Out of state traffic stop

[IndyDave1776]

No it isn't. That's just rationalizing unsafe behavior, which I see all the time (well, I usually see it with the tilted head and both index fingers going up and down).

If you want to "get away", just take your foot off the gas and let the "fidiots" get away from you.

I'm all for rationalizing bad behavior, but it is just silly not to tell the truth and tell people to stop playing Tony Stewart. Your grand jury won't let you "get away".

This is not necessarily true. While not the only example I have experienced, one which comes to mind happened in Tennessee on I24 which has a speed limit of 70 mph. I had the cruise control set at approximately 70. Some jackass passes me and promptly slows to between 55 and 60. I pass the jackass. Repeat cycle, jackass passes me, slows to upper 50s. Wash, rinse, repeat. Finally had enough. I held the truck at red line which is about 94mph for about 10 minutes then backed down to 70. Never saw the jackass again. No rationalization, just the fact of the matter.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This is not necessarily true.

Slowing down or pulling off for a root beer is always safer and does not risk arrest or ticket.

I pass the jackass. Repeat cycle, jackass passes me, slows to upper 50s. Wash, rinse, repeat.

You realize 24 is a drug corridor and that that could have been a cop setting you up?

Don't wrestle with the pig. The pig likes it and you both get dirty.

NASCAR is cool and on but it ain't legal for us--slow down or pull off.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Slowing down or pulling off for a root beer is always safer and does not risk arrest or ticket.



You realize 24 is a drug corridor and that that could have been a cop setting you up?

Don't wrestle with the pig. The pig likes it and you both get dirty.

NASCAR is cool and on but it ain't legal for us.

That's nice if you have unlimited time.

It seems that every divided highway in the continental United States is a drug corridor. If that fossil was a cop, she must have been dragged out of several years of retirement.

Oh, there is a question related to this that I have had on my mind: How is it that we have reached the point in our society in which the responsible people are expected to make accommodation at their own expense of time or substance to accommodate people who need their throats cut? Why are we expected to simply accept the problems caused by people like this including the presumption we should simply stop and wait them out because someone else decides to be a dick for the sheer hell of messing up someone else's day.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

That's nice if you have unlimited time

Something one must budget for I guess.

How is it that we have reached the point in our society in which the responsible people are expected to make accommodation at their own expense of time or substance to accommodate people who need their throats cut?

Because life is more fun if one is not sitting in the Indiana Department of Corrections for Murder . . . maybe?

Why are we expected to simply accept the problems caused by people like this including the presumption we should simply stop and wait them out because someone else decides to be a dick for the sheer hell of messing up someone else's day.

Because the "he was an a-hole" defense is really, really weak at jury trial and sentencing.

 

[hopper68]

But Kirk, I grew up watching Bo and Luke speeding and driving like madmen every week and they never lost their license. And if they were felons and could not carry guns, where did they get all that dynamite.

[video=youtube;7ytBebmuq-c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ytBebmuq-c[/video]

 

[Kirk Freeman]

But Kirk, I grew up watching Bo and Luke speeding and driving like madmen every week and they never lost their license.

Yes, the Dukes of Hazard defense. A classic to be certain.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Something one must budget for I guess.



Because life is more fun if one is not sitting in the Indiana Department of Corrections for Murder . . . maybe?



Because the "he was an a-hole" defense is really, really weak at jury trial and sentencing.

You can't budget for it when the feds determine how many hours per day and per week you have available in conjunction with meeting the requirements of your employer.

My question is why is it that it is apparently perfectly legal for people to do thing which are both irritating and dangerous and the rest of us are expected to just put up with it. WHAT DO WE PAY THE STATE POLICE FOR IF THEY CAN'T EVEN DEAL WITH ACTUAL HAZARDS RATHER THAN REVENUE COLLECTION?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

My question is why is it that it is apparently perfectly legal for people to do thing which are both irritating and dangerous and the rest of us are expected to just put up with it. WHAT DO WE PAY THE STATE POLICE FOR IF THEY CAN'T EVEN DEAL WITH ACTUAL HAZARDS RATHER THAN REVENUE COLLECTION?

My grandpa could remember that driving was in his youth considered no different from walking or riding a horse and did not hear the word 'privilege' used in conjunction with it until into the 1950s. In the preceding half-century, the sky didn't fall on account of under-regulation.

I am well aware that so recently as the time in which my grandparents grew up, if you followed the Ten Commandments, particularly the last 7 dealing with interaction with others, and paid your taxes, you would never have legal problems.

Well, hold on, now. Are you letting pragmatism get in the way of your previously expressed views? I'm curious as to which of the Commandments addresses driving unsafely, and if there were rules about walking too slow in front of others, etc? What behaviors are you suggesting should be illegal?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, hold on, now. Are you letting pragmatism get in the way of your previously expressed views? I'm curious as to which of the Commandments addresses driving unsafely, and if there were rules about walking too slow in front of others, etc? What behaviors are you suggesting should be illegal?

The way the story was told to me, problem people were addressed informally. Since addressing them informally will get you a room with a view through bars, I in turn expect those who enforce those limitations to deal with the problem themselves. If (the general) you are going to prohibit me from taking care of my own business, they you take care of it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The way the story was told to me, problem people were addressed informally. Since addressing them informally will get you a room with a view through bars, I in turn expect those who enforce those limitations to deal with the problem themselves. If (the general) you are going to prohibit me from taking care of my own business, they you take care of it.

Ok. So are you advocating a return to taking care of it informally? Would that be a workable solution on the interstate, or even in a mid sized city?

What if there's a disagreement on if the behavior was unsafe or not?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ok. So are you advocating a return to taking care of it informally? Would that be a workable solution on the interstate, or even in a mid sized city?

What if there's a disagreement on if the behavior was unsafe or not?

Good questions. My problem basically comes down to the guarantee that a problem will not be deal with unless someone else gets fed up with the person initiating the problem, and then that person takes the heat. It reminds me (I probably would not have though about this had the subject not come up earlier today) of watching the Iran-Contra hearings. I was sitting on the couch watching and my sister decided to lie down on the couch, taking up most of it to the point of crowding me against the arm, and then proceeding to kick the sh*t out of me. Needless to say, I didn't appreciate it. I got punished, not for doing anything (which I didn't) but merely for getting irritated about it. This same mindset seems to have infected society on a larger scale before such a time as would have fallen within the scope of my recollection. I really don't know exactly how a new normal should or would work, but feel comfortable saying that the present 'normal' just doesn't get it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Good questions. My problem basically comes down to the guarantee that a problem will not be deal with unless someone else gets fed up with the person initiating the problem, and then that person takes the heat. It reminds me (I probably would not have though about this had the subject not come up earlier today) of watching the Iran-Contra hearings. I was sitting on the couch watching and my sister decided to lie down on the couch, taking up most of it to the point of crowding me against the arm, and then proceeding to kick the sh*t out of me. Needless to say, I didn't appreciate it. I got punished, not for doing anything (which I didn't) but merely for getting irritated about it. This same mindset seems to have infected society on a larger scale before such a time as would have fallen within the scope of my recollection. I really don't know exactly how a new normal should or would work, but feel comfortable saying that the present 'normal' just doesn't get it.

So, perhaps, a legal framework of some sort, including both civil and criminal penalties, could be used? You know, a pragmatic approach that realizes that automobiles require new laws to deal with, and that a larger and more anonymous society requires ways to deal with offenders when not everyone knows everyone any longer? And that while all laws cannot be enforced all the time, having an agreed upon legal structure with potential penalties for violating that structure results in an overall safer environment compared to a free for all or attempting to deal with it "informally", which today would likely result in fights and shootings, which would be less safe overall?

 

[IndyDave1776]

So, perhaps, a legal framework of some sort, including both civil and criminal penalties, could be used? You know, a pragmatic approach that realizes that automobiles require new laws to deal with, and that a larger and more anonymous society requires ways to deal with offenders when not everyone knows everyone any longer? And that while all laws cannot be enforced all the time, having an agreed upon legal structure with potential penalties for violating that structure results in an overall safer environment compared to a free for all or attempting to deal with it "informally", which today would likely result in fights and shootings, which would be less safe overall?

That, or if the system isn't going to help when the shoe is on one foot it should likewise stay out of it when the shoe switches to the other.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Given that I am tired enough that I had to go back and edit that last post in order to make one sentence make sense, I think I am going to give up for the night.

Rest well!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That's nice if you have unlimited time.

It seems that every divided highway in the continental United States is a drug corridor. If that fossil was a cop, she must have been dragged out of several years of retirement.

Oh, there is a question related to this that I have had on my mind: How is it that we have reached the point in our society in which the responsible people are expected to make accommodation at their own expense of time or substance to accommodate people who need their throats cut? Why are we expected to simply accept the problems caused by people like this including the presumption we should simply stop and wait them out because someone else decides to be a dick for the sheer hell of messing up someone else's day.

I have another solution. Without a doubt, Kirk's way will keep you out of jail, avoid civil litigation, possibly damage to your vehicle, but may cost you some time and maybe miss a delivery schedule. Undoubtedly, it's the "mature" thing to do. Don't forget, that once they make you mad, they've "won". You could have played their game...when Mr. Pass-then-slow-down did his trick, rather than speed up and pass with hopes of leaving him behind...pass and then get back over and follow his example--maybe plus some. Now, admittedly this is childish, immature, blah, blah, blah, but there's no need to get mad when you can pay it back.

 

[j706]

This is not necessarily true. While not the only example I have experienced, one which comes to mind happened in Tennessee on I24 which has a speed limit of 70 mph. I had the cruise control set at approximately 70. Some jackass passes me and promptly slows to between 55 and 60. I pass the jackass. Repeat cycle, jackass passes me, slows to upper 50s. Wash, rinse, repeat. Finally had enough. I held the truck at red line which is about 94mph for about 10 minutes then backed down to 70. Never saw the jackass again. No rationalization, just the fact of the matter.

You and I think alike. Many of the truck drivers driving in the mountains are overly aggressive. I lost count of the number of them that were committing reckless driving by our states elements of the crime. That does not in any way excuse my own speed. The shear numbers of them running those roads at night time and acting like tools made a already dangerous road much more so. Someone could pull off and wait but they will only be dealing with other endless groups of them. They go super fast on the down hill portions all the while driving with in feet of other motorists. Then super slow on the uphill causing everyone else to crawl with them, all while taking up both lanes. Pretty aggravating IMO.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You and I think alike. Many of the truck drivers driving in the mountains are overly aggressive. I lost count of the number of them that were committing reckless driving by our states elements of the crime. That does not in any way excuse my own speed. The shear numbers of them running those roads at night time and acting like tools made a already dangerous road much more so. Someone could pull off and wait but they will only be dealing with other endless groups of them. They go super fast on the down hill portions all the while driving with in feet of other motorists. Then super slow on the uphill causing everyone else to crawl with them, all while taking up both lanes. Pretty aggravating IMO.

I am with you all the way. The thing I just don't understand is why anyone gets their jollies out of being a jackass. It isn't like it pays extra.

One thing that does stand out so far as the truck drivers are concerned is that back when, you became a truck driver because you wanted to drive a truck and you learned from a truck driver. Today, people hire on for driving jobs because they saw an ad in the paper for more money than they could make doing anything else available to them, they go to a driving school, free standing or company operated, which shoves them through the program, gets them licensed, tells them they are 'professionals' and puts them in trucks. It is all about numbers, making money on the training as a stand alone or having a new recruit nailed down with a two year contract in a company situation, and putting warm asses in seats, and that is exactly what they get--warm asses in seats.

 

[stephen87]

-http://le.nra.org/leosa/leosa-welcomes-the-military.aspx

- https://www.fop.net/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf



- https://www.fop.net/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf

Looks like the 2010 amendment changed the ammo restrictions, so I was outdated on that one. At least per the NRA and FOP, magazine restrictions still stand.

I have to ask. When in CA, does your firearm have to be a CA approved firearm while carrying under LEOSA? For example, the SIG P229 is different when comparing the CA version and the standard version. The standard version is illegal in CA, does that include when carrying under LEOSA?

 

[j706]

I have to ask. When in CA, does your firearm have to be a CA approved firearm while carrying under LEOSA? For example, the SIG P229 is different when comparing the CA version and the standard version. The standard version is illegal in CA, does that include when carrying under LEOSA?

I do not know the answer but I think one would be hard pressed to fine a Ca. LEO that would jack another LEO up over something like that. But you never know and as others have said I don't want to be a test case. Heck if we had goofy gun laws like they have I sure as heck wouldn't be bothering any proper person over such non sense. I am certain that many , many California LEO feel the same.

 

[cobber]

It's drivers like this why we took down the bridge over I-65. Romney appreciates the business though.


Ditto on the truck drivers. When it's foggy in the mountains I would rather take a side road (if there is one available)...