Wills7MGTE;1285375 said:
Supracentral, can you make a reply without being insulting or inflamatory, and to answer your question no I did not and will not read the article.
I'm well aware of the fact that I
can do so. However when it's obvious someone comes into a thread like this and makes ridiculious statement due to the fact they didn't read the source material, I feel they deserve it.
The fact that you state you "will not read the article" means you're being willfully ignorant, which is even worse than sloppily or accidentally ignorant.
Since a picture is worth 1,000 words:
IJ.;1285379 said:
Let me get this straight a few of you are saying it would be ok for this guy to break the law so he could get to the hospital in time to see his dying mother?
Yes, this is why we have a jury system. You put me on a jury and I'm going to find him not guilty due to the extenuating circumstances. This simple power that many people forget we have (at least we do here in the US) is what keeps law from becoming tyrannical.
Provided the information in the article is true (he stopped at the intersection and made sure it was safe before proceeding) he took reasonable steps to be sure he didn't endanger the public.
He didn't unreasonably threaten anyone's life, liberty or property. Obviously the police department agrees.