Cressy (Vic) Accident

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by ltd

The fact that a policeman can be spat on by the public and not allowed to do anything is inexcusable, and the fact that political influence for expedient ends has anything to do with our force/service/force (remember the name change) is equally reprehensible.

Couldnt agree more.

Originally Posted by ltd

As for who took the guns away as asked by fmc351, it was Howard. He did the guns amnesty to reduce the population of firearms in the community with impunity and anonymity for the owners with the best intentions; the left state governments were supposed to follow up with automatic prison sentences for illegal firearms possession but again failed to deliver.

The point was a right wing government took away freedoms, not a left one. The number of 'dangerous' firearms is hardly dented, its simply 'harmless' guns and law abiding citizens that paid the price.

My beef with your post was the nonsensical association of Australian left wing politics with socialism, its not even close. Anyone who thinks that way is intentionally misleading, or has not a clue what socialism is. Australia, has always had a degree of 'socialist' practices, such as housing, state run energy, water supply, roads, there are many, and most nations including the US and the UK share those traits. Truly socialist nations tend not to be soft on crime, so your post on that association was nothing but a red herring. These sorts of attitudes display party politics, rather than making informed decisions based on say, policy.

Originally Posted by ltd

fmc351, I didn't mention singapore which by the way has a zero tolerance approach to crime and as such has very little crime, and China refers to itself as Communist China. In Russia they have adapted a relatively zero tolerance approach to law and order.

China says its protecting Tibet, its not invading as it has always been its territory. I dont care what they claim, political systems are defined by the system in place, not what is claimed. Like I said, socialist nations tend to be hard on crime not soft. Your assertion the do-gooders here are socialist is ill founded, some may be, but their socialist views dont relate to their view on crime, and soft on crime isnt solely the domain of left wing politics.

Originally Posted by ltd

As for your assertion that policing and tightened laws produces negative outcomes, I'd suggest you find a shred of evidence to support such a vexatious and flawed statement; as all evidence proves the contrary.

Where the hell did you get that cr4p from? I never said anything about defending being soft on crime, Im opposed to softly softly but with qualifications though. Lifes complicated, people look for one size fits all solutions because they are unable or at least too lazy to form complex thought. Sometimes softly softly works, in other cases its at least worth the shot and reflects a civilised society, in others its pointless and counter-productive. Problem is this vreates a sliding scale and sliding scales are not consistent, consistency being an imperative part of the cornerstone of democracy, the rule of law.

Not to mention the costs of serious punishments, the publics tendency to scream for action, then cry about the cost, and positively bemoan at the methods of raising it. Politicians of all sides desire re-election, the publics lack of understanding, reluctance to form complex thought and even apathy until election day, hardly encourages action from government. Talk to 20 parents tomorrow and ask if they like the soft on crime approach. Ill bet 15 say no, and thats a majority. I wonder why the alternative party isnt elected then, they offer no alternative either, they suffer the same restraints as the other.

[KLRFRD]

Lets see when I was a kid and old enough to tie my own shoes laces I aready knew it was wrong to STEAL !!!!!!!.

Lets get real these kids know what they are doing is wrong and they think they can get away with it. We as a society simply don't care about other peoples property or the effect having it stolen has on the owner anymore.

I would also like to ask " Why do we have police if they are not there to catch criminals and protect the rest of us ?" We can't do it ourselves.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I was going to mention that, sounded like they were bragging about it. What a bunch of losers. Seems like the stereotype Norlane scum who's parents were probably too stoned to even realize they have kids. This is extremely harsh but it would have been no loss if they all died in the crash. I'm sure they will all walk away free from court with just a slap on the wrist. Time to start throwing the book at these kids. They probably commit these sorts of crimes because they know they are under 18 and they will get away with it.

You can still be sent to jail if you are under 18, theres a prisoner in barwon maximum security prison who was in there at 14 years old. Depends on the crime though, for what they did, IMO, they should get at least juvie for a few months.

My mate got 3 weeks inside juvie for breaking into a shed and damaging a tractor. Why do these pricks get off, they did much worse than him.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Couldnt agree more.

The point was a right wing government took away freedoms, not a left one. The number of 'dangerous' firearms is hardly dented, its simply 'harmless' guns and law abiding citizens that paid the price.

Guns are not freedom. People like Martin Bryant expressed their freedom, with devistating results. The reason for the guns amnesty was to allow members of the public in posession of some of the most serious and dangerous weapons to be able to give them in, get paid compensation and have no questions asked. The proliferation of guns in the hands of criminals is more to do with the states failing to prosecute anyone in posession of an illegal (ie serial numbers filed off, previously used in a crime) firearm.

Originally Posted by fmc351

My beef with your post was the nonsensical association of Australian left wing politics with socialism, its not even close. Anyone who thinks that way is intentionally misleading, or has not a clue what socialism is. Australia, has always had a degree of 'socialist' practices, such as housing, state run energy, water supply, roads, there are many, and most nations including the US and the UK share those traits. Truly socialist nations tend not to be soft on crime, so your post on that association was nothing but a red herring. These sorts of attitudes display party politics, rather than making informed decisions based on say, policy.

You say that an association is nonsensical, yet in the next line you put the disclaimer in that Australia has always had socialism. My beef with your post is that it is myopically defending the left and denying the socialist agenda hidden well within. What say you, that they left are capitalists? They wouldn't know what that means, especially when they give impetus to the unions and their utter contempt for anyone wishing to get ahead or even heaven forfend, owning a business. No, I do know a little and I also do know what socialism is. Having everyone earn the same in a business as promoted by the left as well as enacted as policy by Gillard yesterday is socialism as it does not recognise an individuals abiity but has to reward en-masse. As for soft on crime, yes even socialist governments can be lazy, fat and stupid. They may have the best intentions but are bound amongst the buraucracy of their own creation.

Originally Posted by fmc351

China says its protecting Tibet, its not invading as it has always been its territory. I dont care what they claim, political systems are defined by the system in place, not what is claimed. Like I said, socialist nations tend to be hard on crime not soft. Your assertion the do-gooders here are socialist is ill founded, some may be, but their socialist views dont relate to their view on crime, and soft on crime isnt solely the domain of left wing politics.

China is a communist nation, they are far from socialist so your comparison is flawed. However don't get too upset, your hero Lu Kewen has aligned himself with all things chinese and would surely love to embrace china's culture here.
Socialist nations are not always hard on crime, and in the case of Australia, socialism creates a culture of not caring to do ones duty as the rewards are removed. Would you risk your life at work for nothing? Now you know how the cops feel.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Where the hell did you get that cr4p from? I never said anything about defending being soft on crime, Im opposed to softly softly but with qualifications though. Lifes complicated, people look for one size fits all solutions because they are unable or at least too lazy to form complex thought. Sometimes softly softly works, in other cases its at least worth the shot and reflects a civilised society, in others its pointless and counter-productive. Problem is this vreates a sliding scale and sliding scales are not consistent, consistency being an imperative part of the cornerstone of democracy, the rule of law.

Confused you with ED Classic, sorry about that. However, softly softly never works in the real world when dealing with real crime. Cite one case where it has achieved the desired outcome.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Not to mention the costs of serious punishments, the publics tendency to scream for action, then cry about the cost, and positively bemoan at the methods of raising it. Politicians of all sides desire re-election, the publics lack of understanding, reluctance to form complex thought and even apathy until election day, hardly encourages action from government. Talk to 20 parents tomorrow and ask if they like the soft on crime approach. Ill bet 15 say no, and thats a majority. I wonder why the alternative party isnt elected then, they offer no alternative either, they suffer the same restraints as the other.

The public has a right to be angry, this could have killed several people. The public also have a right to be angry about the judicial slant based on political expediency as well as the alleged rights of criminals that exhaust appeal after appeal until they find a sympathetic and equally socialist judge.
If they can't find that then they wait for someone in the system to make a clerical error like a missing paper clip, and then have the charge struck out. It's just the way things work in places like spin city, and nothing is set to change it.

[fmc351]

Is your name Anna Coren?

Originally Posted by ltd

Guns are not freedom. People like Martin Bryant expressed their freedom, with devistating results. The reason for the guns amnesty was to allow members of the public in posession of some of the most serious and dangerous weapons to be able to give them in, get paid compensation and have no questions asked. The proliferation of guns in the hands of criminals is more to do with the states failing to prosecute anyone in posession of an illegal (ie serial numbers filed off, previously used in a crime) firearm.

Look up, there was a point flying over your head. Here you are again, missing the point and following up with a failure to comprehend the nature of political systems. :ets not get into a debate over the rights and wrongs of gun ownership, just see the point that freedoms were revoked by RIGHT wing governments, an accusation normally reserved for the 'left'. Much like you here.

Originally Posted by ltd

You say that an association is nonsensical, yet in the next line you put the disclaimer in that Australia has always had socialism. My beef with your post is that it is myopically defending the left and denying the socialist agenda hidden well within.

I proved that your claims about 'socialist' were ill founded. I also pointed out its not just the left that is soft on crime, or has the do-gooder mentality, the right suffer the same fate. You simply state Im wrong but you cant back it up, I backed myself up and even gave examples.

Oh, and twice now youve assumed Ive got something against Police, maybe you should read some of my posts in other threads, you couldnt be further from the truth. You cant follow anything, your attention to detail is woeful, you have no legal experience and of that Im positive. Yes, Im calling you a liar. At best, youve been a receptionist in a legal office.

Originally Posted by ltd

What say you, that they left are capitalists?

Many lefties are, many own businesses etc. Have you never heard of Chardonnay socialists?

Many people, seemingly a revelation for you, dont adhere to one side of politics. Myself, I believe in capitalist tenets of property rights, freedoms, liberties, but I believe in socialist tenets of free education, health care and equality, for example. Some of these tenets cross over, others dont.

[QUOTE=ltd]No, I do know a little and I also do know what socialism is. [/QUOTE
Yes, very little.

Originally Posted by ltd

Having everyone earn the same in a business as promoted by the left as well as enacted as policy by Gillard yesterday is socialism as it does not recognise an individuals abiity but has to reward en-masse. As for soft on crime, yes even socialist governments can be lazy, fat and stupid. They may have the best intentions but are bound amongst the buraucracy of their own creation.

Liberal governments have also over the years been soft on crime. Jesus fool, wake up.

Governments are soft on crime due to DOLLARS, they just use the excuse of humanity. The shortage of dollars apply to both sides of politics in this country. You completely missed the point I made regarding the public screaming, the public cry about having to pay higher taxes to fund the increased levels of imprisonment. Governments cant fund that without dollars, they cant raise the dollars without the public crying over taxes, and the public dont want crims going free. One of these things is easy to hide, revolving door prisons. If the public woke up and were willing to pay an additional tax, then governments could get tougher on crime. As it stands, the public rant and rave about how they want something done, yet rant and rave about footing the bill. In the end, governments try to get re-elected (nature of the game), thus they find ways to avoid the issue as they cant win that issue, the public cry no matter what they do.

Why are you so easily confused? You want to point the finger of blame, find a mirror.

Originally Posted by ltd

China is a communist nation, they are far from socialist so your comparison is flawed. However don't get too upset, your hero Lu Kewen has aligned himself with all things chinese and would surely love to embrace china's culture here.

China has free markets along with centralised 'markets', private investment. Look up the definition of Communism, there is no private investment or free markets in communism.

Originally Posted by ltd

Socialist nations are not always hard on crime, and in the case of Australia, socialism creates a culture of not caring to do ones duty as the rewards are removed. Would you risk your life at work for nothing? Now you know how the cops feel.

Show me 4 socialist nations that are soft on crime.

Australia is not socialist, not by any stretch of the imagination, that was the point. Do you always get so confused? But all countries, have some socialist practices in place to make the system work, that includes the US.
Laissez faire capitalism does not work, just as communism does not work. All systems that work, have characteristics of alternative systems in place.

Originally Posted by ltd

Confused you with ED Classic, sorry about that. However, softly softly never works in the real world when dealing with real crime. Cite one case where it has achieved the desired outcome.

Try, try real hard, it wont hurt for long and you can always take a panadol if it hurts too much.

When softly softly works, you dont hear about it as youre not meant to, its private for the person in question. You only hear of the failures. There are bound to be failures, its up to you to realise you only hear of the failures, now think about this before you start typing. Can you manage that?

Leniency should come to an end when it fails, on a case by case basis, for example, a first offence there is merit in leniency as its not too late for the individual and they can still be 'saved', although even for a first offence it may end up pointless, but civilised societies take that chance as it cant be known beforehand. However, a first offence doesnt get one off murder for example. Nor should there be second chances IMO, but there is merit to the argument there should be second chances but Im sure its beyond you.

Originally Posted by ltd

The public also have a right to be angry about the judicial slant based on political expediency as well as the alleged rights of criminals that exhaust appeal after appeal until they find a sympathetic and equally socialist judge.

Exactly how many rights of appeal do you think someone has? You can NOT appeal sideways in the court hierarchy, you can only appeal up the hierarchy and each time there must be grounds for the appeal. A person cant appeal because they think theyre innocent and the judge found them guilty, these are not grounds for appeal despite the publics ignorance of that fact.

Grounds for appeal are limited to procedural breaches, misreadings or misapplications of law, or compelling new evidence. You can not appeal because the client simply doesnt like the decision. What you hear is people claiming they will appeal a decision they dont like, but never get there as they dont have 'grounds' to launch the appeal, leave is not granted and no appeal can be launched without leave being granted. Appeal after appeal indeed.

Maybe look up the court hierarchy to see exactly how far someone can appeal. Remember, each appeal must step up one level, not sideways and the 'grounds' to apply for leave to appeal a decision are not as simple as you seem to be fooling yourself on.

I said at the start you were delusional, thanks for proving that.

Originally Posted by ltd

If they can't find that then they wait for someone in the system to make a clerical error like a missing paper clip, and then have the charge struck out. It's just the way things work in places like spin city, and nothing is set to change it.

The legal wording of an act or caselaw is critical for very essential reasons, and while at times that works against us, on most occasions it serves its very fundamental purpose. Its a necessary evil in a very complex system. What you want is arbitrary decisions, and no lawyer would ask for that as the removal of arbitrary decisions is the very purpose of the law.

You should stop posting legal matters, you clearly demonstrate your lack of understanding of the system you claim to work in. Dont make me link to the thread.

[Fev]

good times!!

[ltd]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Is your name Anna Coren?

Look up, there was a point flying over your head. Here you are again, missing the point and following up with a failure to comprehend the nature of political systems. :ets not get into a debate over the rights and wrongs of gun ownership, just see the point that freedoms were revoked by RIGHT wing governments, an accusation normally reserved for the 'left'. Much like you here.

Perhaps your point was missed, as you are unable to articulate. I think you'll also find that the majority of the population don't care for guns, and would be rather concerned about some of the people hell bent on possessing them. You have missed the point of the whole exercise, which was again, for the states to introduce tough penalties for non-licenced shooters carrying guns.

Originally Posted by fmc351

I proved that your claims about 'socialist' were ill founded. I also pointed out its not just the left that is soft on crime, or has the do-gooder mentality, the right suffer the same fate. You simply state Im wrong but you cant back it up, I backed myself up and even gave examples.

You have not proven a thing. You have based your argument solely on your opinion that as subjective as it is, is not any form of proof. Furthermore, statistics do not correlate with your assertion that the left and right have the same degree of softness on crime.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Oh, and twice now youve assumed Ive got something against Police, maybe you should read some of my posts in other threads, you couldnt be further from the truth. You cant follow anything, your attention to detail is woeful, you have no legal experience and of that Im positive. Yes, Im calling you a liar. At best, youve been a receptionist in a legal office.

Once I referred to you having something against the police, and on discovery of that error I apologised. You should really move on.
You can call me what you want. The opinion of someone on this forum does not require me to prove anything should I not wish to do so. You're also proving to be an arrogant jerk when you personally attack the character of another. Opinions aside, such a thinly veiled attack is evidence of a lack of a sound argument.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Many lefties are, many own businesses etc. Have you never heard of Chardonnay socialists?

You accuse me of attention to detail and are flummoxed by your own myopia. Perhaps you should look at the number of people who moved beyond business into politics as opposed to those that graduated from the union into politics. You might spot a trend. Furthermore, there are a number of ALP politicians who have their families set up businesses whilst in office and award contracts solely to them, such as the printing business set up when Bob Carr came to power and closed conveniently before he left office.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Many people, seemingly a revelation for you, dont adhere to one side of politics. Myself, I believe in capitalist tenets of property rights, freedoms, liberties, but I believe in socialist tenets of free education, health care and equality, for example. Some of these tenets cross over, others dont.[

You can't have it both ways, as the capitalist tenets through taxation fund the socialist tenets.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Liberal governments have also over the years been soft on crime. Jesus fool, wake up.

You already said that. Again with the name-calling.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Governments are soft on crime due to DOLLARS, they just use the excuse of humanity. The shortage of dollars apply to both sides of politics in this country. You completely missed the point I made regarding the public screaming, the public cry about having to pay higher taxes to fund the increased levels of imprisonment. Governments cant fund that without dollars, they cant raise the dollars without the public crying over taxes, and the public dont want crims going free. One of these things is easy to hide, revolving door prisons. If the public woke up and were willing to pay an additional tax, then governments could get tougher on crime. As it stands, the public rant and rave about how they want something done, yet rant and rave about footing the bill. In the end, governments try to get re-elected (nature of the game), thus they find ways to avoid the issue as they cant win that issue, the public cry no matter what they do.

Here I mainly agree with you; however state governments that are responsible for these portfolios have been awash with cash from the recent property boom and the correlating stamp duties and other property taxes, yet have squandered the money on bureaucracy. For reference, in NSW alone pre ALP in 1997 the state was run far better than today on a total of 14.7 billion dollars. In 2007 the state raked in over 80 billion, yet services and infrastructure have fallen into disrepair. Meanwhile, the public service has trebled and of the 80 billion, over 65 billion were spent on salaries. I believe the term here is jobs for the boys. This info is available from various sites and in the interest of freedom of information, is often available from various ABS sources.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Why are you so easily confused? You want to point the finger of blame, find a mirror.

Again with the petty insults. I have read some of your other posts and you can do better than that.

Originally Posted by fmc351

China has free markets along with centralised 'markets', private investment. Look up the definition of Communism, there is no private investment or free markets in communism.

I don't need to look it up, and with your textbook approach you may wish to inform various US interests in South America as well as China that they have it wrong.
Even today the display put on by the Chinese impersonating Tibetan monks was referring in the third person to them as communist China. Have the Chinese got it all wrong? Maybe whilst on your IDD calls you may wish to inform Hua JinTao (sp.).

Originally Posted by fmc351

Show me 4 socialist nations that are soft on crime.

Don't need to. What I have referred to here is politicians and governments with socialist agendas. I have not called the nation socialists; I have called the politicians socialists. Banning AWA's is not something seen before in a market economy, and AWA's are typically not allowed in socialist countries anyway.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Australia is not socialist, not by any stretch of the imagination, that was the point. Do you always get so confused? But all countries, have some socialist practices in place to make the system work, that includes the US.
Laissez faire capitalism does not work, just as communism does not work. All systems that work, have characteristics of alternative systems in place.

Will you call Fidel or shall I?
Again, people have socialist agendas, and as such implement policy based on their dream of socialist nirvana. By it's very nature it would be nigh on impossible to make a western nation a socialist nation, but contrarily socialist governments such as the new federal government have and will implement further policy on socialist ideals. Methinks you read between the lines too much and over analyse.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Try, try real hard, it wont hurt for long and you can always take a panadol if it hurts too much.

Boy, that hits you right where you live.

Originally Posted by fmc351

When softly softly works, you dont hear about it as youre not meant to, its private for the person in question. You only hear of the failures. There are bound to be failures, its up to you to realise you only hear of the failures, now think about this before you start typing. Can you manage that?

Softly softly has been proven repeatedly not to work. Increased recidivism and a general state of lawlessness have people living in fear to go out during both day and night. Furthermore, scant regard for the law is evidenced daily as the deterrent from committing a criminal act has all but been removed.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Leniency should come to an end when it fails, on a case by case basis, for example, a first offence there is merit in leniency as its not too late for the individual and they can still be 'saved', although even for a first offence it may end up pointless, but civilised societies take that chance as it cant be known beforehand. However, a first offence doesnt get one off murder for example. Nor should there be second chances IMO, but there is merit to the argument there should be second chances but Im sure its beyond you.

Conversely, mandatory sentences and zero tolerance should be introduced to act as the disincentive to become a criminal. Going to prison for carrying an illegal firearm on George St Sydney would soon convince the others carrying weapons to stop. Giving a life sentence to murderers might make people think twice before they do it. Softly softly has been in place in NSW for 11 years and is a statistically proven ardent failure on every level. We have never tried mandatory sentencing or zero tolerance, which has worked in other western cities such as New York and Singapore.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Exactly how many rights of appeal do you think someone has? You can NOT appeal sideways in the court hierarchy, you can only appeal up the hierarchy and each time there must be grounds for the appeal. A person cant appeal because they think theyre innocent and the judge found them guilty, these are not grounds for appeal despite the publics ignorance of that fact.

You are over analysing again. When I spoke of the judiciary I mentioned the lenient sentences and appeal after appeal. This was a broad statement, not a specific one. If you still want to be a stickler, I am still technically right in my assertion of appeal after appeal. As for the lateral hierarchy; I never even mentioned anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Grounds for appeal are limited to procedural breaches, misreadings or misapplications of law, or compelling new evidence. You can not appeal because the client simply doesnt like the decision. What you hear is people claiming they will appeal a decision they dont like, but never get there as they dont have 'grounds' to launch the appeal, leave is not granted and no appeal can be launched without leave being granted. Appeal after appeal indeed.

Straight out of a textbook. First year law student are we?
I am aware of the appeals process, but equally I am aware of the Administrative Appeals tribunal and their overly sympathetic ear when it comes to defendants. Citing definitions doesn't prove a point.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Maybe look up the court hierarchy to see exactly how far someone can appeal. Remember, each appeal must step up one level, not sideways and the 'grounds' to apply for leave to appeal a decision are not as simple as you seem to be fooling yourself on.

As someone as astute as yourself would know, leave is often granted in spurious matters in the name of expediency and other agendas. Don't begin with any of that "they're all fair and impartial" rubbish either, else it be known you have never appeared before a magistrate.

Originally Posted by fmc351

I said at the start you were delusional, thanks for proving that.

Again with the insults. They make you look desperate.

Originally Posted by fmc351

The legal wording of an act or caselaw is critical for very essential reasons, and while at times that works against us, on most occasions it serves its very fundamental purpose. Its a necessary evil in a very complex system. What you want is arbitrary decisions, and no lawyer would ask for that as the removal of arbitrary decisions is the very purpose of the law.

You should stop posting legal matters, you clearly demonstrate your lack of understanding of the system you claim to work in. Dont make me link to the thread.

What?
What is this related to? Is this to impress us with your alleged knowledge of the law?
I submit that you are in fact a law student, as I find it hard to believe someone with such an over analytical and often myopic viewpoint would be able to function in any practice at any capacity. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder and whilst I apologised for the mis-association with another member denigrating the police, this seems to have enraged you
further. I will tell you now that I don't practice law, and haven't done for 5 years. Furthermore the law I did was mainly suburban law, and the kind of clientele that a suburban practice sees were one of the reasons I decided to quit. As for any advice you assert that I have given, if you look carefully you will note that each time I have referred others to their own solicitor for liability reasons, and I have never dispensed advice on any particular case over the internet or phone for obvious reasons.

[rodderz]

Can we stop with the tit for tat posts and keep on topic, rather than on who's points are better than who's

[ltd]

Originally Posted by rodderz

Can we stop with the tit for tat posts and keep on topic, rather than on who's points are better than who's

Duly noted.

[[Tonko]]

Originally Posted by AceofSpades

im sure that they do call em off sometimes before crashes, but i will tell you from what i have seen in my area, is they DO NOT back off.

We had a high speed chase thru here a while ago, but after the reduction of maximum chase speeds, and the cops were hammering to keep up with the car. They had the air wing following so there was no need. they knew where he was and where he was going as they had roads blocked to direct him to their final trap point.

i think its a little convenient to say they always had called the chase off just prior.

Haha reminds me of one a mate recorded on the scanner years ago, cant remember it word-for-word but it went something like this...
Cop 1: Red roadbike just registered 135, moving in...
Cop 2: In the area, joining pursuit
Cop 1: Jeezus christ he's moving!
Cop 2: 165 and he's pulling away
Cop 1: I see him.....(pauses).....I lost him
Cop 2: Not enough luck for the both of us on this road. Pursuit over.