Hopefully -- the cops will have to *bite the bullet* on this one, because of what they did ---
A man who drove nearly 100 mph over the speed limit in Plainfield, Ill., was forced to forfeit his 2000 Dodge Viper to the local drug awareness program.
Plainfield patrol officer Mario Marzetta said he heard the vehicle's 450 hp, V-10 engine revving before it flew past him at 127 mph in a 35 mph zone, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Tuesday.
The Plainfield Police Department took ownership of the car and the driver was charged with felony fleeing and eluding police.
The vehicle was outfitted with a set of lights and transformed into the department's newest mode of transport for the DARE -- Drug Abuse Resistance Education -- program. The car will carry DARE officers to community events, block parties, parades and schools.
Anyone else see a problem with what was quoted above???
Anyone else see where drugs were involved in this here???
Is there a reason why THIS particular car needs to go to D.A.R.E. events??
Hmmmmm. Hmmmmmm. (COUGH!!) Anyone???
Sorry, but I sure don't. Speed, yes -- but as Garth mentioned -- NOT the drug. ;)
Any lawyer worth his salt (using this defense), would win it in no time flat.
(No time flat = 127 mph in a 35 mph speed court zone!!)
Personally -- I hope the local department (or whomever made this decision),
get's their DUE, for taking this guy's car,
AND MISREPRESENTING IT AS A DRUG RELATED DEAL.
Sorry -- but that is my imo.
These cops in Plainfield (regardless of how diligent they may be),
have transcended the law, and have taken it into their own hands,
by mis-interpretting the law for their own gain,
and then compounding that *problem* (if you will),
when they declared the impounded vehicle to be a new DARE vehicle,
when the confiscation of that vehicle had NOTHING to do with the DARE program.
How DARE they??????
Give me a break here. Jail the driver, and while we're at it -- jail the cops too.
Right now --- I don't know who is the more guilty of the two!
I'm not going to string up my violin for this guy anytime soon. A HUNDRED miles an hour OVER the limit? Sorry, he's in need of a serious cranial adjustment, and some serious jailtime while were at it.
But the whole deal of the cops ending up with his car really stinks. Should they have confiscated it? Yeah, I think that was warrented, but why the hell should the cops get to KEEP it? What did they do to deserve it? It should be sold at auction and the monies distributed to people injured in traffic accidents or some such.
And the whole "D.A.R.E" thing is completely bogus. A complete waste of time and resources for a feelgood program that accomplishes NOTHING.
I don't think 20mph over the limit should be an automatic felony, but 127 in a 35 zone? He should lose his license for 20 years.
As for the state taking over ownership of the car: consider that the state can take immediate possession of any house that drugs are sold out of. Back in '89 2 Pistons tickets to the NBA finals were auctioned off by the state after the tickets were confiscated from a drug dealer whose house was searched. But taking THAT guy's car after he did THAT with it doesn't bother me.
I can see that down the road some govt employee might be tempted to tweak that law for his/her own personal gain though.
I think REPEATED EXCESSIVE SPEEDING and RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT as well as REPEATED DUIs constitute a move to finally pry the vehicle from the purp's hands. A one time deal is excessive. A guy who just won't learn his lesson is excessive.
I once tested my own car in the 1970s on the Massachusetts Turnpike. I looked to see no one in sight and was surrounded by farmland. I floored it to see how fast I could go. My speedometer only went to 100, and I hit that. After a few minutes at 100 miles an hour or more, I slowed down to the legal 60 (at that time).
Ten years older and ten years wiser I thought about it. How stupid that really was. There was one person there around to get hurt or killed.
Me.
But it was only once. Taking my car would have crippled me then. Suspending my license would have been understood. Taking my car would have been cruel.
But if I continued at 100 miles an hour being cited over and over, then taking my car would have been the only thing to stop the behavior.
Clearly the man had the fine piece of automotive machinery because it would go fast and he liked going fast. Clearly said motorist lacks the brains God gave a flea as to the appropriate time and place to drive 127 mph. Clearly he also has a general disregard for rules.
The car is his property. But, that said, it is not a piece of property he should be allowed to retain since he lacks the skills to use it in an appropriate manner. Therefore I think that he should have to sell the car, and use the 1/2 money from the sale to fund public awareness ads regarding speeding. He should also have his license revoked for ten years at least. Any vehicle that is in his home would have to be the property of a spouse, or legally aged child and he WOULD NOT be permitted to drive same.
As to the confiscation of automobles, homes etc that are found to contain sufficient drugs that make it clear the owner is involved in drug trafficking, those personal items should be confiscated, they are the product of illegal activity and as such should be forfeit.
The fact that partners and children may be hurt by this is sad, but the consequences of staying with a dealer. And before I hear the chorus of " maybe they didn't know" it my be shortsighted on my part; but I think that if I suddenly saw a new $30,000 car in the driveway, the kids were getting top of the line sports gear, and I was getting diamonds all on a salary that, two months ago, could barely make the house payments: I would have serious concerns as to where and how my spouse was paying for it. Because one of several possibilities is happening:
He has taken on a second or even third legitimate job in which case I would be asking where and asking to see paychecks.
He has a severe mental/emotional problem and is sending us to the poorhouse which involves immediate action on my part, such as transfering all funds and other assets etc to my name to protect them
He won the lottery in which case why didn't he tell me
he found a bag of money by the side of the road in which case why didn't he tell me and take it to the police station for the rightful owners to claim.
If none of the above, then the activity is illegal, and I need to hand back the goodies for me and the kids and get the double hockey sticks out of Dodge.
No. He deserves to have his license suspended. This is theft, and this is ungodly. These laws were put into effect originally to take away property that people bought with illegal gains. This is a total abuse of the law.
We are ALL in danger. If you don't think this can happen to you, think again. It can.
I agree. The government has gone too far.
This criminal should have had his car parked, and he should have still been held responsible for the payments. He should do jail time and get his license suspended (or whatever the legal penalty is).
If he couldn't make payments, the bank should have taken legal action, like they would with anyone who can't make the payment . IMO just taking the car away and paying it off for him, then using it as a "police DARE show car" is letting this guy off easy.
IT was his car, he should have to pay for it, or declare bankrupcy or whatever.
Speeding is wrong, and so is stealing. And so is using tax money to pay-off that car.
Driving is a privilege not a right, there are responsibilities that go along with it. If this guy is so out to lunch that he is driving 100 over the limit in a residential area he deserves everything he is getting.
Take his car, take his license for (at least)10 years, send him directly to jail, let him out only to work in emergency rooms doing the intake for auto accidents.
15 or 20 over the limit-- maybe, but 100 is reckless disregard and endangerment of anyone in his path, He may as well have been unloading an automatic weapon on a crowded street
I do agree with Geo that the car would probably be better auctioned off to benefit victims of crime or some other cause for the community, than given to the DARE program but
one things for sure , that guy has forfeited his rights to ever drive it again.
He can consider it a $60,000 fine which isnt that far out of line compared to what he could have done
This criminal should have had his car parked, and he should have still been held responsible for the payments. He should do jail time and get his license suspended (or whatever the legal penalty is).
If he couldn't make payments, the bank should have taken legal action, like they would with anyone who can't make the payment . IMO just taking the car away and paying it off for him, then using it as a "police DARE show car" is letting this guy off easy.
IT was his car, he should have to pay for it, or declare bankrupcy or whatever.
Speeding is wrong, and so is stealing. And so is using tax money to pay-off that car.
What *if* the police auctioned the car and gave the money to a homeless shelter? Would that be better for you?
Dmiller (and others who evidently see a *Constitutional Rights* issue here in how the police supposedly **abused** their power),
Right now --- I don't know who is the more guilty of the two!
Hhmmmm, now this presents quite a puzzle. Lemme think for a second which is worse here:
1) Someone barrelling down the 35 mph limit street (which could have very well been a rather busy street, even with pedestrians crossing the street, or cars pulling out into it here and there) at 127 mph (a very LETHAL speed if/when you are hit by said vehicle, even if you're inside your car). Ie., a (even potentially) very dangerous situation setup by an unthinkably pathological, self-centered twit.
or
2) The seizure of the car from said unthinkably pathological, self-centered twit by police, and them then using it for the DARE -- Drug Abuse Resistance Education -- program, (Did I get the font sizes right, Dave? ;) ) a _dangerous_ and out-to-lunch 'gummint' program (perhaps because they are following Nancy Reagan's lead, and trying to get kids to "Say NO!" to drugs), a program that had nothing to do with speeding, thus causing a fraudulant misrepresentation of law enforcement (just so they can get a fancy car :B) ) and show it off to the kids they are trying to keep off drugs. ... HOW DARE THEY?!? The vile deceivers!
Never mind that nobody gets hit by a 127 mph lethal weapon in such a program, --- but never mind that insignificant side detail here. They are (mis)using that fast car for D.A.R.E Drug Abuse Resistance Education -- program.
<_< Now can anyone see what is wrong with this picture here?
P.S., and for those who think that unlawful _stealing_ is going on here, ... Gee, I was under the impression that said arrangement and program was legally set up according to the laws of the particular state. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.
What *if* the police auctioned the car and gave the money to a homeless shelter? Would that be better for you?
What if the car wasn't a viper. what if it was a trashy looking suped up honda civic with a turbo charger that was ugly. what would the police done in that case?
What if the car wasn't a viper. what if it was a trashy looking suped up honda civic with a turbo charger that was ugly. what would the police done in that case?
Laughed their @$$es off...
My question to you was a serious one - would a donation to charity make a difference in this case??
Assuming it was OK to confiscate, it still should be treated as a government asset or police fund. They should consider the cost of paying it off and maintaining it against the dollar value of selling it. I don't know how the DARE program benefits by these cops having a cool expensive car to buzz around in. It looks more like a toy the cops thought they had a right to. Instead of lowering the tax burden, it increased it.
Recommended Posts
dmiller
Dooj -- It's in Illinois. I gave the link to (one) of the blogs I found about it,
in the post just below the picture I posted of the car (as it now is).
Imo -- the *local finest* are over-stepping their bounds. :)
(EFS)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Dooj -- HERE'S THE LINK, so you don't have to go back to page 1 to find it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hopefully -- the cops will have to *bite the bullet* on this one, because of what they did ---
Anyone else see a problem with what was quoted above???
Anyone else see where drugs were involved in this here???
Is there a reason why THIS particular car needs to go to D.A.R.E. events??
Hmmmmm. Hmmmmmm. (COUGH!!) Anyone???
Sorry, but I sure don't. Speed, yes -- but as Garth mentioned -- NOT the drug. ;)
Any lawyer worth his salt (using this defense), would win it in no time flat.
(No time flat = 127 mph in a 35 mph speed court zone!!)
Personally -- I hope the local department (or whomever made this decision),
get's their DUE, for taking this guy's car,
AND MISREPRESENTING IT AS A DRUG RELATED DEAL.
Sorry -- but that is my imo.
These cops in Plainfield (regardless of how diligent they may be),
have transcended the law, and have taken it into their own hands,
by mis-interpretting the law for their own gain,
and then compounding that *problem* (if you will),
when they declared the impounded vehicle to be a new DARE vehicle,
when the confiscation of that vehicle had NOTHING to do with the DARE program.
How DARE they??????
Give me a break here. Jail the driver, and while we're at it -- jail the cops too.
Right now --- I don't know who is the more guilty of the two!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I'm not going to string up my violin for this guy anytime soon. A HUNDRED miles an hour OVER the limit? Sorry, he's in need of a serious cranial adjustment, and some serious jailtime while were at it.
But the whole deal of the cops ending up with his car really stinks. Should they have confiscated it? Yeah, I think that was warrented, but why the hell should the cops get to KEEP it? What did they do to deserve it? It should be sold at auction and the monies distributed to people injured in traffic accidents or some such.
And the whole "D.A.R.E" thing is completely bogus. A complete waste of time and resources for a feelgood program that accomplishes NOTHING.
This is just wrong on so many levels...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I don't think 20mph over the limit should be an automatic felony, but 127 in a 35 zone? He should lose his license for 20 years.
As for the state taking over ownership of the car: consider that the state can take immediate possession of any house that drugs are sold out of. Back in '89 2 Pistons tickets to the NBA finals were auctioned off by the state after the tickets were confiscated from a drug dealer whose house was searched. But taking THAT guy's car after he did THAT with it doesn't bother me.
I can see that down the road some govt employee might be tempted to tweak that law for his/her own personal gain though.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
I think REPEATED EXCESSIVE SPEEDING and RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT as well as REPEATED DUIs constitute a move to finally pry the vehicle from the purp's hands. A one time deal is excessive. A guy who just won't learn his lesson is excessive.
I once tested my own car in the 1970s on the Massachusetts Turnpike. I looked to see no one in sight and was surrounded by farmland. I floored it to see how fast I could go. My speedometer only went to 100, and I hit that. After a few minutes at 100 miles an hour or more, I slowed down to the legal 60 (at that time).
Ten years older and ten years wiser I thought about it. How stupid that really was. There was one person there around to get hurt or killed.
Me.
But it was only once. Taking my car would have crippled me then. Suspending my license would have been understood. Taking my car would have been cruel.
But if I continued at 100 miles an hour being cited over and over, then taking my car would have been the only thing to stop the behavior.
I'm glad I was not caught.
I'm glad I was not killed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Clearly the man had the fine piece of automotive machinery because it would go fast and he liked going fast. Clearly said motorist lacks the brains God gave a flea as to the appropriate time and place to drive 127 mph. Clearly he also has a general disregard for rules.
The car is his property. But, that said, it is not a piece of property he should be allowed to retain since he lacks the skills to use it in an appropriate manner. Therefore I think that he should have to sell the car, and use the 1/2 money from the sale to fund public awareness ads regarding speeding. He should also have his license revoked for ten years at least. Any vehicle that is in his home would have to be the property of a spouse, or legally aged child and he WOULD NOT be permitted to drive same.
As to the confiscation of automobles, homes etc that are found to contain sufficient drugs that make it clear the owner is involved in drug trafficking, those personal items should be confiscated, they are the product of illegal activity and as such should be forfeit.
The fact that partners and children may be hurt by this is sad, but the consequences of staying with a dealer. And before I hear the chorus of " maybe they didn't know" it my be shortsighted on my part; but I think that if I suddenly saw a new $30,000 car in the driveway, the kids were getting top of the line sports gear, and I was getting diamonds all on a salary that, two months ago, could barely make the house payments: I would have serious concerns as to where and how my spouse was paying for it. Because one of several possibilities is happening:
- He has taken on a second or even third legitimate job in which case I would be asking where and asking to see paychecks.
- He has a severe mental/emotional problem and is sending us to the poorhouse which involves immediate action on my part, such as transfering all funds and other assets etc to my name to protect them
- He won the lottery in which case why didn't he tell me
- he found a bag of money by the side of the road in which case why didn't he tell me and take it to the police station for the rightful owners to claim.
- If none of the above, then the activity is illegal, and I need to hand back the goodies for me and the kids and get the double hockey sticks out of Dodge.
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
I agree. The government has gone too far.
This criminal should have had his car parked, and he should have still been held responsible for the payments. He should do jail time and get his license suspended (or whatever the legal penalty is).
If he couldn't make payments, the bank should have taken legal action, like they would with anyone who can't make the payment . IMO just taking the car away and paying it off for him, then using it as a "police DARE show car" is letting this guy off easy.
IT was his car, he should have to pay for it, or declare bankrupcy or whatever.
Speeding is wrong, and so is stealing. And so is using tax money to pay-off that car.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Driving is a privilege not a right, there are responsibilities that go along with it. If this guy is so out to lunch that he is driving 100 over the limit in a residential area he deserves everything he is getting.
Take his car, take his license for (at least)10 years, send him directly to jail, let him out only to work in emergency rooms doing the intake for auto accidents.
15 or 20 over the limit-- maybe, but 100 is reckless disregard and endangerment of anyone in his path, He may as well have been unloading an automatic weapon on a crowded street
I do agree with Geo that the car would probably be better auctioned off to benefit victims of crime or some other cause for the community, than given to the DARE program but
one things for sure , that guy has forfeited his rights to ever drive it again.
He can consider it a $60,000 fine which isnt that far out of line compared to what he could have done
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
What *if* the police auctioned the car and gave the money to a homeless shelter? Would that be better for you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Dmiller (and others who evidently see a *Constitutional Rights* issue here in how the police supposedly **abused** their power),
Hhmmmm, now this presents quite a puzzle. Lemme think for a second which is worse here:
1) Someone barrelling down the 35 mph limit street (which could have very well been a rather busy street, even with pedestrians crossing the street, or cars pulling out into it here and there) at 127 mph (a very LETHAL speed if/when you are hit by said vehicle, even if you're inside your car). Ie., a (even potentially) very dangerous situation setup by an unthinkably pathological, self-centered twit.
or
2) The seizure of the car from said unthinkably pathological, self-centered twit by police, and them then using it for the DARE -- Drug Abuse Resistance Education -- program, (Did I get the font sizes right, Dave? ;) ) a _dangerous_ and out-to-lunch 'gummint' program (perhaps because they are following Nancy Reagan's lead, and trying to get kids to "Say NO!" to drugs), a program that had nothing to do with speeding, thus causing a fraudulant misrepresentation of law enforcement (just so they can get a fancy car :B) ) and show it off to the kids they are trying to keep off drugs. ... HOW DARE THEY?!? The vile deceivers!
Never mind that nobody gets hit by a 127 mph lethal weapon in such a program, --- but never mind that insignificant side detail here. They are (mis)using that fast car for D.A.R.E Drug Abuse Resistance Education -- program.
<_< Now can anyone see what is wrong with this picture here?
P.S., and for those who think that unlawful _stealing_ is going on here, ... Gee, I was under the impression that said arrangement and program was legally set up according to the laws of the particular state. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
What if the car wasn't a viper. what if it was a trashy looking suped up honda civic with a turbo charger that was ugly. what would the police done in that case?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
Laughed their @$$es off...
My question to you was a serious one - would a donation to charity make a difference in this case??
Edited by ChasUFarleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
Not really. I think they should suspend his license and parked the car if he has to do jail time. But still make him pay for it.
I'm not the expert i was just giving my opinion.
Thinking twice about it, they should have treated it like the would have treated the piece of crap civic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
The fact is that there are laws that govern this situation.
I just am not aware of the laws on the books in this particular situation. (Not that I"m a lawyer - and I don't play one on TV)
Find the law that makes this ok. Then if you don't like it write to your representative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Assuming it was OK to confiscate, it still should be treated as a government asset or police fund. They should consider the cost of paying it off and maintaining it against the dollar value of selling it. I don't know how the DARE program benefits by these cops having a cool expensive car to buzz around in. It looks more like a toy the cops thought they had a right to. Instead of lowering the tax burden, it increased it.
Bad boys bad boys ... watcha gonna do ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.