Originally posted by chickenshoes

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


of course it's tragic, but in all honesty, the officer was doing his job. The man can't go that fast, it endangers others.

Ok, let me show you what you typed again.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth.

And, yes, I can concede that possibly the comment was irrelevant to him "doing his job".

But, to me, his insensitive, cruel comment does not speak well of his character. Why did he get into this line of work anyway? It smacks of him being on a power trip (yes, I know, I'm making an assumption here, but I think it's a pretty good one).

? My post you copy/pasted proved my point. Him "doing his job" had to do with pulling the man over. The man actually deserved to take a ride downtown in a squad car for going that fast.

The cops statements are irrelevant to the issue at hand. Yes, given the situation they were careless and insensitive. But that's another thread altogether.

this whole thread it based upon an appeal to emotion argument by default, the OP wants us to "overlook" the fact that the driver was going 30 mph over the speed limit, and justify it internally because there was a chocking dog in the car.

I'm looking at the big picture, this driver was endangering HUMANS, not dogs, lives by driving that fast at night. That was utter disregard for his fellow man on the road.

For arguments sake, what would we say about the cop if he had immediately let the man go, and 2 minutes later the man causes a deadly accident?

They'd be calling for the cop's head! Anyone can agree that the underpinnings to this story are sad, but the man broke the law, in a gross manner, the police officer did his job. It's sad the dog had to perish, but look on the bright side, the cop may have saved a human life or two by pulling this man over.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


The cops statements are irrelevant to the issue at hand. Yes, given the situation they were careless and insensitive. But that's another thread altogether.

this whole thread it based upon an appeal to emotion argument by default, the OP wants us to "overlook" the fact that the driver was going 30 mph over the speed limit, and justify it internally because there was a chocking dog in the car.

I'm looking at the big picture, this driver was endangering HUMANS, not dogs, lives by driving that fast at night. That was utter disregard for his fellow man on the road.

For arguments sake, what would we say about the cop if he had immediately let the man go, and 2 minutes later the man causes a deadly accident?

They'd be calling for the cop's head! Anyone can agree that the underpinnings to this story are sad, but the man broke the law, in a gross manner, the police officer did his job. It's sad the dog had to perish, but look on the bright side, the cop may have saved a human life or two by pulling this man over.

I can understand that technically, he was in the right, but
a policeman who was truly there to serve and protect and not on a power trip would have seen the situation and given the folks an escort to the nearest AEC.

He could have still given them a ticket or even taken them to jail, but it could have waited until they got to their destination and the dog was being attended to.

If it was his police dog choking, don't you think he'd drive just as fast (or faster)? And do you think he'd put up with being pulled over? Do you think he'd even get pulled over by his buddies?

And yes, I do understand that the idea is to protect the other drivers, but the way he went about it was not good. Callous in the extreme, in fact. Wouldn't that at least point to some kind of psychological instability on his part?

"It's just a dog you can buy another one"
"It's just a baby, you can have another one"

A life is a life, no the person should not have been speeding, but the officer could have taken the pet to the clinic with the driver in the back...

I actually said the man should not have been speeding, but the officer CAN speed and so could have taken to dog + driver to the clinic and then given him a ticket.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Edit to add: 95 MPH... they risked the lives of humans sharing the road with them over a damn dog. They deserved the ticket.
[edit on 21-8-2008 by burdman30ott6]

Give me a break mr 'law and order', I see cops driving down two lane streets doing 95mph without their lights or siren, just because they can. Whos going to pull them over?

95mph on a straight highway in an important situation, isn't a big deal. I have done faster then that, and its not dangerous in the right times and situations.

I guess you grew up a saint...

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
I had no idea ATS was so full of transportation design engineers! Wow guys, we should all exchange numbers or something so we can talk shop together.
In all seriousness, every single person who just made an uneducated and inexperienced comment about "the road can easily handle 95 MPH" pat yourselves on the back because you just looked like an ass. I design & analyze highways for a living... I am a licensed professional civil engineer and I am good at what I do. I can say with no hesitation that there is NO highway in the united states that was designed using AASHTO guidelines for 95 MPH.

Well you need to do a bit more testing then, a friend of mine built a car from the ground up for pure speed to see how fast it would go.

He offered to let me go with him so I did. We pegged the speedometer out at 160mph on a standard highway multiple times. That highway held up just fine but the tires on the car ended up melting. We had a blow out at 120mph. We were lucky in that aspect we walked away fine.

Now I'm not condoning this to anyone every little bump in the road after 140 requries massive steering corrections point being the road held up fine the tires did not.

As for the dog if it was already dead no point in rushing I agree in that aspect 100 percent.