• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYC mayor's SUV caught breaking traffic laws

Do you seriously doubt that there are laws which prohibit speeding?

I am asking you to point to the law or ordinance that proves that the mayor's security detail does not have the legal authority to speed.

Please do not re-frame the question or change the subject.
 
Do you seriously doubt that there are laws which prohibit speeding?

Yeah, I do. They are civil codes. Besides, I don't know the codes in NYC, perhaps city vehicles on city business are exempt.
 
Are you really saying that - online or not - it is inappropriate to criticize a politician that seems to flout the very laws that he preaches? That's all I did you know. My comments in the thread were apolitical. It was reported that a politician was touting traffic safety and then didn't seem to feel that he was subject to those regulations or ideas. I did criticize him for that. So, instead of making this about me, or my rights of criticism, how about telling me why I'm wrong and why he should not be subject to criticism. I'm amenable to explanation - if I'm wrong to do this and you make a good case why, I'll retract my statements. That's the "debate" part of this. FWIW, I also criticized his predecessor, albeit for other reasons. That is what we do here. I hope you're not defending him because he belongs to a party that you support. I'm an equal opportunity politician-basher.

What I am really saying is it is inappropriate for those ignorant of even the basics (it is a violation of civil code not the law) to attempt to comment on things they know not of.

The politician wasn't driving, did he order the driver to roll stop signs and speed?

I can and will take to task those who are ignorant of the facts, and or misapply them.

You ASS-U-Me way too much, and forget the Mayor is a target to be protected. Like I told another poster, catch him driving his own vehicle violating civil code and ya got something.

Now who said I wanted you to retract a damn thing? Leave that crap up there for all to see. Ignorance and misstatements, but I DAMN sure can rely.

When it comes to 'supporting' the Mayor, ya can kiss my shiny hiney, around here 'New York City' is said as a cuss word. I have little concern for big city anybodies, no matter their political lean, pay grade, job title. :2wave:
 
Give his driver tickets for all the laws he broke as well as the news crew, they had to have broken the same laws just to keep up with the SUVs
 
I am asking you to point to the law or ordinance that proves that the mayor's security detail does not have the legal authority to speed.

Please do not re-frame the question or change the subject.

It is against the law to speed:

Article 30 - NY Vehicle and Traffic Law - Speed Restrictions

If you think the driver of the mayors' car had an exemption to that law, then it is you who has to provide the proof for your claim

BTW, exceeding the limit by 15 mph (as the mayors car did) can result in jail time
 
The civil code is part of the law and there is no evidence that the drivers were responding to any threat. The security detail is not above the law and there is no evidence that the drivers were responding to any threat. What people in Okla-freakin-homa think, or even people in Philly, Mass, etc think, doesn't really matter. It's what his constituents think. And while I don't think this is going to lead to an impeachment, it does make him look bad which is what I said in the very first post I posted in this thread. And again, I did not assume anything. Please stop misrepresenting what I've said. And what I would have him do is to give clear instructions to his drivers that they should obey the traffic laws.

More ignorance and mis-statements. No Sir the civil code is separate of 'the law'. I have explained several times the difference. You're just being willful now.

You are ignorant on how a security detail works and the rules they operate under. It is way too late for a security detail to react to a threat AS IT HAPPENS. What security details do is evaluate the most recent threats, kook letters, and any homeland input to determine how to act BEFORE an active threat. Not stopping to present a stationary target is one- did the SUVs pull out in front of anyone causing a near accident??? A routine cautionary level most likely includes minimizing exposure when safe to do so- was there an accident?

I'll agree with one thing- it does matter only what the people of NYC think, so all the ranting and whining outside the city is moot.

You assume waaaay too much, from how an LE staffed security detail acts when charged with protecting a VIP, to what the mayor actually knew. And you keep using law for code.
 
It is against the law to speed:

Article 30 - NY Vehicle and Traffic Law - Speed Restrictions

If you think the driver of the mayors' car had an exemption to that law, then it is you who has to provide the proof for your claim

BTW, exceeding the limit by 15 mph (as the mayors car did) can result in jail time

You are reframing the question. That article says nothing about under what circumstances it is legal for law enforcement officers to speed when acting in an official capacity. The driver of the vehicle carrying the mayor was a police officer acting in an official capacity.
 
It is against the law to speed:

Article 30 - NY Vehicle and Traffic Law - Speed Restrictions

If you think the driver of the mayors' car had an exemption to that law, then it is you who has to provide the proof for your claim

BTW, exceeding the limit by 15 mph (as the mayors car did) can result in jail time

Actually that's the NY state code, NYC has an exemption and makes it's own traffic codes. But even the state has exemption to those codes for workers on state/city business. Otherwise police and traffic control workers would be boned in the performance of their duties.
 
More ignorance and mis-statements. No Sir the civil code is separate of 'the law'. I have explained several times the difference. You're just being willful now.

No, you are. The laws which regulates drivers are laws. They are part of the legal code

NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law | VTL Regulations


You are ignorant on how a security detail works and the rules they operate under. It is way too late for a security detail to react to a threat AS IT HAPPENS. What security details do is evaluate the most recent threats, kook letters, and any homeland input to determine how to act BEFORE an active threat. Not stopping to present a stationary target is one- did the SUVs pull out in front of anyone causing a near accident??? A routine cautionary level most likely includes minimizing exposure when safe to do so- was there an accident?

I have seen no evidence that the mayor's driver is allowed to ignore the law.

I'll agree with one thing- it does matter only what the people of NYC think, so all the ranting and whining outside the city is moot.

You assume waaaay too much, from how an LE staffed security detail acts when charged with protecting a VIP, to what the mayor actually knew. And you keep using law for code.

I've assumed nothing.

Well I assumed one thing - that until someone proves otherwise, the mayor's driver is required to obey the law.
 
I didn't care about much of the stuff that Bush got thrown out there as scandal either. Republicans and Dems both do it. It is not a strictly partisan behavior to try to slander someone with meaningless nonsense like this. Let's talk about their politics instead. It's much more relevant.

His politics is that he wants to expand prosecuting and fining people for what he and his staff do for their own personal convenience.
 
You are reframing the question. That article says nothing about under what circumstances it is legal for law enforcement officers to speed when acting in an official capacity. The driver of the vehicle carrying the mayor was a police officer acting in an official capacity.

I'm not re-framing the question. I am pointing out that you have the burden of proof and I've posted the law which states that it is illegal to speed. I saw no exception for the mayor's driver.
 
I'm not re-framing the question. I am pointing out that you have the burden of proof and I've posted the law which states that it is illegal to speed. I saw no exception for the mayor's driver.

You reframed the question by pointing to a portion of the law which essentially says that it's illegal for anyone to speed and declared your burden of proof met. Yes, or no: Is it your assertion that it is illegal for police officers acting in an official capacity to exceed the speed limit?
 
No, you are. The laws which regulates drivers are laws. They are part of the legal code

NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law | VTL Regulations




I have seen no evidence that the mayor's driver is allowed to ignore the law.



I've assumed nothing.

Well I assumed one thing - that until someone proves otherwise, the mayor's driver is required to obey the law.


Yes you have. The evidence is that the driver has not been ticketed or fired. There is no reason for anyone to engage in discussion with you on any topic where there is a party affiliation involved. While many of your messages on other topics are excellent and thought out, there is no truthfulness nor integrity in your messages if there is a partisan element. That is fortunate and why there is little hope for any improvement in government either on the left or the right.

Politics has degraded to the radical authoritarian rightwing versus the radical authoritarian leftwing. The media is mostly PR firms for one or the other raging why a person should be on their particular team. The majority of people and such as your messages are no different people at a football game cheering along the cheerleaders to destroy the other team. It is only because there are 2 opposing teams that the USA has not already become either German style social and government authoritarian fascism or USSR style authoritarian communism (not socialism). You are in the bleachers cheering the latter wearing blue face paint and clothing for your team.

I am sincere in this aspect of you is very disappointing because otherwise you seem a very intelligent person.

It is easy to understand how the German holocaust happened. There was only one team left.
 
Actually that's the NY state code, NYC has an exemption and makes it's own traffic codes. But even the state has exemption to those codes for workers on state/city business. Otherwise police and traffic control workers would be boned in the performance of their duties.

I've seen no evidence that the mayor's driver is exempt from the rules
 
You reframed the question by pointing to a portion of the law which essentially says that it's illegal for anyone to speed and declared your burden of proof met. Yes, or no: Is it your assertion that it is illegal for police officers acting in an official capacity to exceed the speed limit?

It is your assertion that the mayor's driver is allowed to speed and go through stop signs, an assertion you have yet to prove.
 
There is no reason for anyone to engage in discussion with you on any topic where there is a party affiliation involved. While many of your messages on other topics are excellent and thought out, there is no truthfulness nor integrity in your messages if there is a partisan element.

Umm, the NYC Mayor is very liberal and I am criticizing his actions.
 
No, you are. The laws which regulates drivers are laws. They are part of the legal code NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law | VTL Regulations I have seen no evidence that the mayor's driver is allowed to ignore the law.I've assumed nothing. Well I assumed one thing - that until someone proves otherwise, the mayor's driver is required to obey the law.

My bad on laws, in Oklahoma traffic is part of the civil code, not the law.

You didn't read the CBS article with the breaking news story, it is online and the police department explains the latitude the LEOs are permitted in safeguarding their charges.

Like I said, catch him driving and running stop signs and speeding THEN ya have something. But an official VIP security detail does have latitude.

But go read the NYPD press releases on the matter. Does that prove the otherwise for you?
 
I suppose he should follow the speed limit exactly (he was going like 10mph over), and then blame any failures on missing deadlines due to traffic. I suppose you would rather the business of the city wait for traffic to clear out.

I'm not saying that you don't have a point, I just disagree about how big this issue actually is.

Yeah, the OP said 40 in a 30 and 60 in a 45, the 40 was in a residential area and not sure about where the 60 was along with running some stop signs. I do not think this was big news in the main stream media, but here on DP, it would be. Perhaps in NYC. Somewhere along the line our leaders forgot how to lead by example. It doesn't matter which party, the "Do as I say leader and not as I do," has become so numerous of late, it is hard for me to define them as leaders as all. Just people filling leadership positions.
 
It is your assertion that the mayor's driver is allowed to speed and go through stop signs, an assertion you have yet to prove.

Yes, or no: Is it your assertion that it is illegal for police officers acting in an official capacity to exceed the speed limit?
 
My bad on laws, in Oklahoma traffic is part of the civil code, not the law.

You didn't read the CBS article with the breaking news story, it is online and the police department explains the latitude the LEOs are permitted in safeguarding their charges.

Like I said, catch him driving and running stop signs and speeding THEN ya have something. But an official VIP security detail does have latitude.

But go read the NYPD press releases on the matter. Does that prove the otherwise for you?

The civil code is just as much a part of the law as the criminal code is.

As far as the CBS article goes, I didn't see the link. If you repost the link, I will read to determine if it applies.
 
Yes, or no: Is it your assertion that it is illegal for police officers acting in an official capacity to exceed the speed limit?

It is your assertion that the mayor's driver is exempt from the law - an assertion you have yet to prove
 
What I am really saying is it is inappropriate for those ignorant of even the basics (it is a violation of civil code not the law) to attempt to comment on things they know not of.

The politician wasn't driving, did he order the driver to roll stop signs and speed?

I can and will take to task those who are ignorant of the facts, and or misapply them.

You ASS-U-Me way too much, and forget the Mayor is a target to be protected. Like I told another poster, catch him driving his own vehicle violating civil code and ya got something.

Now who said I wanted you to retract a damn thing? Leave that crap up there for all to see. Ignorance and misstatements, but I DAMN sure can rely.

When it comes to 'supporting' the Mayor, ya can kiss my shiny hiney, around here 'New York City' is said as a cuss word. I have little concern for big city anybodies, no matter their political lean, pay grade, job title. :2wave:

OMG. Do you mean that every time anyone puts an opinion up here they have to study the legal codes? Like preparing for trial? I'm sorry to be unable to meet your high standards.

I think the Mayor did the right thing and should be applauded for it.

I visited Oklahoma in 1967. That's where I got in a conversation with a guy who bought rental houses. He'd paid cash and retired young. Always stuck in my mind and I emulated him, albeit 42 years later, not so young. That's my only Oklahoma story, so don't worry.










:roll:
 
Here is your first post in the thread:



Your first post in this thread was an assertion of fact that the driver broke the law. It is your obligation to back up your assertion and you have failed to so.

read the OP so that you know what you are talking about. if you don't read the OP then you don't know what we are discussing and have 0 support for anything that you say.
if you had read the first post in this thread like i have then you would already know
that the driver of the car went through 2 or 3 stop signs and was speeding up to 15 mph over the posted speed limit. that is breaking the law.

so you are the only one in this thread that has failed to backup their assertion.
 
Back
Top Bottom