Ugadawgs98

The juvenile is charged and they appear with their parents in front of a juvenile judge who decides what punishment is warranted.

Paying attention? Are you talking about this specific case? Given the original details and knowing the outcome which was proven by video it looks likely that the driver was distracted by something. She originally told her husband the officers she passed did not have their emergency lights on. Failing to notice 3 vehicles stopped on the shoulder, flashing blue lights and not noticing the open lane beside her that would ive a safety cushion are signs that someone was not paying attention. This is the exact scenario this law was intended to discourage. This exact behavior has kill

Correct...however the challenges to the voter ID laws come from poverty areas that are overwhelmingly black. Their claim in the poverty stricken neighborhoods is that the requirement is to prevent them from voting because they are unable to afford an ID. Now I don't agree with that logic but that is what is used.

Not explicit but it is implied. However the argument around the requirement for ID's always fall back on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which was loosely crafted from the 15th. The claims have always had an element of race crafted into them because the complaints originate from areas that are predominately black with income levels in the poverty range. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of rac

The controversy just surrounds voting since it is a civil right. Some are claiming requiring an ID is infringing on the right because not all can have a ID or transportation to get one.

Right over your head.

Actually you have it backwards in this case. The 'rich', in this case Disney, settled because many would look at the case emotionally instead of legally and punish them simply because they have the 'deep pockets'. Either scenario is just as wrong.

Our civil system is in need of restructuring. If there were consequences for frivolous lawsuits there would be less filed and settlements just to avoid the chance of a 'jury lottery' would decrease.

Okay...I don't see what the revelance is to make such a big deal about 'the dump' but anyway.

Oh look.....another impossible to follow topic. People don't know if you are asking a question, making a statement and are confused because you are basing either on the most basic news blurb.

It is not a traditional subdivision. It is a community with numerous sections that encompasses several miles of Cedarcrest Road.

Sounds like a failure to yield to other traffic when entering the roadway from a stop sign.

I didn't realize it was a problem. I have been doing this job for years, I have spent many days sitting in various traffic courts hearing hundreds of other cases. I can count on one hand how many were dismissed because an officer obviously misapplied a law. Does it happen? Sure....but I don't think it is common by any means.

Not shocking....no one speeds, runs red lights or fails to yield either. If you just listened to the hearsay you would believe no one breaks the law on the roadways and every citation is bogus. As I said before, no one has to make it up because it is still a routine violation. It would be written more but normally the officers have their hands full and can't go after them.

I just want to know how we made the jump from "does Hiram PD have cameras" to the certainty of they are abusing the law for revenue enhancement? Trust me, this is not a violation you have to fabricate. It is unfortunately still quite common for people to blow by you on the side of the road at 65 within a couple of feet. Any LEO, FF or EMS will attest to that. Common sense didn't work, a new law certainly helped raise awareness and now it is time to deal with the remainder who are simply too important to drive alert and give a little cushion to the folks working on the side of the r

Business does not pay taxes anyway, they simply raise the price of their product or service to cover it which is paid by the consumer. In most cases that is you or me.

Mean

It is not a scam and it is not illegal, people have been selling door to door as long as there have been houses.

Correct, those same characteristics though are what eventually shifted it to 'old technology' when it was found to perform poorly through common barriers such as glass. The newer bonded ammo is designed to mushroom without fragmenting to transfer maximum energy to the target even through cover and heavy clothing. The other side of the coin is there is a tendancy to overpenetrate. I have not seen any duty ammo put out in several years that did not surpass the FBI 12" ballistic gel penetration standard which normally leads to exit wounds on the average human torso.

The moment the murder stopped and pulled his own gun he set the ball in motion, he left the officers no choice but to react.

Nope. Any modern hangun over a .38 will have no problem exiting a human and does so the vast majority of the time. A hollow point is designed to increase stopping power because it transfers more energy to the target through expansion but it does nothing to prevent an exit in a soft target such as a human body.

Actually six were struck with fragments when the bullet disengrated after striking something solid and 3 were actually shot with a bullet. Of those 3 it is unknown if they were misses or from shots that exited the suspect. You could have had a 100% hit rate in that scenario and still had the possibility of other injuries.

It totally depends on if the procedure is legit or not. There are many things people need but will put off until there is no other choice. There is nothing improper about selling needed work in any profession.

I don't really see anything shocking if you look at it from the legal side instead of emotionally. Fault was not clear cut and both sides had contradicting accounts including one that favored Progressive that was inside the deceased vehicle. An insurance company is not there to be your friend and there is nothing improper about them being an adversary of their client in court if there is a question of fault that would make them liable. They system worked as it should and a jury decided after viewing all the evidence.

Yeah...its called a medical call. LE will not normally respond to those type calls unless there is a death.