New cop cars
 

http://www.wcnc.com/video/news-index...d=220060&shu=1

For those of you with "heavy right feet" you may want to watch this.

yikes!

That 350 was still quite illegal. Can see a front mount, and exhaust.

This has always been the sort of thing i worried about them wising up to. Still, its only 2 cars. They need many to really make an impact

you have got to love the, officer

the message is clear, "I'm going to take your car, and I'm going to enjoy driving it."


I think that i'm ok with this as long as they put steel rims on the cars... they probably get similar gas milage to a crown vic or charger... but I don't think that it's fair to make the public pay for the more expensive tires that would be necessary on those rims...

BS

F*** that. I just don't think it's right for the Police to take possession of the car that you paid for. Fines, imprisonment, sure. But taking my property? I disagree with that. Not cool.

i think that the rationale is that it's deterrent against breaking the law

also people kill innocent people with cars like these

i don't think that it's right, but thats the arguement

I completely agree. Property is property and should not be able to be seized. The only exception to this is property obtained by theft or proceeds from illegal activities like drugs or theft.

Penalties for breaking laws should be fines, jail, etc.

just to fuel the fire... what if the car is financed by breaking the law from winning street races?

I knew someone would bring that up. My argument would be that you had to purchase it before you could street race. You would also have to prove that the money paying for it came from that. In other cases of stolen property or drugs, its much easier to prove, although still hard, where the money came from.

Here is another issue....what happens to the lien holder? The lien holder needs to be paid back before the car goes out of the owners possession. I wonder if tis is taken into account or they just get screwed.

Glad I'm not way off base and the only one that thinks this is wrong at least. You bring up a very good question about what happens to the lienholder. I have to think someone that loses a car like that just stops making the payments, which then totally screws the lienholder. I would guess the law is of the opinion of "that's the risk they took when financing the car for them". Either which way you look at it though, it is just wrong.

I understand that it's a deterrent and that's why they do it, but there should be a line, and I think that is crossing the line. But why draw the line there? They should start seizing the cars of drunk drivers too. They injure and kill FAR more people than street racing and it is a much larger problem. And how about wreckless drivers that drive like maniacs on the freeway. Might as well take their cars too.

Hell, let's take it another step, why don't we start cutting off the fingers of people who graffiti things? That would be a good deterrent. It costs the goverment and property owners billions annually. That would be a good deterrent. My point is, there are plenty of good deterrents for crimes, but there is definitely a line, and they crossed it by taking cars, and now they are rubbing the former owners' noses in it even by using them for law enforcement instead of just auctioning them off or something. Disgusting.