Washington governor rolls back limitations on police chases

https://www.opb.org/article/2023/05/03/washington-governor-rolls-back-limitations-on-police-chases/

I hope their numbers have improved since the 60s. Back then it was reported that 75% if the police chases in CA ended when someone crashed, and it wasn't always the bad guy.

TB

On 2023-05-04 01:48:03 +0000, Technobarbarian said:

> Washington governor rolls back limitations on police chases
>
> https://www.opb.org/article/2023/05/03/washington-governor-rolls-back-limitations-on-police-chases/
>
>
> I hope their numbers have improved since the 60s. Back then it
> was reported that 75% if the police chases in CA ended when someone
> crashed, and it wasn't always the bad guy.
>
> TB

Last week (under the current rules) a Trooper was not (quite) chasing a
local women, when he lost her his last radar reading as 127.... in a 45
(construction) zone.

ONLY the WSP "Smokey3" was over-head.

Which tracked her to the local Mall, then back out. She was followed,
when the troopers caught up with her she said "What about the no chase
law", and the trooper pointed at the circling aircraft.

Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> On 2023-05-04 01:48:03 +0000, Technobarbarian said:
>
>> Washington governor rolls back limitations on police chases
>>
>> https://www.opb.org/article/2023/05/03/washington-governor-rolls-back-limitations-on-police-chases/
>>
>>
>>       I hope their numbers have improved since the 60s. Back then it
>> was reported that 75% if the police chases in CA ended when someone
>> crashed, and it wasn't always the bad guy.
>>
>> TB
>
> Last week (under the current rules) a Trooper was not (quite) chasing
> a local women, when he lost her his last radar reading as 127.... in a
> 45 (construction) zone.
>
> ONLY the WSP "Smokey3" was over-head.
>
> Which tracked her to the local Mall, then back out.  She was followed,
> when the troopers caught up with her she said "What about the no chase
> law", and the trooper pointed at the circling aircraft.

Are you two for or against the new law?

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:47:12 AM UTC-7, bfh wrote:
> Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> > On 2023-05-04 01:48:03 +0000, Technobarbarian said:
> >
> >> Washington governor rolls back limitations on police chases
> >>
> >> https://www.opb.org/article/2023/05/03/washington-governor-rolls-back-limitations-on-police-chases/
> >>
> >>
> >> I hope their numbers have improved since the 60s. Back then it
> >> was reported that 75% if the police chases in CA ended when someone
> >> crashed, and it wasn't always the bad guy.
> >>
> >> TB
> >
> > Last week (under the current rules) a Trooper was not (quite) chasing
> > a local women, when he lost her his last radar reading as 127.... in a
> > 45 (construction) zone.
> >
> > ONLY the WSP "Smokey3" was over-head.
> >
> > Which tracked her to the local Mall, then back out. She was followed,
> > when the troopers caught up with her she said "What about the no chase
> > law", and the trooper pointed at the circling aircraft.
> Are you two for or against the new law?
>
> --
> bill
> Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

Don't know, don't care. I don't even know what the law is here. To figure out my opinion I would need more information. I'm just not *that* interested. I only posted this because this has been a topic here and this is the latest information. <period>

TB

Technobarbarian wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:47:12 AM UTC-7, bfh wrote:
>> Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>>> On 2023-05-04 01:48:03 +0000, Technobarbarian said:
>>>
>>>> Washington governor rolls back limitations on police chases
>>>>
>>>> https://www.opb.org/article/2023/05/03/washington-governor-rolls-back-limitations-on-police-chases/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
I hope their numbers have improved since the 60s. Back then it
>>>> was reported that 75% if the police chases in CA ended when
>>>> someone crashed, and it wasn't always the bad guy.
>>>>
>>>> TB
>>>
>>> Last week (under the current rules) a Trooper was not (quite)
>>> chasing a local women, when he lost her his last radar reading
>>> as 127.... in a 45 (construction) zone.
>>>
>>> ONLY the WSP "Smokey3" was over-head.
>>>
>>> Which tracked her to the local Mall, then back out. She was
>>> followed, when the troopers caught up with her she said "What
>>> about the no chase law", and the trooper pointed at the
>>> circling aircraft.
>> Are you two for or against the new law?
>>
>> -- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
>
> Don't know, don't care. I don't even know what the law is here. To
> figure out my opinion I would need more information. I'm just not
> *that* interested. I only posted this because this has been a topic
> here and this is the latest information. <period>

LOL!

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

On 5/4/2023 1:20 PM, bfh wrote:
> Technobarbarian wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:47:12 AM UTC-7, bfh wrote:
>>> Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>>>> On 2023-05-04 01:48:03 +0000, Technobarbarian said:
>>>>
>>>>> Washington governor rolls back limitations on police chases
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.opb.org/article/2023/05/03/washington-governor-rolls-back-limitations-on-police-chases/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
> I hope their numbers have improved since the 60s. Back then it
>>>>> was reported that 75% if the police chases in CA ended when
>>>>> someone crashed, and it wasn't always the bad guy.
>>>>>
>>>>> TB
>>>>
>>>> Last week (under the current rules) a Trooper was not (quite)
>>>> chasing a local women, when he lost her his last radar reading
>>>> as 127.... in a 45 (construction) zone.
>>>>
>>>> ONLY the WSP "Smokey3" was over-head.
>>>>
>>>> Which tracked her to the local Mall, then back out.  She was
>>>> followed, when the troopers caught up with her she said "What
>>>> about the no chase law", and the trooper pointed at the
>>>> circling aircraft.
>>> Are you two for or against the new law?
>>>
>>> -- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
>>
>> Don't know, don't care. I don't even know what the law is here. To
>> figure out my opinion I would need more information. I'm just not
>> *that* interested. I only posted this because this has been a topic
>> here and this is the latest information. <period>
>
> LOL!
>

A typical non-committal, non-answer. I may have to change his moniker
from CC&P to The Artful Dodger.
--
(Space holder for future brilliant signature line)

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:46:43 AM UTC-7, George Anthony wrote:
> On 5/4/2023 1:20 PM, bfh wrote:
> > Technobarbarian wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:47:12 AM UTC-7, bfh wrote:
> >>> Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-05-04 01:48:03 +0000, Technobarbarian said:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Washington governor rolls back limitations on police chases
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.opb.org/article/2023/05/03/washington-governor-rolls-back-limitations-on-police-chases/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> > I hope their numbers have improved since the 60s. Back then it
> >>>>> was reported that 75% if the police chases in CA ended when
> >>>>> someone crashed, and it wasn't always the bad guy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> TB
> >>>>
> >>>> Last week (under the current rules) a Trooper was not (quite)
> >>>> chasing a local women, when he lost her his last radar reading
> >>>> as 127.... in a 45 (construction) zone.
> >>>>
> >>>> ONLY the WSP "Smokey3" was over-head.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which tracked her to the local Mall, then back out. She was
> >>>> followed, when the troopers caught up with her she said "What
> >>>> about the no chase law", and the trooper pointed at the
> >>>> circling aircraft.
> >>> Are you two for or against the new law?
> >>>
> >>> -- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
> >>
> >> Don't know, don't care. I don't even know what the law is here. To
> >> figure out my opinion I would need more information. I'm just not
> >> *that* interested. I only posted this because this has been a topic
> >> here and this is the latest information. <period>
> >
> > LOL!
> >
> A typical non-committal, non-answer. I may have to change his moniker
> from CC&P to The Artful Dodger.
> --
> (Space holder for future brilliant signature line)

So? What do you two think of the new law? Is it perfect? Can it be improved? What changes should they make? Do you think I really give a damn about your opinion?

TB

On 5/4/2023 8:01 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:46:43 AM UTC-7, George Anthony wrote:
>> On 5/4/2023 1:20 PM, bfh wrote:
>>> Technobarbarian wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:47:12 AM UTC-7, bfh wrote:
>>>>> Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-05-04 01:48:03 +0000, Technobarbarian said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Washington governor rolls back limitations on police chases
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.opb.org/article/2023/05/03/washington-governor-rolls-back-limitations-on-police-chases/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> I hope their numbers have improved since the 60s. Back then it
>>>>>>> was reported that 75% if the police chases in CA ended when
>>>>>>> someone crashed, and it wasn't always the bad guy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Last week (under the current rules) a Trooper was not (quite)
>>>>>> chasing a local women, when he lost her his last radar reading
>>>>>> as 127.... in a 45 (construction) zone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ONLY the WSP "Smokey3" was over-head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which tracked her to the local Mall, then back out. She was
>>>>>> followed, when the troopers caught up with her she said "What
>>>>>> about the no chase law", and the trooper pointed at the
>>>>>> circling aircraft.
>>>>> Are you two for or against the new law?
>>>>>
>>>>> -- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
>>>>
>>>> Don't know, don't care. I don't even know what the law is here. To
>>>> figure out my opinion I would need more information. I'm just not
>>>> *that* interested. I only posted this because this has been a topic
>>>> here and this is the latest information. <period>
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>>
>> A typical non-committal, non-answer. I may have to change his moniker
>> from CC&P to The Artful Dodger.
>> --
>> (Space holder for future brilliant signature line)
>
> So? What do you two think of the new law? Is it perfect? Can it be improved? What changes should they make? Do you think I really give a damn about your opinion?
>
> TB

Hey, I don't have a dog in this fight. I was just pointing out one of
your shortcomings when it comes to giving a straight answer.

And, I love it. You ask for my opinion and then you say you don't give a
damn what it is. You poor brain addled misfit.
--
(Space holder for future brilliant signature line)

Technobarbarian wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:46:43 AM UTC-7, George Anthony
> wrote:
>> On 5/4/2023 1:20 PM, bfh wrote:
>>> Technobarbarian wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:47:12 AM UTC-7, bfh
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-05-04 01:48:03 +0000, Technobarbarian said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Washington governor rolls back limitations on police
>>>>>>> chases
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.opb.org/article/2023/05/03/washington-governor-rolls-back-limitations-on-police-chases/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
I hope their numbers have improved since the 60s. Back then it
>>>>>>> was reported that 75% if the police chases in CA ended
>>>>>>> when someone crashed, and it wasn't always the bad
>>>>>>> guy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Last week (under the current rules) a Trooper was not
>>>>>> (quite) chasing a local women, when he lost her his last
>>>>>> radar reading as 127.... in a 45 (construction) zone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ONLY the WSP "Smokey3" was over-head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which tracked her to the local Mall, then back out. She
>>>>>> was followed, when the troopers caught up with her she
>>>>>> said "What about the no chase law", and the trooper
>>>>>> pointed at the circling aircraft.
>>>>> Are you two for or against the new law?
>>>>>
>>>>> -- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
>>>>
>>>> Don't know, don't care. I don't even know what the law is
>>>> here. To figure out my opinion I would need more information.
>>>> I'm just not *that* interested. I only posted this because
>>>> this has been a topic here and this is the latest
>>>> information. <period>
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>>
>> A typical non-committal, non-answer. I may have to change his
>> moniker from CC&P to The Artful Dodger. -- (Space holder for
>> future brilliant signature line)
>
> So? What do you two think of the new law? Is it perfect? Can it be
> improved? What changes should they make? Do you think I really give
> a damn about your opinion?

LOL! Of course you don't.........but I hesitantly admit I was sorta
interested in yours and Ralph's.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 8:04:08 PM UTC-7, bfh wrote:
> Technobarbarian wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:46:43 AM UTC-7, George Anthony
> > wrote:
> >> On 5/4/2023 1:20 PM, bfh wrote:
> >>> Technobarbarian wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:47:12 AM UTC-7, bfh
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2023-05-04 01:48:03 +0000, Technobarbarian said:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Washington governor rolls back limitations on police
> >>>>>>> chases
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.opb.org/article/2023/05/03/washington-governor-rolls-back-limitations-on-police-chases/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> I hope their numbers have improved since the 60s. Back then it
> >>>>>>> was reported that 75% if the police chases in CA ended
> >>>>>>> when someone crashed, and it wasn't always the bad
> >>>>>>> guy.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> TB
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Last week (under the current rules) a Trooper was not
> >>>>>> (quite) chasing a local women, when he lost her his last
> >>>>>> radar reading as 127.... in a 45 (construction) zone.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ONLY the WSP "Smokey3" was over-head.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Which tracked her to the local Mall, then back out. She
> >>>>>> was followed, when the troopers caught up with her she
> >>>>>> said "What about the no chase law", and the trooper
> >>>>>> pointed at the circling aircraft.
> >>>>> Are you two for or against the new law?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
> >>>>
> >>>> Don't know, don't care. I don't even know what the law is
> >>>> here. To figure out my opinion I would need more information.
> >>>> I'm just not *that* interested. I only posted this because
> >>>> this has been a topic here and this is the latest
> >>>> information. <period>
> >>>
> >>> LOL!
> >>>
> >> A typical non-committal, non-answer. I may have to change his
> >> moniker from CC&P to The Artful Dodger. -- (Space holder for
> >> future brilliant signature line)
> >
> > So? What do you two think of the new law? Is it perfect? Can it be
> > improved? What changes should they make? Do you think I really give
> > a damn about your opinion?
> LOL! Of course you don't.........but I hesitantly admit I was sorta
> interested in yours and Ralph's.
> --
> bill
> Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

Ok, and I admitted I don't have one. Seriously. And I don't know why I would need one. I'll tell you about my day in my trip report. And what would rather do? Have a day like mine, or take however long it would take to figure out what's going on? New law? Old law? Accident statistics? Expert opinions? What do the professionals say? What do the politicians say? Even when you disagree that's all useful information when trying to figure our your own response. I only looked at that article long enough to get a vague idea of what changed. I do a lot of reading and I skip over a lot of stuff. I seriously don't know what the law is here and don't care enough to look it up. Like thousands of other things I'll leave this to the "experts"

TB

George Anthony <ganthony@gmail.net> wrote:
> On 5/4/2023 8:01 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:46:43 AM UTC-7, George Anthony wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2023 1:20 PM, bfh wrote:
>>>> Technobarbarian wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:47:12 AM UTC-7, bfh wrote:
>>>>>> Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023-05-04 01:48:03 +0000, Technobarbarian said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Washington governor rolls back limitations on police chases
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.opb.org/article/2023/05/03/washington-governor-rolls-back-limitations-on-police-chases/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> I hope their numbers have improved since the 60s. Back then it
>>>>>>>> was reported that 75% if the police chases in CA ended when
>>>>>>>> someone crashed, and it wasn't always the bad guy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Last week (under the current rules) a Trooper was not (quite)
>>>>>>> chasing a local women, when he lost her his last radar reading
>>>>>>> as 127.... in a 45 (construction) zone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ONLY the WSP "Smokey3" was over-head.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which tracked her to the local Mall, then back out. She was
>>>>>>> followed, when the troopers caught up with her she said "What
>>>>>>> about the no chase law", and the trooper pointed at the
>>>>>>> circling aircraft.
>>>>>> Are you two for or against the new law?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- bill Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't know, don't care. I don't even know what the law is here. To
>>>>> figure out my opinion I would need more information. I'm just not
>>>>> *that* interested. I only posted this because this has been a topic
>>>>> here and this is the latest information. <period>
>>>>
>>>> LOL!
>>>>
>>> A typical non-committal, non-answer. I may have to change his moniker
>>> from CC&P to The Artful Dodger.
>>> --
>>> (Space holder for future brilliant signature line)
>>
>> So? What do you two think of the new law? Is it perfect? Can it be
>> improved? What changes should they make? Do you think I really give a
>> damn about your opinion?
>>
>> TB
>
> Hey, I don't have a dog in this fight. I was just pointing out one of
> your shortcomings when it comes to giving a straight answer.
>
> And, I love it. You ask for my opinion and then you say you don't give a
> damn what it is. You poor brain addled misfit.

I didn’t follow the thread right. However, my answer is still relevant to
your contradictory comment. For someone who doesn’t give a damn you sure
give a damn.

--
Liberals suffer from cognitive dissonance. They know their political views
are wrong but they stick with them anyway.