Acceptable registrations in the queue through October 17 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."

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**
lovinlife101
Posts: 5861
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.



zzand
Posts: 696
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: 5517
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!!

***If Dem's want to pack the Supreme Court - Send Dem packing!***

lovinlife101
Posts: 5861
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!



User avatar
Colonel Flagg
Posts: 291
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: 5517
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!!

***If Dem's want to pack the Supreme Court - Send Dem packing!***

lovinlife101
Posts: 5861
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?



User avatar
Plate Cap
Posts: 62
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: 5517
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!!

***If Dem's want to pack the Supreme Court - Send Dem packing!***

User avatar
Colonel Flagg
Posts: 291
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."

lovinlife101
Posts: 5861
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.



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: 62
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.



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic