I turn right. That's legal in NC to do after a quick stop like Moats did ;-)

To answer the question more directly. That may depend. I might run it, I might stop and watch what the car does and be prepared to run if it tries to pull up alongside (although that risks a rear-end, but given that they haven't tried to run me off the road yet I might take it). If possible I'm pulling out the phone and dialing 911 though.

And yes, if it's an unmarked police car who is getting ready to turn his lights on the moment I run a light, that cop is a shit and should be fired.

Incendiary jackass response: Obviously you should stop and call an ambulance.

Real response: I would slow down to make sure no one was coming, and then run the light.

For the record, I tried to take as much ambiguity out of my story as I could, but this was a scenario I didn't even consider. So I'd just like to point out that I was not suggesting that it was an unmarked police car following you. I can see how it might look like I was leading to that, though.

If your question has nothing to do with Ryan Moats, how come you're the only one who spelled his name right?

Busted. :(

Anyway, the cops probably only cancelled the ticket because they were worried this would happen to them:

http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_new...-in-urine.aspx

And for the record, it's still a good scenario to consider. It was a well-thought-out post.

Funny story. This actually happened to me when I was in high school. I was in a city I knew nothing about and pretty much lost. My friends and I had gone to a playoff football game for our HS and we were unable to find the freeway so I just started driving towards home. We were stopped at a light and all the sudden a car came up beside us and about 4 guys got out. One of the guys approached my door (my window was closed) and started telling me to roll down my window. I was extremely scared for the life of myself and my friends. (I even noticed my door was unlocked). I said screw it, looked forward for traffic and ran the light and speed off. I broke the law and honestly I would do it again, doesn't make it right, but I had to do it for the sake of not being jumped by a gang. If an officer had pulled me over for doing it I would have been happy since he probably would have saved our asses from getting jumped as well, since it would have been pretty obvious because they were out of their car. I still think about the events that took place that night and what might have happened.

And I have to say, i'll need to watch the video again, because I certainly didn't see any fist waving. I actually they were pretty calm considering the circumstances. They were calmer than I would have been. The lady says, "My mom is dying. Don't you understand?" and Moats keeps pleading with the officer to let him go because his mother in law was dying. So no, I don't think they were shits from my view of the tape.

There's plenty of good reasons to break traffic laws. Just don't be in denial of the fact that it might cost you $50 and 15-20 minutes of your life. Your good reason doesn't abate the risk of that, or a traffic accident.

Pull out your gun and shoot the asshole.

Ding, someone gets it.

I'm agree.

If I think guy behind me is not a cop and have sincere belief that I'm in danger, I carefully run the red light in hopes that a cop would pull me over.

If it was an undercover cop, I would say that I had a rational fear I was being followed and was driving to the police station for that reason. If he still gave me a ticket, I would challenge the ticket in court (if not more).

Huh? He didn't say anything I disagree with. How many times does it need to be said that I don't have a problem with the officer stopping them?

I would have done the same thing as Moats and I would have expected to pay the ticket. The only thing I would not have expected is for the 15-20 minutes to have to take place while my mother in law was dying. And I think that's a reasonable expectation, because I don't think most officers would act the same was as this guy did.

What are we arguing over then, just about everyone here that the 15-20 minutes after the fact was wrong. And just about everyone here agrees that the officer was in the wrong with the way acted as well once the situation was known.

I think you guys are going in circles.

Nascar.

Within the constraints of my scenario, however, you don't know how many people are in the car. If every person in that car is intending to hurt you (and I'm not saying that they are), I'm not sure you could pick them all off if there are more than two or three of them. Maybe you can. I don't know anything about guns or your proficiency with them. Just remember that you're only approaching a red light and you're eight blocks from the police station which would probably cause the followers to flee if they're malicious.

this thread....

I was trying to be funny. However I would have sped a way toward safety not necessarily toward the police.

I would definitely stop at the stop light, and if someone started to get out of the car, then I would drive away.

Well, some people think it was okay to detain him, some people think they were "shits" to the cop, some people were heavily critical of Moats' decision to run the light. I disagree with all of those. But I've said multiple times in this thread that the officer was right to pull them over.

I thought maybe you were trying to be funny, but I figured I'd give a serious answer in case you were serious. In the original story, I specifically mentioned that you couldn't see the number of people in the car because I know some people would shoot if they knew it was one person following them.

But yeah, I get that it was meant to be funny.

No, I lowered the risk to my wife's health. The medical professionals had told me it was critical to get her to the hospital as soon as possible. When I ran the light, there was nobody within a half-mile on the cross street (Lamar) coming toward the intersection. The probability of my running the light causing an accident was essentially zero. Weighed against the factual risk to her health of any wasted time getting her medical attention, it's clear the right decision was made.


Because I was told to get her to the hospital as soon as possible. Not only was I quicker to the hospital than an ambulance would have been to my house, but I have since learned that ambulances don't have the necessary equipment given her situation (water's broken, infection risk, so you need a fetal monitor, etc.). Which I admittedly only assumed at the time.


I find it borderline insane that you think running the light in that situation "wasn't right". I can guarantee you that if you asked a police officer what you should do in that situation, he would tell you to take off and call the police.

Your self righteousness doesn't help.

?

Lots of people run red lights a block away from the hospital with their hazards on, park into said hospital, and let their passengers go into the hospital, all so they can use that as an excuse to run that specific red light?

That's some interesting logic you (and perhaps the officer) believe. The officer needs to be more aware of his surroundings than that.

By wasn't right, I mean it's still broke the law, right wrong on indifferent. You can dress up a pig and throw some lipstick on it, and it's still a pig.

I think we need to all just hug it out.

Nope, I'm not saying that at all. That's neither my logic nor the police officer's.

And I love how the red light is getting closer to the hospital the more this thread progresses. Now it's only a block away!

I think the red light was in front of the parking spot... Wasn't it? :P

The red light gets closer and closer as Moats' wife's behavior gets more and more outrageous. Now she's waving her fists at the officer. When we get to the next page of the thread, she will have tackled the officer and pulled a gun on him. When it gets there, I will agree she was in the wrong.

I'm pretty sure the red lights were on top of the cop car.

I'll admit it was really wrong of her to carve a B into the officer's face.

1) Dallas newspaper:

2) If that's not your point then what do you mean by "If you want to put an officer in the position of trying to figure out whether you're the first person in months to tell him the truth about an excuse for breaking the law" You are suggesting that someone would run the light near the hospital with hazards, park in the hospital, and have his passengers act frantic and run into said hospital just so he can have an excuse about running the red light? Or just maybe, the officer doesn't have much to "figure out."

I think the celebrating is bad, but I also don't know how they feel. I mean a cop did execute a kid a month or so ago and they probably see this as payback. It's wrong but what happens when cops don't eliminate their bad seeds.

Give it a few more days, by then the cop will have invaded their home and dragged them outside in chains, tasered 'em, and then gone instead & murdered the cancer patient as she knitted a tapestry containing the cure for cancer. And I'm not even going to mention the unmentionable thing he did to the family's one legged dog.

Well, it may be only semantics to some people, but to me it's a very important distinction. What is illegal is not always wrong; what is legal is not always right.

Isn't that Oakland cop not working for the force any more? Last I checked he wasn't.

Unless you're assuming that he was making comments at that morning's briefings about how he couldn't wait to kill a black guy that day.

Huge risk. I mean why would anyone risk a ticket for a minor traffic violation when their kid's life is hanging in the balance.

They definitely don't perfectly overlap, no question. But you're still subject to the inconviences and penalties associated with laws, even if you don't find the illegal conduct morally wrong.

This isn't exactly on-topic with this thread, but I think some people have the idea that since something isn't morally wrong, then they shouldn't be penalized or inconvienced for it. So in that context, when it suits them, they completely ignore the fact that law and morality don't overlap.

That's why a lot of the arguments here, and in this kind of context, are missing each other. When someone says, "breaking the law causes you to get pulled over", and someone else says, "try saying that when your wife is in labor", that second comment is completely non-responsive to the first one. You can be stressed by the labor situation, and make a bad judgment to get break laws, causing you to get pulled over, a risking the health of your wife. Doesn't make you a horrible person. But as in many areas of life, being calmer and cooler might be better.

Six pages and nobody pointed out to Noop that Emily Dickinson wasn't English? We can get outraged about police asshattery but not poor historical literature understanding???

Oakland cops have a pretty bad reputation for police brutality and doing nothing about it. Perhaps if they had shown a history of cleaning up their unit, people wouldn't have been so irate, or an officer wouldn't think it's alright to execute someone.

If a law is broken but mitigating cirumstances make clear to any reasonable person that the breaking of the law was acceptable and even preferred in the citizen's situation, then I expect my law enforcement officers, or failing on their part then my district attorneys, of failing on their part then my local jury members to dismiss the charges without punishment.

And fortunately for me, the vast majority of people in charge agree, and that's why, for example, Moats' ticket has been dismissed and why I was not ticketed for running the red light in my situation.

So, yes, logically I am still subject to the inconveniences and penalties associated with laws. But I will protest the application of those penalties and any excessive inconveniences in these kinds of situations. Both with my voice and my vote (we elect judges and DAs around here, not sure about everywhere). There is always room for common sense and compassion.

I get the feeling there are a lot of fans of the completely ludicrous "zero tolerance" approach by school administrators these days. You know, the kind of approach that results in kids getting strip-searched because they are suspected of having extra strength ibuprofen at school.

And those people are complete idiots.

Well he never said she was from England, just that after studying here that he thought it was an English thing.

I agree, but until I've had a friend executed by the police, it's tough to put myself in their shoes.

Again off-topic, but elected DAs and judges is an absolutely horrible idea. We really don't want decisions in criminal justice motivated by election concerns and campagin contributions.

Everything above traffic stops, such excuses and mitigations are built into the law. Necessity is a legal defense (though the standard is much higher than a lot of criminals seem to assume).

With traffic infractions, we're talking about small fines, and we'd rather not have people think they're above the law because of their own personal emergency (that usually isn't really an emergency). So it's a strict liability thing. You don't have full due process because you don't have any risk of going to jail. In a practical sense, like you said, the true emergency-based tickets get dumped, and nobody's saying the guy's ticket should have held up here.

I don't agree with zero tolerance for most things. I guess I look at it this way, if I endanger other people with my actions I'm the one responsible, thus I am going to try and not break laws or rules of the road. But if I break a law because of mitigating factors such as fearing for my life, I'm going to accept the consequences of my actions. Do I wish the law and courts forgive me breaking the law, yes, but I shouldn't expect it.

Or a black, or a mexican, or a white man, or etc.

It's those same types of generalizations that lead us to this type of mentality.