But, if you show me multiple gallon zip lock bags of a controlled substance (regardless of your belief of whether it should be controlled or not) from the arrest… it’s absolutely ‘with intent to distribute’ at that point.
How did the cops know that was in the car when they escalated a traffic stop for a traffic violation into a high speed chase?
They put people in danger fora traffic violation. The fact that they didn’t kill anyone this time and got lucky on the drugs (which shouldn’t be illegal anyway) does not excuse the risk they caused.
When a person tries to leave on a bike for instance, that is still considered a chase, even if its not very far from the initial point of the cop trying to detain the person. This stop at a Texas campus is an example.
Student was pulled over for lack of lights biking at night.
The title of the article is “Georgia cops proudly show off ecstasy pills, after high-speed freeway chase over traffic violation, and crash caused by PIT-maneuver”
Read the article. That isn’t what they describe at all.
Cops start a pursuit when the suspect fails to yield. Once they lose visual they stop the pursuit. They don’t say what speed or how long but they stoped perusing
A short time later they see the suspect and pit the car.
The article is poorly written but this doesn’t appear to be bad policing. They knocked off the pursuit when it wasn’t safe and immediately stopped him when they don’t the suspect later.
I love to bash shitty cops but this is how I want them to behave unless I see evidence otherwise.
Yeah, “high speed” isn’t mentioned in the article. It’s in the headline, though, and if we’re believing the TV station’s coverage enough to have a conversation about it, the headline is part of the coverage.
How did the cops know that was in the car when they escalated a traffic stop for a traffic violation into a high speed chase?
deleted by creator
They put people in danger fora traffic violation. The fact that they didn’t kill anyone this time and got lucky on the drugs (which shouldn’t be illegal anyway) does not excuse the risk they caused.
deleted by creator
There are safe police chases?
When a person tries to leave on a bike for instance, that is still considered a chase, even if its not very far from the initial point of the cop trying to detain the person. This stop at a Texas campus is an example.
Student was pulled over for lack of lights biking at night.
deleted by creator
This chase ended with a PIT-maneuver and a crash, which seems the opposite of ‘safe’.
deleted by creator
The officer was in danger. So was the public. Either you’re arguing in bad faith or you’re stone dumb.
The officer crashed his car into a traffic suspect. Period.
deleted by creator
I’m not listening to you because you sound like an idiot.
We do know. The article says the officer was doing traffic enforcement, not drug interdiction.
deleted by creator
The officer crashed his car. Into the suspect’s car.
Where do you get high speed chase? Nothing in the article states the speed.
A chase just means they didn’t stop when the lights and sirens came on.
The title of the article is “Georgia cops proudly show off ecstasy pills, after high-speed freeway chase over traffic violation, and crash caused by PIT-maneuver”
Read the article. They don’t describe that at all.
The original headline at the news site is “Driver caught with $400K in Ecstasy pills, cash after high-speed I-20 chase.”
Read the article. That isn’t what they describe at all.
Cops start a pursuit when the suspect fails to yield. Once they lose visual they stop the pursuit. They don’t say what speed or how long but they stoped perusing
A short time later they see the suspect and pit the car.
The article is poorly written but this doesn’t appear to be bad policing. They knocked off the pursuit when it wasn’t safe and immediately stopped him when they don’t the suspect later.
I love to bash shitty cops but this is how I want them to behave unless I see evidence otherwise.
So since the title has the words high speed chase, but they don’t repeat it in the text of the article, the headline can be ignored?
Go back to school and learn to read.
Nice ad hominem.
The article doesn’t describe that headline at all. It describes the opposite of the headline.
You clearly don’t know what words mean.
Yeah, “high speed” isn’t mentioned in the article. It’s in the headline, though, and if we’re believing the TV station’s coverage enough to have a conversation about it, the headline is part of the coverage.
Headlines are to hype the article.
When you read the article the exact opposite is described.
As I said it’s a poorly written article but based on the actual article. I do not see an issue.
I only found one other cite and it was similar.
I have a huge issue with idiotic chases but this doesn’t appear to be one.