reply to post by Xcathdra
Destroying the gate and speeding through the parking lot are 2 separate incidents.
yet, only one of those can be proven.
also, neither speed or property damage is a crime.
a legal infraction sure, but a crime ??? not yet.
Operating a motor vehicle in a wreckless / impaired manner with children in the car is endangering the welfare of a child.
since i have yet to see a seat belt infraction equate to child endangerment charges, i call BS when an accident is involved.
He intentionally drove through the gate, doing damage, and left = Leaving the scene of an accident.
just assuming intent i see, that's becoming your motto in this thread ... assume, assume, assume, eventually it will be true.
he didn't leave the scene, he was wandering about the scene.
He failed to stop when the accident occured, he left the scene, he left at a high rate of speed, he failed to make contact with the deputy, he
failed to report to incident to 911.
and more assumptions. vehicle was parked (stopped - so much so that subsequent officers boarded it to comfort the children), the fence still caught
on the undercarriage, if he left the scene, how was he shot on scene ??
he left at a high rate of speed
???? - now you're resorting to making stuff up?
the deputy FAILED to make contact with him, clearly.
why would he call 911 when officers appeared on scene?
there is a
10 day time limit regarding reporting an accident with only property damage (see pvs links).
yes, you're assumptions are intentional and i'm pretty sure more than i can tell.
ya know, this discussion reminds me of an incident several yrs back.
offending driver and responding officer = friends
offending driver runs a red light, makes a left turn and plows into my driver's front quarter.
officer is in nearby parking lot, witnesses accident occurring.
i am knocked unconscious and transported to ER.
sometime later, in the ER, the officer appears and wants to "ask a few questions".
he proceeds to ask one, and only one, a very directed question, which, in my weakened state of mind and body, i foolishly answered.
when i said "yes, but ...." only the yes was recorded and the offending driver, who was also an illegal immigrant, was simply told "go get your
license".
no charges, no fines, no punishment and i got all the pain, the recovery and the bills.
the question was ... "was the light red?"
not, what color was your light, or any other non-directed question.
the truth is,
my light was green, however, since i was observing the light for a distance of roughly 100+yards and it changed to green before
braking was necessary, i answered his question honestly.
i said, "yes, but i wasn't there yet".
point is, we all know, the truth is irrelevant in these situations.
this was the third lesson absorbed that finally convinced me, you can NEVER trust a cop.
and fyi, obtaining a lawyer in my case was pointless as you cannot sue an illegal immigrant, but, they can get a license.
As a constitutionalist I am surprised that you dont understand that the US Supreme Court is the end of the line for court challenges. The
Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. There are no more courts to appeal to after they rule, so your claim is wrong.
so, how does
a SC ruling get over-turned if they are the END ALL in case law?
