Acceptable registrations in the queue through January 10 at 7:30a 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."

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
zzand
Posts: 815
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:16 am
Location: right here

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

Post by zzand » Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:50 pm

ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. The man broke the law, the officer did his job enforcing the law and it pissed off the little snowflake. Guess what? Life is rough, wear a helmet. As for the cop saying drop dead, it is his constitutional right to say so, and it doesn't mean he wishes death on the man, it is a figure of speech. Now do us all a favor, stick your head up your ass, fart and blow what few brains you have out.



User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 6107
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

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

Post by audiophile » Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:04 pm

Dumb law. This should NOT apply on your property.

If they drove the car with icy windows they would also give him a ticket...

You can't win.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

User avatar
Colonel Flagg
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:54 pm

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

Post by Colonel Flagg » Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:17 pm

You're both idiots. Auto theft is a big problem in south Macomb County, and the cops are tired of chasing stolen vehicles, where the mental defective owner left the keys in the ignition. In any event, most vehicles today are fuel injected... unless you're driving a rusty 1975 Chrysler St. Regis, or some similar piece of shit, there's no need to "warm up" your vehicle.


"Nobody can get the truth out of me because even I don't know what it is. I keep myself in a constant state of utter confusion."

User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 6107
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

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

Post by audiophile » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:17 pm

I think he was warming the interior, or defrosting the windshield...not the engine. If you have someone that is sick warming the car is not a bad idea either.

If you had two sets of keys the doors it could be locked. What's next, will it be illegal to leave your doors unlocked or garage doors open? It's your property...an education campaign is needed here - not fines.

A few minutes of warm-up time will promote longevity, as well as going easy on it at first - I have a car with over 440,000 miles and has original engine and transmission (never rebuilt). Fires right up and uses no oil between 10,000 mile synthetic oil changes.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

User avatar
Plate Cap
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:18 am
Location: After the rectifier stack

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

Post by Plate Cap » Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:28 am

It's the LAW.....a state motor vehicle law.

Crybabies everywhere would be whining and demanding the head of the cop who didn't enforce the law if the car was stolen and used in another crime.

People constantly complain if they get a speeding ticket in their own subdivision, while at another time decrying the police who don't enforce the law if they see someone else speeding down the same street.

The officer's response was unprofessional, but not even on the horizon of offsetting the matter into the car owner's favor.

If you don't like the law, get your elected state representatives to stop fighting for camera time on the Trump / Hillary matter, do their jobs and change it. Police are not empowered to make judgement calls on laws depending upon if it's cold outside or the car is in a nice guy's driveway.

Go ahead with your "Yeah, but......" responses, but it's simply the law. Are you proposing that certain categories of motor vehicle laws require the observing officer to stop and conduct a seminar on the matter rather than enforce the law? Most people can't properly handle a busy 4 way stop as regards rights-of-way, and nearly no one handles a roundabout well. Seminar time for "education", or tickets? You answer will depend upon if it is YOU getting the ticket, or the guy that caused your accident at one of those scenes.

Bet your answer also changes if your kid gets into the unattended running car with keys, drives off, and gets hurt. Answer then: Blame the cops for not enforcing the law.

All of this is very reminiscent of the way drunk driving was once viewed.......if it was Joe Blow passing through town, throw the book at him; he might hit little Murgatroid at the school crossing......but if it was good old Mr. Smith from town at the wheel, he was to be given a warning and told to go home and sleep it off. Glad that changed.

It's the same old story, same old song and dance: If WE break the law, it's either a dumb law or the police officer should have looked the other way. If someone ELSE breaks the same law, especially if it results in someone we know being affected, throw the book at the perpetrator.

Hogwash.


The box that many broadcasters won’t look outside of was made in 1969 and hasn’t changed significantly since.

User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 6107
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

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

Post by audiophile » Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:38 am

WXYZ had a better write-up...there is NO state law on this. http://www.wxyz.com/news/roseville-man- ... n-driveway

Roseville has an ordinance and the police department stated there are 5-10 reports of stolen vehicles this way per year.

The fine was $128 dollars, which seems outrageous.



In my mind, this goes back to property rights. On YOUR property you should have the right to idle your car without a remote starter. The ordinance should be active only on public streets, or at public businesses (like gas stations). The likelyhood of theft at a private residence is very, very small being gone a few minutes.

This ordinance should be modified, and a public education campaign about not idling vehicle unattended, or unlocked should done - it could be mailed with your property tax statement.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

User avatar
Colonel Flagg
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:54 pm

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

Post by Colonel Flagg » Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:07 am

Plate Cap is right, you would be the first one yelping for a police officer if your car was stolen in this manner. Clearly, you mentally live in your own little bubble, not in the real world like the rest of us. Roseville is in a changing area, where crime is creeping in. Add Warren, Eastpointe, Center Line, and Harper Woods to the list (I'm sure you'll be posting here all day, instead of going to work, so knock yourself out checking the stats on those) The cops need to be proactive as opposed to reactive. Numbskull whiners like the guy in the story only put others at risk. There's no reason to warm up your vehicle. This is 2017, not 1977.


"Nobody can get the truth out of me because even I don't know what it is. I keep myself in a constant state of utter confusion."

User avatar
NoozDude
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:35 am
Location: Looking for Roadrunner

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

Post by NoozDude » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:48 am

For argument's sake, if I understand correctly, the officer in this instance was enforcing a local ordinance or statute. Worth noting here is, in some municipalities, enforcement action can be taken on private property depending on how the ordinance or statute was originally written. (IE: Your next door neighbor gets fined for not complying with requests to remove piles of trash from the front yard.)
What is the definition of an ordinance? According to Merriam-Webster: "a law set forth by a governmental authority; specifically: a municipal regulation."



User avatar
Fingerboard Corners
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:24 pm

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

Post by Fingerboard Corners » Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:49 pm

I would hope that this man would prevail in court. With the excessive number of lawyers in this country, someone should take this case pro bono. Otherwise, perhaps raise money for this guy online to pay for an attorney to represent him. What we have here is selective enforcement, and perhaps a report by a neighbor with a bone to pick with this man.



User avatar
Plate Cap
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:18 am
Location: After the rectifier stack

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

Post by Plate Cap » Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:58 pm

With all deference to the Harvard Law School consultants here on the Buzzboard, the law is clear:

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-257-676

Municipalities with police departments unilaterally adopt the Michigan Vehicle Code, from whence this is drawn, as their vehicle law basis.

Then, they add as they feel necessary. The quote above deals with public roads; they could easily adopt for all properties. It appears this occurred in Roseville. I know and respect Jamie Berlin; he is a straight shooter, a friend of the common guy, and an all around good cop that went through the ranks and is a notable Chief.

The law only makes sense. The uprising is purely another attempt on the part of anyone and everyone who ever got a ticket to 'get back at those damn cops'. It's everywhere, and it stinks. I stand by my previous post: If you don't like the law, lobby to change it.....don't vilify those you are paying to enforce it because you don't like it.

And, do cops everywhere a favor: If you are going to take issue with them doing their jobs for the things you don't happen to like, don't call them for the things you do.


The box that many broadcasters won’t look outside of was made in 1969 and hasn’t changed significantly since.

User avatar
Fingerboard Corners
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:24 pm

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

Post by Fingerboard Corners » Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:10 pm

The man probably is at the mercy of a judge that will back up cops, and probably doesn't have money to pay a lawyer, which he should get. It seems unfair that someone with an expensive car with auto start should be able to do this with impunity, yet someone with an older car does not have this option. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, but with convoluted exceptions like this, who else but a lawyer would know? This was outrageous enough to be linked to Drudge.
Last edited by Fingerboard Corners on Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.



User avatar
Fingerboard Corners
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:24 pm

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

Post by Fingerboard Corners » Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:01 pm

lovinlife101 wrote: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.
There are certainly some judges with anger management issues. One business establishment I saw in Metro Detroit had an office door that had shoe holes where it had been kicked in. I asked what happened and they said, "Judge _____ ________ did that". I said, "Why would a Judge do that?". They said, "Well, because he used to work here before he became a Lawyer and a Judge." Seems that every time he got angry at a client, he kicked a hole in the door. So those holes had been in the door for a long time for him to have become a Lawyer and a Judge in the mean time.



User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 6107
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

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

Post by audiophile » Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:56 pm

Plate Cap wrote:With all deference to the Harvard Law School consultants here on the Buzzboard, the law is clear:

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-257-676

Municipalities with police departments unilaterally adopt the Michigan Vehicle Code, from whence this is drawn, as their vehicle law basis.

Then, they add as they feel necessary. The quote above deals with public roads; they could easily adopt for all properties. It appears this occurred in Roseville. I know and respect Jamie Berlin; he is a straight shooter, a friend of the common guy, and an all around good cop that went through the ranks and is a notable Chief.

The law only makes sense. The uprising is purely another attempt on the part of anyone and everyone who ever got a ticket to 'get back at those damn cops'. It's everywhere, and it stinks. I stand by my previous post: If you don't like the law, lobby to change it.....don't vilify those you are paying to enforce it because you don't like it.

And, do cops everywhere a favor: If you are going to take issue with them doing their jobs for the things you don't happen to like, don't call them for the things you do.
This was written 1949, and was needed to prevent the majority of manual-transmission vehicles from simply rolling away of that era. You never want to trust the parking brake alone on manual-transmission vehicle. That is why it talks about turning the wheels too.

As you noted - It was applicable only on highways - not private driveways, So WXYZ is correct.

I ran my vehicle the other day to try and dry out a wet floor from spilt water. There was frost on the inside of the windshield too and it took a while to melt and dry out. Fortunately I do not live in USSRoseville, so the no tickets will be issued.

PS CF must have cut mechanical engineering classes - The aluminum head and block expand a different rates, and you placing a strain on the head gasket - it won't be as disastrous as the Challenger accident, but the same principal applies...


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

Mega Hertz
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:09 pm
Location: Brighton

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

Post by Mega Hertz » Mon Jan 23, 2017 5:37 pm

audiophile wrote:WXYZ had a better write-up...there is NO state law on this. http://www.wxyz.com/news/roseville-man- ... n-driveway

Roseville has an ordinance and the police department stated there are 5-10 reports of stolen vehicles this way per year.

The fine was $128 dollars, which seems outrageous.



In my mind, this goes back to property rights. On YOUR property you should have the right to idle your car without a remote starter. The ordinance should be active only on public streets, or at public businesses (like gas stations). The likelyhood of theft at a private residence is very, very small being gone a few minutes.

This ordinance should be modified, and a public education campaign about not idling vehicle unattended, or unlocked should done - it could be mailed with your property tax statement.
AP hits the nail on the head as usual. I agree with statement as a whole above. Furthermore, I believe in this instance that theft of said veichle could be construed as a home invasion, since it is on one's property, and could result in serious time.


"Internet is no more like radio than intravenous feeding is like fine dining."
-TurkeyTop

User avatar
Luke
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:46 am

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

Post by Luke » Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:35 pm

What the hell does this post have to do with Flint, Tri-Cities and Thumb media? Is the question whether or not an out-of-market station should air the story?



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic