FHP caught Brevard County’s Deputy of the Year Michael Fultz riding his motorcycle 111 mph but did not arrest him under Florida’s ‘Super Speeder’ law, News 6 has learned.
However - should you ever consider dragging anyone else into court and getting a civil monetary judgement against them, you may also want to consider that an awful lot of the type of people who go around doing things that would make such a judgement relatively easy to obtain, also live their lives in such a way that collecting any actual money from such judgements is exceptionally difficult. Again, making court a waste of time and energy.
“Only poor people commit crime or injure others.”
Nope.
You’re missing a subtlety here… cops don’t take you to court, they send you (or your lawyer) to court. Rub a cop wrong and they give you a bogus citation which all they have to do is get a tsk tsk about not showing up to court for, but you either A) pay the citation, or B) pay a lawyer to show up to court to fight the citation for you, or C) spend your time and effort going to court yourself to fight it. Option B being more expensive than option A and option C being most expensive of all if you value your time in the least.
You start off by puffing out your chest in an attempt at pedantry and then just use synonyms in this context. Besides, literally none of that contradicts anything I’ve said and just largely ignores it.
Well, I’ve been around since the 60s, and interacted with a few cops over the years, and most of them have been pretty great people on the whole, the vast majority I’d say, on duty and off. Still, I have interacted with several who did get petty and vindictive and have been tweaked by signs of “anti-cop-paraphernalia” in one’s possession, and I suppose when you offset those against all the “good cops” I have interacted with, I get that feeling that “anti-cop-paraphernalia” really does piss them off. All the online videos of cops in the 2000-2020 era trying to beat up people filming them with cell phones doesn’t help either.
Neat anecdotes, but nobody should be convinced by anecdotes.
For the dozenth time, you are generalizing from a very small data set and acting like that makes you wiser; it doesn’t.
See if this makes sense to you:
“I crossed the street and stubbed my toe, therefore crossing the street results in stubbed toes, so I don’t leave my house any more.”
also live their lives in such a way that collecting any actual money from such judgements is exceptionally difficult. Again, making court a waste of time and energy.
“Only poor people commit crime or injure others.” Nope.
You don’t have to be poor, you just have to have your assets legally protected from seizure via civil judgement. Cross the wrong line in the woods and a wildlife officer can confiscate your boat and the truck and trailer you brought it in on. Do all kinds of terrible things ending up in judgements of virtually any amount, and if your primary residence is a million dollar mansion, the courts can’t touch it. I rented a room in a very nice compound while at University, paid $400 per month to the landlord who lived in “the big house” - turns out they only still had the house because it was protected under law from seizure - dad was in jail for fencing stolen cars, my rent, and the two women who rented the tennis cabana… free and clear to the family.
you are generalizing from a very small data set and acting like that makes you wiser; it doesn’t.
Life’s a bitch, and then you die. Your superior data set, you got provenance on that data? You trust it implicitly beyond your personal experiences? That’s a comfortable place to live, until it isn’t. My parents both taught science for 40+ years at various levels. They quit counting the number of times that “facts” they had been taught were overturned by newer, better, more solid findings - after less than 10 years of teaching. That’s the nature of science, and life. Data surrounding public safety officers has been, in my personal life experience, of wildly varying quality but almost always slanted in the direction of improving trust in our sworn officers of the law - improving it beyond what it actually merits.
“Only poor people commit crime or injure others.”
Nope.
You start off by puffing out your chest in an attempt at pedantry and then just use synonyms in this context. Besides, literally none of that contradicts anything I’ve said and just largely ignores it.
Neat anecdotes, but nobody should be convinced by anecdotes.
For the dozenth time, you are generalizing from a very small data set and acting like that makes you wiser; it doesn’t.
See if this makes sense to you:
“I crossed the street and stubbed my toe, therefore crossing the street results in stubbed toes, so I don’t leave my house any more.”
You don’t have to be poor, you just have to have your assets legally protected from seizure via civil judgement. Cross the wrong line in the woods and a wildlife officer can confiscate your boat and the truck and trailer you brought it in on. Do all kinds of terrible things ending up in judgements of virtually any amount, and if your primary residence is a million dollar mansion, the courts can’t touch it. I rented a room in a very nice compound while at University, paid $400 per month to the landlord who lived in “the big house” - turns out they only still had the house because it was protected under law from seizure - dad was in jail for fencing stolen cars, my rent, and the two women who rented the tennis cabana… free and clear to the family.
Life’s a bitch, and then you die. Your superior data set, you got provenance on that data? You trust it implicitly beyond your personal experiences? That’s a comfortable place to live, until it isn’t. My parents both taught science for 40+ years at various levels. They quit counting the number of times that “facts” they had been taught were overturned by newer, better, more solid findings - after less than 10 years of teaching. That’s the nature of science, and life. Data surrounding public safety officers has been, in my personal life experience, of wildly varying quality but almost always slanted in the direction of improving trust in our sworn officers of the law - improving it beyond what it actually merits.