> Things work much more slowly and much more constitutionally than you realize. If they didn't, we'd be knocking down doors of the person who
you may say stole your stuff. There are still procedures that have to be followed. I know you think you'd be in a cop-induced accident, but I've
yet to see anyone in here post that they have actually been in one or have witnessed one. They're pretty good drivers.

The double standard you have that I wrote about above in the string above is
not concerning the law in regards to police driving, but rather the double
standard you have (that so long as a cop does not get into the accident, he
is considered to be driving with due care, see above). I do not believe
this is written in the law books, rather it is your attempt to defend all
types of dangerous driving by police that the public witnesses. Is a cop
that does not get into an accident driving at 100mph in a school zone during
commute hours any less threat to the public than a private citizen that does
the same? According to your logic he is, in fact, he was exercising due
care because he did not get into an accident (your definition you admit to
above on what is a police driving with due care). Once again, this is your
reasoning, I don't believe it is written into the law books.

motocat


And the interest of an individual not to get in a collision with a motorist
is not governed by code books. He does not want to get hit, it doesn't
matter if a potential offender was or was not breaking a law, is a cop or
not. The law does not decide what driving actions result in what
consequences. The laws of physics do. Keep that in mind.