Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 141

Thread: 2013 report of LEO who died on the job

  1. #1
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    2013 report of LEO who died on the job

    .



    The actual report is headed "Law Enforcement Fatalities Dip to Lowest Level in Six Decades" and shows that, as usual, more officers are killed in traffic fatalities than by gunfire.

    However, the LA Times piece which reported on this report spent most of the article talking about the shooting deaths.

    How about we pay attention to bad driving, which the officers have more control over, and can eliminate more deaths?




    .
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Be prepared for the Drive By Whiner to have a tantrum in here for "bashing".

    So. To stay on topic, the NHTSA conducted an analysis of almost 30 years’ worth of crash data and found that 42 percent of all law enforcement officers killed in traffic crashes were not wearing seat belts. The number may actually be higher because NHTSA could not determine whether or not the officer was wearing a seat belt in 13 percent of the cases.

    So what's the solution? Jenny Craig for those too obese to fasten their seat belts? Send the rest to a detox to get them off the blue Kool Aid enough to understand their magic blue suit does not defy physics? Or stop a Buick?

    Almost 40 percent of the agencies participating in the NHTSA study reported that they did not have policies regarding cell phone use by officers. The same percentage reported that they did not have policies regarding texting by officers. Twenty-five percent reported that an agency-owned vehicle had crashed because of one of these two distracted driving issues.

    How many innocent people are killed, maimed or have a loved one ripped from their lives due to this childish irresponsibility of playing with gadgets when they are supposed to be working? Until they get their driving habits squared away, maybe they should be relegated to the Schwinn.



    OK. Maybe not.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  3. #3
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    Be prepared for the Drive By Whiner to have a tantrum in here for "bashing".

    So. To stay on topic, the NHTSA conducted an analysis of almost 30 years’ worth of crash data and found that 42 percent of all law enforcement officers killed in traffic crashes were not wearing seat belts. The number may actually be higher because NHTSA could not determine whether or not the officer was wearing a seat belt in 13 percent of the cases.

    So what's the solution? Jenny Craig for those too obese to fasten their seat belts? Send the rest to a detox to get them off the blue Kool Aid enough to understand their magic blue suit does not defy physics? Or stop a Buick?

    Almost 40 percent of the agencies participating in the NHTSA study reported that they did not have policies regarding cell phone use by officers. The same percentage reported that they did not have policies regarding texting by officers. Twenty-five percent reported that an agency-owned vehicle had crashed because of one of these two distracted driving issues.

    How many innocent people are killed, maimed or have a loved one ripped from their lives due to this childish irresponsibility of playing with gadgets when they are supposed to be working? Until they get their driving habits squared away, maybe they should be relegated to the Schwinn.



    OK. Maybe not.
    Cite?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  4. #4
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    .



    The actual report is headed "Law Enforcement Fatalities Dip to Lowest Level in Six Decades" and shows that, as usual, more officers are killed in traffic fatalities than by gunfire.

    However, the LA Times piece which reported on this report spent most of the article talking about the shooting deaths.

    How about we pay attention to bad driving, which the officers have more control over, and can eliminate more deaths?




    .
    I'm confused about the relevance. Are leos more likely to die in an accident then none leos? Are they more likely to die by guns?

    Here's food for thought.... even if there is more non Leo killed by gunshots..... none chose to go to that gun fire or put themselves in harms way. Wrong time wrong place kind of stuff. Yet even the leo traffic accidents. How many were blue lighting going to calls? You know... to help someone else?

    Just not sure the whole "oooooo leos did this!!". Why does it matter? Why does it make it any more important or bad? Do leos become less human when they put a uniform on?

    How about pizza delivery drivers. How many of them were killed by gun fire and traffic accidents? How many dominos have no cell phone use policies? Fed ex and ups?

    Usps is a tax payer funded organization. So how many postal workers text while driving?

    See how none of it matters?


    Edit:usps

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Primus; 01-03-2014 at 02:06 AM.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Another distraction and deflection. If you have a problem with the NHTSA study either complain to NHTSA or get cops to be better and more attentive drivers. The OP is proffering a study regarding cops and their driving habits conducted by the feds.

    When a cop is "blue lighting" I would suspect that that is the one time period where a seat belt would be the first thing that cop decides to use before responding to that call. Higher rates of speed being very likely and thus the severity of injuries if something goes wrong.

    You keep focusing on that which was not offered in the op. keep on deflecting and excusing obvious, and admitted, errors in judgement by cops, according to the study. I, for one, have no illusions regarding the level of mediocrity in the driving skills of armed state agents.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Another distraction and deflection. If you have a problem with the NHTSA study either complain to NHTSA or get cops to be better and more attentive drivers. The OP is proffering a study regarding cops and their driving habits conducted by the feds.

    When a cop is "blue lighting" I would suspect that that is the one time period where a seat belt would be the first thing that cop decides to use before responding to that call. Higher rates of speed being very likely and thus the severity of injuries if something goes wrong.

    You keep focusing on that which was not offered in the op. keep on deflecting and excusing obvious, and admitted, errors in judgement by cops, according to the study. I, for one, have no illusions regarding the level of mediocrity in the driving skills of armed state agents.
    +1 His posts are a matrix of weaved Red Herring, Strawman, call to expertise etc....fallacies.

    Notice his slight ad hominem by inferring that non cops don't rush to danger.....I call bull. Many times of danger are stopped by civilians, oddly in my area I noticed a lot of times it's by construction workers who rush to aid. Maybe it's because they are 8 times more likely to die in their jobs than cops and actually face danger head on all the time and don't whine about it and want the public to sympathize with their "plight".

    Notice again the usually a cop might die in a traffic stop tactic, again twisted logic, statistically a driver has a tremendously higher percentage of being killed or abused by a cop stopping them.

    Why are many of the traffic accidents considered dying "in the line duty", had that argument with PALO a few years ago when a cop ran into a garbage truck, he wasn't chasing anyone just driving. If a roofer gets into a collision driving from one roof to another is that considered in the line of duty of roofing?

    He also wants to distract from relevance, because a major relevance is that cops are not that needed, yet year after year them and their unions argue for the theft of more money and for the increase of their ranks and panhandle to the feds for lots of equipment and funding.

    If violent crime is down, if cop deaths are down, why are they not downsizing these agencies? Seems to be hugely relevant.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,155
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Notice his slight ad hominem by inferring that non cops don't rush to danger.....I call bull.

    [ ... ]

    If violent crime is down, if cop deaths are down, why are they not downsizing these agencies? Seems to be hugely relevant.
    An anecdote personal; I used to drive a 1970 IH TravelAll 1200D 4x4 - big and not very nimble, used to tow my double-deck trailer of racing sports cars. I was making a proper left at a traffic light when I had to brake hard for two deputies at ~60 mph in boulevard traffic. I was amazed and then pissed when I realized that it was noon.

    Downsizing due to mission success? Public servants working themselves out of their sinecure - hah snowflakes in hell!
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    An anecdote personal; I used to drive a 1970 IH TravelAll 1200D 4x4 - big and not very nimble, used to tow my double-deck trailer of racing sports cars. I was making a proper left at a traffic light when I had to brake hard for two deputies at ~60 mph in boulevard traffic. I was amazed and then pissed when I realized that it was noon.

    Downsizing due to mission success? Public servants working themselves out of their sinecure - hah snowflakes in hell!
    Have had similar anecdotes, paced a deputy going 55 plus on the 35 mph rd toward my house, by the time I caught up he was at his house bringing a bag groceries up his front steps.

    Yep, they sell it as safety and then when it works ( I don't think it has much to do with them) they have to drum up and dramatize every instance to cry out like Oliver for "more please sir"
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    There seems to be a myth being subtly perpetuated that all that matters is "police officer's safety". I'm here to say nothing could be farther from the truth for me. WE are employing the inept and funding activities that create liabilities for ourselves when we place these irresponsible people behind the wheel of vehicles they are not qualified to handle. Let's face it, there's a reason Chimps don't drive in NASCAR. It requires some aptitude, and that doesn't simply come with the desire to work in an occupation.

    This reaches much further than the police body count.


    Six killed in accident with police squad car.

    http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/...ide-drive.html

    Motorcyclist Killed in Police Car Crash

    http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loca...232439871.html

    Pedestrian killed in police officer-involved accident

    http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region...glendale-crash

    Police officers, cabbie injured in SoHo car accident

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...#ixzz2pMmqZFTz

    And of course, "Isolated Incident" 88, 478:

    DAVID BISARD, IND. POLICE OFFICER, CONVICTED OF RECKLESS HOMICIDE, DUI IN FATAL 2010 CRASH


    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/david-bi...al-2010-crash/


    I contend we can expect responsible actions from all drivers, blue lights or not. I think a lot of this irresponsible destruction of our tax paid for assets is due to the fantasy of the mythical protective barrier that comes with the magic blue suit. And innocent people are dying from it. Further, who does the investigations into these wrecks and vehicular assaults? More police. The epitome of objectivity, right? How many negligent, irresponsible deaths of police and their victims are chalked up to "unavoidable line of duty" deaths so benefits are assured to survivors in what the rest of the world would call nepotism? Aw, this is a real wicked web that's been weaved, I tell ya.

    Some police officers are responsible for themselves and to others, and I'm grateful for them. I'm not sure they are in the majority, though. Go to Google Images and put in "wrecked police car" and be prepared to spend some time at the computer.
    Last edited by Fuller Malarkey; 01-03-2014 at 03:00 PM. Reason: spelling
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Uhm...statistically speaking, there's virtually 100% chance that an officer will use a/his cruiser during a tour. Therefore, the chances that he will have an accident with his car are somewhere pretty far north of zero.

    Stop trying to compare apples to lobsters.

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    I've been driving going on 40 years and I have never had a accident, either all by my little ole self or involving another citizen. It is possible to not get into a wreck. Unfortunately cops are exempt from many laws that apply to driving when they are in the pursuit of official business. This is where the issue lies, the fore knowledge that they will likely face little negative consequences for poor driving.

  12. #12
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    +1 His posts are a matrix of weaved Red Herring, Strawman, call to expertise etc....fallacies.

    Notice his slight ad hominem by inferring that non cops don't rush to danger.....I call bull. Many times of danger are stopped by civilians, oddly in my area I noticed a lot of times it's by construction workers who rush to aid. Maybe it's because they are 8 times more likely to die in their jobs than cops and actually face danger head on all the time and don't whine about it and want the public to sympathize with their "plight".

    Notice again the usually a cop might die in a traffic stop tactic, again twisted logic, statistically a driver has a tremendously higher percentage of being killed or abused by a cop stopping them.

    Why are many of the traffic accidents considered dying "in the line duty", had that argument with PALO a few years ago when a cop ran into a garbage truck, he wasn't chasing anyone just driving. If a roofer gets into a collision driving from one roof to another is that considered in the line of duty of roofing?

    He also wants to distract from relevance, because a major relevance is that cops are not that needed, yet year after year them and their unions argue for the theft of more money and for the increase of their ranks and panhandle to the feds for lots of equipment and funding.

    If violent crime is down, if cop deaths are down, why are they not downsizing these agencies? Seems to be hugely relevant.

    For now, this is what I'll say---

    It is a restatement of, "If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to have time to do it OVER?"

    Restatement is: If it is important that you arrive to help, how does NOT ARRIVING AT ALL because you are dead or injured for YOUR failure to wear a seatbelt help either those in immediate need or YOUR FAMILY AT THE END OF THE DAY?
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  13. #13
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    For now, this is what I'll say---

    It is a restatement of, "If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to have time to do it OVER?"

    Restatement is: If it is important that you arrive to help, how does NOT ARRIVING AT ALL because you are dead or injured for YOUR failure to wear a seatbelt help either those in immediate need or YOUR FAMILY AT THE END OF THE DAY?
    I actually agree with this 100%. A common thing we say to each other and ourselves is "you've gotta get there first". So when your driving and hyped up going to a bad call its where your partner helps a lot. You are right that getting killed enroute helps no one.

    As far as seat belts go.... again. When a guy puts a uniform on he's still just another dude who may not wear his set belt any other time. Its a personal choice. Some departments do have policies about wearing seatbelts. So if your involved in an accident and they pull the black box your screwed especially if you try to lie

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  14. #14
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I actually agree with this 100%. A common thing we say to each other and ourselves is "you've gotta get there first". So when your driving and hyped up going to a bad call its where your partner helps a lot. You are right that getting killed enroute helps no one.

    As far as seat belts go.... again. When a guy puts a uniform on he's still just another dude who may not wear his set belt any other time. Its a personal choice. Some departments do have policies about wearing seatbelts. So if your involved in an accident and they pull the black box your screwed especially if you try to lie

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Probably didn't cover this in mall-cop school:

    Massachusetts General Laws

    Section 13A. No person shall operate a private passenger motor vehicle or ride in a private passenger motor vehicle, a vanpool vehicle or truck under eighteen thousand pounds on any way unless such person is wearing a safety belt which is properly adjusted and fastened; provided, however, that this provision shall not apply to:

    (a) any child less than twelve years of age who is subject to the provisions of section seven AA;

    (b) any person riding in a motor vehicle manufactured before July first, nineteen hundred and sixty-six;

    (c) any person who is physically unable to use safety belts; provided, however, that such condition is duly certified by a physician who shall state the nature of the handicap, as well as the reasons such restraint is inappropriate; provided, further, that no such physician shall be subject to liability in any civil action for the issuance or for the failure to issue such certificate;

    (d) any rural carrier of the United States Postal Service operating a motor vehicle while in the performance of his duties; provided, however, that such rural mail carrier shall be subject to department regulations regarding the use of safety belts or occupant crash protection devices;

    (e) anyone involved in the operation of taxis, liveries, tractors, trucks with gross weight of eighteen thousand pounds or over, buses, and passengers of authorized emergency vehicles.

    (f) the side facing seat on which the factory did not install a seat belt in any car owned for the purpose of antique collection.

    Any person who operates a motor vehicle without a safety belt, and any person sixteen years of age or over who rides as a passenger in a motor vehicle without wearing a safety belt in violation of this section, shall be subject to a fine of twenty-five dollars. Any operator of a motor vehicle shall be subject to an additional fine of twenty-five dollars for each person under the age of sixteen and no younger than twelve who is a passenger in said motor vehicle and not wearing a safety belt. The provisions of this section shall be enforced by law enforcement agencies only when an operator of a motor vehicle has been stopped for a violation of the motor vehicle laws or some other offense.

    Any person who receives a citation for violating this section may contest such citation pursuant to section three of chapter ninety C. A violation of this section shall not be considered as a conviction of a moving violation of the motor vehicle laws for the purpose of determining surcharges on motor vehicle premiums pursuant to section one hundred and thirteen B of chapter one hundred and seventy-five.

    https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Gener...r90/Section13A

    I do not read Police Officers as exempt. I imagine not writing up blue clad offenders falls under the heading of "blue line courtesy".
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  15. #15
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    Probably didn't cover this in mall-cop school:

    Massachusetts General Laws

    Section 13A. No person shall operate a private passenger motor vehicle or ride in a private passenger motor vehicle, a vanpool vehicle or truck under eighteen thousand pounds on any way unless such person is wearing a safety belt which is properly adjusted and fastened; provided, however, that this provision shall not apply to:

    (a) any child less than twelve years of age who is subject to the provisions of section seven AA;

    (b) any person riding in a motor vehicle manufactured before July first, nineteen hundred and sixty-six;

    (c) any person who is physically unable to use safety belts; provided, however, that such condition is duly certified by a physician who shall state the nature of the handicap, as well as the reasons such restraint is inappropriate; provided, further, that no such physician shall be subject to liability in any civil action for the issuance or for the failure to issue such certificate;

    (d) any rural carrier of the United States Postal Service operating a motor vehicle while in the performance of his duties; provided, however, that such rural mail carrier shall be subject to department regulations regarding the use of safety belts or occupant crash protection devices;

    (e) anyone involved in the operation of taxis, liveries, tractors, trucks with gross weight of eighteen thousand pounds or over, buses, and passengers of authorized emergency vehicles.

    (f) the side facing seat on which the factory did not install a seat belt in any car owned for the purpose of antique collection.

    Any person who operates a motor vehicle without a safety belt, and any person sixteen years of age or over who rides as a passenger in a motor vehicle without wearing a safety belt in violation of this section, shall be subject to a fine of twenty-five dollars. Any operator of a motor vehicle shall be subject to an additional fine of twenty-five dollars for each person under the age of sixteen and no younger than twelve who is a passenger in said motor vehicle and not wearing a safety belt. The provisions of this section shall be enforced by law enforcement agencies only when an operator of a motor vehicle has been stopped for a violation of the motor vehicle laws or some other offense.

    Any person who receives a citation for violating this section may contest such citation pursuant to section three of chapter ninety C. A violation of this section shall not be considered as a conviction of a moving violation of the motor vehicle laws for the purpose of determining surcharges on motor vehicle premiums pursuant to section one hundred and thirteen B of chapter one hundred and seventy-five.

    https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Gener...r90/Section13A

    I do not read Police Officers as exempt. I imagine not writing up blue clad offenders falls under the heading of "blue line courtesy".
    Lol yea Fuller. The next day I work I'll make sure I cite every guy I see. I'll post a video of a cruiser doing a traffic stop of a another cruiser.

    Even better.... how about you come up here get a job as an Leo and pull me over if one day I'm not wearing my seatbelt.

    Put up or shut up.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I actually agree with this 100%. A common thing we say to each other and ourselves is "you've gotta get there first". So when your driving and hyped up going to a bad call its where your partner helps a lot. You are right that getting killed enroute helps no one.

    As far as seat belts go.... again. When a guy puts a uniform on he's still just another dude who may not wear his set belt any other time. Its a personal choice. Some departments do have policies about wearing seatbelts. So if your involved in an accident and they pull the black box your screwed especially if you try to lie

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    So cops can and do ticket citizens for not wearing their seat belts, citing safety reasons and etc, but cops are allowed personal choice on the matter?

  17. #17
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    So cops can and do ticket citizens for not wearing their seat belts, citing safety reasons and etc, but cops are allowed personal choice on the matter?
    No, as I said some departments (not speaking for all) will have a specific policy that states you must wear a belt.

    I already addressed that by saying said officer would be screwed if he was in an accident and he didn't have a belt on, especially if he lied about it.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Primus; 01-03-2014 at 09:08 PM.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    So do you pull over other cruisers and cite them for not wearing their seatbelts?

  19. #19
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    So do you pull over other cruisers and cite them for not wearing their seatbelts?
    Nope. Can't its not a primary offense in ma. So I can't and don't pull non leos over for no belt either.

    So I'd have to build reason to stop another Leo conduct a traffic stop then cite them for no belt.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  20. #20
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Nope. Can't its not a primary offense in ma. So I can't and don't pull non leos over for no belt either.

    So I'd have to build reason to stop another Leo conduct a traffic stop then cite them for no belt.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    What is stopping you?
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  21. #21
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Lol yea Fuller. The next day I work I'll make sure I cite every guy I see. I'll post a video of a cruiser doing a traffic stop of a another cruiser.

    Even better.... how about you come up here get a job as an Leo and pull me over if one day I'm not wearing my seatbelt.

    Put up or shut up.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Ah. YOU are afraid of "breaking blue", so you dodge accountability by TRYING to assign some kind of responsibility on ME, you believing you are in some position to enter ME into a black / white situation that doesn't exist.......and I don't buy into it and your comeback fizzles.

    Others have called you repeatedly on your fallacies of thought. I'm coming to believe you ARE a fallacy.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  22. #22
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    What is stopping you?
    What?

    Wait... your proposing while on patrol I pull over another cruiser that has a taillight out? Then conduct a traffic stop on said cruiser? Then cite the operator cop for not wearing a seat belt? Lol really?



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  23. #23
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    Ah. YOU are afraid of "breaking blue", so you dodge accountability by TRYING to assign some kind of responsibility on ME, you believing you are in some position to enter ME into a black / white situation that doesn't exist.......and I don't buy into it and your comeback fizzles.

    Others have called you repeatedly on your fallacies of thought. I'm coming to believe you ARE a fallacy.
    Lol yea u nailed it... trying to avoid "breaking blue".. or maybe its just a really stupid idea.

    Again.. you come work up here or any agency and show me how its done. Well once you turn 21 of course. Then you can post your dash cam videos of pulling over other cruisers and citing for tail lights and seat belt violations. I'd love to learn from you.

    Discussions like these are why I avoid even responding to you. I get better conversations with young children.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    What?

    Wait... your proposing while on patrol I pull over another cruiser that has a taillight out? Then conduct a traffic stop on said cruiser? Then cite the operator cop for not wearing a seat belt? Lol really?



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Why not? Citizens are subject to this exact scenario; why not your brothers in blue?

  25. #25
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    [QUOTE=Primus;2021765]What?

    Wait... your proposing while on patrol I pull over another cruiser that has a taillight out? Then conduct a traffic stop on said cruiser? Then cite the operator cop for not wearing a seat belt? Lol really?



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE

    More greased pig routine. [not oily, smarmy cop, the porky pig kind, greased up and hard to catch.]

    You were asked a direct question, nothing was proposed. That was something YOU conjured up.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •