This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on
December 3, 2009 10:26 PM.
The previous post in this blog was
Pasadena via Duck.
The next post in this blog is
The game nobody watched.
Many more can be found on the
main index page or by looking through
the archives.
Comments (14)
I wish someone would give me a car to take my kids to daycare an whatnot, even better if it has cool toys
Posted by Robb | December 3, 2009 10:57 PM
PoPo Repo?
Posted by Mojo | December 3, 2009 11:29 PM
I thought it was illegal to leave a car unattended with its ignition on. It's certainly world-class stupid (not that there's anything wrong with that). Why would you do that? Cars need a few seconds of warmup, tops.
While we're on cars, though, one question for the cognoscenti amongst us: is it legal to drive without an odometer? My digital odometer seems to have crapped out -- the trip odometer is stuck on 0.0 and the cumulative one suddenly registers a bizarre figure like 847983, an increase of about 800,000 miles over reality. Speedometer still works, so I'm imagining it's not a cheap mechanical problem but, rather, a wildly overpriced computer repair being required here ... but I don't ever plan on selling my car. Could I sell it "as is" with a broken odometer? Am I breaking the law if I just keep driving?
Car's a Saturn, if that matters.
Posted by George Anonymuncule Seldes | December 4, 2009 12:26 AM
So much for the safety of moving to the suburbs like Damascus. I'll be waiting to hear the story on this one. It should be entertaining.
Posted by Don | December 4, 2009 8:39 AM
Why isn't the Trib asking "Since when do city employees get city cars to haul their kids around?"
Thats the real story here.
Yet again the thugs in blue are "special" and the standards that apply to the rest of society don't apply to them.
Posted by Nonny Mouse | December 4, 2009 9:00 AM
When you get done with the kvetching, make a donation here and do something positive:
Z-Man Scholarship Fund
Posted by mp97303 | December 4, 2009 9:13 AM
Hehe. I don't have the numbers at hand, but that won't stop me from saying it anyway. I know that about 15 years ago, when we bought the cops their now-aging GM rides, that the mods to those cars ran about $120k-a-pop. What's that number now? Notice too there was no tactical inventory reported on by the Trib? Were there weapons, and other gear, in this vehicle when it was absconded with?
Posted by Vance Longwell | December 4, 2009 9:40 AM
Vance, the article says there were no weapons in the vehicle, although it does have lights and siren.
At least it was stolen in Damascus. I'd heard the Portland Police long ago gave up on actively searching for stolen cars.
Posted by darrelplant | December 4, 2009 10:09 AM
I thought it was illegal to leave a car unattended with its ignition on.
Why the heck would that be illegal?
Posted by Jon | December 4, 2009 1:08 PM
I think because it contributes to car thefts.
Posted by George Anonymuncule Seldes | December 4, 2009 5:03 PM
Ah, the Google comes to the rescue again, I wasn't imagining this:
Florida:
Posted by George Anonymuncule Seldes | December 4, 2009 5:11 PM
George -
Oregon law appears to be different.
See, ORS 811.585.
811.585 Failure to secure motor vehicle; affirmative defense; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure to secure a motor vehicle if the person is driving or is in charge of a motor vehicle and:
(a) The person permits the vehicle to stand unattended on a highway without first doing all of the following:
(A) Stopping the engine.
(B) Turning the front wheels to the curb or side of the highway when standing upon any grade.
(C) Locking the ignition.
(D) Removing the key from the ignition.
(E) Effectively setting the brake on the vehicle; or
(b) The person is the owner of an unattended motor vehicle parked on a highway in violation of paragraph (a) of this subsection.
(2) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution of the owner of a vehicle under subsection (1)(b) of this section that the use of the vehicle was not authorized by the owner, either expressly or by implication.
(3) The offense described in this section, failure to secure a motor vehicle, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §676; 1985 c.16 §326; 1987 c.687 §7; 1995 c.383 §81]
Oregon law seems to be limited to leaving a car running with keys in it on;y ona public street. It apparent;y is OK wiyh the Legislature if you ddo it in your driveway.
Posted by Nonny Mouse | December 4, 2009 6:03 PM
Hmmm... if this moron got disciplined, I can just bet the union would be whining and crying and threatening because cops should not be subject to rules ... they should use city cars for personal business and they can not take care of their employer's property... oh wait don't the feds have some charge like "theft of honest services" that covers dishonest behavior by employees?
Posted by LucsAdvo | December 4, 2009 7:29 PM
Maybe Randy Leonard was just borrowing the unmarked vehicle. He wanted to run around on some police calls. Just like McMillan & Wife (oops, maybe just McMillan then)
Posted by RANZ | December 5, 2009 9:13 AM