- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The point I'm trying to make is that its difficult to complain that he's doing something that other people can't do or that he's getting away with something when its something just about everyone does and frequently get away with.
Apparently I'm not the only ASS who disapproved. I am a cautious driver. I've never driven back East. Honestly Wiseone, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. That's pretty much all I said. So, thanks for the moral support
I never claimed you was in anyway unique...
I have driven back east, I can tell you it is a whole 'nother mindset.
But at least admit you have to ASS-u-me the Mayor knew the traffic rules were being broken in order to tut-tut him on this.
Yeah and you know what it's say? It's saying "nobody gives a ****"
Truth isn't a scandal. It speaks for itself.
That doesn't fly with me. If you're in a SUV driving through a residential area where there are plenty of stop signs and the SUV never actually stops moving, it doesn't take a burst of genius to realize that you must be blowing through stop signs. And then there's the "Chris Christie factor" - even if he didn't know about it, he's the guy who's held responsible.
Hmmm so the news crews says 2 stop signs and you say many and 'blowing through'. Either they stopped for many of your many or there were not that many... Did the news crew say the SUV never stopped or did a rolling stop or just 'blew through'?
Now if you are a tourista gawking out the window of your first limo ride I can see you noting stop signs and such, but if you have position papers to read, communications to make, agendas to check... you might not be gawking out the window all that much...
WAAAAAAY too much ASS-u-ming going on here.
Held responsible- now that covers a lot of nothing much... just what should he or for that matter Christie do?
it doesn't matter if it was 1 stop sign running a stop sign is against the law. speeding 45 in a 30 is enough to have to appear before a judge. the person driving should be held accountable.
...........
only because you assign it a meaning it most likely doesn't even have. How do we know he even realized what they were doing? He wasn't behind the wheel of the car I don't see how it was his fault.yet you should.
I never claimed you was in anyway unique...
I have driven back east, I can tell you it is a whole 'nother mindset.
But at least admit you have to ASS-u-me the Mayor knew the traffic rules were being broken in order to tut-tut him on this.
You think the Mayor has no say on what his driver does expecially when he is sitting in the front passenger seat.
The man was sitting in the front passenger seat. How can you say he didn't know the driver was blowing through stop signs?
I never blow through a stop sign even if there is no visible traffic. Within reason, the whole system functions on "contract". That is why nothing but a painted line keeps you from a head on collision. It seems to me that if you are promoting "contract", you should be observing it.
Let me put it this way. This guy is publicly arguing for traffic safety. Now, since he obviously doesn't believe in it, how much influence will his impassioned pleas result in? Mission Unaccomplished.
What I think is that the officer was driving exactly as he was taught to drive when working the Mayor's security detail, and that the Mayor was letting the officer do his job. I think that if I'm wrong about the first part, then the officer's behavior should be addressed by the police department.
What I think is that it is a ridiculous waste of time to follow the mayor around and tape his movements until you find something that you can turn into a scandal and/or a story.
I also think that if a news crew followed around people like you and I without our knowledge, they'd eventually catch us doing things we'd rather not see on the nightly news.
I don't think we would have even heard about this if the Mayor hadn't just started his push to ticket the common people for traffic violations and pedestrians for jay walking.
Whether or not he's pushing the police department to ticket people has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not his security detail is driving appropriately. The two have nothing to do with each other. Any attempt to compare them is a false equivalence.
No it isn't.
There was no danger in this instance so excusing their behavior is out of line.
Yes, it absolutely is. Duly appointed government officials are authorized in specific circumstances to do to specific things that are specifically forbidden to the rest of us under color of law. That they do these things doesn't mean that they are in any way privileged or that their actions mean that they don't care about the law or that the law doesn't matter.
Getting a protectee out of a dangerous situation is only part of the responsibility of a security detail -- the rest of that responsibility involves reducing the likelihood of such a situation in the first place.
there was no such threat identified.
Getting a protectee out of a dangerous situation is only part of the responsibility of a security detail -- the rest of that responsibility involves reducing the likelihood of such a situation in the first place.
his driver broke the law should be issued the appropriate tickets and or citations and the matter settled. mayor or not his driver must comply with the road laws just like everyone else.
anyone else would have their licenses suspended.
The point I'm trying to make is that its difficult to complain that he's doing something that other people can't do or that he's getting away with something when its something just about everyone does and frequently get away with.
I never claimed you was in anyway unique...
I have driven back east, I can tell you it is a whole 'nother mindset.
But at least admit you have to ASS-u-me the Mayor knew the traffic rules were being broken in order to tut-tut him on this.
believe in public safety any more than I think that having an armed security detail would would mean that he doesn't believe in gun control.
For that matter, saying the mayor doesn't believe in public safety is like saying the cops don't believe in public safety because they speed and blow traffic control devices when they're on an emergency call.
Yes, there are many ASSpects and I could have been very unfair to him. But I do hold him to a higher standard and it has to do with his position, not his politics.
I don't know what his beliefs are. It just seems like poor leadership. Cops break laws even when they are not on an emergency call, I was once just about run over by one. I long ago gave up considering cops as "good examples".
I guess you missed this part:
Please show the portion of the law which prohibits the mayor's protection detail from doing what it has been observed doing. Not the portion of the law that anyone else would've been cited for violating -- the portion of the law which says his protection detail can't do that.
I didn't count the violations or the points that would've resulted, but that's entirely possible -- and not the point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?