How wise is it to drive without headlights...

[RidgeHunter]

Yeah, let's do armchair strategy for game law enforcement. Planes? Why you're the first one to come up with that idea. The ODWC has never thought of using planes before. Lawl.

38 is a kid? Are you Mike Gundy? What age do we become men responsible for our own actions in this state? I got some time yet I can fawk around and take no blame I guess.

 

[tran]

You guys stand up for drink drivers rights!!

Have you seen a toxicology report? NO! Then why would you assume he was drunk?

Lets just say he looks like a pot head so he is HIGH! Is this ok?

 

[cmhbob]

If it were one of us we would be under the jail! If that is the policy then it needs to change.

Yes, one of us would have been charged, because we would not have been investigating or trying to prevent a crime, because we have no authority to do so.

The whole reason GWs don't use headlights while looking for spotlighters is because spotlighters don't turn their lights on when they see the lights of another vehicle. I don't have a huge problem with that, expecting that when they drive lights out, they're probably on low-traffic roads where someone with a functioning headlight could see them in time and avoid them. Biker Dude failed twice: (1) he was driving lights out, which is illegal for him. Had his headlight been functioning, he could have seen and avoided the GW, assuming (2) Biker Dude was not intoxicated. I'm sorry he got killed, but I can't blame the GW in this one.

 

[tran]

Yeah, let's do armchair strategy for game law enforcement. Planes? Why you're the first one to come up with that idea. The ODWC has never thought of using planes before. Lawl.

38 is a kid? Are you Mike Gundy? What age do we become men responsible for our own actions in this state? I got some time yet I can fawk around and take no blame I guess.

At what age do you stop assuming you know everthing that happenends? Let all bow down to RidgeHunter!

 

[PUMPKIN]

Have you seen a toxicology report? NO! Then why would you assume he was drunk?

Lets just say he looks like a pot head so he is HIGH! Is this ok?

So your saying the investigators are stupid? You care to make a wager on this?

 

[tran]

Yes, one of us would have been charged, because we would not have been investigating or trying to prevent a crime, because we have no authority to do so.

The whole reason GWs don't use headlights while looking for spotlighters is because spotlighters don't turn their lights on when they see the lights of another vehicle. I don't have a huge problem with that, expecting that when they drive lights out, they're probably on low-traffic roads where someone with a functioning headlight could see them in time and avoid them. Biker Dude failed twice: (1) he was driving lights out, which is illegal for him. Had his headlight been functioning, he could have seen and avoided the GW, assuming (2) Biker Dude was not intoxicated. I'm sorry he got killed, but I can't blame the GW in this one.

I think people are misunderstanding what I am saying! I do not hold the GW accountable for what happened. I hold the policies and procedures that are in place. We need to rethink how we deal with situations like this.

 

[tran]

So your saying the investigators are stupid? You care to make a wager on this?

Where did it say he was drunk? You are assuming!

 

[SgtMojo67]

I do. Show me any law that says that you can break the law to catch criminals in action? To me this is nothing more than a miss use of power. If it would have been a regular citizen you would be in Jail now awaiting bond hearing!

Every time I catch a speeder, I break the law.......am I wrong? I mean I can't catch someone going 70 by doing 65, can I? We are allowed certain things within the scope of our jobs. ....Let's forget the fact that the other individual was intoxicated riding an illegal vehicle on the public roadway....I think you should think a little before you speak....oh by the way, is it okay for postal workers to not wear their seat belts? That is excused by state law

 

[tran]

Every time I catch a speeder, I break the law.......am I wrong? I mean I can't catch someone going 70 by doing 65, can I? We are allowed certain things within the scope of our jobs. ....Let's forget the fact that the other individual was intoxicated riding an illegal vehicle on the public roadway....I think you should think a little before you speak....oh by the way, is it okay for postal workers to not wear their seat belts? That is excused by state law

As an Officer I would think you would not make him Guilty of DUI with out a toxicoligy report. You to are assuming!

 

[tran]

Get the facts then you can convict him... But don't do it before you know the truth!