by Scott77 69 Replies latest social current
I wish to respectfully disagree with many of your view points that supports Natalie Plummer. First of all, Natalie Plummer is not a law enforcement officer and her work to me, constitute interference in the work of law enforcement officers. Its important that police officers keep the road safer by enforcing posted speed limit regardless of the methods used. I think, she was doing a great deservice to the society that keeps her safety interest at heart.
Scott77
I do not see how she was interfering with law enforcement work. Is there any evidence that motorists drove faster or unsafer because of her actions? If so, present such evidence.
Well thank you for telling us your views on why you wish to be one of many sheeple. Law enforcement needs to be kept in check. Rather than worry about issues of public safty they like to enforce laws that provide them with money.
Like so many said; law I forcemeat needs to be kept I in check. Speed traps are often a cash grab. She's a hero in my book.
Personal experience: I had a buddy that had a speeding problem. Finally lost his license. Straw that broke the camels back was him speeding and not recognizing he was in a school zone. I had no compassion for him. He was a danger. So it's not that I'm anti law enforcement, just the bullshit stuff like this sounds like.
"...She's a hero in my book. Personal experience: I had a buddy that had a speeding problem. Finally lost his license. Straw that broke the camels back was him speeding and not recognizing he was in a school zone. I had no compassion for him. He was a danger. So it's not that I'm anti law enforcement, just the bullshit stuff like this sounds like." | |
| Sheep2slaughter |
I do not understand your point. You cotradict yourself by stating your preferance for what Natalie Plummer was doing, that is to warn motorist of a speed trap. Then you show your friend as being like reckless driver.' him speeding and not recognizing he was in a school zone'. Basically, the Law enforcement officers were after those guys, the dangerous guys and gals. Please, stop and ask yourself: Would have Natalie Plummer alerted mortonrist about speed trap had her kids or husband killed before by a reckless driver? What was exactly her motivation? I think, she was an idiot at that.
Scott77
Scott77 - consider this: What did the drivers do when she warned them? Answer: They slowed down.
What did the police WANT the drivers to do - when they hid and set the speed trap? Answer: To NOT slow down, so they would get a ticket.
The cops were after money, not the goal of slowing down the drivers.
It was all about the money - not about highway safety.
Cops are not our friends. That's what she gets for screwing with them plain and simple.
Chris-
That's free speech.
James Woods, you are 100% correct!
| James Woods, you are 100% correct! | |
| minimus |
Iam not surprised that minimus as highly respected is, has quickly jumped to support his old time friend, Mr. james_woods. In similar vain, almost everyone on this thread including TimeBandit have either implicity or explicitly endorsed that unfortunate and irresponsible action of Natalie Plummer. Its very depressing and and highly questionable to think that Natalie Plummer's action was warranted in the first place let alone interpret it as 'free speech' in that unfortunate word choice of botchtowersociety. First of all, you wise guys need to go back to the drawing board to answer this question. What was the manufacturer's original intend of speed trap? If you get the answer, then, we will be able to better put that into context of understanding Natalie Plummer-police fiasco.
Scott77
