Quote:
Originally Posted by GonnaCatchABig1
i agree with you. to a point. except i dont think he is trying to make his stuff smell good. i thin he is trying to make a precedent to get a big cash settlement if the law is passed.
when they sign up for the job accept certain risks.
to push for a law that would cause EXTREME bottlenecks during peak hours is ridiculous.
again there is respect there for riskin their lives. nut that part of the job description.
personally i think they are already OVER protected (from people with common sense) at this point in time it is almost illegal to look at a cop the wrong the wrong way.
it isnt entirely cops faults so much as the governments new no tolerance laws. but if you jsut keep letting them pass more and more laws to protect them, especially common sense laws. ou open the flood gates. cause, guns are a threat to them... so they would logicaly have to go completely. which of course then enables the government to have COMPLETEL military control over the people.. but blah blah blah.. be a good american.  |
The cops would only appreciate the current laws on the book be upheld in a reasonable manner. Thier are enough rules now without adding anymore. No officers or organization connected with police officers have anything to do with a proposed law to make people move over for a police vehicle with its lights on. Thats probably why this proposal never moved out of the committee with any fervor.
Further, your remark about a "big cash settlement" is way off base. I have been hit five times by the motoring public and never hired a lawyer. Don't know of any officer who has. Municipalities sue driver's who hit officers and cruisers to recover lost wages and medical cost associated with this type of injury. That happens quite often.