No More Cop Cars

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Five years or so from now, there may be no more cop cars.

Vehicles used by cops, certainly. But not cars. These are being retired – in the Bladerunner taking-care-of-the-Replicants sense. Ford just announced they won’t be making the Taurus – which is the basis for the Taurus cop car – for much longer. So there goes that one. The other one is the Dodge Charger, extremely popular with law-enforcers because of its rear-drive layout and powerful Hemi V8 engine.

But – savor the irony – the government’s fuel economy fatwas have made it very hard for any car company to continue mass-producing such a car, and the Charger is the last such car left on the field. They use “too much” gas, says Uncle – who levies fines to discourage people (well, people like you and me) from buying them. Which in turn discourages car companies from manufacturing them.

And so, they don’t.

Fiat – which owns Dodge (and Chrysler) may not keep the Charger production line going much longer for exactly this reason. The current Charger is big, heavy – and too thirsty.

Not for us – but for Uncle.

The Charger’s presence in FiatChrysler’s product lineup drags down the company’s overall Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) numbers. CAFE being the formal name for Uncle’s fuel economy fatwas.

The Charger is also ancient in terms of its underlying chassis. It dates back to the ’90s – when Chrysler (this was before Fiat) got access through the partnership it had at that time with Mercedes to the Benz E-Class chassis, which became the basis for what became the current Charger and its higher-zoot cousin, the Chrysler 300. Both are long overdue for a reboot. But that may not happen because of CAFE and if it does happen, making the next-gen Charger CAFE-compliant would probably mean a smaller, lighter and probably front-drive car not suited for cop work.

GM, meanwhile, is killing off the full-size Impala and the mid-sized Malibu is too small (and underpowered) for cop work.

That leaves SUVs.

These are quickly becoming the cop “car” of choice. Models like the Chevy Tahoe and Ford Explorer are already in general use for harassing and collecting; their ranks are certain to expand as the number of potential cars still being made that could serve as cop cars slims to none and the remaining fleet of cop cars attrites out of service.

The cops seem not to mind. SUVs are large and comfortable and also rear-drive (well, the Tahoe is) and some are built with big V8s, which cops love as much as we do.

Ironically, these heavy and un-aerodynamic machines use even more gas than the politically incorrect cars being  . . . retired.

Of course, the government isn’t overly “concerned” (the word regularly used by the government when it comes to justifying new ways to micromanage us) about how much gas it uses. Uncle is only “concerned” when it comes to how much gas we burn – even if we’re the ones paying for it.

Some animals always being more equal than others.

And when you have unlimited access to other people’s money, paying “gas guzzler” penalties is hardly a bother, either.

But never mind that.

Cops in SUVs could prove to be an unintentional boon for us.

They are, first of all, harder to hide. That makes them easier to spot. Ideally, in time enough to pretend we were obeying whatever ridiculous law they were lying in wait in the hope of catching us affronting. An easier-to-spot cop SUV is almost as good as a good radar detector.

Second, they are easier to lose.

No matter how fast an SUV may be in a straight line, it will have to slow down for the curves due to its higher center of gravity. SUVs have wider turning circles, too. That makes them less maneuverable than cars.

Which gives you an advantage, if you are in a car.

Or on a bike.

Also, even though today’s SUVs are quicker than classic-era V8 muscle cars, they are still pretty slow (most of them) relative to today’s performance cars. Even the hottest version of the Explorer – the one equipped with the optional “EcoBoost” twin turbo V6 – is only about as quick to 60 as a four cylinder-powered Mustang. A V8 Mustang constitutes an unfair fight.

For once.

It will take a cut-out lurking cop in an SUV longer to close the gap between him and you, regardless of what you’re driving. This gives you crucial additional seconds to get out of sight, if you’re so inclined.

But the real perk is that eventually, inevitably, cops will lose their SUVs, too. Because SUVs are also required to be CAFE compliant and fleet sales to cop shops won’t sustain production of them anymore than it has kept big sedans in service. “Gas guzzling” SUVs will go the way of the Crown Vic and Impala (the prior Impala, rear-drive, six-passenger and V8 powered) and now the Taurus and Charger (both smaller cars than the old Vic and Impala).

We won’t get them either, of course.

But the point is, neither will they.

. . .

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here, please consider supporting EPautos.

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: EPautos magnets are free to those who send in $20 or more. My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If you find it useful, consider contributing a couple of bucks!  



    • Probably the easiest way to avoid future jury duty is to inquire about jury nullification the next time you’re called. They’ll get you out of there so fast it’ll make your head spin.

      I do the opposite though – when called I play the slavish serf in the hopes of landing on a trial where a bad law suitable for jury nullification is involved. Would love to send all of the persecutor’s “hard work” down the drain. Hasn’t happened yet but hope springs eternal.

      As far as police cars I do still see a few well-worn Crown Vics around, but most of the tax feeders are now driving SUVs.

  1. I won’t be satisfied until they are stuck in their nicely-appointed Fiat 500’s.

    Speeding? They shouldn’t waste their time chasing people for such a minor infraction. In fact, that would be the best solution to the problem of having “enough” police…excuse me: law enforcement… on the streets. (I just can’t get into the bad habit of saying “law enforcement” when referring to people. That’s a verb or an adjective, not a noun.)

    • Ya know, you think it would strike more people as funny, that the “people” who catch the perpetrators of that “crime”[speeding], have to commit the same “crime” in order to do so!

      “Speeding is bad when you do it, so I’m going to do it to make you stop doing it!”.

      If they want to stop speeders, let them start with their own- the pigs.
      If they want gun control, let them start with themselves!

      It’s funny how real crimes, like murder, rape and robbery, are crimes for everyone.
      But invented crimes/transgressions against the state, are only “crimes” when committed by some.
      But increasingly, the line between the two is getting blurred, so that Uncle’s enforcers can even commit real crimes with impunity.

  2. Can’t wait for LEO to start using EVs. Lots of torque right off, but those low speed OJ type of chases will def favor anyone not driving an EV.

    • Hi Windplr,

      I wish more of the people out there, plugged into the Matrix, would stop to consider the interesting fact that government (and government workers) are rarely if ever the ones making “sacrifices” for the sake of the Earth or whatever the excuse-du-jour happens to be. I wonder why that is?

      • Eric, they quite rightly see themselves a class above. They’re told that by superiors and not only do the lowest to the highest courts uphold their elevated status but some superior courts have in effect, outright stated same.
        The hundreds or thousands of videos show they think the law is whatever they say it is.

        Nothing happens to the bully who illegally goes into a woman’s house, rips the towel off, slaps her around naked and then arrests her for failure to properly genuflect to his superiority. He outright says he can come and she has to do what he says.

        With video of the entire event you think he’d at least be reprimanded. He doesn’t get a slap on the wrist even though the taxpayers are going to be forced to pay for the suit the woman will get in civil court.

        You can watch these videos like that all day.

  3. Nunzio

    I understand your argument and I would say in the past you are 100% spot-on.
    However the pattern in the courts these days seems to be pushing for a plea agreement or somebody pleads guilty to something to avoid a jury trial because nobody wants to go in front of a jury these days.
    And my opinion many of the people who seek a jury trial are the actual innocence who have the principles that will not allow them to plead guilty when they are innocent so to me just the fact that you’re in front of a jury gives you at least a 50-50 chance that thay are innocent.
    I myself have been on two juries.
    In both cases the accused walked one on a not guilty verdict and the other one on a hung jury that I found out later the prosecutor declined retrial.
    There was absolutely a lot of pressure on juries to produce a guilty verdict and most jury trials do in fact produce guilty verdicts and from the inside you can see how that happens very easily.

    I myself think every drug charge should be nullified no matter who did it or how many times they’ve been caught doing it because the prohibition against drugs is clearly unconstitutional immoral and something the government has no business doing.
    In fact my first not guilty verdict was a drug charge.
    The first vote how was the only not guilty vote.
    It took me two days to convince the rest of them to let the guy go but I did.
    He may have done it but I don’t care.
    I really think most of the people who do electrical in front of a jury deserve at least to be heard honestly and openly and not be railroaded in a kangaroo court that’s why I will always accept jury duty.
    I think it’s more of us did it would put a very tight leash and what the prosecutors believe they can get away with.
    Of course that will never happen again in my case since after being on two juries that did not result in a guilty verdict I’ve never gotten a summons to appear since and it’s been about 10 years when I usually get them fairly regularly

      • The closest I ever got to being on a jury, the case settled at the last minute.

        But what did happen was that we had to watch a propaganda film by the ABA, where we we told that we would have to declare under oath that we would only rule on the facts of the case and not the law itself.

        What we actually swore to was to simply uphold and defend the state constitution.

        • Ah! That’s how they get ya! Essentially nullifying jury nullification. I guess if one fails to swear, they are kicked off of the jury?

          Like I’ve said, they’re nOT going to let us win. Criminals (The kind that work for Uncle) don’t play fair!

        • Yep the stuff they do to mislead people about the power of the jury and weed out those who actually know is astounding. I will likely never sit on a jury as a result.

          • You have to play your cards close to your vest. I always play the dumb, compliant slave during voir dire. It has not happened yet, but I truly hope that before I croak I get to be a juror on a case suitable for jury nullification.

            I would not hesitate for a moment to kick back and stick with a “Not Guilty!” verdict, screwing the prosecution and their “hero” henchmen, bringing the entire crushing machinery of the State to a grinding halt. If I can convince my fellow jurors, great, if not it’s going to be a mistrial. Either way leaves the persecutors scratching their pointed heads about what happened.

            Not a damned thing the goons can do about it, either. This is the only place where an individual has that kind of power.

            • The slightest smell of judging the law will have them going after whomever they suspect of it. There are things they can do about it because they are not bound by the law. Eventually the person will likely prevail at great personal cost. Which is the point of the system.

            • What is accomplished for all of the effort, Jason?

              You can’t convince the other jurors- It’s not like 12 Angry Men where it’s just the material facts of the case that are in question; but rather, the very basis of the laws which these people love and obey- and in a day when the average person has the attention span of an amoeba, and an even lower IQ.

              So it results in a mistrial, and they retry it without you, and get the desired outcome.

              Meanwhile, you get to sit there, coming and going when they say, and bowing and scraping the “Yes sir!”s before the most unjust and corrupt wretches on this earth, i.e. Uncle’s cadre of priests.

              • Nunz, you and others make good, sound arguments against an individual attempt to nullify a jury. My personal counter argument though is that for me, I must do the right thing and let the heavens fall where they may.

                • Hey Skunks!

                  Ah, you’ve always made good points on this issue as well- but see my most recent post to Alex:
                  For what is probably my strongest argument for not tangling with the system.

                  Essentially, as jurists, our hands are tied and it is usually impossible to do the right thing. It’s more like voting for the lesser evil (Why is it that any time voting is involved, it’s always for a lesser evil- and not for good?! 😉 )

                  Anything that involves voting, always seems to be evil….that’s why I don’t vote. If we had any real power, we wouldn’t need to vote, we could just do. Voting is to give the illusion of power. Keeps the heat off of the monsters..and makes it look like “the will of the people” is being done, and thus “the people” are to blame. On a jury or at a voting booth…doesn’t seem to be much difference.

                  When an advertiser says “FREE!”, we run, ’cause we know it’s a scam. Voting seems to be the political equivalent of “free”.

                  When they tell you to vote to be free……watch out! 😉

                  • Hi Nunz, I believe it was either Mark Twain or H.L. Mencken who said “if voting made a difference they wouldn’t allow it”.

                  • Nunz, again, do not disagree with anything in your posts. All solid points. I just argue that while it might be an exercise in futility my own instinct is to fight back by any means necessary. Jury nullification gives us mundanes at least a chance to throw a punch back at our tormentors while they are stomping on us.

              • Deliberation was not a part of the jury trial in Lysander Spooner’s day. The jury’s vote took place in the court room during the trial. Jury polling was unheard of, being a violation of the jurors’ privacy.
                If the vote was not unanimously guilty, the defendent was acquitted.

            • More like deserting from the military when you realize that you’re nothing but a tool of evil oppressors and are expected to kill people and destroy their countries who have done you and yours no harm.

      • That’s the problem, they aren’t fully informed.
        Makes me wonder what George Carlin would have to say about juries.
        ” Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” George Carlin.
        ” Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” George Carlin.
        ” Anyone driving slower than you is an idiot, anyone driving faster than you is a maniac.” George Carlin.

        • Speaking of fully informed…..

          The few things I give money to are ( besides targeted charities):

          The FIJA Fully Informed Jury Association
          The 10th Amendment Center
          EP Autos
          Tom Woods
          Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty
          The Corbett Report
          The Rutherford Institute
          The Duran

          The first on the list is the Fully Informed Juror Association. A very worthy recipient of your excess funds if any.

        • Haha, John, I’ve been quoting that Carlin idiot/maniac line for decades!

          With juries, it’s not just a matter of them not being “informed”. You could send them to a course on jury nullification- wouldn’t matter, because they have to WANT to nullify the unjust/unconstitutional law…..and the VAST majority of people do not want to do that, because they think that things like victimless-crime laws; laws regulating interpersonal relationships; laws establishing “crimes” by fiat; “crimes against the state”, etc. are all fine and dandy. They voted for the very people who make and enforce those laws…and they even whine for more.

          Same reason they always acquit murderous/abusive pigs…. They think the law is on “their side”…..and even Jimmy Stewart himself, standing up and giving a sppech, is not going to undo a lifetime of generational propaganda and state-worship.

          How much success have you had even amongst your own fambly with such?

    • That’s a very good point you make there, Alex- about those who reject pleas (Something which I would do if I were ever God-forbid, snagged by the system).

      And I agree fully- I would acquit any and all drug charges- or any other victimless “crime” charges.

      One thing that also really bothers me [Not an objection to your points, just an aside] is: Even when someone is guilty of a REAL crime, is that if you vote to convict them, the punishment is often unjust to all involved (The perpetrator; the victim, and the taxpayers)- Sticking a guy in a cage, instead of requiring him to make restitution with punitive damages (including forced servitude if he can not/will not pay), and or making him pay a fine to the state instead of the victim, etc. It’s all just so unjust. I feel that no matter what I’d do, I would have little chance of righting things. And I wouldn’t acquit in such a circumstance, as that would be a gross injustice to the victim if the defendant were truly guilty…..

      But your point about those who reject pleas…that definitely gives me pause to think…..

      Thank you.

      • Part of the problem with the neo-jury is that they have to vote unanimously to have an effect. Anything else is now a mistrial.

        • ….and thus multiple trials for the same crime are inflicted on the defendant…..

          People need to face it: They’re never going to let us win! This system (Legal, political, social fabric….everything) can not be reformed.

            • Oh, sorry- you forgot to phrase that in the form of a question! [25 years…and I still remember a li’l from TV!]

          • They might, but prosecutors are at their core employees of the state and thus are basically lazy and/or political.

            They might re-try if the case could benefit a future political campaign, but often they just drop it and go on to another soft target.

      • I get your point Nunzio, and I agree, if the man is clearly guilty, putting him back on the street is not a great idea. The system is bad, but letting out a killer or rapist to victimize another is not a good solution.

        My other concern though is yes there are plenty of guilty people in the system, but we also have to hold the system to account. What I am trying to say here mischief and illegal behavior on the part of the state to convict even guilty person endangers all of us. I do agree with the “fruit of the poisoned tree” concept, that is if they do an illegal search and seizure and the perp is truly guilty, I think if we do let the guy walk it is not on the jury but on the state. Allowing them to engage in illegal activity to convict someone even though he is guilty should not be tolerated because they will use those very same techniques against those who are not guilty.

        Anyway I just read a short but very intense book called “You Have the Right to Remain Innocent” by James Duane

        If you have ever wondered how and why an innocent person can be coerced to plead guilty this book shows how they do it and cites examples.

        This is book is a must-read for everyone, it is a short read but very intense. I highly recommend it for some importany6 insight on how the system actually works.

        Any of us can get sucked up into the system, here is a simple defense, Do Not under any circumstanced talk to the police without a lawyer. This book will demonstrate why, the stores here are heartbreaking , but it makes it clear how innocent people get railroaded all the time.

        I cannot recommend this book strongly enough. It was recently on sale and I bought 25 copies and gave them away asking people to read it and pass it on. My nephew is a cop, he agrees with everything in the book.

        best to you my friend

        • Alex, during mymost recent incarceration, a BATFE agent showed up at my cell, introduced himself to which I responded in kind. He said he’d like to speak with me. I was cordial, even shook his hand. I believe we were both satisfied neither had a weapon. To his offer I said Thanks but I decline. He said Fine, and left.

          Smartest conversation I ever had with a pig.

          Days later the talkative wife tells me I was a real asshole in jail so she was told and everyone thought she was really nice since she evidently blathered on to them.

          No doubt my silence was spun into being a bad guy.

          Once I had a lawyer he asked what I had told the badged ones. Nothing was my reply. He replied I’d said the ideal thing.

          Then he asked the wife and was already frowning since he had already heard via the prosecutor what she’d said.

          BYW, I was cordial with everyone and got along well with the other inmates….or victims as I more accurately describe them.

          They were all aghast at my charges. The trustee saved my ass too by giving me ice water, something I was supposed to be denied since I was in a cell with no ac or air circulation probably close to 120 degrees. Not hard to figure what they desired for me.

          If you find yourself in the iron bar hotel limit your speech to everyone to trivia. Sure been dry and hot eh. How yall doing? I ll have the trustee give you my food, etc.

          • Great advice, not talking does not make you an asshole. The cops all tel their own kids never to talk to the cops unless you have an attorney with you.

            Read that book I mentioned, it contains a wealth of information and is well worth the cost

            • Alex, the lawyers (federal and state )said I’d made their job easier although in the end I felt I’d been thrown to the wolves, the reason I contend we were financially ruined.

              Mick said you can’t always get what you want. What he didn’t say was the Feds can and will.

              I’m still amazed the Bundy’s came out alive if not intact. Devoted friends and a great deal of the alternative media made a big difference in the outcome, IMO

          • They weren’t kidding, back when they still had to Mirandize arrestees: “Everything you say can and WILL be used against you”.

            From what I hear, they are masters at taking words out of context and asking seemingly innocuous questions to elicit desired words. They say a mjority of cases, the defendant’s words provide most of the evidence.

            8, what you say makes me glad I never married! If the wife can’t be on-board with the whole megillah, who needs her?

        • Another book is “Three felonies A Day” by Harvey Silverglate. He describes how zealous prosecutors can hit you with anything for even doing something legal. How Americans commit three felonies a day without realizing it.

          • Speaking of books, maybe it’s time for some new children’s books…

            The Three Bloated Pigs.
            Officer Horton Humps A Hoe At HQ
            The Princess And The Pea-Brain
            The Emperor Has No Drugs (So We’ll Plant Some)

          • here is a good development from Commiefornia


        • Evenin’ Alex!

          Oh, I know it, Alex- that it is systematic to get innocent people to plead guilty, or at least make it look like they did. Just from what I’ve seen over the years from accounts of various “popular” cases….there is no doubt in my mind that the legal system is full of vicious sadistic people who couldn’t care less if a person who has been caught in their net is innocent or guilty.

          I don’t know if you’re familiar with the Martin Tankleff case- a 17 year old boy who was charged with the murder of both of his parents whom he found dead in their home on Long Island in the 90’s. He spent 17 years in jail….and then was finally released when all of their improprieties which put him there came to light.

          I can’t even imagine the horror!

          What did they use to put the kid away? While questioning the hysterical kid shortly after finding both of his parents dead, the creepy detectives said something to the effect of “You did it”- to which the hysterical kid ranted “Then I guess I did it”!

          And while I love the idea of what you are advocating, in all seriousness, I don’t believe for a second that they would have let jury nullification save that kid from wasting half of his life in jail.

          The system is too big; too corrupt. The people who sit on juries are products of the state education system and media propaganda, and several generations people who speak of freedom and liberty, but who wouldn’t know freedom and liberty if it bit them in the ass- and in-fact, spend their lives opposing such.

          Look at any jury- who among them doesn’t have at least one (and most likely a bunch) of parents, children or relatives who are/were: pigs, mercenaries{“troops”] or some such thing? Those people all have pictures of those relatives adorning their walls and cupboards at home, and little ribbon stickers on their cars- they “support the team”, be it some moron getting paid a few million bucks to chase a football, or some stinking cop who can’t get through a day without lying and tricking/bullying people out of their God-given rights.

          75 years ago, this might have done some good- but it’s too late now.

          I certainly applaud you for what you are trying to do though- as fighting true injustice IS to fight for liberty- and the disgusting conduct of everyone employed by our legal system, and all of it’s branches, is the height of injustice.

          The real irony is (and also a good illustration of how worthless the average juror is): In a lot of these cases- be it Tankleff and many others, the system itself actually admits their own fault and relents, whereas a jury had no qualms about convicting a person based upon pure BS.

          What a mess.

          Oh, and one more thing: About letting real criminals off because the state did something improper. That illustrates how the very system is set-up to protect itself, while ensuring that the mundanes- be they a perpetrator or victim(the state doesn’t care which) suffers an injustice.

          The way it should be, is if the state or one of it’s agents violated someone’s rights, they should be dismissed and punished. They should have to suffer the consequences for breaking the rules, just like we all do.

          Instead, the way it is, is in such a case, we are left to decide: Do we let a guilty person walk, as a punishment to the state, and deny justice to his victims? Or do we let the state get away with it’s evil, so that justice for a victim can be accomplished?

          It shouldn’t have to be either or.

          I mean, if someone kills your grandmother, and a jury lets him walk because Porky the pig obtained evidence without a seatrch warrant or sonsent…that would be a terrible thing.

          On the other hand, if we convict under such a circumstance, we are essentially giving assent to illegal searches.

          There can be no true justice in a system where our options are limited to those two choices. I would not want to be on that jury and have to make that decision, because either way I’d vote, I’d be condoning some very serious injustice.

          If the guy were clearly guilty, he should be convicted…but the offending pig should also be sverely punished (and also, any in the system who may have allowed his conduct).

          Such would be the only fair way to deal with such a matter- but of course, we have no such option, so as mere jurists, we must impose an injustice on someone- And even though two crimes were committed (Murder and a warrantless search) only one of those crimes is being tried- and if we use the opportunity to try and effect justice on the pig, we wrong the victim of the other criminal.

          As I’ve said….they will not let us win. They’ve thoroughly tweaked this system so that win, lose, or draw, it’s only the mundanes in the ring who suffer- and it makes no difference to them who suffers for what- while THEY remain untouchable- and we get to decide who gets to bear the guilt for THEIR abuse: The victim or the criminal- but never THEM.

          Kind Regards,

          • Good Day Nunzio, I am familiar with those cases, and sad to say this is the place in which we live, even the Soviets were not this bad.

            The case the truly frightened me is given in Duane’s book, he put it in as an exercise, where he makes a statement and asks you to honestly answer a question. Almost anyone would make a general assumption given what he said. It is a trap, in that reasonable assumption you made being correct you just confessed by telling the cop something that “only the killer would know” since he didn’t implicitly give that one piece of information, just alluded to it.
            Duane askes that question ar his lectures and almost everyone fails.

            The trap is easy for them because the attitude of an innocent person is “I haven’t done anything, I have nothing to hide.” They take advantage of you desire to get the facts straight so you can go home.

            This is most prevalent in young people. He cites a study of 125 cases of known “false confessions” (really traps) and 33 percent of them were young people and 43 percent mentally disabled or ill (an easy target for them)
            Juries by and large when they hear the suspect “confessed” will almost always vote to convict.

            It is hard to imagine anyone confessing to a crime they didn’t commit, but the cases in Duane’s book show how they can coerce a false confession and in some cases convince an innocent suspect that they really did it!

            The real shocker in the book is that lately, courts have been allowing prosecutors to argue that someone taking the Fifth is evidence of their guilt! The judges let them get away with it!

            Then, of course, they perjury trap is a known favorite.

            “Where were you 3 weeks ago last Thursday at 3:21pm”.

            They will never tell you that they know where you were, if you say you were at the mall that day and you were at the mall Wed instead, congratulations, you are lying to a police officer and the jury will hear “When we asked him where he was at the time if the crime, he lied about it”

            Never talk to them, even or maybe ESPECIALLY if you are innocent.

            I have a few copies left of Duane’s book, I can send you one of you like

            All the best…

            • Hi Alex, ironic how the court system which was supposedly set up as a check on the gunvermin’s power has been flipped to the complete opposite. Everyone is now guilty until proven innocent and having the financial ability to prevail is probably what causes most people to accept some plea deal even though they are innocent. I never saw so many useless costumed parasites in one place as I did the couple of times I got called for jury duty; never got seated for a case but always hoped I would, especially a drug case so I could give a “not guil” nullification. That’s still legal despite what the petty tyrant judges may say, probably the last bastion of freedom left, not that it will make a difference. Too old to be called for a jury now (over 70) so just have to hope there’s still a remnant out there like the readers of this site who will be willing to face down the Establishment.

              • I nullified one but never used the term in the jury room I just convinced the others that the evidence was weak and the cop was almost certainly lying – this was not difficult as he contradicted himself at least 3 times.

                the other time I really felt the guy was not guilty or else he’d have taken a plea. The funny part was one of the witnesses was an old redneck type and the defense asked him if he thought “members of the black race more closely resemble each other more than members of the black race.”

                The responded “yeah they pretty much all look alike.”

                I had to stifle a laugh with a cough.

            • Alex,

              You talked me into it! I figured that such a book would just be a recounting of stuff that I already know (Like how prosecutors often suppress evidence that would clear a defendant- and thereby knowingly convict an innocent person), but from the examples you mention, it is much more- and sounds fascinating.

              Thank you for your kind offer, but I’ll just pick it up on Amazon.

              By-the-way, statutes of limitations seem to be out the window these days too! It seems that they can now hash up stuff from 30 or 40 years ago…. How could anyone possibly defe3nd themselves?

              The media has massaged the average person into thinking that this is all good- and that the real pigs operate like Columbo [or whatever the modern-day equivalent of that is…- I don’t watch TV, so I haven’t a clue.]

              One thing I know, is they are masters of getting convictions- and they could care less about the guilt or innocence of the person in the trap- but if they had to REALLY solve REAL crimes, and by looking at evidence, as opposed to using snitches…..they probably wouldn’t be able to convict Mick Jagger of having big lips!

              Another scary thing is the sheer number of mundanes who entering “law enforcement”. Oretty soon they’re going to out-number us!

              Just among my relatives alone, I don’t have a one who doesn’t have a kid and or other family member, and or boyfriend/girlfriend, etc. who isn’t a pig or on the way to becoming one, or some other type of badged mercenary. And I’m sure it can’t just be my family- we’re not even Irish! 😉 (Any wonder I don’t bother with any of ’em?!)

              Ah well, keep fighting the good fight, Alex; and thanks for the great info and book recommendation!


              • THanks Nunz, you will enjoy the read, it has one simple theme but it is important to hear how they can trap you. I have heard so many people tell me that they would cooperate and tell the cops anything to help them, but you are only helping them get you, guilty or not. Whern you read these stories you will be a believer, he tells you what and how they trap you, and after this you will have your eyes opened.

                Best to you.

                I have a nephew who is a cop, but he is such a boy scout, but agrees with this 100% He read it and gave it back saying everyone ought to read this

          • Nunz, yup, the system is beyond repair. Our only hope is to try to survive until its inevitable collapse.

            But we must fight back whenever there is a chance. Throwing a monkey wrench into the machine will not destroy it but it may help slow the damn thing down a bit and hopefully protect/save one good person.

            • Call me cynical, Alex….but what constitutes ‘misconduct’ when Standard Operating Procedure, even when followed to the letter, would make Stalin cheer, and your flesh crawl?

              • you are not cynical, call it realistic, but even though this is one of the better pieces of news I have seen. Had this been in force during the Duke LaCross farce the prosecutor Nifong would be still enjoying his stay at the GrayBar Hotel

                • ‘Mornin, Alex!

                  Ah well thanks- but all of the clovers think I’m cynical…

                  I think what really says a lot about their (i.e. the overlords) true intent, is that a bunch of states recently proposed legislation which would require that a prosecutor having any evidence which might prove a defendant’s innocence, disclose it.

                  Most states vetoed such bills. I think one or possibly two states actually passed such a bill.

                  So where such legislation is not in force, I guess it would not be “misconduct” for a prosecutor to withhold critical info that could clear someone.

                  They’re obviously just interested in numbers. Convict someone of a crime- makes the stats look good; makes the peond think that they’re being “protected”; keeps the incumbents in office. Doesn’t matter to them if one is innocent or guilty, or if the law is just or unjust…. if they convict you, you’re a criminal who is no longer on the street….

                  Hey, I’m looking forward to reading Duane’s book! Might even break my long-standing tradition of ordering a book and then letting it sit for several years before reading it! I will try my best to get others to read it after me.

    • What ever they give ’em wont matter, ’cause they’ll just electronically or otherwise castrate us, so that what we drive will be inferior. Just like with guns…..they always outlaw the big ‘uns for the mundanes, ’cause Uncle’s porkers always have to have the biggest.

      • Nun, get a 450 Bushmaster and air support will have to show up before you’re outgunned.

        Myself, an unknown Bofors would fill the bill for the most part.

        • I’ll have to look into that, 8. ‘Cause they ever come for me, they ain’t leaving without a bunch of corpses of their own, in addition to mine.

          I do like my .12 gauge slugs….just don’t know how efficient they’d be…..

  4. Personally I would love to see American cops driving compact city car hatchbacks, just like the cops all over the rest of the world do. Hey, I can dream, can’t I?

      • I’d never seen a Smart car till Mexico. Had I known about the “bumpa’s” then I’d offered the 2 muchacos a ride to almost Guatemala. It would have been good ballast in the back of my one ton diesel pickup.

        Think I got down to almost 80 before I hit the first unmarked bumpa. From that point on I watched for cardboard “dwellings” in the barditch. Most likely beat a refrigerator box on a big city alley.

        Then again,they’d be alone in the middle of nowhere. I guess if you live in one you’re not concerned about a 7 11 . I quit wondering how they could live 20 to a house in the US at that point. Shangri-la,homes,Shangri-la.

        • And speaking of Mexico, I know some here may consider moving there and whether you intentionally or just accidentally find yourself there, and if you’re a Texan you will most likely “find” yourself there, and if you do, it’s cool, just chill and don’t dwell on the how’s and why’s, just relax and enjoy.

          Once there it helps to know some do’s and don’ts. Don’t be loud and think everyone will understand English if you say it loud enough. I promise you won’t grasp the suttle parts of Español when someone screams at you although you might grasp the major import of it even though you might not react properly in a moment of crisis….and we think you’ll be able to avoid that moment. ….hopefully.

          There is one ol boy’s name, and I say ol boy cause it sounds male. It might be something along the lines of Elvis, alive or dead or mythical, but it seems to work well for them. You’ll hear it a lot, almost reverencially, and it’s something called “Wayno”. When you ask a question they often use his name in reply. If you don’t have their money system memorized, just put coins in your hand. They’ll take the proper amount and say Wayno. It’s good if you’re at a loss for words to say Wayno yourself. Nearly every time you say it everyone smiles and sometimes say Gracias, another big star I guess.

          I bought a lot of food and one hell of a lot of beer, even ended up buying a small truck load of beer one evening for a large group. I liked to have never heard the end of Wayno’s but eventually it was hard to understand, for them to say or me to understand. They also say salood a lot too when drinking. You’ll find yourself saying it too cause you’ve heard Jews say it too.

          It’s acceptable for you to leave Before all the beer is gone although I didn’t find that out till the next day.

          I hate to admit it and am glad no one heard me say it but the next morning I took Wayno’s name in vain. I still don’t know who salood is but I said something like “salood’s” ass. That Mexican beer seems to all originate from the same herd of horses.

          I got a good laugh last weekend when I saw some gringos paying top dollar for something called Premium Corona, the absolute cheapest beer you can buy in Mexico….stay away from it. Pay twice as much for Modelo cause it’s worth it…and more. You won’t cuss Wayno the next day. Probably my next trip I’ll load the pickup with Shiner Bohemian Black Lager and deign to utter salood or anything but Wayno since that always keeps everyone smiling.

          Oh, another thing, there’s lots of commies and others without a good background in their own history in Mexico, so keep the Viva la Revolucion to yourself.

          BTW, there will be some people you meet who will mutter Tousant Needles when looking at you. Just smile and say Wayno, cause They do know their history….and you do too. ….Wayno.

          • Mexicans are a lot like all other foreigners. Just because they won’t talk to you in English doesn’t meant that they don’t understand everything you say. English is the most popular second language in any country where it is not the primary spoken one. English is a lot like the petrodollar, but the latter is losing ground quickly to gold-backed currencies in parts of the world that America’s military has been bullying. China is selling oil in yuan and euros, waiting for a good time to back the yuan with gold, after which the petrodollar will become more worthless than TP across the pond.

  5. Chicago PD is already 100% SUV. Explorers and Tahoes. They made the switch when the Crown Vic ended its run.

  6. The SUVs and crossovers being used for cop work are in practice difficult to spot because they are painted the same black,white,or grey as regular versions. Even the wheels are often shared. The light bars are internal. Only the spot light gives them away. One has to be suspicious of any version lacking typical cosmetic and functional options, but that won’t always be a cop. Because of the lack of a lightbar on the roof fewer departments are up-aiming the headlamps, taking away another ‘tell’.

    I may need to breakdown and purchase Mr. Valentine’s gizmo.

  7. Last night near Raytown, Missouri, a cop began following a car with switched tags. End result, two cars destroyed. Cop in hospital with two broken legs, innocent bystander in serious condition. Car with switched tags got away and found later.

    On a semi-related topic: Overland Park, Kansas man working out at gym. Thief breaks into locker, steals wallet and keys. Tries to steal man’s car. It’s a Tesla. Thief has no idea how to start or drive it, swipes a couple of expired credit cards and leaves on foot. We’ll see if surveillance video works its magic. First good reason I’ve heard to own one of Elon Musk’s boondoggles.

  8. Ahahaha! That last phot reminds of the brief period when Cops and G-Men all were driving Fairmonts, Granadas and Aspens, lolol!

    • Not in Texas. The need for speed kept em in Crown Vics Impala Mustang and a few years lots of Z 28 that still running strong when sold in 94 and 95 at auction

  9. I watched standing tall the other night, first time. The jury nullified the corrupt county PD. Not guilty, I think a judge today would dismiss that verdict….

    • Judges have never had the authority to dismiss a jury verdict without declaring a mistrial, which would automatically create prejudice. They have learned what they can get away with and will do so.

      • Yeah, now they just threaten the juries and tell them their verdict must be A if this is so, or B if that is so….and anything other than that will not be accepted, and you ain’t going home, but will go to jail if there’s any trouble”……

        And even if they didn’t- try finding 11 other people who can actually think for themselves, and who will nullify the “sacred law” of their god, the state.

        • That wasn’t a problem until we abandoned the traditional jury system that Lysander Spooner documented.
          Under that system, a jury of your peers was a jury of your peers.
          The jury’s job was to determine if the plaintiff had acted with mens rea.

            • Hi Bill,

              I have thought about having a separate area made in which people had full access to editing powers. These would have to be vetted people, obviously. But then the problem arises of having two areas to keep up with; of dividing the space (and people) up.

              What would work better would be to have a full-time person to handle editing/daily things that need handling – leaving me free to write and do radio.

              I really, badly need an assistant.

              Or a clone!

              • Eric,
                I’ve been looking for a project like that since my retirement boredom set in, but figuring out WP’s perversions wouldn’t be of interest.
                Simple Machine forums are both familiar and free, and I’m sure that they work as well for moderators as they do for posters.
                To be clear, I don’t want the kind of editing used on Wikipedia, where a persistent editor can eradicate truth and install lies. I just want to have what Disqus has, where I can fix my own flubs anytime.

              • Nah, Eric, don’t do that! Editing would only work if Turd Press 😉 were set up to allow each user to only edit his own comments- as can be done on some platforms.

                Start getting into broad editing capabilities by a chosen few….and the forum turns into a minarchy- and we know how that goes!

                Editing is nice…but hey, we can just add a follow up post to correct, as Bill did (I was assuming that Bill had inadvertently used the antonym- as he also did in an earlier post…)

                Happens to the best of us…so it’s gonna happen even more to Bill!!! 😉 [<–JOKE!]

          • Bill, did “peers” mean then, what it does today? I might tend to think not- or not in the sense that we understand it, anyway. I think “peers” in the context of the times then, was more akin to “contemporaries” or “typical person” (as opposed to being tried by a jury of elitists; professional jurists/lawyers; government agents, etc.).

            I mean think about it: Homey robs and rapes your sister…and when caught, all the jurists are other homies from “the hood”, who are the sole determiners of whether this guys actions were appropriate and apt to be what they would have done?!

              • Cactus reuse non-facit rectum…… Basically “intent”.

                I’m sure the homies would painstakingly deliberate over that…..

                • Intent is pretty simple, even for those without JDs.
                  A jury of ones peers would be in the best position to judge whether a defendant that they were familiar with had a history of acting with criminal intent, which was the original purpose of a trial. Anyone but an outlaw would have simply gone to see the sheriff or marshal by invitation. Most people were more like Otis Campbell than John Dillinger.

    • The sad thing about jury nullification is that people serving jury duty(conscription) know nothing about it.
      In truth it is one of the lines of defense against unjust laws such as drug laws or prostitution.

      • It is even sadder that one of the best ways to find yourself incarcerated is to try to inform the ignorance of anyone who knows nothing about jury nullification. There is little point in trying to explain anything to someone who has been through the “deliberate dumbing down of america.”

        • And even if you explained it, they wouldn’t listen; nor would 99% of those summoned to be on the jury be opposed to drug laws and the other victimless “crime” BS life-ruining money-making schemes which pass for “justice”.

          • Nun, just read where UK cops and Healthcare and gummit want to legalise drugs……well, more like G Washington did, pay up to gummint or else. If they fuck up the drug you like, tough shit.

            Sorry, using my phone and can’t seem to paste the link. Gummint coffers they keep saying as if that somehow makes it all good. Now I can go puke

            I have a friend in the SE who makes some righteous shine. No telling how sorry and watered down it would be with a “stamp”.

            On another note, it’s far more deadly than pot….and causes more deaths than all legal and illegal drugs plus gun violence combined. I’m not speaking about illegal shine but the whole gamut

            • 8,

              Meh…. We know how things work by now. Legalize drugs = turn the drug war into a tax/rehabilitation/DUI war….. and keep the lesser sorts quiet, ’cause they’ll be too high to complain or care.

              Now if they were to just butt-out entirely…… but we know that ain’t gonna happen. They’ll make it look like “more freedom”, but in reality, it’ll end up being more control.

              Or maybe they just want to free-up space in the jails for tax protesters, guys who get caught receiving a nekkid pitcher of a girl the day before her 18th birfsday, and jay-walkers….

              My 93 year-old mother can’t get a refill on her 5mg. sleeping pills the day before they’re due. So I have to drive a 40 mile round-trip back to town the next day to get ’em…. I have a feeling that THAT is the model for “drug decriminalization”.

  10. I remember several decades ago when the Colorado Highway Patrol bought a bunch of Mustangs to use in chases when they weren’t patrolling. As I remember, they were seldom anywhere near where they were needed and habitually driven away from when they were used. I’ve seen the same thing with Camaros.
    If they merely learned how to use their comm and stop miscreants with intelligence instead of musclecars, they could do in rem seizures of the vehicles that can get away from them, and adopt them into the car pool to do the chasing.
    Most of the sirens heard where I live are storm sirens, which are used to alert the volunteer firemen, and the firemen after they get to their trucks.

  11. The obvious answer is to keep the vehicles you have and replace the engines and the transmissions with replacement parts. That means pulling the vehicle out of service while that is all done. Suggest that while the vehicles are still available buy a couple of spares.
    As for cowboys in the police department pursuing a high speed vehicle is dangerous. The civilians in the way are one reason not to pursue. Rather zone the speeder with a radio and cops waiting in advance of where the speeder is going. Our local gestapo, realized this years ago.
    They killed some people and got the hell sued out of the local department. Now they radio ahead and catch them just about every time.
    Police have an image before the public. It is not good. The lawyers use cops to drum up business and that is the bottom line. Lawyers get paid. If you shot someone in self-defense you are likely to need a lawyer to go free. That costs loads of money.
    Prosecutors have all kinds of discretion as to misbehavior in a court of law. Defense lawyers are not equal under the laws we currently have as some rather famous or infamous people now are learning.
    If you want a powerful vehicle, good on the gasoline, then you will need a diesel/hybrid car on the road. But that means a whole new way of doing things and I do not feel they are bright enough to do that.
    Said car probably gets 50 miles to a gallon of diesel and will be worth at least 300,000 miles.
    The Chinese are working on such a vehicle. I think it is called the X1 but I am not sure.
    I think it has a range of about 600 miles per tank of diesel fuel.
    Probably most of the time it would meet the needs of an average policeman just fine, and they might be able to afford a couple of more people with the savings.
    Can it be put in a regular sized police car? A Mechanic might do it.
    By the way, we have some new fangled devices. They are called helicopters. They contain some very sophisticated digital cameras quite capable of imaging the car being pursued so they can pick the person involved up at their home afterwards. No need for heroics, just plain good policework.

    • There was an incident in kalamazoo, MI. : A young boy about 15 “borrowed his parents Mercedes and with four other young girls in the back went steaming down the road at 100 per. the local cop spotted it as it went whizzing by at spped and gave chase but only for a short distance and then quit the chase. A mile later down the road he came across the vehicle crashed into the tress and engulfed in fire. There was nothing he could do as the burn was so intense. All five of these kids perished in that accident.
      The parents attempted to file a lawsuit against the department but when the recorded messages between the cop and his office indicated he quit the chase, there was no lawsuit.
      At least in this case the high speed chase would have derived the same consequences.
      A fifteen year old driving a car with that kind of power is no different than putting a loaded handgun in his hands.
      There is a Youboob video of this event.

      • Putting a loaded handgun in a 15 year-old’s hands? Sad how the schools and the media have truly brainwashed us. Here in the sticks, it’s not at all uncommon for a 12 year-old to get his very own gun- often a handgun- for Xmas or birfsday.

        Of course, in NY or CA, I’m sure that would be considered “insanity” and “abuse”. In the ’50’s it used to be not at all unusual for an adolescent to carry a .22 rifle on his bike, and shoot crows on the phone wires…in CA. no less.

        Man, how we have fallen!

        Now it is accepted in many placers that even a grown man can’t possess a gun; and it is expected and considered normal for a young adult to be an irresponsible fool.

        • I know an elementary student who not only is a expert shot, but he can clean his own gun, and load his own ammo.
          The irresponsibility of fools is based on the judgement of adults who aren’t any more responsible.

          • Same went for the area I grew up in, they all started shooting young maybe 9 years old and I don’t recall any kids screwing around or shooting anyone. Just deer. Lots of proud pictures shared at school..and no one called the authorities over it.. Because they weren’t hurting anyone..just deer.

            Maybe if we were part of a generation of assholes raised to be entitled savages who didn’t know how to get along and be nice to the little guy, it’d have gone down a little differently. And if it had… still couldn’t blame the gun, or the kid.

            • Entitled savages could be eliminated with the first requirement that they be natural born American citizens before they get to fill out the application for benefits.
              Of course, Ted Cruz wouldn’t qualify any more than Obama would.

            • Exactly, Moose!

              And the thing is, in those days, anyone who’d try to go on a shooting spree, wouldn’t get very far, because everyone else had guns, and had them handy- as they were a natural part of every day life. Having a gun doesn’t make a miscreant invincible in a sea of others carrying guns, than does a million dollars make you rich in a place surrounded by 500,000 people who also have a million dollars.

              I’ve seen the stark contrast with my own eyes- having grown up in the NYC area, where owning a gun makes you a “criminal” (unless of course, you work for Uncle….) and where firing a gun, even on your own property is tantamount to mass murder- and now living in very rural KY. where there are an average of 5 guns in every house.

              Ain’t no undesirables routing through your backyard at night here! And the pigs are lot more respectful too…..being we are free to buy, sell and trade guns here freely, without Uncle being a party to the deal…they have no idea who has what.

              It’s still a little like America here. NY ceased being so 30 years ago.

              • Morning, Nunz!

                It’s the same here in rural VA.

                Everyone has guns. So it’s assumed – by the dirtbags – everyone has guns. Violent crime is almost nonexistent. It is understood by everyone that if you haven’t got business setting foot on someone’s land, better stay the hell off. And entering someone’s home with ill intent is tantamount to assisted suicide.

                • ‘Zactly, Eric!

                  While the “civilized & educated” masses who love gun-control, live with bars on their windows and are afraid to go out of their $500K row-house after dark in the cesspools they call cities.

                  Contrary to their predictions, people aren’t shooting each other here. In-fact, there’s a LOT less of that than there is in the gun-controlled locales.

                  Only thing we have more of, is peace and safety.

                  • I’m for sensible gun legislation and gun control.

                    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Sensible.

                    “A sharp eye and a steady hand.” Control.

              • “In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his fifteen-year-old nephew, Peter Carr, regarding what he considered the best form of exercise: ‘…I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.'”

                • I like to walk with my dog. I tried the gun a few times, but it got really dirty and banged-up, bobbing along at the end of the leash- and it was pretty boring.

                    • Bill, you are defective. There’s not a store in the world that wouldn’t take you back!

                      I’m saying that a jury of homey’s “peers” (If “peers” means what most take it to, today) would cut Homey loose….

                      It would go like this:

                      “Yo’ahnnah, we determine dat Tyrone, being a part of de Occupy Movement, was just tryin’a occupy Miss Peckerwood’s…err…Miss Flannagan’s kreh-voss, and after he do the deed, Mrs. F. refuse to pay him fo’ his deposit of jizz, so home-boy had to manually retrieve her purse to collect the funds. It don’t be his fault if she hurt herself while he be doin’ it!”

            • Hi Moose!

              In my neck (your ex neck) the culture is still mostly what it was 30-plus years ago. Kids grow up around guns and around adults who know guns. Thus, they are not scared of guns but rather view them (and handle them) as they do other useful but potentially dangerous implements, such as chainsaws.

              I know a woman who has a young son who is terrified of anything he has been taught to view as “unsafe.” This, of course, includes guns. But he is a city boy.

              Like that awful Hogg kid.

        • I’m not disparaging young people who know how to shoot and hunt. I fully support the Second Amendment. In some cases though, when certain young people obtain a gun and use it for criminal purposes, or without any instruction on gun safety, the consequences can be fatal.
          I fully support teaching young people gun safety and marksmanship.

          • We would be better off without the Second Amendment if Americans are going to continue to live in the fairy tale world where they think it matters to the government.

          • Yeah, JohnZ, I know what ya mean. The juvenile-delinquent son of a local she-pig got a hold of one of her weapons while she was taking dirty pics of herself in the back of the stationhouse, and robbed a gas station with it.

            She no-doubt was trained, like a prize sow- but I guess training isn’t as important as thinking and caring.

          • Hi John,

            I support holding people accountable for damage they cause, whether criminal or inadvertent. I vehemently oppose imposing restrictions on people who’ve not harmed anyone – because some other person did.

            This latter being the basis, it seems, for almost all of today’s pre-emptive “criminal” law.

      • John, it just goes to show how law keeps kids from learning to drive. Treating them as children really exacerbates the problem
        At 15 I could have given shooting lesson with a handgun,bought my first when I was 14 mail order from Herters. First started learning the handgun at 10.

        Had my pickup I drove daily at 12,like some of my peers. I was always practicing heel and toe, 4 wheel drifting and high speed cornering. A friend and I raced 15 mosmiles to his house on a FM road with lots of tight 90 degree corners on shitty repop gin tires, Gates for the most part. Neither ever had an accident. We got our licenses at 14, the year I began learning to drive trucks.

        14 was when you got a license back then. It was evident what kids their parents hadn’t been teaching to drive their whole life.

        I knew kids who could safely steer at road speed when they were six.

        I was letting my god daughter drive my big Silverado on a dirt road. We went around a really tight turn, probably 120 degrees. About halfway I matted it and with Qjet howling and tires spinning the rear kicked out and I stayed in it. She steered into it, caught it and took it into the straight,. Damn I was proud and she was too.

        You can never start too young. We both learned on tractors.

  12. Up here in my neck o’ the woods, the local armed government agent/ tax collector just bought hisself a shiny new white Charger , either he bought it or the town bought it, so he can run down the criminals going 10 over. The trouble is that he is very predictable where he perches in wait to ambush criminals/ drivers who get a little too heavy on the throttle and the car sticks out like a sore thumb. No one else in town own a white Charger. Besides having a room temperature IQ and armed which makes him a dangerous threat to the public, he also lives just across from the local government run indoctrination and brainwashing center/public school. Maybe he’s hoping to win a date with one of the 15 year old cheer leaders.

  13. Can’t wait to see cops outfitted in Priuses and Smart cars. They’ll probably just shoot you when you laugh at them. As Nelson Muntz likes to say, “Ha Ha!”

  14. I like the big V8s. I am looking at a ’76 Continental Mark IV, with a 460. I have come to detest the electronic “features” in newer cars. My ’99 DeVille has the feature of disabling starting at seemingly random times, although infrequent. Turn the key, and the dashboard displays “Starting Disabled. Remove key. Wait 3 minutes.” Remember, it’s not a bug – it’s a feature. So it is at the local dealership, I will pay $490 to get in in condition to sell, and get myself a Lincoln Land Yacht, or perhaps another replacement if the Lincoln does not check out well enough by my mechanic. I am looking forward to it. Yes, I know, parts will be hard to find. But I’ll be able to tell my car apart from all the little gray Toyotas in the lot. All 5,300 lbs, 19 feet long of it. It should be easy to spot.

  15. My local Sheriffs department has pretty much already made the switch to the SUV, so when you roll down the window and hear “Stand and Deliver” you can bet there is one parked behind you. They are also sporting unmarked SUVs in non police colors with no visible cop accoutrements to give them away, so there goes the “Easier to see” aspect.

    • The absence of a roof rack are a dead giveaway. I have yet to see a police Tahoe or Explorer that has a roof rack. Of course, the hybrid Tahoe also didn’t have a roof rack for aerodynamic reasons, so I have inadvertently slowed down for a hybrid or 2.

  16. A few years ago, there was a company called Carbon Motors that claimed to be making purpose built police cars powered by turbocharged BMW Diesel engines. Is that company still around?

    • Not as far as I know.

      It was an amazing concept – heavy-duty turbo-charged diesel, plus beefed-up everything.

      Problem was it woud’ve cost nearly 3x a stock Crown Vic.

  17. They are also needed for the 500 pounds of multi band radios, computers, monitors, 6 surround-sound like surveillance cameras, license plate readers, AR-15’s, helmets, flack vests etc. that have become standard affairs for RoboCop.

    The Explorers also get winded when chasing anything above 115 MPH for any distance. And a lot of newer cars can outrun them. That is why the California Highway Patrol is back to buying Dodge cars for their freeways.

    • Yep. I once asked a deputy sheriff why they left their cop cars running all the time, even when they were having lunch. He told me it was because of the huge drain on the charging system from all those electronic gadgets the cars have. I’d be surprised when they run their SUVs if they got more than 10 mpg.

    • I remember back when Ford brought out the first 5 litre Mustangs. Seems the CH were having difficulties running down some of the faster cars along the stretch of I 5 north out of Redding. Their big Hemi V8 full size Dodge sedans had enough raw power to fairly quickly overtake most speeders down in the flatlands.. but chasing them up in the twisties through Dunnigan, Weed, Yreka was not fun for the Chippies. those little “tangs, though, were a bit hopped up fro stock, as CHP were wont to do in those days. It took a while for the regulars on that stretch to wake up to the Mustangs and their inherent danger. I gther those little pocket rockets did bring in quite a bit of revenue. They were able to bring in more of the high dollar fleece jobs with them. that hot five litre along with the suspensioin mods and tall gearing made them a formidable tool in that beat.

    • Hi Paul,

      There may be an uptick in used sedan values as the new ones fade away, but I doubt much – for the same reason that new sedans are going away. Most people just don’t seem to want them.

      That said, I think the prices of older (large) sedans is going to go up. I mean the ones like the last gen Crown Vics with V8s and so on. I wish I could afford to go out and buy something like a ’79 Olds 98 Regency, got damm it!

      • Well, if no one wants sedans anymore, then why lament when Ford decides to no longer produce sedans? If the sedans come back into style, Ford may not be first to market with a new sedan, but certainly they won’t be far behind. Look at the minivan. Chrysler invented that first, but Ford was not much behind. I think management at Ford has it right: If it ain’t selling, don’t make it. And crying over it is sort of like crying over the demise of the hula hoop. No one cried when the two door coup went out of fashion back in the mid 80s…
        No, the financing crisis of Ford and the other auto makers is an entirely different kitten. I think Ford may be trying to reposition itself before the excrement hits the air circulation device.

      • I liked the Delta 88, the Buick Electra and the Pontiac Boneville (or Catalina) from the same vintage. The Downsized GM sedans from 77-79 were the best because they didn’t have the electronic carburettors yet. The 1980 and afters were flat out anemic.

        • Back in the 60s the girls BB coach had a 66 red Bonnie with a white top, a coupe. It had a nice dark blue interior. I had to ask and he told me. His good friend was a dealer and ordered it just like he wanted.
          Try that now.

    • “… actively sought to evade the trooper by leading him on a hazardous high speed chase, and it was reasonably foreseeable that in the course of such a pursuit…”

      What a shitty, shtty jury. Leading him on a high speed chase? Reasonably foreseeable? Cop knew what he signed up for and should’ve known his own limits behind the wheel.

      • So much for the jury system being a last bulwark against tyranny, as this country’s founders intended. A witless or immoral public cannot have freedom.

        • waddyaspeck, it was Noo Yawk. Da coppers dere ain’t so smart. Da jooreys ain’t neither

          Did the guy on the bike have some sort of mind control mechanism to force the cop to chase? Of course not. Copper’s ego got hooked. Big time. I’ve dodged a few staters myself, all it took was to switch into stealth mode and out think them. Do the unexpected. Or learn how their clocking game works, and break it in progress, so they never get th complete set of evidence they need for a conviction. Or, even, never find you. Under some cirumstances, one CAN “vapourise”. The only downside of going poof is that you never get the satisfactioin of SEEING the cop bamfoozled. However, that’s a far better outcome than having HIM take you for a ride for various and sundty “serious charges” for not being a good little boy……. I imagine the collective dollar value of the mulcts potentially imposed at gunpoint would have exceeded the value of the cars I drove back then. (and still do, but I don’t bother tormenting the coppers.)

          • Three ignorant judges just found my sociopath neighbors innocent of hiring a team of illegal aliens to come onto my property and kill my stand of 50-yo pines. I had pictures and plenty of documented evidence. But the kooks came into the court and lied their asses off under oath.

            You could see the wheels spinning in these judges’ heads, trying to come up with some way to dismiss the case, which they did, despite all legal precedent in similar cases.

            I suspect these judges were flaming liberals that could sense my political leanings and decided to get even with me.

    • That is one reason for all good libertarians to stop avoiding jury “duty”. Take it and nullifly, hang the juries if necessary. Strike a blow for liberty!

      Where else can get an opportunity to legally do damage to the system from the inside?

      • Ya hear that argument a lot, Alex- but except in very rare cases, it’s a waste of time. You waste days, and usually all that is accomplished is that some petty criminal who is too stupid to avoid obvious practices which resulted in his arrest is given a short reprieve until the next time he does the same thing.

        It would be worth it if we were assured of defending decent people against the abuses of the system, but have you ever seen the majority who are paraded before these courts?

        We might feel as if we are defending a principle by doing so….but in reality, unless we happen to luck into a rare case, we really aren’t accomplishing anything….and even if we could, it’s not as easy as some make it sound.

        Get a bunch of short cases where the evidence is clear (but the law unjust), and after an innocent vote or two, the judge is going to have a talk with you, and you’re most likely gonna be neutered like a tom cat, or caged.

        A lot of these troglodytes, if they gave the slightest damn about their own liberty- like to not have a doobie sitting in plain sight while their driving and even speeding….would be there in the first place. Now I have to waste a couple of weeks of my valuable time and subject myself to the control of douches in the black dresses to save them? (Not to say that there aren’t plenty of unassuming people who just get caught up in the mess that is our legal system- but again, the chances of one of us getting on a case where principle matters- as much to them as to us- is pretty slim).

        They publish the court docket in the local paper here. Reading through the pending cases, the only ones I see where nullification would be handy, are ones charged purely with drug charges. But then I often recognize the names….and like I say, I wouldn’t waste my time, because they are always people who have spent decades committing various real crimes- and either never charged with those- or beat the charges for what they SHOULD have been convicted of (Assualt, burglary, hit & run etc.) .

        In my 17 years here, I’m aware of exactly ONE case where nullification would have been a good option- but even then, it wouldn’t have accomplished anything. It was one involving a girl who was arrested for supposedly failing to stop after hitting a toddler who wandered out into the street.(The kid died)

        I knew from the first mention of the case in the local news, that she was being railroaded. They had no witnesses- so they offered a $5K reward for info- and this woman’s druggie acquaintences/friends said she did it.

        They did not have a good vehicle description- only that it was a white vehicle- probably a minivan, with some chrome on the rear. She had a white minivan- which may’ve had a ding in the fender. So they threw her in jail, and she couldn’t make bail- so she sat there for SEVEN freaking months!

        The State Poopers took her fender to the forensics lab, and since of course there was DNA evidence, they conveniently “lost” the fender.

        A ta pre-trial hearing (or something) she was saved by her lawyer obtaining her triangulated cellphone data, which placed her miles from the accident scene at the time of the accident. The persecutor[sic] tried to get that evidence THROWN OUT, but the judge wouldn’t go for that- so her case was dismissed with prejudice before the trial began.

        Had that gone to trial, that is the one case I would have liked to have been on- but I wouldn’t have been able to save her from having 7 months of her life stolen, nor would my participation have affected the outcome.

        The girl had to spend that 7 months locked up in another county, and had to leave the area when released, because virtually ALL of the locals assumed she was guilty (And they viewed it not merely as leaving the scene- but of “killing a kid”- even though the accident- the kid darting out onto a 55MPH highway- was unavoidable, but for the kid’s father who left her unattended and unrestrained in the car when he hopped out to check the mail on the other side of the road)- and she even had to be escorted under armed guard when brought into court, because mobs were assembled around the courthouse, threatening her life.

        Woe is the lone juror who would have defended her! (And for someone who appeared to be a drifting crack whore, no less, as evidenced by the company she kept and lack of any connection to any locale).


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here