California Man Leads Oregon Police on High-Speed Chase

---

Freedom of speech January 22, 2007 10:32 pm (Pacific time)

freedom of speech. D

---

Charity January 14, 2007 2:34 am (Pacific time)

So much money and time is spent in our system keeping people in line. How about keeping people safe from the cold, hunger, isolation, illness and the possiblity of an existence without easily removeable torture and pain? I want my tax dollars to go to altruistic causes not more police, jails and wasteful sinecure government jobs. It is more cost effective to keep more people on public assistance. Society makes a moral issue of WORK. There are many that are not emotionally, intellectually or physically able to WORK. That is all I have done my life is WORK and I can tell you that it is a four letter word.

---

Too costly... January 12, 2007 9:36 am (Pacific time)

{Apology for the delay. As for the length and breadth... blame it on the internets lack of taxation on a per word basis... it's being considered.} Henry, have you analyzed the record of the HIGHEST standards our society has set for "official sources"? Expert Witnesses: those allowed to give testimony/opinion at trials which determine if a suspect lives or dies. When two of those "expert witnesses" enter a room, with the same evidence, out pop two entirely different conclusions, (almost exclusively depending on which party signs the "experts" paycheck). I believe a television news magazine did the experiment. One was on tire tread and if it matched those of the suspects, but testing in other fields garnered similiar results. Want a real-life example? Look into the initial medical examiner's autopsy report of 14 year old Martin Lee Anderson's boot-camp beating death in Florida. The CSI television series it is not. Yet, MSM accepts far less "expert" opinion as Gospel, (and "press releases" from .gov sources without so much as a disclaimer). Henry, you have recently gained a distinct air of superiority. It does not suit you. I will not list my credentials to prove to you I am anything BUT just another "belly-button opinionist". Anyone who claims to be more, never is. At best, they are naive enough to believe THEIR sources are without repute. At worse, they wish their opinion swallowed without question, thereby leaving the audience ignorant and continually controlled for future gain. You recently claimed: "...Society runs on cooperative efforts..." This is in complete denial of every action you have ever witnessed. Society is composed with nothing more then individuals seeking selfish gain. Don't get me wrong, cooperative effort still makes the whole of society greater than the sum of its parts. But society effects each of us on an individual basis. During these "encounters", society amounts to the weakest member in participation. When their failure manifests, the civilized society we both long for vanishes. Sadly, these failures are more frequent these days and leave us with far fewer individuals participating. How long can forced "cooperative efforts" last with the continued denial of individual liberty, property rights abuse, and lack of real security, (self-reliance)? Whether citizens realize it or not, fear of destruction is used far more often than willing cooperation. Case in point: The number of months the average citizen works to pay the IRS to avoid a jail sentence, (brought upon you at the point of a gun), is reported at close to FIVE MONTHS! Five months of forced labor could only be performed as a "cooperative effort" out of pure ignorance. Those who aren't ignorant, work out of fear, (ignorance truly is bliss). So, whether for paycheck, pride or simply to avoid jail; selfishness drives society. Look at the above car-chase "press release". Most citizens read it and unquestionly exclaimed, "GREAT!" So why then did the State of Oregon fail to make public that deputies 'lost' the suspect TWICE due to heavy fog during this pursuit? Isn't "heavy fog" during a high speed pursuit a detail that the public should know of to better judge whether the dangers put on innocent citizens were wise? Or is the air of superiority so high, and the opinion of the subjects so low, they have been deemed unworthy to form their own opinions? Or, further still, was it (c.y.a.), a matter of greed for continued .gov paychecks that the true dangers of this pursuit were absent? But hey, at least the people FEEL good knowing Donyeil was arrested, (we won't mention how quickly he was out on bail). The feeling of security is a key part to contentment and history warns all governments to keep the subjects content until the water comes to boil. Stir things just enough with the air of discontent, and the subjects will even beg for the temperature to be turned up, "Give us MORE security!" I ask, "At what cost?" I could include a great quote on "security" from one of our founding fathers, but that debate appears to have died with him. {By the way, I know more details about this pursuit then the "official" story because my belly-button witnessed it, (the real reason my opinions contain a lot of lint). I ask no one to blindly trust me, nor should they trust anyone claiming to be lint-free. (And if anyone ever comes across a lint-ball "expert", note their sponsor and look for an escape.) But if anyone wants to form their OWN opinion, listen to all the testimony, question it and review it. Never draw a conclusion, only form an opinion, with great measure given to anything your belly-button has actually witnessed.}

---

Henry Ruark January 11, 2007 3:08 pm (Pacific time)

MalignMaskedOne: Old saying: "Don't listen to what we say-watch what we do". SO waiting to see "what you do" or have done, where, when, for whom --include Why if you wish. My open story available as Staff Notes on S-N home-page, as written by editors from documented information. Why are you so afraid to share yours ? Credibility rests with readers --even at these low-rates.

---

Henry Ruark January 11, 2007 2:48 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Documentation re"label": label (as in "description") n. : a brief description given for purposes of identification; "the label Modern is applied to many different kinds of architecture" . Nothing there about "smear", different political-cult swear-word often used in lieu of truth.

---

Henry Ruark January 11, 2007 2:07 pm (Pacific time)

MaskedManOrLadyAgain: You belabor "closed mind" - so what have you ever produced, published, and gotten paid-for ? "Self"-educated has its indelible markings, you are right about that. SO what else do you have to prove progress otherwise, with tough demands at professional level ? Most ranting radically about that never made the effort. "On own", what business did you create ? Where ? How many did it employ ? How long did it last ? Allathis basic experience from which to first learn --then write, perhaps, if you have the wit, wisdom and will to do so. Society runs on cooperative effort, contributions via those channels-mentioned are what counts --what's your record ? You will recognize all of this as good reason for ID-now unless you prove your own irresponsibilities further by silence or simply slinking away when the light comes on.

---

Henry Ruark January 11, 2007 1:49 pm (Pacific time)

Anon-Self/Anointed: I hear you --strumming your belly-button. What you've offered, without ID for authenticity of your right-to-speak from solid basis of knowledge, experience and study, is precisely what Gov. Sprague termed "belly-button opinion" to which he and his people paid no attention "because everybody has ...and they're all worth about the same." For documentation check Op Ed 5/24/06 via Search-box. Meanwhile, if fright allows you to do so via removing mask over motives and personal meanings, ID-self confidentially to S-N Editors and I'll gladly engage. En garde, sir or madam, as the case may be... But only when you produce some authentic, credible statement of something rational and reasonable, based on fact, not feeling or your own fictions.

---

Well, why didn't you say so... January 11, 2007 12:40 pm (Pacific time)

Thanks for the replies, but no, I don't have $500 dollars to open up a closed mind. If anyone wants to be informed on an issue, they need look no further then the "information super highway". But you continually expect someone else to do it for you, including enough "official sources" cited to please you. It's everyone's job to seek their own education, anything else amounts to propaganda. Which, by the way, is exactly what Salem News gave the people with this car chase story, (No reporting was required, simply repeating of what the agency wanted the people to know. Is this all the MSM has become? A tool for .gov, continually filled with "press releases". This is certainly not what the founders had hoped for). Yes, I too can read to you Supreme Court opinions, (one which even declares the act of driving a right), but that only tells you some other man's opinion. For hundreds of years the Church refused to offer translation of the Bible in the people's common language. The Church was the supreme ruler of ALL law. After the Bible was offered in mass in the common language, people quickly understood all the information was there for them to form their own opinions. The Constitution is being twisted in the same ways with everyone repeating "official sources", as if that makes it Gospel. And your respect for differing opinions is clear. I've provided detailed replies to you, and all you respond with is "labeling", as if anyone willing to question the status quo of what REAL benefits these "societal controls" have on us, is given a mark on the forehead. I do appreciate that you want to increase "protection" on our roadways, but - as I noted before - you seem convinced that there can be no downside to this added "security". I've illustrated (with this story as an example) that "licenses" is a failure in that regard, and you brush it off. This is the semantic equivalent of putting one's fingers in one's ears and saying "la-la-la-I can't hear you!" This is not respecting another man's opinion. It's ignoring it outright.

---

Henry Ruark January 11, 2007 6:23 am (Pacific time)

At 89, energy-level and my pro-time still assigned to LMA writing precludes answer to topics debated since 1776. Have no other choice - need income thus generated. For professional statement on Op Ed documentation, seek out SEARCH on home-page, call up "What, Why, How re Op Ed Generation" --and you will have full responsible prior statement on public record. If time-spent on full answer here, it will require about $500 consultant time -- anyone willing to pay ? I WORK at this desk; non-ID is free-ride, hit-and-run, irresponsible-action --unless similarly documented, sourced, and studied-first. See upcoming Op Ed on weekend --and source-out any comments beyond "belly-button" feeling. Fair enough ? IF you write anonymously, you thus admit you fear SOMEthing or somebody and pervert First Amendment protections by that very act. Documentation of that-one available, too -including Supreme Court legal opinion.

---

Osotan January 10, 2007 7:58 pm (Pacific time)

how could i say more?

---

Yet still... January 10, 2007 5:32 pm (Pacific time)

You have not explained... How licenses stop criminal neglegent drivers??? How having a license stopped the driver in this story from criminal neglegence??? How, or what, "increased protection" is gained with an increase in traffic enforcement troopers??? Or, better yet, how far you are willing to take this claimed "increased protection"??? If a hundred more troopers gives us "increased protection", why not 500, or 5,000??? My first "attack" was quite clearly directed at why police continued this extremely high-risk, low-gain pursuit, (I would think 130 mph is extreme, if not the speed alone, add to that the heavy fog conditions that were also present during the chase and extreme is an understatement). This pursuit risked numerous innocent lives over 70 miles. Innocent deaths due to this type of chase are no longer acceptable in our society. Nothing I said was directed at "police powers", although that seems to fit in with your continued attempt at labeling me to fit inside the mold YOUR mind has created for me. It also appears to allow you to brush aside my comments, thereby avoiding the questions above. As for, "Principled communication demands source identification..." Is it not enough for you to know that I am another human being? Does knowing my ID change the logic of my opinions? Do I need to be a "legal" resident to count? Must I have initials behind my name? Or is this just another way for you to invalidate another human beings opinions? Finally, "It is still America, and First Amendment still offers you full protection." Oh, yeah, the same way the Second Amendment offers us full protection? LOL Or how about the Fifth Amendment and asset seizure or eminent domain abuses encouraged by our courts? Just keep believing that your rights are secure, but when it is your turn, you may not be singing such a happy tune for increased police power. The "promise of America", (yes, I read the nation article), was never prosperity nor security from ourselves, but freedom and security against citizens being treated like "suspects" by our government. Which is exactly how the new troopers will be trained to treat all citizens, "suspect". Ask them anonymously, they might just tell you the truth.

---

Henry Ruark January 10, 2007 3:46 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Democracy was built in 1776 on rationality, shaped by hot but reasonable discussion via Federalist Papers, and set on firm foundation by trust in representative government, powered by wit and wisdom to vote for qualified persons. Do believe you may be learning something about our non-democratic dissidents and how and why they operate as they do in anonymity --which was effort here to help set up and mirror situation clearly as "see with own eyes" impact. To end uselessness of any further effort to get through that impenetrable 1/4-inch you know where, read this quote for my departing word: "Rationalization doesn't mean "acting rationally". It means attaching desirable motives to what we have done so that we seem to act rationally...People seek justification for their behavior. Rationalization makes people feel good." --- Gao and Schmidt, Journal of Behavioral Finance (Vol. 6, No. 1, 05) Please note I sourced-mine.

---

Anonymous January 10, 2007 2:56 pm (Pacific time)

So "statistics lie" when piled high and perverted...is THAT your point ? You should know for sure,as demonstrated. Your first attacked"police", therefore the police power of society. All the rest follows naturally from that despite yr multiple variations for effect and still-further distortion. Since story was from trooper source no way to parse every phrase and tit-and-jottle of possible inuendo here...which is why I sought ID, to provide professional communications analysis. Withdraw that offer now since yours provides ample proof of provenance and intent to deceive, deny, defeat and destroy...all libertarian characteristics. Principled communication demands source identification; when you deny ID you defeat your own proffered pursuit, showing what is truly sought --again, a political characteristic. It is still America, and First Amendment still offers you full protection --except from own fire-into-foot failures.

---

Well,then... January 10, 2007 12:35 pm (Pacific time)

And I thought you just wanted my REAL ID... By the way, the actual discussion was about whether more traffic enforcement troopers will "increase protection" and your imagined benefits of "societal control" by licensing drivers. But, so be it, you make the rules... An officer is not a trooper, which is not a deputy. These are similar terms used to refer to CITY police officers, STATE patrol troopers, and COUNTY deputies. The general word "OFFICER" was incorrectly used by you in your statistic in reference to "TROOPERS". Not just any troopers, but troopers who have been specifically assigned to road duties. The correct number of OFFICERS per capita would include all CITY officers, (a number easily reaching into the thousands). If the term was used to confuse, it could. It adds another layer and further invalidates the statistic you used. This is why I simply corrected you in my comment below, (which was not the continually avoided main point to the comment). Further, all these agencies are sworn to uphold the same laws, and with a call for assistance they quickly patrol over jurisdicational lines--as in the above story. {Even OSU assisted in this chase on I-5.} When they claim that there are less troopers, they appear to only be including state troopers specifically assigned to road patrol, (the real-time number fluctuates wildly with the time of day, day of week, holiday weekends, emphasise patrols, and the above mentioned agency-assist calls.) If you want to play these comparision games, you should be looking into the OVERALL number of ALL officers in the ENTIRE state. Me... I personally don't care to know how my state compares with states that include cities with the highest murder rates in the nation, (but it sounds like our trooper level might be lower. Oh, the horror.) Enough statistics and comparision, as I said earlier, they can be used to mean whatever you like. You've asked me to cite my "official sources" for officer numbers, while you failed to do so when stating only 254 troopers were assigned to roadways, (a number you have since changed to over 300, now citing "official sources"). Well, I refuse on the grounds that "official sources" include 20 people in a room claiming to be the watch-dogs over government, who declare "increased protection" is the only thing that could possible come from more troopers. I guess when there is a patrol car between you and every neglegent drunk driver then you will feel "increased protection". These same 20 "official sources" give nothing but head nods at traffic enforcement being declared "...a core function of government"! It's in the Constitution, (somewhere), for gosh sakes. Add to that, these "official sources" state that since both democrats and republicans "agree for the need for more troopers" it just has to be so. And in five years from now, the citizens will never understand how they managed to drive across the state without the increased troopers. In fact, I'm putting off all travel until they get those extra patrols out there, so I can FEEL safer from this "increased protection".

---

No Thanks January 10, 2007 10:24 am (Pacific time)

The SN has moderated comments for a reason. Opinions are more freely discussed without the writer in danger of being singled out, either by employors or government. You may have a position that encourages discussion, (although you seem more interested in labeling), but certain positions in this economy frown upon it. You also may think attaching a name to the comment makes it more likely to be true. I dare say, with a name attached to a comment, the writer must concern himself/herself with more then just the truth, (such as the ramifications of telling the truth). Just another reason print media is going the way of the dinosaur, (no offense), and internet media, with the general belief of anonymity, is flying high. I see your labeling has had its desired affect, avoiding defending your claimed benefits of "societal control" by licensing drivers. And no, I never claimed a full Gestapo at S/N. However, I do note how quickly a member of the media agrees that driving is a priviledge, not a natural right and further claims that licensing driving is a societal control with benefits for us all. This societal control I have found to have little, to no benefit in, (as I have cleared stated earlier; Criminal neglegent drivers don't abid by laws, hence the wording, "criminal". Therefore, unless these criminals are confined to jail they will be driving at will. Which makes one wonder why the need to collect taxes and control the law-abiding drivers? {Taxing and control seems a likely enough answer in itself.} I further note how a member of the media cannot find anything wrong with more members of the state's police force, but only blinded sees it as "increased protection" Your quote; "....how ELSE could we change by adding troopers?" Well, darn if that's all that's needed to be protected, maybe we should hire 50,000 new troopers? How about one for every street corner? According to you that could ONLY "increase protection", right? How ELSE could you defend your leading question?

---

Henry Ruark January 10, 2007 10:14 am (Pacific time)

To all: See Metro Lead-story in The OREGONIAN today Z(1/10O for GOP agreement on need for troopers. House Dep.Minority Ldr Hanna states no disagreement on need, only on funding source. "It's a core function of government", he stated. Oregon has fewer than half the state troopers of 20 years ago, with doubled population. Abot 310 troopers now patrol highways instead of 665 in the '80s. Led: You stated "Officer numbers are thousands higher then (sic) the 254 you quote". SO YOU document your figure via official authority, as I have mine-above via official sources cited in press. I.E. "Put up or shut up !!" Total trooper count is NOT an issue here --unless you wish to snatch away protection from other areas, surely not wise in face of growing drug and other dangers.

---

Henry Ruark January 10, 2007 8:06 am (Pacific time)

L-er: Pro bono, have done analysis of your last-Comment, from long previous professional experience. It is now available for you when you ID-self properly to S-N Editors.

---

Henry Ruark January 10, 2007 12:40 am (Pacific time)

Rpt-svc again: Here is Wikipedia with full info on label-used, for easy access by other readers. "See with own eyes" how it fits. Given Oregon lowest in nation, how ELSE could we change by adding troopers ? Without ID tearing away irresponsible-mask, how can we know-to-believe YOU ? -- OR your "statistics" re "officers" ? Wikipedia citizen-written, in case you know-it-not, which seems your style: Libertarianism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Part of the Politics series on Libertarianism Schools of thought Agorism Anarcho-capitalism Geolibertarianism Green libertarianism Left-libertarianism Minarchism Neolibertarianism Paleolibertarianism Origins Individualist anarchism Austrian School Chicago School Classical liberalism Ideas Civil liberties Free markets Laissez-faire Liberty Individualism Non-aggression Private property Self-ownership Free trade Key issues History Parties Economic views Views of rights Theories of law Politics Portal · v • d • e This article is primarily about what is sometimes referred to as right libertarianism. For other uses (including political parties associated with libertarianism) see Libertarianism (disambiguation). In the United States and other English-speaking countries, libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that every person is the absolute owner of his or her own life and should be free to do whatever she or he wishes with his person or property, as long as she or he respects the liberty of others. There are two types of libertarians. One type holds as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation of force against another person or his property - with "force" meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone - who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle (many of these are individualist anarchists or anarcho-capitalists). The other type comes from a consequentialist or utilitarian standpoint. Instead of having moral prohibitions against initiation of force, some of these support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as levying taxes to provide some public goods such as defense, law, and roads, as well as some minimal regulation), because they believe it to be necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom (these are minarchists). Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that a free market can adequately provide these functions via private defense agencies, arbitration agencies, toll roads, and the like. Libertarians generally do not oppose force used in response to initiatory aggressions such as violence, fraud or trespassing. Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state, because they believe forcing someone to provide aid to others is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both. Libertarians also strongly oppose conscription because they believe no one should be forced to fight a war they oppose. (NOW you see why label works better for most persons, but then one must know what the label means, too...)

---

Henry Ruark January 10, 2007 12:27 am (Pacific time)

L-er: Too many worms crawling from this pile to kill 'em all...let me assure you, AP doth not simply swallow guff however served...you ever worked for wire service ? Rest mostly fit label, as does continued badly consummated points. Per decencies-here, suggest you,too, "come clean" with ID to S-N Editor, for full discussion on our own...Not tailored for irresponsible non-declaration on one side. Thanks for revelation of feelings for further command guidance, which seems more pertinent than ever, unless one wishes to conceive of full Gestapo in operation here, already...

---

Leading January 9, 2007 9:22 pm (Pacific time)

"Do you wish to continue at this rate, or do you think we need more protection?" That amounts to leading the witness. Will an increase in state troopers assigned to road duty lead to more protection? The newly hired state troopers will stop crime before it happens? You don't feel we have enough of that guessing game happening already? {Such as the extremely likely reason for the stop of the suspect in this chase, the out-of-state CA plates.} Or will the new troopers have more time for investigating felony crimes? Since you are asking about increased troopers for road patrol, we are talking about more resources to stop traffic infractions. The increase in resources to stop traffic infractions on the freeway doesn't exactly equate to "increased protection" in the mind's of your reader. But don't worry, you included that idea in your leading question. Now, given that police were able to allocate so many limited resources for the high-risk, low-gain chase last night, it tells me they are doing just fine. "IF you have serious issue with professional performance of risk assessment on chases, why not so inform commander at new training center?" I like my current status as a law-abiding "suspect". Have you filed a police complaint recently? Even trying to get the form has gotten "suspects" harrassed and arrested. I filed mine and was issued a citation two hours later for an incident happening over a week earlier. And you want me to stick my head up at the training center? Nah... I'll pass. "...giving Oregon the lowest number of officers on the road, per capita, in the country." Let's be clear here, you are talking about state TROOPERS, not officers. Officer numbers are thousands higher then the 254 you quote. But then you couldn't use such a distorted amount of "...one for every 14,492 residents..." Please avoid state-issued statistics, they mean only what the issuer wishes them to mean. As for your continued desire to label my opinions; unless the goal is to avoid the actual topic, labeling someone seems quite worthless. As I recall, your point was how licensing the act of driving was important to "society control" over the "priviledge" of driving. While I, on the other hand, feel that until criminals and criminal neglegent drivers start obeying paperwork infractions, this "societal control" is only applied to the law-abiding and simple amounts to increased taxes and control over same. All applied while giving little to no improved chances that the next person you get in an accident with is a licensed and insured driver. (There is a reason premiums for uninsured motorists coverage is realitively the same even after mandatory insurance laws were passed).

---

Henry Ruark January 9, 2007 8:48 pm (Pacific time)

For striking summary of forces driving attitudinal disintegration since Reagan, and current recovery underway, see "A New Story for America", lead article in current NATION (1/22/07)

---

Henry Ruark January 9, 2007 6:54 pm (Pacific time)

As rptng-srvc, here's AP on Oregon patrol status. Do you wish to continue at this rate, or do you think we need more protection ? IF you have serious issue with professional performance of risk assessment on chases, why not so inform commander at new training center ? Will fwd this Comment section to him myself tomorrow, with suggestion he inform public in depth by statement to S-N and other media. We "listen" here, too... ...state police devote 254 of their troopers to patrolling the highways -- one for every 14,492 residents -- giving Oregon the lowest number of officers on the road, per capita, in the country.

---

Henry Ruark January 9, 2007 6:43 pm (Pacific time)

Speed of chase set by pursued while police must consider risks evader already inflicts on all others expecting "peaceful" highway. Tough, always, to assess risk in all dimensions, police paid to stop-and-cop all/such...what does it do to their working attitudes if forced into deadly game ? That's why it is "attudinal", with definition laid on by label "libertarian" in lieu of whole pgh to describe; that's why label used by all writers, willy-nilly...NOT to smear but to describe. Attitude re government at stake here, taught by libertarian cabal over 30 years as best protection for corporate powers and other malignities starting in Reagan era...history worth consulting on this whole attitudinal question...but some youngsters have yet to encounter it and learn from it.

---

To Deb January 9, 2007 6:27 pm (Pacific time)

Good comment: "If someone tries to evade a police officer, wouldn't that lead one to assume they had something to hide?" Actually, a surprising number of these car-chases are caused by individuals that have nothing to hide. Teenagers and others who simple refuse to make a rational choice are a large percentage of those who won't stop. Especially, when license plates come back clean and registered owners lack a warrant for their arrest, (such as the situation last night). In that situation, it is quite common that the driver is just a nobody who isn't thinking rationally. But last night police choose to pursue for 70 miles at speeds up to 130 mph a "suspect" wanted for nothing more then a driving infraction. There has been and there will continue to be innocent deaths from these chases. Personally, I don't see the benefits to society from last night were worth the risks to innocent lives. And no, I haven't had a loved one lost due to a police pursuit, but if the next life lost is someone you know, it should make you pause when the driver was being pursued for nothing more then having a tail-light out.

---

Deb January 9, 2007 5:00 pm (Pacific time)

Often I think the police spend their time and my money as if it were easy to come by. This time I'm torn. If someone tries to evade a police officer, wouldn't that lead one to assume they had something to hide? If they have something to hide that is that important, maybe the police should chase them down and find out what it is. One charge against him might be 'wasting officer's time'. Did the K-9 bite the suspect or the dog who lived in the shed he was hiding upon?

---

Two responses January 9, 2007 3:51 pm (Pacific time)

I wouldn't, but if I HAD ever reported a "speeding driver", I hope police would have better things to do then respond. Real people are being assaulted; rape and murders need to be further investigated, ect. As it appears from last night, police don't have better places to allocate their supposedly "limited" resources. Last night didn't even include a citizen complaint. No victim will show up at this suspects sentencing hearing, (assuming he will even show up after posting bail). Posting bail??? You mean another "suspect" walks among us? Yes... just look around you. As for the pursuit aspect, I thought all high-speed pursuits did some common-sense risk assessment these days. Cost to continue pursuit, risk to innocent lives, ect., weighed against the dangers of allowing a "failure to yield" suspect from escaping back into society. It appears, not enough innocent lives have been lost in high-speed pursuits of "jay-walkers". Give it time, give it time. As for Henry's attempt at labeling, (for some reason he finds this necessary), it does little to answer the question, what good did the license do in this case? Or what good does NOT having a license do in the thousands of Driving without a License cases? For some reason, you did bring up licensing...(as if that method hasn't already been tried to control crime). Does it make issues easier to ignore, by labeling those that question "...Rational decisions by your elected representatives..."? {--possible oxymoron or two in that sentence}. No, I don't believe society is protected with paperwork attempts at controling real criminals. They are vermin willing to assault, rape, and murder, yet you feel safer knowing their eye sight hasn't gotten too poor to drive??? Think of a child molestor, slapped on the wrists and released, being told not to be near children again. Does that make you feel safe? That is the equivelent of telling criminally neglegent drivers they can't drive because they are missing a piece of paper. Throw another label on me if you must, or debate the actual issues.

---

Henry Ruark January 9, 2007 2:35 pm (Pacific time)

"Societal control" very welcome when protecting those very ones complaining when applied elsewhere...as any police file can clearly document. Only political cult caring is "Libertarian" in concept and concentration...you care to join ? OR are you already ?

---

He had a license January 9, 2007 12:33 pm (Pacific time)

The suspect had a license. So, this paperwork "societal control" achieved what exactly? (Besides taxing and controling the law-abiding among us). As for the "suspects" who don't abide by the laws; as I understand "Driving With Suspended License" is still a very, very common charge. So even the lack of this paperwork "societal control" achieves very little either way, (besides the above mentioned tax and control of the law-abiding). Maybe it matters to you, but knowing that all the 9/11 terrorists had their paperwork in order does not give me the warm and fuzzies. Alas, we can agree, I also recommend anyone who wants to defy the concept of law to become a politician, though it does appear easier to just become a police officer. Domestic Violence anyone?

---

Just Another Idiot... January 9, 2007 11:49 am (Pacific time)

Are you serious "Just Another Suspect"???? You obviously have NO IDEA what police really do. Ahhh... you must be one of those though that will be the first to complain when YOU call in a speeding driver and wonder why the police are not there in 2 seconds to respond.

---

Henry Ruark January 9, 2007 11:26 am (Pacific time)

Ever rode with police on such a chase ? Their lives are at stake to protect us all from the irresponsible actions of a 34-year-old. Driving is licensed because it is a privilege, under societal control, not a natural right. Rational decision by your elected representatives set this law - if you wish to defy that concept, run for office !

---

Just Another Suspect January 9, 2007 9:50 am (Pacific time)

"Deputies had attempted to stop a black Infiniti for failure to yield." Sounds about the same as another one police use, "suspect arrested for resisting arrest". Wow, no wonder I felt so safe when I woke up this morning. There wasn't even a "victim" in this incident, yet police likely wasted hundreds of man hours, (include the miles of paperwork and long chats about the pursuit in Safeway parking lots... "How fast were you going?" "Cool"). Add to that the risk to innocent lives on our roadways, and we should alI ask, "Why?" Don't we ask teenagers to go rent some time at a racetrack if they want to play these games at 130 miles an hour??? Go ahead, let the police charge the bill to the public for their games... Oh wait, that's right, they did.

[Return to Top]

---

©2024 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.