b...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Do you have a link to that story in a reputable newspaper? > On Jan 2, 12:20 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Do you have a link to that story in a reputable newspaper? I posted it a couple weeks ago... it featured a yellow corvette... I couldn't resist posting it since there is a regular who lives in CA that drives a yellow corvette. http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071210/A_NEWS/712100318 Anyway, the 'street racing' seizure laws in CA have been the subject of many stories over the past couple-three years. I errored in my memory, it was 'around a year ago', not 15 months. >The police officer is NOT COLLECTING any money for a fine. Technically, he's an assessor. If you don't pay the fine, the police officer may show up at your door; THEN he's a collector. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Jan 2, 4:33 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <31718157-aecd-43a1-b3ee-88262233f...@e50g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can > result in a fully-depreciated one. No officer is not an assessor because he has not established that the perp will pay a fine. The officer has only oberved and documented an illegal activity. The decision to fine happens in two ways: The perp could waive a trial, admit his guilt and pay up. Or the perp could go to trial and present his side of the case and the judge would decide to impose or not impose a fine. There are really fines to discourage illegal behaviour. But to satisfy your libertarian needs, you could call these taxes that are based on the severity of illlegal behaviour by a perp. > On Jan 2, 4:33 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > perp will pay a fine. The officer has only oberved and documented an > illegal activity. No, he documents that he observed it. He doesn't really need to observe it, only say (document) he did. Of course its in his best interest to lie, his next performance review depends on it. > The decision to fine happens in two ways: The perp > could waive a trial, admit his guilt and pay up. Or the perp could go > to trial and present his side of the case and the judge would decide > to impose or not impose a fine the term 'perp' assumes guilt. Of course it is traffic court and hence violates those pesky constitutional protections, guilt is assumed based on the documentation of the officer who stands to gain personally. > There are really fines to discourage illegal behaviour. But to > satisfy your libertarian needs, you could call these taxes that are > based on the severity of illlegal behaviour by a perp. Discourage illegal behavior? I think not. Government budgets that they will collect a certain amount of fines in a year and then requires their police officers to write a number of tickets to produce that amount. If an officer fails to produce according to these performance objectives, he is denied raises and promotions. Sometimes he may even be fired. The fines are doing a piss poor job of discouraging 'illegal behavior'. What government does is define reasonable behavior as illegal in order to collect revenue. If the fines were about discouraging actual bad behaviors, then they would be much higher, for things much less common than what the overwhelming majority of people do, there wouldn't be cheating by the government to create violators (trimming yellow signal timing, manually flipping traffic signals, and other nonsense police and government have been caught doing), and violations would decrease every year instead of increasing. It's a form of taxation, plain and simple. And as I pointed out, cops can physically collect on the spot, at least in one state. The one I live in. On Jan 3, 10:14 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <fb7fac0d-e6e8-4fff-a094-1997e26e8...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > > On Jan 2, 4:33 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > It's a form of taxation, plain and simple. And as I pointed out, cops can > physically collect on the spot, at least in one state. The one I live in.- Hide quoted text - You and other potential perps know what the traffic rules are. It makes no difference whether you agree with them or not. If you want to avoid fines just obey the traffic rules. > On Jan 3, 10:14 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > makes no difference whether you agree with them or not. If you want > to avoid fines just obey the traffic rules. How do I violate the laws of physics and avoid a rigged red light camera? How do I avoid a speed camera that is calibrated poorly? How do I avoid the pitfalls of intersections and signals that do not meet MUTCD requirements as required by law? How do I avoid a cop that just plain lies to meet his performance objectives? And most importantly, how do I avoid significantly compromising my safety by obeying a grossly underposted speed limit? http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//////tfhrc/safety/pubs/speed/images/fig1.gif http://www.sha.state.md.us/images/85thchart.gif lastly, how do I avoid being cited by cops that don't know the law and adminstrative and other judges who don't know what the law is and make it up as they go along? I've been threatened with tickets from cops when bicycling because they didn't know the vehicle code with regard to bicycles. A car in my driveway was ticketed and the judge refused to read the law that clearly showed the ticket was not valid. (the car was operational, but not driven and was ticketed as non-op and abandoned, local law defined non-op as missing vital parts such as engine, trans, wheels, abandoned required it to be parked on a city street) How do you fight 12th century legal concepts of the law being whatever the cops and judges say it is when they say it? You don't, they have the guns. it's a shakedown and its criminal. It doesn't matter what I do. If a cop feels like making my day miserable he can regardless of my actions. I know the vehicle code better than probably 99% of the cops out there and follow it better than the cops hunting the contents of drivers' wallets. Hell, had a cop decide to follow me this morning. While he sat behind me apparently waiting for a violation I watched him commit at least two (crossing over a double yellow line, failure to use a turn signal) then after I turned and he gave up following he put the hammer down for a third, speeding. Then there was his failure to turn into the near lane, which may make for a total of four, but that may only be in the SOS driver's manual and not codified into law. Lastly on your law is the law stance, I'll wager you violate laws every single day you leave your home. Maybe even when you don't. Pretty much everyone does. Can't be helped with all the laws on the books. > In article <a1a21b0a-e176-4137-9f1b-4deed70f7...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > > On Jan 3, 10:14 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > How do I violate the laws of physics and avoid a rigged red light camera? There is no such thing. > How do I avoid a speed camera that is calibrated poorly? Don't run the red light. > How do I avoid > the pitfalls of intersections and signals that do not meet MUTCD > requirements as required by law? Since you apparently know the regulations in and out those intersections should be obvious and it should be easy for you to avoid them. I'm going to use a bit of common sense, drive according to conditions and continue my record of no ticket in 15 years. And in case you were wondering my 2 year old car has 75,000 miles. >How do I avoid a cop that just plain > lies to meet his performance objectives? In over 40 years of driving I've never met a cop like that. Odd that you seem to feel surrounded by them. >And most importantly, how do I > avoid significantly compromising my safety by obeying a grossly > underposted speed limit? By driving the speed limit, getting off the road or keeping up with trafffic. >> How do I violate the laws of physics and avoid a rigged red light camera? > There is no such thing. I've shown repeatedly that there is. Start with Dick Army's congressional report. >> How do I avoid a speed camera that is calibrated poorly? > Don't run the red light. That helps a speed camera exactly how? >> How do I avoid >> the pitfalls of intersections and signals that do not meet MUTCD >> requirements as required by law? > Since you apparently know the regulations in and out those > intersections should be obvious and it should be easy for you to avoid > them. > I'm going to use a bit of common sense, drive according to conditions > and continue my record of no ticket in 15 years. And in case you were > wondering my 2 year old car has 75,000 miles. In other words the cop simply didn't pick you for selective enforcement because you just blend in with everyone else and do as you're told. If I didn't drive late at night, drove a plain 2 year old 4 door sedan, I could speed, congaline left turns, not use a turn signal, and all the other violations most people and most cops make on a daily basis without being ticketed too. >>How do I avoid a cop that just plain >> lies to meet his performance objectives? > In over 40 years of driving I've never met a cop like that. Odd that > you seem to feel surrounded by them. News of such department polices never reaches you in that cave of yours. Here's today's article: http://www.shelbynews.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=93&ArticleID=53019&T M=10650.74 >>And most importantly, how do I >> avoid significantly compromising my safety by obeying a grossly >> underposted speed limit? > By driving the speed limit, getting off the road or keeping up with > trafffic. Keeping up with traffic is 20 over. Driving the speed limit in this case significantly increases the chance of being in a collision. Of course, you don't have cops selectively enforcing on you, so you don't see a problem with this. "Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarme at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim-when he defends himself-as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder, and it is of this, no doubt, that Mr. de Montalembert speaks. This legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among the legislative measures of the people. If so, it is best to wipe it out with a minimum f speeches and denuciations-and in spite of the uproar of the vested interests." -Frederic Bastiat "The Law" > In article <a1a21b0a-e176-4137-9f1b-4deed70f7...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, John S. wrote: > > On Jan 3, 10:14 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > local law defined non-op as missing vital parts such as engine, trans, > wheels, abandoned required it to be parked on a city street) I've had the same problem on the bicycle, and have talked to others who had similar problems with legal project cars being wrongly ticketed for whatever reason. > How do you fight 12th century legal concepts of the law being whatever the > cops and judges say it is when they say it? You don't, they have the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > behind me apparently waiting for a violation I watched him commit at > least two (crossing over a double yellow line, That one was likely intentional. Here's the logic: Many people often spend more time watching the cop in the mirror than they do watching the road ahead once they spot the cruiser behind them. This is even more so for people breaking the law, say smoking a joint, open container or drunk. So, if you're watching him in your mirror, and he drifts left over the line, you'll likely drift left over the line as well, and now he's got probably cause to bluelight you. > failure to use a turn > signal) then after I turned and he gave up following he put the hammer [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> wallets. Hell, had a cop decide to follow me this morning. While he sat >> behind me apparently waiting for a violation I watched him commit at >> least two (crossing over a double yellow line, > That one was likely intentional. Here's the logic: Many people often > spend more time watching the cop in the mirror than they do watching [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > drifts left over the line, you'll likely drift left over the line as > well, and now he's got probably cause to bluelight you. Interesting, I did not know that. And it was a drift, like someone fumbling with a cell-phone or similiar. It looked like he was fumbling with something, but I can't be sure of it... could have been running the plate too. >On Jan 2, 4:33=A0pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) >wrote: > >No officer is not an assessor because he has not established that the >perp will pay a fine. The officer has only oberved and documented an >illegal activity. Then why does he write a dollar amount on the ticket? >The decision to fine happens in two ways: The perp >could waive a trial, admit his guilt and pay up. Or the perp could go >to trial and present his side of the case and the judge would decide >to impose or not impose a fine. Yeah, just like when the property tax re-assessment comes around. The only difference is terminology. >There are really fines to discourage illegal behaviour. Perhaps there are, but the fines for speeding aren't among them. >On Jan 1, 11:02 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >response. Maybe in your city the police collect on the spot, but not >in mine. I'll be they write those lovely invitations to the collection agencies "on the spot." >> > Second is that auto theft is both frequent and somewhat down the list >> > of prioroties in San Francisco and other cities. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Your sentence doessn't make much sense as written. However I htink I It doesn't? How could it NOT? >understand what you are trying to say. And yes it is reasonable to >exxpect that it be reccovered, but the real question is when. And When? I'd say within about 2 minutes of the police officer's entry of the license number into the system for ticketing, on the first occurrence. The police department DOES have a computerized system for billing of it's parking fares, and that's tracked by the license tag number. >given that California voters have constricted the police resources by >limiting tax revenues with idiotic steps like proposition 13 I would >fully expect that automobile recovery will be way down the list. They obviously have not constricted the police resources to the point where they've stopped writing parking tickets. >> When someone I knew told me how the chicago police wrote him a letter to >> tell him where is car was after it had been reported stolen, I thought [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> police force? And it's not that they failed to check it once, they failed >> to check TWENTY NINE times. -- Sarcasm is my sword Apathy is my shield > I assume the followup story will be the government trying to hold her > responsible for the 29 parking tickets. Hell, SOMEBODY has to pay for those spots!!! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.