RunRyder RC
 23  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 14 pages [ <<    <     11      12     ( 13 )     14     NEXT    >> ] 8133 views
HelicopterOff Topics › Driver tazed for speeding
12-01-2007 03:35 AM  10 years agoPost 241
Brett

rrVeteran

Chicago Burbs

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

They get sued all the time, you have not got a clue. Thats was my point everyine had an opinion but not a clue.

The state does not want a loose canon on patrol because that will cost them more in the end. When cops act out of school they want to jamb them these days because of all the people thay cry foul.

We are not talking about good cops bad cops or corrupt cops here, We are talking about a guy that made a traffic stop got screwed over buy a guy that thought he would dictate what was going on and refused the cops orders.

Face it, man can not handle that someone has athority over him and thats what make him mad when he see's these things. Just be objective, if the guy did not refuse and resist it would have never gotten to the point that it did. No one has yet to offer what the cop should have done to make the arrest. I dont support the bad cops at all, but I do support the guys doing what they need to when a wise ass acts up. Perhaps his dad never taught him.

Im done with this one. Sorry that we dont agree but I mean no disrespect.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-01-2007 03:37 AM  10 years agoPost 242
LouInSD

rrVeteran

San Diego CA USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

And speaking of "police states"...

How to profit from the coming police state in America...

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.co...oliceState.aspx

I couldnt believe the title of this article...

Even investors recognize that we have a problem of growing police power but they are still willing to cash in on it...

Wow! is all I can say...

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-01-2007 03:42 AM  10 years agoPost 243
Ronald Thomas

rrMaster

Gainesville, Fl, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

No one still offered what the cop should have done.
I DID! I said if the cop had simply told the guy that him signing the ticket was NOT admitting to guilt, I am sure it would not have gone the way it did. The motorist clearly stated that he was not going to sign it because he was not speeding. A calmer, smarter person would have done that.
I does not matter that the motorist broke the law, the cop used "non-lethal" (but proven to be otherwise) force to subdue a guy who had two fingers in his pocket, NOT his whole hand, AND he was walking away!. When asked WHY he was tazed, the cop said "because I thought you were going to leave" NOT because he feared the guy and NOT because he was in danger.
BOTTOM LINE....The cop went too far!!!....Ron

Team MikadoUSA 480XXTreme, 550SX, 600SX, 700XXTreme, 800XXTreme!!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-01-2007 03:45 AM  10 years agoPost 244
Ronald Thomas

rrMaster

Gainesville, Fl, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The piggy got off.
That's horse crap....

Team MikadoUSA 480XXTreme, 550SX, 600SX, 700XXTreme, 800XXTreme!!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-01-2007 03:49 AM  10 years agoPost 245
LouInSD

rrVeteran

San Diego CA USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

When the state investigates the state, you already know what their conclusion is going to be...

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-01-2007 08:52 AM  10 years agoPost 246
spork

rrVeteran

Mountain View, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Dork ...Ops im sorry it was Spork dam my spelling is bad.
Yup. Your thinking too.
You can’t deal with the truth...
What the hell are you going on about? What truth am I having trouble with? Use your words - you can do it.
I may not be able to spell but I sure can count.
I imagine your mother must be very proud.
He can’t simply ignore the order of the law and walk away.
Nope. And if this cop wasn't such a power hungry pussy that had been beaten up too many times as a kid, he could've easily cuffed this panzy ass without injury to either one of them. But that wouldn't get his rocks off.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-01-2007 05:12 PM  10 years agoPost 247
SSN Pru

rrElite Veteran

Taxachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

But that wouldn't get his rocks off.
And he couldnt go back to HQ and boast about tazering someone...

Stupidity can be cured. Ignorance is for life!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-01-2007 05:56 PM  10 years agoPost 248
gian

rrVeteran

AZ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You know, I guess the fact is that many people, (including myself,) haven't realized the state that police enforcement, and our life, has become. I guess it IS the movies that we live in today. Cops using high-tech devices to incapacitate and threaten your life until you comply. Guilty until proven innocent. Citizen servants man-handling other citizens. I guess the truth is that this IS the future, and that life is becoming more DIGITAL- ie. Yes or No, Right or Wrong, absolute power or none at all. We are taking the humanity out of so many things. Most of humanity- the ones who are not directly profiting from keeping the herd in line- would agree, I think.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR  Quote
12-01-2007 06:14 PM  10 years agoPost 249
kab1sg

rrNovice

Richland, Missouri

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Everyone has an opinion about what happened. While there are many law enforcement officers who might not agree on the trooper's chosen method for gaining compliance, most would agree on his decision to maintain control of his stop. I agree some officers need to have refresher training in their use of "verbal judo". I agree the trooper was too quick to resort to the use of "less (not non) lethal" force. Yes, he could have said to the driver, "You are under arrest for...." if that is the protocol of his agency. He chose not to. It is clear he was irritated by the response from the driver.

I won't even pretend to be the advocate for officers everywhere. I can only speak for one. I guarantee don't look for a traffic stop to go wrong and will try to prevent it. I saw nothing to indicate a threat from the driver but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. For every video of an officer crossing a line there is another video of citizens crossing the line. One of the finest human beings I know was almost killed by a driver he stopped. She was driving 110+ mph on the interstate (on the shoulder). The rule in our part of the state (set by the circuit court) is drivers found to be 30 or more mph over the speed limit go to jail. He asked her to come out of the vehicle and she refused. He reached for her arm (jacket) and she floored the car, dragging him into traffic. Lucky for him, he let go. I don't look forward to the prospect of informing anyone of the death of their husband, wife or child.

Spork, you and I have traveled this road before and I respect your opinion and your right to have and voice it. I take particular issue with your portrayal of police officers as uneducated of intellectually inferior. For reasons only each of them can articulate, they chose the profession they have. We are truly representative of the very population we serve. No better no worse. Every occupation has examples of people who should not be doing the jobs they have. From doctors to athletes to sanitation workers. Each chose his profession. Every day, I see examples of men and women who conduct themselve professionally and honorably. My sister has a doctorate in physics and I can't understand what she finds appealing about it. I can understand her passion, as I can understand anyone's passion for things they do or enjoy. I dont agree that 90% of the officers are bad. I will agree that 90% of the videos such as the one from Utah are of officers going too far.

Should the trooper have allowed the driver to return to his vehicle? I think not. Could he have been more professional? Yes. Speeding in and of itself is nothing more than a misdemeanor offense in most states. Remember, I haven't written a single traffic law or statute. I was merely hired to enforce the laws created by the public servants elected by their constituents. I apologize for any misspelled words. Consider what the driver said about knowing he was going too fast. Remove the troopers gruffness or the driver's recalcitrance and that issue remains. Take away the speed and this incident doesn't happen.

To all I will say, once name calling and insults begin, the chance for reasonable discussion ends.

Kenneth
Trooper...Missouri State Highway Patrol

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
12-01-2007 07:42 PM  10 years agoPost 250
spork

rrVeteran

Mountain View, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Spork, you and I have traveled this road before...
Sorry, I only vaguely recall that. If I've offended you personally I apologise. From what you've written here I can tell you that you're at least in the extreme minority of cops I've personally interacted with.
I take particular issue with your portrayal of police officers as uneducated of intellectually inferior.
I'm speaking of the group as a whole. Not of every single cop. Unfortunately, I think this is perhaps the one and only topic I'm so biased on that I go to such lengths. But I wasn't born with that bias, and it wasn't taught to me. It comes from 45 years of experience through many different channels. It's not just the media, or traffic stops.
We are truly representative of the very population we serve. No better no worse.
Sorry I simply don't believe there's any evidence that supports that.
Every occupation has examples of people who should not be doing the jobs they have. From doctors to athletes to sanitation workers.
I agree 100%. It's my opinion that the percentage is much higher among cops. You strike me as a pretty bright and honest guy. Can you honestly tell me you feel differently?
I dont agree that 90% of the officers are bad. I will agree that 90% of the videos such as the one from Utah are of officers going too far.
I assure you my opinions are not formed solely on what I see in such videos. I know as well as anyone how extremely biased such a channel is. You don't agree that 90% of officers are bad, but are you willing to give us your honest opinion as to what percentage of officers should not be on the force?

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-01-2007 07:46 PM  10 years agoPost 251
gian

rrVeteran

AZ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Quote
We are truly representative of the very population we serve. No better no worse.

Sorry I simply don't believe there's any evidence that supports that.
I agree. Someone has to choose who is and who is not allowed to be a cop. Therefore, since it is not a random sampling of people who are cops, the representative statement cannot be true.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR  Quote
12-01-2007 08:53 PM  10 years agoPost 252
kab1sg

rrNovice

Richland, Missouri

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I am not personally qualified to say what percentage should not be. I do know the agency I work for does a pretty good job of selecting their troopers. Most get weeded out in the academy and a smaller amount are filtered out as a result of performance. I only say we are representative because we come from all segments of society and backgrounds. Some people sign up for the wrong reasons and some become jaded by years on the job. I can only speak about the people I work with regularly. I can honestly say all of the people in my group are intelligent, professional and caring. In most service oriented professions, if the end user of the service is rude or abusive, the establishment can deny service. Mine is not such an entity. I routinely deal with people because I have found them doing something wrong. I DON'T treat them like they robbed a bank when they simply run a stop sign. I am not angry because they were speeding or whatever. Some people just like to drive fast. I don't personally have a problem with that, the state does.

Whether I was selected by the people of the state or not, I am still representative of the people of the state. The same things that bug them bug me. I don't treat people with disrespect nor do I want to be disrespected. I don't take what is said about officers personally. The poster has no knowledge of me or how I function. I merely try to point out we are all people. I could give you, from personal observation, daily stories of men and women who go above and beyond to help others. They are not all police officers. It should not be Us against Them. We ARE ALL US! I too, have had some unfavorable experiences with some police officers in my past. I know that was not ALL officers. When I go to an eating establishment, I order something and I hope I will get what I asked for. I am not rude; I say please and refer to the server as "sir" or "maam". I expect them to be polite. Same way when I work. I am polite and I give the customer what they asked for. No more no less. Again, I don't speak for anyone but myself. Rick, I was not offended by what you wrote. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it. It is not personal. Gentlemen, I'm out! Enjoy your weekend and the rest of the holiday season!

Kenneth

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
12-02-2007 02:00 AM  10 years agoPost 253
fritzthecat

rrKey Veteran

Virginia Beach, VA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

FYI

By BROCK VERGAKIS, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 8 minutes ago

A Utah trooper who used a Taser to subdue a stubborn motorist who was walking away from him during a traffic stop felt threatened and acted reasonably, state officials said Friday.

Trooper Jon Gardner remains on leave, primarily for his safety, after numerous anonymous threats were made against him, said Supt. Lance Davenport of the Utah Highway Patrol.

Gardner twice zapped Jared Massey with a Taser when the driver walked away and refused to sign a speeding ticket on Sept. 14. The incident was recorded on Gardner's dashboard camera. Massey filed a public-records request and posted the video on YouTube, which said it has been viewed more than 1 million times.

"We found that Trooper Gardner's actions were lawful and reasonable under the circumstances," Davenport said at a news conference, joined by Scott Duncan, commissioner of the UHP's parent agency, the Utah Department of Public Safety.

The investigation was conducted by officials in the Department of Public Safety, which oversees the highway patrol. The officials have asked the Utah attorney general's office to also review the case to determine if laws were broken.

Massey was not at the news conference and could not immediately be reached for comment.

The video showed Massey arguing about whether he was exceeding the speed limit on U.S. 40 in eastern Utah. Massey got out and walked to the rear of his vehicle. The trooper pulled out his Taser when the driver tried to return to his seat.

Massey shrieked, fell and said: "Officer, I really don't know what you're doing."

"Face down! Face down! Put your hands behind your back," Gardner said.

When Massey's wife emerged from the passenger side, the trooper ordered her to get back in — "or you're going to jail, too." Moments later, when another officer arrived, one of them said, "Oh, he took a ride with the Taser."

Davenport said that comment was inappropriate.

Officials said Gardner could have issued the ticket without Massey's signature. The investigation found use of the Taser was justified because Massey had turned his back and put a hand near his pocket, Davenport said.

"For a law-enforcement officer, that is a very, very scary situation," he said.

Nonetheless, the trooper now realizes that other options were available, Davenport said.

The UHP has received thousands of phone calls and e-mails since the video was posted online, many of them critical of the trooper. There also have been online threats against Gardner.

"I think mostly it's people blowing off steam, and that's fine," Sgt. Jeff Nigbur, a UHP spokesman, said Friday before the investigation's conclusions were announced. "But you can't say you're going to endanger somebody's life."

He said there was no evidence that the trooper's life is in danger. Massey has pleaded for the online threats to stop.

Tasers use compressed nitrogen to fire two barbed darts that can penetrate clothing to deliver a 50,000-volt shock to immobilize people.

Fritz


'Send Money, Women and Guns!'

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-02-2007 12:18 PM  10 years agoPost 254
InvertedDude

rrApprentice

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

..

..

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-02-2007 06:10 PM  10 years agoPost 255
Jarold C

rrApprentice

Somewhere near Pittsburgh, PA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Most of you guys need a civics lesson! You SHOULD have had this stuff in high school:

Sorry for the length and spelling in advance, but I'm condensing (and paraphrasing) about three thick volumes of court decisions and federal law to several paragraphs. If anyone finds mistakes, please point them out. Please don't argue fine points of case law here; I too can come up with "what-ifs", etc, but as always - "Change the facts, change the case".
I don't make 'em, I just live with them and try to change the ones I don't like.

I purposely did not watch the video, because I didn't want to make a judgement on "attitudes" of the Cop or subject. After you've read the little civics lesson below, and separating yourself from the "attitudes" involved, you have to look at the LEGALITY of the use of force before you go on "feelings".

Interstate Non-Resident Violators Compact: Valid in all states EXCEPT Michigan, Wisconsin, California, Montana, Alaska. This compact allows motorists to continue on their way after being stopped for MINOR traffic violations in all 45 member states by agreeing to appear in court (or take whatever legal action is necessary - guilty by mail, etc.) This is what you sign for on your ticket. The law stipulates that if you don't offer a promise to appear (can be oral or in writing), you must be taken into custody (arrested) and taken before an "issuing authority immediately" (judge) for trial.
There is no option for a ticket to be issued. Even a lot of cops don't fully understand that you CAN'T issue a summons or ticket to a compact violator.
The law also allows that if you DO NOT, or CANNOT produce a valid license from a member state, you will also be taken before an "issuing authority immediately". This allows the arrest of anyone who cannot (oops, don't have it with me), or will not produce a license in 45 states. Most cops tend to let you go on this one if they can prove you have a license (computer), because no one wants to do 3 hours of paperwork for a violation.
You poor folks from Michigan, Wisconsin, California, Montana, Alaska should understand that there is NO option for you poor folks in the other 45 states. Most cops don't even understand that they CANNOT issue you a citation, and MUST take you before the JP, judge, etc. They will still issue a citation, but since there is no reciprocity with your state, it can't affect your license at home.

Now, HERE is the tricky part: AN OFFICER CANNOT TELL YOU THAT IF YOU DO NOT SIGN THE TICKET, YOU WILL GO TO JAIL. The ticket must be signed "voluntarily, under no threat of force, promise or coercion". The Superior Court has said that "sign this or go to jail" is the "penultimate show of force, authority and coercion!"
When you sign for you D.L in any state you are agreeing to the Compact, you can't "opt-out". And you are agreeing to arrest if you violate it. Like any other law, its not the cops job to educate you on the penalty.

Totality of the circumstances - All information AVAILABLE (can't look at facts not found until AFTER the incident) to the officer at the time the incident occurs. The Supreme Court has determined that this evidence MUST be viewed through the officer's eyes, using his experience and training, to decide if the the officers actions were those of an officer with the SAME EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING (reasonably prudent police officer standard).

Mere encounter - ANY officer can walk up to you and ask you ANYTHING, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE (assuming legally accessible ground - yes that includes private property under certain circumstances) You have not been DETAINED yet, and may walk away without answering questions. HOWEVER, the act of you walking away CAN be used by the officer as ONE of the circumstances (remember totality of the circumstances)used in finding your actions suspicious, and you could then find yourself in:

Investigatory detention - The officer reasonably believes that you're somehow involved in criminal activity (in most states you need not be the suspect, but can also be detained as a witness). He must be able to articulate WHY he felt you were involved in that activity LATER IN COURT (totality of the circumstances). The court will not accept a "hunch".

There is NO LAW (there may be department policy - especially on things like traffic stops) that requires THAT IT BE EXPLAINED TO YOU AT THE TIME OF THE STOP ("We do not find that any officer must tip his hand about what he knows about a subject's activities so that the subject, when released, can proceed on his merry-way and destroy the evidence or abscond" ). In investigatory detention the officer can convey to you that you may not leave, either by WORD ("Stop" or "Stay here" or "get out of the car" )OR ACTION (red lights and Siren, handcuffing, taking hold of you physically).

Traffic stops have been held by the Supreme Court to be an Investigatory Detention and you have NO RIGHT not to comply with all orders given that do not directly put you in jeopardy of injury or loss of life (You can argue the lawfulness of the orders in court, but NOT on the highway). The court said that the officers can order YOU and ALL PASSENGERS to get out of a car, into a car, stay in the car, stay in a certain place, not to move, take your hands out of your pockets, put your hands out the window, etc. It recently determined it reasonable for an order to HANG UP YOUR CELL PHONE (seems some enterprising unlicensed pharmacists (read drug-dealers) were calling in ground support (read drive-by targeting of officers on a traffic stop). This is the one I found kind of amazing, but I guess I understand it - you can be ordered not to converse with other passengers or bystanders! (again, a safety thing).

In most states the law you are charged with if you fail to comply with the conditions of Investigatory detention is some type of "Escape from detention or custody" or a "Resisting Arrest" statute. This applies to "just walking away". Again I haven't seen the video, but it sounds like this is what applies here.

ARREST Only upon probable cause.
Again - there is NO LAW that you be required that you be TOLD you are under arrest (again, there may be policy ) or that YOU BE TOLD UNDER WHAT CHARGES YOU ARE BEING ARRESTED. An officer can convey to you that you are under arrest, either by WORD ("you are under arrest" ) or ACTION (transporting you in a police car, closing and locking an interview room door etc. ) Contrary to TV, there is ALSO no requirement to "read you your rights" when you are placed under arrest (there may be local law or policy, but the Supreme Court only requires the Miranda Warnings when you are subject to "custodial interrogation", which means being interrogated directly about the actions involving criminal activity while in custody. The cops can ask you identity information, about your employment, your family, or your pick in the Super Bowl without Mirandizing you.

USE OF FORCE The Supreme Court has held that a peace officer may use the force necessary to counteract force used by the subject to overcome an arrest. Can't be more than necessary, BUT "there is no requirement for the officer to endure even the slightest injury" in applying that force. (He doesn't have to try something that could injure him if other options are available). This is where "stand-off weapons" like OC spray, and the Taser come in.

Duty to Retreat "An officer has NO duty to retreat from a lawful action or arrest", and "in fact has the Duty to persevere and overcome resistance met while undertaking those actions."

The Taser is not an "alternative to lethal force". In fact in Taser's Law Enforcement classes is is recommended (and accepted by the International Chiefs of Police) to be used on the same level as Pepper spray, or "hard open hand techniques" to counteract "active resistance". Active resistance is "pulling away, walking away. refusing to obey verbal commands, or any action SHORT of aggressive action (punching, kicking, etc.)

If you read all of this, your a lawyer, a law student, a political activist or a cop!

Flame Suit ON!
.

Guess what? I just saved a ton of money on my Auto(rotation) insurance!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-02-2007 07:12 PM  10 years agoPost 256
Brett

rrVeteran

Chicago Burbs

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The Superior Court has said that "sign this or go to jail" is the "penultimate show of force, authority and coercion!"
You are 100% correct
USE OF FORCE The Supreme Court has held that a peace officer may use the force necessary to counteract force used by the subject to overcome an arrest. Can't be more than necessary, BUT "there is no requirement for the officer to endure even the slightest injury" in applying that force. (He doesn't have to try something that could injure him if other options are available). This is where "stand-off weapons" like OC spray, and the Taser come in.
Teser Better Choice then a crack in the head
Duty to Retreat "An officer has NO duty to retreat from a lawful action or arrest", and "in fact has the Duty to persevere and overcome resistance met while undertaking those actions."
When that happens we have no more law and order beit a traffic stop or a riot.
The Taser is not an "alternative to lethal force". In fact in Taser's Law Enforcement classes is is recommended (and accepted by the International Chiefs of Police) to be used on the same level as Pepper spray, or "hard open hand techniques" to ounteract "active resistance". Active resistance is "pulling away, walking away. refusing to obey verbal commands, or any action SHORT of aggressive action (punching, kicking, etc.)
In situations whre lethal force is warranted a tazer should be the first choice in effort to preserve the life is possible.

I was done with this topic but you squarley hit all the point. Well put. You are right on point. Your spelling is pretty good too!

I would not worry abou the plame suits, just lots of flameing liberials these days who would rather claim that the the law of this country is corupt and a joke and that it's authority is all wrong and bad. Neededles to say thats why we have such a high level of A-wall in todays military. It's no longer about the laws of the United States and standing for them its all about if we agree with them. Its why our country is going down the S***ter so quicly if we don't take a stance. Real men need to stand up and take it back. It does not matter if its a traffic stop or a robbery, the law is the law. The cop was not bad I never once saw him ask for a $50

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-02-2007 07:22 PM  10 years agoPost 257
SSN Pru

rrElite Veteran

Taxachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Jarold C

Well put...

You can't argue with facts...

Stupidity can be cured. Ignorance is for life!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-02-2007 07:29 PM  10 years agoPost 258
spork

rrVeteran

Mountain View, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Most of you guys need a civics lesson!
Watch the video and get back to us.
You can't argue with facts...
I notice the typical M.O. here is to argue without them.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-02-2007 07:37 PM  10 years agoPost 259
deafheliflyer

rrKey Veteran

Arizona

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

hi

Brett..

well said too.. Most of the people on here that bitch and moan are what I call "arm-chair" quarterbacks who have nothing positive to say... and use this board to fulfill some "empty spots" in their dull and routinal day...

Maybe RunRyder is the only forum they have... in order to express themselves (wife dont listen, family dont listen and they have no friends) and they are just pissed off at the world... And pissed off at their goverments.... and pissed off at everything else in their non-existent life..

Of course some awesome debates have come up here but most of them are kindergarden in nature and nothing more than a baby crying for a bottle of milk..

Some people forget that Runryder is a hobby helicopter forum ... And there are A LOT OF other forums out there better suited for topics such as this..

Just my .02 cents.

Crash-Prone and overcoming it!!!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-03-2007 03:48 PM  10 years agoPost 260
gian

rrVeteran

AZ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Ok, nice posts. But, don't you think that it should matter what someone is doing wrong? After all, there are different levels of punnishment. Like I said before- we are just taking the human element out of so many things.
Go ahead and tell me that I am not talking logic- Logic is my game, baby. I just feel that these circumstances didn't warrant this type of action.
Again- kick a$$ post on the law. I'd just like to keep things a little more personal. That's all.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 14 pages [ <<    <     11      12     ( 13 )     14     NEXT    >> ] 8133 views
HelicopterOff Topics › Driver tazed for speeding
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 23  Topic Subscribe

Tuesday, December 12 - 8:05 pm - Copyright © 2000-2017 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online