# Cops and cars **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [April 26, 2006, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291 "2006-04-26T13:42:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![betenoir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/258eb7/32.png) [@betenoir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoir)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/1 "2006-04-26T13:42:05Z")
[http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcommandeer.html](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcommandeer.html) I don’t get it. Isn’t pretty clearly at odds with the fifth amendment? The government can’t deprive someone of their property without due process? In the case of Katrina and pharmacies or similar situations it seems rather more justified. A lot of lives were at stake. And they’re taking what was meant to be sold anyway. So it wouldn’t be hard to compensate the person (although apparently…they don’t.) But cars? From a private citizen? When there might not be any immediate peril? (like a fleeing bank robber). What if it’s irreplacable (not that they’re going to try)? Even if it’s not damaged what if it causes the person to lose his job, or not get to his doctor or not pick up his children? Ie causing undue hardship. Seems pretty unconstitutional to me. ---
**Author:** ![cerberus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/2 "2006-04-26T14:34:53Z")
Emergency use is the rationale. Temporary or even permanent taking of property by the government is a part of the game. They key is appropriate taking and recompense. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/3 "2006-04-26T15:21:23Z")
[QUOTE=cerberus] Emergency use is the rationale. [/QUOTE] Well, sort of. Courts give several reasons for denying recovery. 1. The purpose of the confiscation. They say its a use of the police power instead of eminent domain. _Cf._ , [McCoy v. Sanders](http://www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/64948/) (Poor Mr. McCoy. Somebody dumps a body in his fish pond. The cops drain it. His fish die. He gets nothing but sashimi.) 2. It’s a borrowing–not a taking. No compensation for temporary takings. _Cf._, [Jones v. Philadelphia](http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/014202u.pdf) (pdf at p. 7) 3. I’m just going to call this category “other” for now. \*Blackman \* is a perfect example. In _Blackman_, the court found that the officer lacked authority to commandeer the plaintiff’s vehicle. Because he lacked authority, no compensation was required. :eek: I bet you find this hard to believe. > [@](#): > > BLACKMAN ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, APPELLEE > > No. 28850 > > Supreme Court of Ohio > > May 27, 1942, Decided > > APPEAL from the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county. > > Early on the morning of June 16, 1937, while driving his private automobile along Central Parkway near Race street in the city of Cincinnati, appellant Blackman was stopped by a city patrolman who directed him to pursue another car, an occupant of which had fired some shots, apparently at persons sleeping in the nearby park. > > The patrolman entered Blackman’s car and the chase began at a speed of thirty-five to forty miles per hour. Encountering wet streets, Blackman reduced his speed. In approaching a motor truck parked at an angle he applied his brakes, skidded and collided with the truck, damaging his automobile to the extent of $ 225. > > Blackman’s insurer, The Equitable Fire & Marine Insurance Company, paid him his loss above 50, took an assignment of his claim in the amount of 175 and joined with him in an action against the city of Cincinnati, brought in the Municipal Court, to recover the sum of $ 225. > > Adverse judgments were rendered in the Municipal Court, the Court of Common Pleas and the Court of Appeals and the cause is now in this court pursuant to the allowance of the motion to require the Court of Appeals to certify its record. > > 1. Eminent domain is the power of the state, or an agency designated by the state, to take private property for a necessary public use, and its exercise depends upon the existence of a statute which either by express words or plain implication authorizes the employment of the power. > > 2. Statutes delegating the power of eminent domain are to be strictly construed, and where an appropriation of private property for public use is made by a governmental agent without authority, no compensation can be recovered from the government. > > 3. Section 12857, General Code, imposing the duty upon an individual, when requested, to assist a peace officer in apprehending or subduing a suspected or convicted criminal, is not designed or intended as a measure covering the appropriation of private property for a public use, and one whose personal property is damaged while aiding a municipal patrolman to make an arrest at the latter’s instance may not compel a municipality to pay for the loss. > > COUNSEL: Messrs. Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith & Hoadly and Mr. Harold K. Goldstein, for appellants. > > Mr. John D. Ellis, city solicitor, Mr. Ed F. Alexander and Mr. John J. Dreyer, for appellee. > > JUDGES: ZIMMERMAN, J. WEYGANDT, C. J., TURNER, WILLIAMS, MATTHIAS and HART, JJ., concur. BETTMAN, J., not participating. > > OPINIONBY: ZIMMERMAN > > Appellants base their rights of recovery solely on the ground “that whenever the sovereignty, or any of its instrumentalities, in the performance of governmental functions, appropriates private property for public use, that sovereignty or instrumentality must make compensation therefor,” citing Section 19, Article I of the Constitution of Ohio. > > “Eminent domain” is the power of the state, or an agency designated by the state, to take private property for a necessary public use, and its exercise depends upon the existence of a statute which either by express words or plain implication authorizes the employment [\*\*\*4] of the power. Giesy v. Cincinnati, W. & Z. Rd. Co., 4 Ohio St., 308; 15 Ohio Jurisprudence, 701, Section 11 et seq. > > Statutes delegating the power of eminent domain are to be strictly construed. 15 Ohio Jurisprudence, 704, Section 12. And when an appropriation of private property for public use is made by a governmental agent without authority, no compensation can be recovered from the government. 20 Corpus Juris, 646, Section 124. > > It has been held that “the taking of private property by an officer of the United States for public use, without being authorized, expressly or by necessary implication, to do so by some act of Congress, is not the act of the government.” Hooe v. United States, 218 U.S., 322, 336, 54 L. Ed., 1055, 1060, 31 S. Ct., 85. > > Recognizing the necessity of a statute to support their position, appellants rely upon Section 12857, General Code, which reads: > > “Whoever, when called upon by a sheriff, coroner, constable or other ministerial officer to assist in apprehending a person charged with, or convicted of, a criminal offense, or in securing such person when so apprehended, or in conveying him to prison, neglects or refuses so to do, shall be fined not more than fifty dollars.” > > Assuming the applicability of this statute to the facts of the present case, can it reasonably be said to do more than impose the duty upon an individual, when requested, to render personal services with the means at his command in assisting a peace officer to apprehend or subdue a suspected or convicted criminal? Under its wording, strictly construed, can the statute be regarded as delegating to a municipal police officer the power of eminent domain, so as to subject the municipality to liability on that basis for injury occurring to the property of one while helping the officer to make an arrest at the latter’s insistence? > > This court is of the opinion that the quoted section was not designed or intended as a measure covering the appropriation of private property for a public use, and may not be invoked by the appellants to compel the city of Cincinnati to pay for the harm done Blackman’s automobile when it collided with the truck. > > On moral grounds the city of Cincinnati could well experience the urge to reimburse appellants for their loss, but we find no legal basis upon which it can be forced to respond. > > The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly affirmed. ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/4 "2006-04-26T16:51:37Z")
Just wanted to offer kudos to Gfactor for a well researched and written report on an interesting topic. Good job! ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/5 "2006-04-26T17:18:44Z")
[QUOTE=vetbridge] Just wanted to offer kudos to Gfactor for a well researched and written report on an interesting topic. Good job! [/QUOTE] Thanks. For the record, a family friend was a career police officer. When he retired, he was second in command his city’s police department. We had dinner a month or so ago, and I couldn’t resist asking him about this. I had already written the report, but I thought he might have some cool stories. He didn’t. I asked him if he’d ever commandeered a car, and he said, “What? Like in the movies?” When I told him about my findings, he was quite dismayed. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/6 "2006-04-26T19:27:26Z")
After the _Blackman_ decision, could Blackman and the insurance company civilly sue the police officer for damages? Usually he would be immune, but if the court ruled that he took property without authority I’d think this wouldn’t hold. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/7 "2006-04-26T20:22:28Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] After the _Blackman_ decision, could Blackman and the insurance company civilly sue the police officer for damages? Usually he would be immune, but if the court ruled that he took property without authority I’d think this wouldn’t hold. [/QUOTE] Probably not. Ohio sovereign immunity law is murky, [http://www.dispatch.com/news/special/immunity/badg622imm.html](http://www.dispatch.com/news/special/immunity/badg622imm.html), not to mention we are talking about what a court would have decided fifty years ago. Neverthless, my research suggests that police officers had immunity for such things. If the officer knew he lacked authority to take the vehicle, it might have been a different story. Even then, _Blackman_’s holding is not crystal clear: [QUOTE=Blackman] Under its wording, strictly construed, can the statute be regarded as delegating to a municipal police officer the power of eminent domain, so as to subject the municipality to liability on that basis for injury occurring to the property of one while helping the officer to make an arrest at the latter’s insistence? [/QUOTE] It doesn’t really come out and say that the officer can’t take the car–just that he can’t condemn it. I know I said that the court held that he couldn’t commandeer it, and I think that is a rational reading of the case. But the case would better test the limits of immunity if the officer had demanded possession of the car. He didn’t. Instead, he ordered Blackman to chase the fleeing vehicle. The statute authorized the officer to call upon Blackman to assist him. That’s really all the officer did. Blackman crashed his own vehicle. A subtle distinction, sure, but here it could make a difference. ---
**Author:** ![Iateyogurt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8baadc/32.png) [@Iateyogurt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iateyogurt)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/8 "2006-04-26T20:39:26Z")
[QUOTE=betenoir] [http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcommandeer.html](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcommandeer.html) I don’t get it. Isn’t pretty clearly at odds with the fifth amendment? The government can’t deprive someone of their property without due process? . [/QUOTE] Amendments don’t mean anything anymore. We like to think we still abide by them, but really they are just garbage from a bygone era. Free speech? Doesn’t exist anymore. I can think of several words I am not allowed to utter in society for fear of being incarcerated. Who knows whom you may offend? ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/9 "2006-04-26T21:12:44Z")
[QUOTE=betenoir] [http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcommandeer.html](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcommandeer.html) I don’t get it. Isn’t pretty clearly at odds with the fifth amendment? The government can’t deprive someone of their property without due process? In the case of Katrina and pharmacies or similar situations it seems rather more justified. A lot of lives were at stake. And they’re taking what was meant to be sold anyway. So it wouldn’t be hard to compensate the person (although apparently…they don’t.) But cars? From a private citizen? When there might not be any immediate peril? (like a fleeing bank robber). What if it’s irreplacable (not that they’re going to try)? Even if it’s not damaged what if it causes the person to lose his job, or not get to his doctor or not pick up his children? Ie causing undue hardship. Seems pretty unconstitutional to me. [/QUOTE] This is based on a common misunderanding of the nature of constitutional law, which sees the Constitution and statute law as standing in relationship to one another roughly as Euclidean postulates to derived theorems. Nothing could be further from the truth. The basic law of both the US federal government and 49 of the 50 states (Louisiana being a special case) is the existing law of England (_not_ the United Kingdom) as it applied in the Colonies on the morning of July 2, 1776. The Constitution is only a set of rules that is fitted on top of that. The ancient power of the _posse comitatus_ is derived from those English laws (and, for all I know, from the laws of the Roman Empire before them), and if you had asked the members of the 1st Congress whether the 5th Amendment had anything to do with that power, they would have laughed in your face. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/10 "2006-04-26T21:20:04Z")
[QUOTE=John W. Kennedy] if you had asked the members of the 1st Congress whether the 5th Amendment had anything to do with that power, they would have laughed in your face. [/QUOTE] They would have said that the Fifth Amendment only covered actions by the federal government. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/11 "2006-04-26T21:25:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Amendments don’t mean anything anymore. We like to think we still abide by them, but really they are just garbage from a bygone era. Free speech? Doesn’t exist anymore. I can think of several words I am not allowed to utter in society for fear of being incarcerated. Who knows whom you may offend? One can certainly make a case that things are going downhill in this country. One can even make the case that we’re approaching the situation you describe. But one shouldn’t lose hope just yet: Were freedom of speech truly gone, you would not even have been able to say what you just did. What damage has been done, can still be undone. ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/12 "2006-04-26T22:50:07Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] But one shouldn’t lose hope just yet: Were freedom of speech truly gone, you would not even have been able to say what you just did. [/QUOTE] I will be watching to see if **lateyogurt** is heard from again! ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/13 "2006-04-26T22:51:55Z")
[QUOTE=John W. Kennedy] The basic law of both the US federal government and 49 of the 50 states (Louisiana being a special case) is the existing law of England (_not_ the United Kingdom) as it applied in the Colonies on the morning of July 2, 1776. The Constitution is only a set of rules that is fitted on top of that. [/QUOTE] 😕 Not really. The basic law of the states is whatever their courts and legislatures say it is, subject to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution: > [@](#): > > This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. While state law began with the adoption of English common law, all have modified it by judicial decision and by statute. Some interpretive theories consider existing practices and common law rules existing when a particular provision of the Constitution was drafted, debated, or ratified as evidence that that practice or rule was not considered a violation of the provision. _See, e.g._, [ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=165&invol=275) (services which have from time immemorial been treated as exceptional shall not be regarded as within the purview of the Thirteenth Amendment). But even then, there is dispute about what the timing ought to be. The Constitution was not drafted unitl 1787, and it was not ratified until 1789. The Bill of Rights, which includes the Fifth Amendment, was not ratifed until 1791. But most significantly, no court has offered the existence of _posse comitatus_ at English common law, as Colonial law, or as state law, as a reason for denying compensation. The history does appear in many of the cases, and it is a possible psychological reason for the courts’ decisions. But it just doesn’t show up on the radar as a juridical hook. That might have something to do with the point I made before. The Bill of Rights only applied to actions by the federal government. It wasn’t until 1868 that the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Few legal historians contend that the “original meaning” of that amendment required incorporation of the Bill of Rights (which meant that the Fifth Amendment would finally apply to the states), and it wasn’t until the early twentieth century that the Court began selectively applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/incorp.htm](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/incorp.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2006, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/14 "2006-04-27T00:21:21Z")
I am consumed with jealousy. I had explored this topic myself for a Staff Report, although I never got beyond the draft stage. Now **gfactor** has taken it on and created a comprehensive, well-researched report that is better than I could have hoped to come up with. Truly excellent job. ---
**Author:** ![Agnostic\_Pagan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c4cdca/32.png) [@Agnostic\_Pagan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agnostic_Pagan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2006, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/15 "2006-04-27T02:03:36Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I am consumed with jealousy. I had explored this topic myself for a Staff Report, although I never got beyond the draft stage. Now **gfactor** has taken it on and created a comprehensive, well-researched report that is better than I could have hoped to come up with. Truly excellent job. [/QUOTE] This is why I love the Dope. I came in to give my appreciation to **Gfactor** also. I then noticed **Bricker** had made the lastest entry. “I bet he found something to nitpick,” I thought. In a good way, of course. But nope, just more praise. **Gfactor** , your ability to digest all that case law, and then write a clear, concise (well, as much as the law allows) and entertaining report is truly outstanding. I am currently taking Business Law. I have learned how difficult that task is. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2006, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/16 "2006-04-27T03:01:23Z")
Thanks guys. I want to make clear that \*\*Ed Zotti \*\* has everything to do with my reports being readable and engaging. That guy can edit. 😃 Thanks **Ed**. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2006, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/17 "2006-04-27T05:45:41Z")
Although \*\* Gfactor\*\* is on rock solid legal ground, there are plenty of police departments who won’t do this sort of thing. Whether it’s 'cause thry’re nice people, fear of being sued or whatever, I couldn’t pass comment. I managed to dig up [this PDF](http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/downloads/police_pdf13380.pdf) from Cincinnati. > [@](#): > > Officers wearing plainclothes or using unmarked vehicles will avoid making stops of suspected vehicles and will not engage in vehicle pursuits. The danger presented to officers and citizens is much greater than when uniformed officers with marked vehicles make the initial contact. Or there’s this from [UT](http://www.utexas.edu/police/manual/a5.html) > [@](#): > > Police vehicles without emergency lights and sirens will not be operated as emergency vehicles. If you’re forbidden from using an umarked police car, the likelyhood of being allowed to use a random car off the street has to be zero (at least in these juristrictions). On a different note, there was scene in one of those cop films (Bad Boys??) where Will Smith chases down the bad guys in his Ferrari and it gets pretty beat up. He goes back to the station and his boss says something along the lines of “Our insurance only covers Official Police Cars, not personal vehicles. You’ll be paying for your own reapirs”. ---
**Author:** ![betenoir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/258eb7/32.png) [@betenoir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoir)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2006, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/18 "2006-04-27T08:09:19Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I am consumed with jealousy. I had explored this topic myself for a Staff Report, although I never got beyond the draft stage. Now **gfactor** has taken it on and created a comprehensive, well-researched report that is better than I could have hoped to come up with. Truly excellent job. [/QUOTE] I’d still like to hear you take on it, Bricker. 🙂 And I still think it’s a relavent question, as, constituntitional law has long been Law. The process of incorperating the Bill of Rights into State law has been going on for quite some time. And thanks Gfactor, might take me some time to assimilate all that information…but certainly worth it. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2006, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/19 "2006-04-27T13:09:34Z")
**Bricker** , if you’re still interested in doing Staff Reports, of course, please email me. You’ve written two very interesting ones, and we’d be delighted to have you do more. ---
**Author:** ![Iateyogurt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8baadc/32.png) [@Iateyogurt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iateyogurt)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2006, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291/20 "2006-04-27T17:07:10Z")
[QUOTE=vetbridge] I will be watching to see if **lateyogurt** is heard from again! [/QUOTE] PEEP. I should start a new thread for my own rant, but I find it pointless to say the Amendments serve as any kind or ruling. I don’t like how one is strictly for “free speech” I’ve seen people, in this country, go to court for using certain English words in speech which simply offended someone. The Amendments should be all-or-nothing, not “gee well he kinda made that guy mad so maybe in this case it doesn’t apply.” But I digress… [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-and-cars/354291.md?page=2)