Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

"This is purely a public safety issue."

Miss the posts from your favorite flame artist or troll who added little to no value to the Buzzboard? Read 'em here!
lovinlife101
Posts: 6164
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am

"This is purely a public safety issue."

Post by lovinlife101 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:38 am

I like to call out BS on this board when I see it, and it doesn't get much more BS-ier than this!

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/rose ... n-driveway

Kudos to the local news for getting both sides of the story here.

Dude warms up his car in his own driveway and some busy-body cop with nothing better to do tickets him. Does the cop try to inform the citizen of the ticket? Does he try to educate the resident on the reason for it? Nope! Just writes a ticket and litters on the man's car by placing it there. Is this cop too chicken to talk to the person he just gave a ticket to? Yep!

Think a cop has ever left a running vehicle unattended in the winter? Yep, we see it all the time, but are they held to the same standard? Nope!

So the issue was that the key was in the ignition and that the vehicle was unattended. So if the vehicle had a remote car starter it apparently would be okay. But what if it was unlocked? Couldn't a criminal steal it just as easily? Yep!

What if a baby was alone in the car? Would that then make it "attended" and then be deemed "safe" since Mr. Highly Paid Hall Monitor is going by the letter and not the spirit or intention of the law?

But that's not the worst of it. You see, regardless of what cops say, or try to get you to say, you have the freedom of speech and the right to remain silent protected by the U.S. Constitution. It's a beautiful thing. Something to be treasured and not taken away lightly.

This cop's boss also has that freedom of speech, but he uses that speech to bully, intimidate, and harass a private citizen.

The ticketed individual expressed his displeasure as his Constitutional right affords, but what does the police chief do with his freedom of speech? HE WISHES DEATH ON THE PRIVATE CITIZEN!

Did you catch that? HE WISHES DEATH ON HIM!

Don't believe me? Watch the video.

The police chief tells the man, "Drop dead!"

I don't know about you, but when my tax dollars go to a man who is given a badge, a gun, and government power, which is intended to protect people, and then tells one of them to "drop dead!" because he doesn't like what the person said, I am concerned.



lovinlife101
Posts: 6164
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: "This is purely a public safety issue."

Post by lovinlife101 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:15 pm

I agree with audiophile that it is a dumb law and should not apply on one's own property.

I'm also thankful for zzand's post since it added to the already existing BS in this story. It also affords me the opportunity to help with the problem of following rules blindly and how dangerous and deplorable it can be.

1. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law." Oh, how I love this one! Do you realize how many laws there are? There are more than 3,000 in Michigan alone. Chances are you have broken several laws this month already. One news source reports that Michigan's law system requires a woman to get permission from her husband before getting a hair cut. http://wotv4women.com/2014/05/15/silly- ... -exsisted/

Go ahead and let the married straight women in your life know that they need to get permission from their husbands to get a hair cut. We wouldn't want them to be ignorant of that law!

2. "The man broke the law, the officer did his job enforcing the law..." I love this one too! What about all the undocumented immigrants in our country? Why not round them all up and send them home? Isn't that what "the law" says? Oh, you're not for that? Then why are you for enforcing certain laws and not enforcing others? For a long time in the United States, sodomy was "against the law." Would you have supported the arrest of people participating in that?

3. What about cops that don't enforce the law? The law says when someone steals something, they should be arrested and prosecuted. What did one cop do? After catching a woman stealing eggs from a store, he not only did not arrest her, he purchased the eggs for her. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... stmas.html

Many people praised the police officer here for NOT enforcing the law, but according to you, the cop should have done "his job" by arresting her and locking her up in a cage. THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS! But you don't agree with that. Hmmmm.

What about all of the people who also stole eggs? They were most likely arrested and prosecuted, but this woman wasn't. How is that fair? How can a cop perform the role of judge and jury here?

If you are pulled over for speeding and the cop doesn't write you a ticket, that police officer did not "enforce the law." The law says the penalty is a ticket and if the police officer did not do it, that police officer did not do "his job." It's not fair that some people are punished for speeding while others aren't. Why do police get to choose whether to enforce the law without any penalty for choosing either?

4. "Life is rough, wear a helmet." Really? Life is rough because you warm up your car in your own driveway and an out of control coward cop with a god complex writes him a ticket? Again, if the car had a remote car starter or if a child was in the car, the letter of the law would not have been broken. How does that make any sense? That's the problem with following rules blindly. It takes all the intelligence, reason, and common sense out of it, but you seem to have no problem with that.

Oh, by the way, I refuse to wear a helmet even before it was "legal" to ride without a helmet. I'm tough inside and out and refuse to do what you tell me to do.

5. "It is his constitutional right to say so..." I already said it was the cop's constitutional right to say what he did. Thanks for wasting everyone's time by trying to disagree with me without reading and remembering my post.

6. "It doesn't mean he wishes death on the man..." Really? How else is one supposed to take "Drop dead!"? If he screamed "DIE!" is that just a figure of speech too?

7. Thanks for including the vulgar ending of your post. It further shows your ignorance.

Have a nice day!



lovinlife101
Posts: 6164
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: "This is purely a public safety issue."

Post by lovinlife101 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:04 pm

Colonel, you are hilarious! You should try that out in your next comedy set.

But please allow me to point out where you're wrong.

1. "You're both idiots." Seeing that three people posted prior to this comment, I'm not sure which one the Colonel is leaving out. Again, hilarious!

2. "Auto theft is a big problem in south Macomb County..." Yeah, and water is wet. Wow! Who cares? What does that have to do with anything? Because there may be a problem, then the rules change for cops to abuse power? Should it be illegal for some people to be attractive? Would that keep them from being molested? Why are you blaming the victims here? Your logic is, "here's a problem, so let's blame those that are victims of this crime." Why not go after the perpetrators? Just a thought, Skippy.

3. "...and the cops are tired of chasing stolen vehicles..." Wow, I think you just typed random letters and this is what came out. Who said cops had to chase stolen vehicles? Isn't that dangerous? Wouldn't high-speed chases put other innocent people and the police at risk? Do you have any facts that show high-speed chases bring positive results? Why would you even assume that a high-speed chase would be a good option? And if a high-speed chase is the cop's "job," who cares if they are tired of it? What about the auto worker that is tired of making cars? Or the baker who is tired of baking? Does that mean we should try to get them to stop? Brilliant!

4. "...where the mental defective owner left the keys in the ignition." Again with the victim-blaming. Why not try a logical thought instead of name-calling. Just a thought. Should Apple stop producing such superior products so people stop stealing iPads? And can you believe these auto manufacturers that build such quality machines? Why are they asking for such trouble?

5. "In any event, most vehicles today are fuel injected..." Again, who cares? This brings nothing to this conversation. Fuel injection has nothing to do with warming up a vehicle. Most vehicles today also have power locks!

6. "...unless you're driving a rusty 1975 Chrysler St. Regis..." Why do you assume it would be rusty? Does rust have anything to do with warming up a vehicle? If it had no rust, would that make any difference? What about a 1974 or 1976 model? Why is 1975 singled out? Was that a year of an inferior product?

7. "...or some similar piece of sh** (you kiss your mom with that mouth?), there's no need to 'warm up' your vehicle." Who cares if there is a need to warm up a vehicle or not? What's morally wrong with starting a vehicle in your own driveway and returning inside your own home?



lovinlife101
Posts: 6164
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: "This is purely a public safety issue."

Post by lovinlife101 » Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:51 am

Colonel: "Platecap is right..."

No, Platecap is 100% wrong!

Platecap: "It's the LAW.....a state motor vehicle law."

NO IT'S NOT! It is NOT a state motor vehicle law!

Please do your homework before posting on here. It saves all of us valuable time.

I'm sorry that you have to be embarrassed and humiliated in such a public way, but hopefully this will serve as a reminder to get your facts straight before commenting here.

And Colonel, you are 100% wrong too. If my house was broken into, it wouldn't matter if I left a door unlocked, window open, or had flashing signs that said "I'm not home." THE PERSON WHO BROKE INTO MY HOUSE BROKE THE LAW, NOT ME!

You may be thinking "Well, you shouldn't have done that." Does that make the crime of a break in any less of a crime? "Well, you were not being smart." So cops should go around fining people for not being smart? Any department would be self-funded with the users of this board alone.

Should I be fined for leaving my house window open, door unlocked, or saying I'm not home? If my house is broken into, is that my fault? Or did someone else make the decision to break the law and invade my dwelling? Do I deserve to be broken into based on my actions? Should the perpetrator not face a penalty because I made breaking into my house or stealing my car easier? That's the same logic of telling someone who is attractive to ugly it up so that rape doesn't occur.

STOP BLAMING THE VICTIM!

"Plate Cap is right, you would be the first one yelping for a police officer if your car was stolen in this manner." Really? Like my car stolen in any other way would be any different? Would I care more or less if a window was broken? Nope! The crime is robbery performed by someone else, not me minding my own business on my own property.

"It's just common sense." That's what the highly paid hall monitor with a god complex tells the reporter. So now we legislate common sense? Who gets to determine common sense? Isn't taking a self-defense course "common sense"? Let's fine everyone who hasn't taken one! IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE! Let's allow the police department to fine people extra for spending more money than they make. IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE!

"The cops need to be proactive as opposed to reactive. Numbskull whiners like the guy in the story only put others at risk." You are so funny! I'm really entertained to know there are people who actually think this way. Who puts people in danger? The answer is the person who would steal the car, drive it dangerously, and hit someone else. It would not be the owner of the vehicle here. I hate to have to give you the right answer, but I don't have time to wait for you to get to it. You may never get to it.

Let's try, please, just try to use logic here. I'll help you.

If someone steals someone else's car, drives it dangerously, and hits someone else, who is responsible?

Colonel Flagg: The owner!

No Colonel, the owner did not steal a car, drive it dangerously, and hit someone else. The owner did nothing wrong in that scenario.

Colonel Flagg: But the owner should not have left it running in his own driveway!

Okay, Colonel, I understand that you disagree with the owner's actions. You may have made a different decision, and that's okay. That's your right, but the owner is not responsible for someone else stealing his property, driving it dangerously, and hitting someone else.

Colonel Flagg: Yes he is! If he didn't have it running in the driveway, it would not have been stolen and used in that way.

Now we don't know that, Colonel. So, how is fining the owner helping?

Colonel Flagg: It makes me feel like the cops are keeping people safe. It also separates private citizens from their money and makes the police more powerful.

Okay, now you're making sense and using logic.



lovinlife101
Posts: 6164
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: "This is purely a public safety issue."

Post by lovinlife101 » Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:31 pm

"I know and respect Jamie Berlin."

Ah, now we get to why you post the way you do. So because you know and respect someone, that means it's okay for them to use their public servant's role to tell those they are supposed to be protecting to "drop dead."

It's okay for a cop to write someone a ticket, litter on their car, and never even try to talk to them? How about the next time a cop thinks you're speeding that they just put it on your car when you get home and aren't looking.

You have what a lot of people have: a love affair with cops. Is it the uniform? Do you just like people in a uniform? Do you like to think they are better than everyone else because they carry guns and get to tell people what to do? Do you think you are special because you know one of them? Do you think they may grant you special favors because of your relationship? Do you like to see cops exert force over other people? Whatever floats your boat. I'm not judging you. I'm just pointing out that you give police more leniency than those who are paying the cops' salaries. They work for us, not the other way around. However, many cops believe they are above the very law they are supposed to be upholding. And they are obnoxious about it too.

I, for one, do not believe cops have special rights or that they are better than anyone else.



lovinlife101
Posts: 6164
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: "This is purely a public safety issue."

Post by lovinlife101 » Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:37 pm

"The man probably is at the mercy of a judge that will back in cops"

That's correct, Fingerboard Corners.

Unfortunately many judges are former law enforcement officials that will side with cops rather than try to hear a case objectively. They take care of their own and protect their territory.



lovinlife101
Posts: 6164
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: "This is purely a public safety issue."

Post by lovinlife101 » Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:55 am

So Plate Cap, since you think a police chief's encouragement of one of the citizens he is supposed to be protecting to "drop dead" was just a figure of speech, do you also believe Madonna's comment about "blowing up the White House" was just a figure of speech too?

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-38716714

For the record, I am a non-violent person. I think all forms of war are immoral.



lovinlife101
Posts: 6164
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: "This is purely a public safety issue."

Post by lovinlife101 » Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:03 pm

Bobhuge, why not complain about the "Jennifer Granholm" thread on the Detroit section?

It has nothing to do with Michigan radio and TV, but people who have posted in this forum seem okay with it.



lovinlife101
Posts: 6164
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: "This is purely a public safety issue."

Post by lovinlife101 » Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:22 pm

So this kid wears a hat, gets bullied and his butt kicked on a bus, then HE gets suspended!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACvknqH1tfU

Unfortunately, this is the same reasoning a lot of you people have. You blame the victim!

You're all like, "Well, he shouldn't have worn that hat! Ber dee der."

Just like you say, "Well, that guy should not have warmed up his own vehicle in his own driveway."

Unbelievable, all of you.



lovinlife101
Posts: 6164
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: "This is purely a public safety issue."

Post by lovinlife101 » Wed Oct 31, 2018 8:37 am

lovinlife101 wrote:
Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:22 pm
So this kid wears a hat, gets bullied and his butt kicked on a bus, then HE gets suspended!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACvknqH1tfU

Unfortunately, this is the same reasoning a lot of you people have. You blame the victim!

You're all like, "Well, he shouldn't have worn that hat! Ber dee der."

Just like you say, "Well, that guy should not have warmed up his own vehicle in his own driveway."

Unbelievable, all of you.
Ah, the days when cops ticketed folks for warming up their own cars in their own driveways. The cop didn’t even bother to talk to the person.

Those days are gone and I’m beyond orgasmic about that.

But it’s time to demand more accountability for cops and more rights for individuals!



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic