XPost: or.general, or.politics   
   From: ciruelax@deja.com   
      
   Curt wrote:   
   > "lein"  wrote in message   
   > news:1155958069.744039.101410@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...   
   >   
   >>Curt wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>"Matthew Beasley"  wrote in message   
   >>>news:ranFg.182$Qm5.117@news.cpqcorp.net...   
   >>>   
   >>>>"Curt"  wrote in message   
   >>>>news:12ebtutt0ok2566@corp.supernews.com...   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>Usually, sure. But the law specifically allows them to ignore stop   
   >   
   > signs   
   >   
   >>>>>and   
   >>>>>whatnot, if it'll help them catch the bad guy. And Matthew Beasley's   
   >>>   
   >>>post   
   >>>   
   >>>>>sort of made it sound like that cop that was in the wreck was being   
   >   
   > let   
   >   
   >>>>>"get   
   >>>>>away" with something. He's not.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>I disagree there.  He is getting away with a crime.   
   >>>   
   >>>Well, the outside agency that did the investigation, and the district   
   >>>attorney, both of them disagree with you. And seeing as how they know   
   >   
   > more   
   >   
   >>>than you about the situation, I'll go with their conclusion rather than   
   >>>yours, a guy on Usenet.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>District attorneys can indict a ham sandwich, except when they choose   
   >>not to.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>>The cop ABSOLUTELY has the legal right to run stop signs, sans lights   
   >   
   > and   
   >   
   >>>>siren when needed.  But he officer does have the obligation to make   
   >   
   > sure   
   >   
   >>>>that he is also exercise some care when doing so.  The issue I have is   
   >>>   
   >>>that   
   >>>   
   >>>>he went through a stop sign at 60 MPH in a 25 MPH zone.  The dead man   
   >>>   
   >>>didn't   
   >>>   
   >>>>have a stop sign.  The driver of the mini-van never had a opportunity   
   >   
   > to   
   >   
   >>>>yield.  The mini-van was traveling east on Glisan, traveling through a   
   >>>>intersection where cross traffic was required to stop.  How many of   
   >   
   > you   
   >   
   >>>>drive on a major thoroughfare with the expectation that someone is   
   >   
   > going   
   >   
   >>>to   
   >>>   
   >>>>blow a stop sign at 60 MPH from a side street and cross the street you   
   >   
   > are   
   >   
   >>>>driving on?  To blow through a stop sign at 60 MPH and cross a major   
   >>>>thoroughfare just plain meets the definition of reckless.   
   >>>   
   >>>And if you'd read the DA's report, and if you'd read the outside   
   >   
   > agency's   
   >   
   >>>report, you'd notice that the stop sign was invisible due to overgrown   
   >>>trees.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>But here's the question that nobody asked - Is this the first time the   
   >>cop was on this road?  If not, did he stop at this intersecton before?   
   >> I think we all know the answer to this one.   
   >   
   >   
   > Dunno. I honestly don't.   
   >   
   > I'm thinking the DA and the outside agency (PPB) that investigated the wreck   
   > would have thought of that, though.   
   >   
   > Wouldn't you?   
   >   
   > Curt   
   >   
   >   
   How can you question the judgment of a law-enforcement official? Are you   
   some kind of commie or terrorist?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)