The Speeding Exemption

73
5395
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In Orwell’s other book – Animal Farm – we read about a mutiny against the farmer by the livestock, who draw up a kind of Declaration of Rights premised on the idea that all animals are equal. This is painted on the side of the barn for all to admire.

Over time (and in the dead of night) caveats and exemptions are inserted – by the pigs – culminating in the new idea that some animals are more equal than others. The pigs begin wearing clothes, sleep inside the farmhouse – while the other animals sleep outside or in the unheated barn.

When it comes to driving fast, some two-legged animals are without doubt regarded by themselves as more equal than others.

And by the law, too.

If an armed government worker is in a hurry, it is justifiable (as he sees it – and as the law regards it) for him to drive very fast, indeed. As fast as he likes, really – there being no no defined limit he must abide by.

“Too fast” is judged on a case-by-case basis – according to such doctrines as exigent circumstances, the exigence and the circumstance being subjective and interpreted by the armed government workers themselves –  or by their higher-ups.

We have no say in the matter, as is also the case when we are pulled over by an AGW for driving “too fast” – which is specifically defined in our case as faster than whatever the posted speed limit is, even if only by three or four MPH – no matter the exigence of our circumstances.

In Franklin Township, New Jersey an AGW named Nicholas Locilento was traveling very fast indeed – at least 74 MPH on a country road with a posted speed limit (for the rest of us) of 50 MPH.

In the rain – and in the dark.

No sirens or lights to give notice of his rapid approach.

A 10 year old by named Matt McCloskey ran out into the road – he was apparently on his way to a sleepover at a neighboring friend’s house. Locilento – who was “responding to a non-emergency call” – struck and killed McCloskey with his speeding car.

McCloskey’s death has been processed as a “tragic accident”  – i.e., implying it was unavoidable, a veritable act of God, who must have had his foot on the accelerator pedal rather than Locilento’s.

Locilento has not only been cleared of any wrongdoing – not even small fine for failure to maintain control of his vehicle – he is back on the roads and driving just as fast as he likes.

Precisely because he can.

And, no doubt, is pulling others over for driving considerably less fast (and not killing anyone) than he was driving the night he struck and killed McCloskey.

In any other case, 24 MPH over the posted speed limit – in the rain, in the dark – would not only be considered “too fast,” it would be considered reckless.

In several states, anything faster than 20 over the posted limit is prima facie exactly that and it is the burden of proof of the accused – of the arrested (in states that have this statute on their books, driving more than 20 MPH above the posted limit is an offense for which one may be cuffed and stuffed on the spot – even in the absence of any actual harm caused) to prove to the court that his speed was not reckless.

Good luck with that.

If convicted, the offender can expect a heavy fine as well as the likely suspension (at least) of his legal privilege to drive and a doubling or more of the cost of his insurance.

If a driver traveling the same speed as Locilento was driving struck and killed a child, it would not be considered a “tragic accident.” The driver would be arrested and charged with vehicular manslaughter – a serious felony – almost certainly convicted  and could look forward to spending time in a jail cell.

There would be no circumstances sufficiently exigent to escape being held to account.

But in the case of Locilento, “New Jersey law recognizes that police officers in the performance of their duties may need to exceed posted speed limits as long as they exercise due caution and do not recklessly disregard the safety of others,” according to the prosecutor’s office. (Italics added.)

Some animals are more equal than others.

If you have a badge, speed limits are fungible – even when the result is a dead 10-year-old kid.

Locilento may not be a bad man; he probably meant no harm. But would that cut any ice for you or me, given the same facts?

Of course not.

And should not.

“Speeding” is subjective; harm caused is not. Locilento caused a very great harm. Probably 90 percent of the people he tickets for “speeding” caused none.

Perhaps that should be the standard – for everyone. And not just for “speeding,” either. How about for buckle-up laws and the right to carry firearms – and a great many other things, besides?

No harm, no foul – and no prosecution, either.

Unless, of course, some animals really are more equal than others – and the rest of us animals are content with our lot, to chew moldy grain out in the cold of the barn – while the pigs gorge themselves on fine china inside the warm farmhouse.

. . .

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:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $5 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  

 

Share Button
SHARE
Previous article2019 Toyota Sienna
Next articleThe Motor Law
Your Libertarian car guy. Er ist weider da...

73 COMMENTS

  1. Government now considers itself and its workers above all others.

    And WE authorize THEM to break laws to arrest us?

    This is (just) one way this country has been turned backwards and over, so that those who cause no harm with their infractions are punished by those who are allowed to break every law there is in their desire to get us.

    Right now, this situation is being played out on a national scale in Washington, DC. The targets can’t escape the hunters, even by following the law.

  2. I just sent a letter to the Franklin Township PD, asking why given the same facts I would be arrested and charged with manslaughter.
    I cited the Gloucester County Patch for the background story.
    I asked why some are more equal than others and that any non government worker would not have exigent circumstances to permit their violation of the law.

  3. Another article to illustrate the class system under which we exist.
    The Sauce for the Goose is NOT the Sauce for the Gander.
    Suck it up, they say.
    I was drafted for the Army, but women were exempt (still are !).
    Feral Reserve creates money from nothing, but if we do that, it is counterfeiting.
    Children in public schools cannot pray or exhibit religious behavior, but the school buys kosher food.
    Abortion is now legal, but prostitution is still a crime.
    Cops speed, shoot unarmed fleeing people in the back killing them. Internal investigation finds no crime.
    Where are our Yellow Vests ?

    • Amen, Jack – especially in re your point about counterfeiting; only it’s actually worse than that. It is a “criminal” offense to freely exchange actual value (barter) without paying tax on the transaction, as for example people who sell valuable/useful home-brew fuel to those who freely purchase it precisely because it is of value.

      But it’s ok to force people to transact business using pieces of paper with no intrinsic value, subject to loss of value from the moment the “money” is acquired.

  4. 1996 was my last year as a “volunteer firefighter”. Actually we were paid gas money and had a small private pension fund. Previously we were known as “Firemen”. It became politically incorrect when the female firemen objected to being called men but, I digress.
    The reason I quit after 24 years (and the most calls one person responded in that period) was a cover-up.
    Three children died as a result of bad decisions on the part of two full time (paid) personnel.
    It was one of those Christmas time tragedies caused by lousy wiring on a light string.
    I was not on the responding crew that night but, I knew something was seriously wrong. That “something” came to light at a subsequent critique where the fire chief acknowledged “failure of the responding personnel to follow known procedures”.
    He went on to say they would cover this incident in a way that would prevent a black mark on “our department’s reputation”.
    Because I was suspicious about this and what would be done I had a small tape recorder in my pocket and sat near the front of the meeting.
    Still, I was truly shocked at the blatant cover-up.
    The worst was yet to come. I went to the head of the city’s public safety committee and played the recording for him.
    I was basically told “It would be best if I were to destroy the recording and forget it ever happened”.
    A trip to the mayor’s office got me no farther and a month later I was subpoenaed to a deposition.
    The city had contracted with the state’s attorney to defend against a lawsuit by the family who lost the children.
    I was seen as the bad guy by both the city and the state. I was not called to testify.
    If it had not been for the local sheriff who was a friend, I might have found myself in jeopardy.
    Still I was known as a rat and received a couple death threats.
    I was shunned, lost my Captain’s rank (who cares) and treated like scum by the paid department for nearly two years. What happened to me was trivial compared to the poor family who lost the children.
    Their case was thrown out by the usual corrupt judge. It barely made the paper and the bad guys walked away unscathed.
    At that point, one year shy of retiring with full benefits, I quit.
    Since that time I have had zero respect for, nor any faith in government.
    As a final note: In the 22 years since I quit, I have seen two deputies and a police officer quit under similar circumstances.
    Unfortunately, when many get a badge, a costume, equipment and “authority” something changes mentally. And that change is seldom good.

  5. This doctrine of legal immunity is called sovereign immunity, based upon old Common Law doctrines that “the king can do no wrong.” While in the US kings are long gone, the State’s actors enjoy the same immunity.

    The only recourse left is civil suit against the killer cop. That can be costly to the government and individual (though most carry insurance for that.) Overall a disgusting fact of life. Many similar tales of cop driving kilers here in the Houston area, several each year. Nothing is done of course.

    • Go after the dirty copper’s personal bond and insurance. They should be then locked, and he unable to work until the underlying reason for the bond being tapped is dealt with. That is why public workers and office holders must have a personal bond. Can’t work without one, so there IS, when one is required, a means of sanctioning wrongdoers.

  6. My cousin was hit and killed by a moron with a badge. She was paralyzed for life. She lived 15 years where she couldn’t move anything. She could blink and swallow, that was it. It ruined the lives of her parents and affected all of her family. The moron (I refuse to call him a police officer) got off completely. As you say above, he didn’t even get a fine. This is why I say there are no good cops. Even if this guy was an aberration, everyone else in the department, allowed him to continue to work and harass people. I wonder how many other people he murdered while his cohorts just look the other way.

    • Hi Joe,

      Very sorry to hear about this, first of all.

      Second, the rot goes all the way to the bone. There can be no such thing as a “good” cop as long as any cop is legally able to force others to pay his salary – leaving aside the work he does. Even if he did nothing but keep the peace, if he uses force (personally or indirectly) to compel others to fund his work, he is a thief and extortionist by definition.

      The same goes for the people I style Hose Heroes – i.e., firemen. I exclude the volunteer ones, who pass muster. But the others are just as bad as cops – i.e., armed government workers. They exist by force, which can never be good.

      • You are correct in including “hose heroes” as those to be reviled. “Immunity should be abolished for ALL public officials.
        A firefighter from a certain southeastern Michigan community claimed to have a “arson dog”–one that could detect accelerants. This “firefighter” and his dog were instrumental in ruining many peoples’ lives by his testimony alone. Insurance companies LOVED this guy as he was able to get them out of paying (valid) claims. People were denied valid insurance claims and prosecuted for arson on the testimony of this “arson dog’s handler.
        Those who were “burned” by this supposed arson dog “handler had no recourse, because of “qualified immunity”. The firefighter (and fire department) could not be sued.
        Finally one citizen who had been accused of arson fought back by suing to prove the “arson dog’s” ability. The dog was found to have NO special ability. The “arson dog” and his human master’s career was finally over. How many innocent people were convicted of arson and lost everything they had??
        Another case was that of a plating plant that caught fire. The owners had a fire department “approved” fire plan in place which involved shutting off utilities and shutting down processes in an orderly fashion. The firefighters that responded to the fire pushed the owner out of the way, and told him that they were going to do things “their way”. The building burned to the ground.
        A firefighter’s job (for at least 98% of the time is not inherently dangerous. This does not take away from the seriousness of their job, which is to be commended. but, firefighter arrogance can be just as dangerous as police arrogance. THIS is why firefighters should be included in the abolition of immunity for public officials.

        • Hi Anarchyst!

          Amen in re the “hose heroes.” Fire services ought to be like any other service – contracted and paid for on a voluntary, free-exchange basis. Right now, times are very tight for me and given that the risk of a fire in my place is very low, I am quite comfortable foregoing a subscription to the local fire department to “cover” my place in the event there’s a fire. But of course, I haven’t got that option. I am forced to buy their services, via taxes – which is no different, morally or otherwise, from having to pay Vito the mafia enforcer each month for “protection” I didn’t ask for.

          No one has the right to force anyone else to pay their salary – no matter how “essential” they consider their “services” to be.

        • 6,000 years have gone by and people still believe in magic boxes, magic animals, and that if they sacrifice, obey, and pay the weather will be good.

      • Seems ta MEEEE, the ONLY change that might start the ball rolling to end their “soveeign iimmunity” (as if they WERE sovereigns, that is, kings, er sumpin’, eh? And here silly I thought the concept of royalty and “divine right of kings” was banished from North America south of 54’40” N. Guess I need to vet my reading material a little better.

        • but my solution is to END union representtion of ALL government workers, armed or vulnerable. Seems it be de yoonyuns what propagate, er, perpetrate, er, perpetuate, this foul piece of corruption. upoin the rest of us who do not hold that blame-cancelling priviledge.

          • Government unions will soon die. They can no longer force people to pay or join. Most people, facing dues in the hundreds or thousands
            Of dollars will simply walk away. The Janus decision.

  7. Some 20 years ago I attended some AGW training at a remote location. I was the only non AGW present. There were numerous personnel from various agencies from across the state, including at the city, county, and state level. The course was several weeks long with weekends off. On the first Friday afternoon as we broke up and began returning home, almost without exception these guys entered their souped up, decorated vehicles and took off like a bat out of Hades. Some left before me, some after, but the ones who left after me invariably passed me in short order. I remember one officer in particular who seemed relatively meek and mild compared to the more hard core types, passed me like a bolt of lightening as we were entering the interstate. Several of these guys would motion to me as they passed to join them. The following Monday at class they were all giving me a hard time. “Why didn’t you join us, We were giving you cover.” I asked them if they saw me as a civilian driving like they were driving would they pull me over and ticket me. To a man they said yes. But if I’m running with them, in their painted up car with lights it woulda been just fine I guess. I was already at this point somewhere along the way of losing admiration for our costumed guardians, but this whole classroom experience pushed me a little farther along that path. btw, also during this course, one of the instructors actually encouraged destruction/manipulation of evidence as a standard practice. I tried arguing with him but he and several other students stood their ground as justifiable. In all fairness not all of them justified these actions, and another instructor actually wrote me a letter of apology for the actions of his cohort, informing me that all cops weren’t this way. The fact that any are is problematic enough tho.

  8. Law is misdirection – it is all about Policy.

    An appreciation of policy, however, requires an understanding of the “de facto” doctrine or doctrine of necessity. De facto means “in fact, and for the time being”.

    Assume that you are the driver of a car, and that you have just come to a stop at a traffic-light-controlled intersection, and where there is a “No Left Turn” sign above the red light signal, and others elsewhere in the intersection. But before the light turns green, a police officer arrives and gets off his motorcycle and takes a position in the middle of the intersection and directs you to turn left.

    The question is: Do you obey the sign and drive straight forward when the light turns green?, or do you follow the officer’s direction and turn left?

    Legally, you have to turn left, even though the “No Left Turn” sign is otherwise legal / legitimate, because you are following the same authority “in fact and for the time being” as represented by the police officer.

    Notwithstanding the presence of the legal “No Left Turn” sign, the driver is complying with the policy of the authority (Crown / state government) as administered by its officer(s) “in fact and for the time being”, and so there is no offence.

    With respect to nominal speed limits on the highway, it is the actual and announced policy of the Crown (or state government in the US) that drivers are encouraged to exceed the posted limit by a reasonable amount in the interests of traffic flow.

    That policy is then administered by the RCMP (or State Police), for example, as agents of the Crown and “for the time being”.

    But if a given officer chooses to issue an offence ticket to a given driver, because such driver has, in the opinion of the officer, exceeded the posted limit by an unreasonable amount, then they will claim and charge the driver simply with exceeding the posted limit.

    That is fraud and maladministration on the face of it (also technically and in fact racketeering). At its most basic level, the Crown (or any nominal government) is not supposed to be engaging in such carny-level bait-and-switch con games. Such things are presumed to be beneath the dignity of the Crown to engage in.

    Procedurally, what the government and the courts are doing under the nominal speed limit laws is the same as charging the first driver, mentioned above, who follows the police officer’s directions to turn left, with failure to obey the “No Left Turn” sign.

    But further than that, the most salient aspect of the racketeering-based-enforcement model is that it is such an obviously defective (prima facie criminal) system, yet the same socially caustic, corruptive, and corrosive system has remained firmly entrenched throughout most of the world since shortly after the invention of the automobile.

    We must consider at least the bare possibility that the racketeering-based corrosive system is in place domestically and globally as policy and for its own sake. Somebody somewhere wants us all at each other’s throats – instead of dealing with things rationally and methodically.

    Finally, to complete the model, assume that the real reason the police officer is standing in the middle of the intersection directing you to turn left, is because his brother-in-law has just opened a new store on the cross street and needs customers.

    That, in a nutshell, is how the whole world works. Everything that the people think is being done by law is actually policy, and it is the private policy of the administrators and is most often the diametric opposite of what the law provides.

    Is that clear?

    • The motoring world shows quite clearly how everything else operates. I first studied speed limits and then other traffic and road related subjects. As I moved on into other areas were government was involved the same patterns of behavior appeared. Selective enforcement, data “adjustment”, expert proclamation, magic boxes, deliberately faulty reasoning, and much more.

      As to policy, that too. Much of government’s scams are based on controlling perceptions and leveraging the monopoly on legal violence.

      • BrentP,

        “other traffic and road related subjects.“

        You ever study crosswalks?

        Specifically as to how they are eerily similar to WWI camouflage known as razzle dazzle?

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage

        I read a study a few years ago and the conclusion was playing frogger was safer than using a crosswalk.

        And the “wave” was responsible for a great deal of fatalities.

        I had a lady give me the wave in Honolulu and then she hit me and broke my 40oz of Miller. Now when I get the wave I always walk around the rear of the vehicle.

        Central Planners are the best!

        • when someone else has the right of way per protocol established in law, I almost never accept the Wave.. I will stand my ground as the “burdened” one until the “stand on” one finally yields and goes. WHY? Simple. HE has the right of way based upon position, something that will surely be established in any normal investigation should a crash occur. The fact of the other driver waving me on does not change the law… he’s not a decorated gummit hooh hah. He and I are on the same level. So if he waves me on when HE has ROW, and a crunch comes, it will be MY fault. Not his, MINE. HE had ROW and I failed to yield.
          But I’ve been noticing of late SO MANY drivers do not understand the ROW rules….. and devolve into a “courtesy” or “you first” response. What these dummies fail to comprehend is that the COURTESY they need to extend is to comply with the established ROW rules. The time saved across the generation would be HUGE if everyone would KNOW and follow the ROW rules. j

          • It’s amazing how many people pull up to an intersection and stop and wait, even when they have the ROW. Being “safe” while having the ROW , even if doing so out of ignorance, may be one thing, but that driver to the left of that ignorant driver is still expecting that moonbat to the right of him to exercise the ROW the law has given him.

            Instead, while other drivers behind them are waiting to get on with their travels, these moonbat drivers will often just sit and wait until the “danger” has gone ahead of them. They will often just sit there in the intersection, completely oblivious of their having the ROW and it becomes a rerun of a Disney “Chip and Dale” episode;
            Chip: “After you.”
            Dale: “No, after you.”
            Chip: “No, I insist.”
            Dale: “No, my good fellow, by all means, you go first.

            And after a number of these exchanges, the person who was expected to yield the ROW becomes so impatient with the ditz behind the other wheel, that they storm off wondering if the other driver got their license from a cereal box. People who have the ROW have a responsibility to exercise it, as a courtesy to other drivers.

      • Yes I agree. I am not a lawyer but I read a lot of legal decisions as part of the historical record. A few years back I encountered what at first struck me as a perplexing anomaly, and that is that the more objectively irrational and transparently fraudulent a decision from a multi-judge court of appeal – the more likely it is to be unanimous.

        And then it hit me – Of course! They are broadcasting “policy” to the legal profession and so the decision itself has to be bat-sh*t crazy otherwise they won’t recognize it as policy. And if there were even one dissenting judge, he or she could make the others look like idiots – that is why it has to be unanimous.

        The more outrageous and just-plain-stupid the official story is on anything – the stronger the message that it is not to be challenged.

        • Most judges, lawyers, cops, etc have the same perceptions the general public has. They have no special knowledge of the law. They just work from the perceptions they have. They have never studied the history to understand where things come from. They’ll never see the frauds or even know they perpetrate them. Like you say, they just know policy.

          • Brent: Here is a suggestion just to get people thinking about alternative systems.

            Consider a system of fellow-driver-administered-demerit-points.

            If another driver does something that really offends you, or that you perceive as dangerous, or even just materially unreasonable, then you would register a complaint against that other driver (and leaving aside for the moment the mechanics or procedure of it).

            If a driver gets a specified number of total complaints over time, or several different complaints in respect of a given incident, then they can be called in to explain themselves.

            But it is all “weighted” by the complainers. If you are a complainer, then every time you complain against another driver, the value of your complaint is commensurately reduced. So if you complain against an average of three others a day, then your complaint will rapidly lose its “currency”. But if you have never (or have very rarely) complained against another driver, then if and when you do, you complaint would carry much more significance.

            And if, say, five different drivers were to complain against the same other driver on the same day, or in respect of the same incident, then the driver complained against would be compelled to appear and explain themselves pretty quickly.

            The most important element is to design the system so that everyone is compelled to look after the integrity of their own objections or complaints against other drivers. You have to treat your own position as something valuable and that is not to be wasted on trivial things.

            It would not eliminate the need for all police cars on the highways, but would eventually accommodate the elimination of 90% of them.

            Reasonable people can always police themselves as long as they have the means to deal with aberrations or bad behaviour of others, without calling on lethal force as a first resort.

            It’s not perfect, but few things ever are. But it would be a big step in the right direction.

            Hope it helps. Tim.

            • Hi Tim,

              A demerit system such as you suggest would put us at the mercy of Clovers, who equate speed with “recklessness” and consider things like passing slowpokes or not coming to a full stop at every stop sign, regardless of any objective need to actually do so, as “aggressive.” These are the people who honk furiously and flash their high beams when you just pass them. Even when they are doing 42 in a 55.

              I have a better idea:

              Lets let people exercise their own best judgment, freely. If they cause harm, hold them fully accountable; criminally and severely, if justified by the harm/injury which results. But if they do not cause harm, then leave them alone! ‘

              This system has the merit of being objective whereas all the others are extremely subjective. I’d rather not be punished because of someone’s feelings – or because of some “law” or other.

              • Hi Eric: I did not realize that it had gotten that bad!

                Most people in Canada are still pretty reasonable on the roads and the police really are in it for the revenue collection and not genuine public safety.

                When the private sector does it, it is called “highway robbery”. When the public sector does it, it is called “brigandage”. One of my old dictionaries defined it to the effect (just from memory) “A small lightly armed military or quasi-military force stopping traffic on the public way for the purpose of raising a revenue”.

                I am currently in Toronto for the month, but I have been living in Joburg in South Africa since early 2015 researching and writing a book. A speeding ticket in SA is as little as $25 and $12.50 if you pay it within 14 days!

                As for Joburg, you gotta love a place where jaywalking is “the” safest way to cross the street! It forces you to pay attention!

                But I know what you mean. In 2001 I went to speak at a conference in the Bahamas and while we were on the hotel shuttle bus heading into town from the airport, what was then a brand new Jaguar in the new saloon style came flying by the bus and I noticed that it did not have any licence plates. I asked the hotel rep about it and she replied “Welcome to the Bahamas – where there isn’t a problem until there’s a problem.”

                If you want to drive without licence or registration (or more importantly insurance), then you are free to do so. But if you have an at-fault collision and cause damages or injury, then they will crucify you.

                But there is no “prior restraint” which appears to be rapidly approaching the new business model of the US.

            • It won’t work. The big problem is that those to complain about varies with the driving environment. My complaints per mile would be rather high due to the environment I am in.

  9. Another outrageous example of worthless cops gone wild. It’s also illustrative of why we have speed limits: to help prevent deaths like this one and not wait for harm first, punishment later.

  10. Eric,

    “Unless, of course, some animals really are more equal than others – and the rest of us animals are content with our lot, to chew moldy grain out in the cold of the barn – while the pigs gorge themselves on fine china inside the warm farmhouse.”

    What’s the problem Eric?

    Not enough mold on your millet?

    I thought the Pure Food and Drug Act was recently amended to require/allow more mold, rodent hair and excrement, insect parts, and maggots.

    I guess some people can never get enough ergot.

  11. Two years ago I was driving on the interstate in a Northern state known for draconian law enforcement. A state trooper went by me at a high rate of speed in the passing lane. No lights, no siren. I was probably doing 70-ish. He blew past and came up behind a knot of cars in the passing lane. Naturally, seeing a cop in their rear view mirror they slowed to the speed limit, and he started riding their asses.

    They finally got the opportunity to pull into the right lane and let him pass, and he tromped on it. I figured “What the hell… that radar don’t point backward. He can’t give me a ticket for going as fast as he is, and if he does I’ll go to court and subpoena his patrol car data to show his speed and also the fact that his lights and siren weren’t on. Case dismissed!”

    So now I’m behind him doing 75 and he’s pulling away. 78… still pulling away. 80, and I’m not matching his speed. 85… OK, that’s enough, I’m smart enough to know my limits… he’s still pulling away. I back off to 75-76 and leave it there a coupe of miles. Waaaay up ahead, I see him slowing down and turning.

    Where’s he going in such a hurry, with no lights and siren? Into one of those “No U-turn” spots to set up a speed trap and TAKE F___ING RADAR of everyone else!!!

  12. No commentary about the judicial atrocity in Charlottesville this afternoon? It should be a wake-up call to any Patriot finding themselves about to be Reginald Denneyed by a vicious state approved mob – your life is over if you dare attempt to flee being murdered and an obese communist is harmed.

    Martyrdom as a sacrifice or martyrdom as an avenger – those are your options.

    • Thoughtcriminal,

      “No commentary about the judicial atrocity in Charlottesville this afternoon? It should be a wake-up call to any Patriot finding themselves about to be Reginald Denneyed by a vicious state approved mob – your life is over if you dare attempt to flee being murdered and an obese communist is harmed.”

      I admit I never followed it until your post.

      That being said, IMHO he made a poor choice by showing up.

      The only tragedy is the damage to the Dodge.

    • Spot on! Saw this on the news last night (because someone in my households still watches the news). I was concerned right away and still am.

  13. Matt McCloskey Was DOA.

    Have his parents been charged?

    If not, why not?

    And what of the Hero’s condition? He must have been traumatized.

    Surely the impact of the unsupervised juvenile caused some damage to the vehicle. Who will pay for that?

    Can’t someone think of the first responders anymore?

    • Hi Tuanorea,

      I can’t find the story right now but I remember reading about a case in NYC where officers shot wildly at an unarmed man, injuring civilians. The man was charged for those injuries.

      Cheers,
      Jeremy

    • Did the occifer find any suspicious money? If the kid had more than $5 with him couldn’t the AGW take it as a probable crime? Why should he need money at a sleepover?
      That would indicate to any trained AGW there was something going on at the house he never made it to alive there was more than just a sleepover going on.

      A SWAT team should have been dispatched immediately, no warrant needed, as none is so often deemed to be unnecessary, and that house of which they had every right to believe had illegal goings-on should have been raided.

      After all, the wife and I were raided Aug 1, 2016, on suspicion of growing pot……in the pasture….full of cattle, by the accusation of a woman facing 5 felony charges including kidnapping, taking as many as 4 minors across state lines and removing them illegally from their court appointed domicile among the 5 counts. Surely 2 retirees not even aware of these crimes could be doing something wrong…..based on her testimony even though she had no reason to believe it since it had been years since she’d even seen either of us.

      Besides, everyone knows a truck driver rarely home is magically growing pot in a pasture full of cattle his crippled wife can’t even physically access. Made sense to the state police even though it must not have carried much weight with a judge since they had no search warrant. The fact she named her ex as one of the growees surety didn’t send up any red flags.

      Cops are by no means opportunistic nor motivated by the hope of financial gain.

      Well, it was taxpayer money well spent since the helicopter alone cost over $2,000 per hour to operate. It alone cost taxpayers at least $10,000 that day for a farcical shot in the dark. No telling what the fleet of ground troops cost with half a dozen in separate vehicles not to mention the special K9 unit.

      Now that’s a great return on the taxpayers dollar just to follow-up on the word of an insane, and very desperate felon’s accusation.

  14. The pedestrian randomly entering the road is a long held ‘what if’ by the speed kills crowd. Even though at the PSL all that would need change is the timing and the child would still be dead. The hypocrisy of speed kills people is still made obvious by not prosecuting the cop. Most anyone else would be in some vary serious trouble hitting and killing a child due driving at the PSL let alone at a 50% greater speed.

    • This is why property developers annoy me so much. Look around on Goolag Maps, find a nice looking curvy road, switch to satellite view (or, worse, actually go there in real life), and… it’s just houses all the way down.

      If you do manage to find a road (probably in a specially designated park or forest somewhere) that hasn’t yet been turned into a residential road, don’t get too excited because if it’s paved and within 50 miles of civilization, the bicyclists, hikers, tourists, and other assorted nature lovers have probably already found and overrun it.

      I was just reading in the latest issue of Car & Driver that some states, such as Michigan and Minnesota, maintain snowmobile trails where you can go out pretty much any dang time and spray some poweder. A yearly permit costs only $48, which isn’t much if you have the money to buy toys like that in the first place. Pretty much like a Nurburgring for snowmobiles (and C&D did use that analogy), only significantly less regulated. What I was wondering is, why can’t the same system be put in place for cars? I’ve already been thinking that the world needs a few more Nurburgrings.

      I mean, we have bike paths, cycledromes, hiking trails, snowmachine & ATV trails… us drivers are the only ones who have to beg & scrape for a place to race, and then when we do get one it’s blatantly artificial unless it literally is the Nurburgring or a very few others. It just doesn’t seem right to me.

      If I was a rich man, I would in a heartbeat buy some land and put in a network of private roads for “street” racing, but if you’re going to wait on me then you might be waiting a while. If some rich, eccentric gearhead is out there reading this, though, I’d be glad to volunteer some time for brushcutting and general maintenance (well, if I lived anywhere nearby).

      • Only government can be deemed nonliable in such a situation. A private citizen would be liable for anything that happened on the property.

        • And of course, the government is never going to do this because it would be both ruinously expensive and politically incorrect.

          You would think a sign stating something along the lines of “PRIVATE ROAD. NO SPEED LIMIT. ENTER AT OWN RISK. NO BICYCLES, PEDESTRIANS, TRAILERS, MOTORCYCLES UNDER 250CC, OR VEHICLES OVER 10,000 GVWR WITHOUT PERMISSION OF LANDOWNER” would be enough but in today’s lawyer-mad society I guess not.

          Needless to say I hate the profession of personal-injury law even more now.

        • What it really reminds me of is an episode of The Rockford Files where Jim Rockford is getting into something, whale watching, stargazing, don’t remember what but it led him to haul a telescope up onto the roof of his trailer. Or maybe it was his dad that put it there. Anyway, it gets innocently left up there for reasons of convenience, only for some nitwit to come along, climb up on the roof to look at the telescope, fall off, break his back, and then go after Jim for his medical bills. The remainder of the episode is about trying to get out from under the lawsuit by proving that the “victim” (of his own stupidity) wasn’t hurt as badly as he said he was.

          That’s what this reminds me of.

          Among the many milestones along America’s path to ruin, is the moment when personal injury law slipped its bounds. Now, you can’t just be sued for harming someone, you can be sued also for not keeping someone from hurting themselves. Surely anyone can see the difference between an attempted lynching and voluntarily sticking your neck in a rope that just so happened to be dangling there (on someone else’s property) Anyone but the lawyers, that is. Just one more way we’ve gone from a common-sense-based society where there is no problem as long as you’re not causing a problem, to a fear-based society where someone constantly has to mind your Ps and Qs for you, either because they think it’s their job as an agent of the government, or to avoid lawsuits as a non-agent of the government.

      • bike paths are often miserable. People using them with anything but bicycles and clovers of all stripes. Then they put 8mph speed limits on some.

        • BrentP,

          I’ve found that the only ones that are worth a damn are the rails to trails.

          And those are pretty damn good since the trains compacted them for 100 years.

          • It’s the clovers that make them miserable. Not only clovers on bicycles but for the fact that no space can be bicycle only. I can deal with just about any surface condition besides mud.

  15. If the facts are not contested, then regardless of the Police investigation findings or the District Attorney, a civil suit would win. It is clearly not departmental policy to drive over the limit to a non-emergency and thus his immunity is forfeit. As with OJ Simpson, go after the SOB with a claim that puts him and his kids on the street, plus gives you all his salary for the next 40 years.
    His bond will be forfeit and the insurance will probably hang him out to dry.
    Go MSM and play the tragedy to the crowd.
    The message needs to get to all the Blue line gang that people will no longer just stand-by and watch.

  16. It’s the Israeli training that most police departments take advantage of. You see, if you are of the “chosen”, you are exempt from laws that apply to the rest of us. If you peruse information about that open-air concentration camp named “Gaza” you will see exactly the same behavior that American police departments use against us ordinary citizens.
    We are all Palestinians, now…

    • Spot on. One of the reasons police have become so aggressive and quick to pull the trigger. Especially with Trump’s support.

      MAGA?

      No, MIGA; Make ISRAEL Great Again

    • Oc, I recall one year at the International SWAT team competition in L.A. the Israeli team “won” by simply killing everyone in the house.

      When queried about killing the suspected “terrorists” children, they responded it was best to kill them then than to possibly need to do it later when their whereabouts might not be known. You can’t make up shit like this…..and that constituted a win.

  17. I don’t understand how that SOB is still alive. If that was my son that was killed, things would be set right in a public display that the town would be talking about for years to come.

    • Anonymous, the problem with that is the cops won’t hesitate to retaliate against the family having no fear of losing so much as a day’s pay.

      There’s not a better job for amoral sociopaths other than politician. Amoral sociopath is redundant I suppose.

    • Unless they want to talk about gun control they don’t care about black or brown kids either. Only little blonde white girls get footage and column inches especially if abducted.

  18. I say this with great sadness, but soooo many more of these incidents – along with 100% unjustified ‘shootings’ – AKA ‘murder’ – are the ONLY thing that’s going to wake these people up to the Police State that resulted from the fraud of 9/11.

    But Americans won’t get it until it’s far too late.

    ~ Occams

    • I’d argue the war on drugs is what started it, the patriot act (9/11) put it into warp drive. Sadly I agree with you and I hope another way is found but I don’t see it now.

      • Delvin, I’m afraid you’re correct. Pick out some extra horribly egregious police action YouTube and view the comments. You’ll be galled by all the coppsuckers backing clearly illegal and immoral behavior. You’ll be tempted to view it again wondering what you missed.

LEAVE A REPLY