Sunday, March 02, 2008

We're the Only Ones Jumping Out of Gear Enough



WARNING: Contains strong language. Sound begins 26 seconds into the video.

This may not be quite as stupid as the Lee Paige video, but it sure comes in a close second.

I like the way he laughs it off and then resumes writing the ticket on the guy he pulled over, as if that's where the moving violation occurred.

Why, thanks, Officer Only One. I'll take your safety lecture seriously, you freaking goofball. You gonna write yourself a citation now, seeing as how your actions endangered oncoming traffic by a matter of seconds, and could have killed someone? No? Why not? By the way, what was it your cruiser hit that stopped it?

Nice running form, too. Glad to see standards are being maintained. And I'm still trying to figure out which cartoon character your voice reminds me of.

Yeah, the car "jumped out of gear." I believe that. So is your department--the same people who will write one of us peons up for a burned out taillight-- putting vehicles with potentially lethal hazardous mechanical defects out on the street? Was the cruiser inspected afterward, and certified for safe operation? Or more likely, did we just witness incompetence and a face-saving lie? What did you put down on the incident and insurance reports?

I don't know how long ago this dashcam video was taken and can't find anything else about it. If someone can shed some light on the story behind it, please do so.

[Via Kiwitoo]
Posted by David Codrea at 3/02/2008 08:54:00 AM

8 comments:

Michael Hawkins said...

(/serious=
Didn't you know?

Cars jump out of gear all the time, just like guns go off on their own all the time too!

)

3/02/2008 2:19 PM
Anonymous said...

As much as I hate doing this, he may be telling the truth if his patrol car was Ford. There were a few years there when Fords had a serious problem with their cars and especiallt their pickups slipping into reverse from park. Several people were actually run over by their own cars.

Ford settled some high dolar awards for that problem.

So, as I said, he may be telling the truth. Though, that does not relieve him of his major responsibility for handling the accident. His car hit something and there had to be damage as a result. He fled the scene of an accident.

3/02/2008 4:23 PM
Anonymous said...

That's what parking brakes are for.

You can bet Deputy Dawg would have written a ticket and ranked on a "civilian" if he'd seen the same thing happen.

Whadda maroon...

3/02/2008 5:35 PM
Anonymous said...

And "cutting the corner" to avoid a traffic signal isn't a moving violation no matter what "they" call it: it is using the private property at the corner outside the implied permission of the property owner.

3/02/2008 6:38 PM
Federal Farmer said...

To be fair...do we know he fled the scene? He moved his car out of traffic lanes, as he should. Perhaps he took care of things after he finished writing up the "peon".

3/02/2008 9:43 PM
Anonymous said...

Yes, he fled the scene. He may have done as you suggested, but he was obligated to call in the accident immediately, which we saw he did not. He actually went on to another activity. If he can, why can't anyone else go ahead and keep their bowling date, then call it in without being charged with leaving the scene?

No problem with him moving the vehicle out of traffic. Once he engaged in activity other than pursuing the procedures he would demand from an ordinary citizen, he can be said to have fled. Especially as he is the one who would have said it of anyone else.

3/02/2008 10:39 PM
Federal Farmer said...

Sorry, detaining a citizen while you take care of an accident that for all we know could have simply involved a trash can is not the same as a 'bowling date'.

I'm willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt that if it were, say, a third grader his car had run over he'd have taken care of things immediately.

I understand the whole 'only ones' thing (I live in Chicago!) but that doesn't seem sufficient reason to go overboard and accuse them of crimes you don't know they have committed.

Smells of the kind of tactics our 'friends' at the BC and VPC are all about.

3/03/2008 7:46 PM
Anonymous said...

We saw him do it. Crimes against persons or property are by law given priority over traffic infractions. You are right, that we don't know what he hit. But we do know he hit something with enough force to cause damage, even if it was only to his cruiser. He was obligated to handle that first, even if he had to release the traffic violator.

As for the "bowling date" thing, it was intended to be an extreme example. For if we can excuse one event of like occurrence, the precedent has been established. There then is no bar to going bowling first, is there? Well, except we are expected to believe the cop would have done the right thing later, but not the bowler.

Huh uh! I want us all to play the same rules.

I am quite familiar with Chicago cops. They are proof that the theory of evolution is correct and man has evolved from lower life forms.

3/04/2008 5:06 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)