|
Re: Bad Cop, No Donut! The brave, resourceful CHP
2003-06-23 15:55:08
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:18:54 -0400, Frank Ney
wrote: >http://www.lewrockwell.com/greenhut/greenhut10.html > >"Injured motorists have no right to expect help from the California Highway >Patrol even when officers arrive in time to save a life" > >"The officers have absolutely no duty to help him. The facts in this case >are devastating, especially to his parents, but there is no duty by the CHP >to offer help.... Mr. Jelks made a very poor decision when he decided to >jump from one side of the bridge to the other. You cant transfer that >liability to the CHP." > > >So, while the courts say we are on our own, don't expect any help from the >police, the courts and the legislature also say that we are not entitled to >the materials and machines we deem necessary to provide for ourselves. >Probably because we'd use them on the parasites who suck out our substance >while providing witticisms like the ones above. > >To paraphrase a certain comedian, "What a fucked-up country!" > > >Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO ProvNRA LPWV Are you stupid enough to believe that story? You can't be employed anywhere as stupid as you are. The story would have made national headlines. Besides, they have to investigate any fatality you dumbass, not just call a tow truck and leave.
2003-06-23 16:45:00
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 04:31:42 GMT, "Yardpilot"
wrote: > >"Bad wheels" >news:3ef668cd.42208812@news-server.socal.rr.com... >> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:22:06 GMT, "Yardpilot" >> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Bad wheels" >> >news:3ef6483c.33871812@news-server.socal.rr.com... >> >> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:06:59 GMT, "Yardpilot" >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> I was speaking of Mr. Cash.... In regards to the CHP, if the knew >> >> >> Jelks was laying there injured & drove away without aiding him, that >> >> >> would be unconscionable. Does anyone have any evidence they in fact >> >> >> knew jelks was still at the scene? >> >> > >> >> >It is quite evident they didn't go down and look. It was reported to >the >> >> >officers that the man was there. If a cursory check of the scene from >the >> >> >bridge deck didn't locate him, it was incumbent upon them to either go >> >below >> >> >and look, or to arrange for the proper people to do so. Simple and >> >> >straightforward. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Ae you familiar with the area? If not, how can you make that >> >> assesment? >> > >> >It's a simple matter of logic. I guess that doesn't interest you. >> >> Of course it interests me. Thats why I asked if you knew the area. How >> can you determin if they did the right thing without knowing all the >> facts? > >Enough facts were included in the story. It matters not the least what the >conditions are in the area. They had a report of an injured man. They found >his car. They did not assertain his condition or location. They did not turn >the matter over to people more qualified. Are you sure the reporter reported all the facts that were reported to the officers? >> >> Apparently, a jury heard all the facts & felt the officers >> >> actions were reasonable. Im very curious if this was so clear cut, why >> >> the officers didnt request the fire departments technical rescue unit >> >> to check the location if it was so inaccessable. >> > >> >Yes, why didn't they get the right people for the job if they couldn't or >> >wouldn't do it themselves? They had a report of an injured man and they >> >shined it on. >> >> Do you know that for a fact? How do you know what they did? No one has >> postd that info. There is clearly more to this. > >Nonsense, slick. They were given a report of an injured man. They found his >car. They did not assertain his condition or location. They did not turn the >matter over to anyone else for further handling. And how do you know that? because a reporter said so? >> >> It would be >> >> interesting to hear the officers thoughts. Its hard to immagine one >> >> subjucting themselves to prosecution & loss of their jobs when all >> >> they have to do was radio for the fire department. Thats why I suspect >> >> there is much more to the story. >> > >> >You "suspect" that, but you are still willing to go to bat for them. I am >> >simply asking questions about why they didn't do what would seem >appropriate >> >to anyone else. I've done my share of SAR work, so don't bother trying >> >another silly spin. >> >> No spin here. If they had the first clue a victim was below them, it >> would have been so simple to summon aid. The fact they didnt makes me >> wonder what the situation was out there. Clearly we dont have all the >> facts. > >We have enough. They were given a report of an injured man. They failed to >act on it. A jury, having heard ALL the facts felt the octions of the officers were reasonable & found no liability on their part. How do you explain that?
2003-06-23 16:47:04
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:55:08 GMT, Spock
>On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:18:54 -0400, Frank Ney >wrote: > >>http://www.lewrockwell.com/greenhut/greenhut10.html >> >>"Injured motorists have no right to expect help from the California Highway >>Patrol even when officers arrive in time to save a life" >> >>"The officers have absolutely no duty to help him. The facts in this case >>are devastating, especially to his parents, but there is no duty by the CHP >>to offer help.... Mr. Jelks made a very poor decision when he decided to >>jump from one side of the bridge to the other. You cant transfer that >>liability to the CHP." >> >> >>So, while the courts say we are on our own, don't expect any help from the >>police, the courts and the legislature also say that we are not entitled to >>the materials and machines we deem necessary to provide for ourselves. >>Probably because we'd use them on the parasites who suck out our substance >>while providing witticisms like the ones above. >> >>To paraphrase a certain comedian, "What a fucked-up country!" >> >> >>Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO ProvNRA LPWV > >Are you stupid enough to believe that story? You can't be employed >anywhere as stupid as you are. The story would have made national >headlines. Besides, they have to investigate any fatality you dumbass, >not just call a tow truck and leave. Also interesting to note is a jury found no wrong doing by the officers. At face value, you would think they would have hammered these guys. However, after hearing they facts, the officers were cleared... They reporter obviously slanted the article & left a few things out.
2003-06-23 23:38:33
"Bad wheels" news:3ef72df5.10963890@news-server.socal.rr.com... > On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 04:31:42 GMT, "Yardpilot" > wrote: > > > > >"Bad wheels" > >news:3ef668cd.42208812@news-server.socal.rr.com... > >> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:22:06 GMT, "Yardpilot" > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >"Bad wheels" > >> >news:3ef6483c.33871812@news-server.socal.rr.com... > >> >> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:06:59 GMT, "Yardpilot" > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >> I was speaking of Mr. Cash.... In regards to the CHP, if the knew > >> >> >> Jelks was laying there injured & drove away without aiding him, > >> >> >> would be unconscionable. Does anyone have any evidence they in > >> >> >> knew jelks was still at the scene? > >> >> > > >> >> >It is quite evident they didn't go down and look. It was reported > >the > >> >> >officers that the man was there. If a cursory check of the scene > >the > >> >> >bridge deck didn't locate him, it was incumbent upon them to either > >> >below > >> >> >and look, or to arrange for the proper people to do so. Simple and > >> >> >straightforward. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> Ae you familiar with the area? If not, how can you make that > >> >> assesment? > >> > > >> >It's a simple matter of logic. I guess that doesn't interest you. > >> > >> Of course it interests me. Thats why I asked if you knew the area. How > >> can you determin if they did the right thing without knowing all the > >> facts? > > > >Enough facts were included in the story. It matters not the least what > >conditions are in the area. They had a report of an injured man. They > >his car. They did not assertain his condition or location. They did not > >the matter over to people more qualified. > > Are you sure the reporter reported all the facts that were reported to > the officers? > > >> >> Apparently, a jury heard all the facts & felt the officers > >> >> actions were reasonable. Im very curious if this was so clear cut, > >> >> the officers didnt request the fire departments technical rescue > >> >> to check the location if it was so inaccessable. > >> > > >> >Yes, why didn't they get the right people for the job if they couldn't > >> >wouldn't do it themselves? They had a report of an injured man and > >> >shined it on. > >> > >> Do you know that for a fact? How do you know what they did? No one has > >> postd that info. There is clearly more to this. > > > >Nonsense, slick. They were given a report of an injured man. They found > >car. They did not assertain his condition or location. They did not turn > >matter over to anyone else for further handling. > > And how do you know that? because a reporter said so? Okay, you are spinning. Sufficient facts were presented to show what the officers did and did not do. I'm looking for information, you are going into kneejerk defensive mode. Conversation ended.
2003-06-24 01:47:56
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:38:33 GMT, "Yardpilot"
wrote: > >Okay, you are spinning. Sufficient facts were presented to show what the >officers did and did not do. I'm looking for information, you are going into >kneejerk defensive mode. Conversation ended. > > the reporter knos more than the jury who heard ALL the facts. Guys like you like to go one & on about the constitition. So come cops are tried civily by a plantiff who excercises the right to sue. The jury decided in the cops favor, about as legal as it guts but because a reporter expresses an opinion to the contrary, thats the way it is? Absent nay other facts, I'd say what the officers did was just plain wrong. However, a juey after hearing all the facts found no fault with their actions. I guess you just cant deal with that. Quitter.
2003-06-24 04:06:04
"Bad wheels" news:3ef7acb4.7428031@news-server.socal.rr.com... > On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:38:33 GMT, "Yardpilot" > wrote: > > > > > >Okay, you are spinning. Sufficient facts were presented to show what the > >officers did and did not do. I'm looking for information, you are going > >kneejerk defensive mode. Conversation ended. > > > > > In other words you cant defend you position. Did it. Go fuck yourself..
2003-06-24 04:18:44
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 04:06:04 GMT, "Yardpilot"
wrote: > >"Bad wheels" >news:3ef7acb4.7428031@news-server.socal.rr.com... >> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:38:33 GMT, "Yardpilot" >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >Okay, you are spinning. Sufficient facts were presented to show what the >> >officers did and did not do. I'm looking for information, you are going >into >> >kneejerk defensive mode. Conversation ended. >> > >> > >> In other words you cant defend you position. > >Did it. Go fuck yourself.. > >
|
|
