The anger over the ticket probably isn't going to register for a couple days.

I'd just be ecstatic my 5 year old was safe.

Darwin is thwarted once again.

/was Fark down for a few hours? I was getting the shakes

fusillade762: /was Fark down for a few hours? I was getting the shakes

Something happened and I've given up on 'they're blocking me on purpose...'

AverageAmericanGuy: I'd just be ecstatic my 5 year old was safe.

My, how incredibly average of you.

/only just found that pic after GISing top one
//that's what she said...

At 5 years old, both of my kids were smart enough to not run off the edge of a cliff.

Also, the bottom of a river is the perfect place for a Jeep Commander.

That'll be two tickets. One of which is failure to show insurance card, which is now at the bottom of a lake (huffingtonpost.com)

Because he might've not had insurance, and the ticket is waived if he just mails it back in with verification of his insurance at the time.

The other ticket was for failing to use his emergency brake, which caused the car to go bye-bye.

I don't see a problem with any of this.

The cop was being a dick.

/Obvious observation is obvious.

It's not worth taking the time off work to fight the tickets. It is worth taking time off work for an all expense paid trip to the Today Show to tell everybody what a douche the cop is.

Cop needs to be cock-punched. That is all.

If I were the dude I would request the case go to trial.

I hate to play devil's advocate, but I can understand why not making your car stationary before getting out of it is a ticketable offense, considering all the possible consequences of such action.

A cop on the scene reportedly handed him a pair of tickets -- one for the brake, and another for failure to produce his insurance card, which was in the water-bound Jeep -- and told Roder he should have just applied the brake.

"I say, 'Really? And if I did and my boy stepped over the edge and fell instead of the Jeep, then where would I be?' He says, 'Jail, for child endangerment'."

Hope this guy takes the tickets to court just on the principle and makes this cop recite this same line in front of a judge. I bet he will still be able to hear the judge laughing as he exits the building.

How long, exactly, does it take to apply the parking brake on one of these things? On my car it's perhaps a second, which you can do while opening the door with the other hand. Does a Jeep need lifted up with a jack, or welded, or something?

h0t5auce: At 5 years old, both of my kids were smart enough to not run off the edge of a cliff.

Also, the bottom of a river is the perfect place for a Jeep Commander.

Yup.
But, the failure to produce insurance ticket is a dick move.

So his 5 year old kid leaped out of the still moving jeep and started running towards a cliff?

The cop possibly didn't see what happened and just saw the results. He's also probably used to hearing any excuse some lamebrain can think of and wasn't buying that the 5 year old just jumped out of the car and ran headlong towards a cliff.

Why do some people keep their insurance i their glove box? Mine is in my wallet right next to my driver's license. My inurance company is also happy to provide multiple copies so my wife can keep hers in her wallet too.

in before "Rules are rules!"

/ oh..
ArcadianRefugee: That'll be two tickets. One of which is failure to show insurance card, which is now at the bottom of a lake (huffingtonpost.com)

Because he might've not had insurance, and the ticket is waived if he just mails it back in with verification of his insurance at the time.

The other ticket was for failing to use his emergency brake, which caused the car to go bye-bye.

I don't see a problem with any of this.

If his unsecured vehicle had caused damage to somebody else's car/house/person; then, yeah. But just having to call a wrecker to drag it out of the water (unless he could 4-wheel it out himself)... no, you're both dicks.

Um... so? The fact that he was distracted doesn't negate the fact that leaving an un-braked car on an incline endangers the lives of everyone else. The first ticket was appropriate. The second ticket and the comment are what we call "getting off light", because what he should have gotten was his kid taken away for a week or two pending a social services investigation. If your kid is jumping off thirty-foot cliffs your parenting is clearly dangerously insufficient and maybe you're one of the cases where the foster care system is a better option.

KyDave: in before "Rules are rules!"

/ oh..
ArcadianRefugee: That'll be two tickets. One of which is failure to show insurance card, which is now at the bottom of a lake (huffingtonpost.com)

Because he might've not had insurance, and the ticket is waived if he just mails it back in with verification of his insurance at the time.

The other ticket was for failing to use his emergency brake, which caused the car to go bye-bye.

I don't see a problem with any of this.

If his unsecured vehicle had caused damage to somebody else's car/house/person; then, yeah. But just having to call a wrecker to drag it out of the water (unless he could 4-wheel it out himself)... no, you're both dicks.

By this standard, drunk drivers, reckless drives, red light runners, speeders, etc. should only be penalized when they cause an accident.

"Roder had leaped out of the vehicle because his son opened the door and was running straight toward a 35-foot embankment, according to Fox News."

I didn't watch the video. Were there independent witnesses, or is Fox News just reporting the guy's unlikely excuse as fact?

/well, you did let your 5-year-old leap from a moving vehicle and run toward a cliff, but he didn't quite make it before you regained control so... good job

Don't Jeep Commanders have those fancy child safety locks built into the rear doors that prevent said doors from being opened from the inside?

farkityfarker: Yep... rules are rules. Saving a kid's life is certainly not an extenuating circumstance. You're sooo right: parking brakes and drunk drivers are absolutely the same. very good point. How could I have been so blind??!?!

/put a helmet on
//caution: coffee is hot

Jim_Callahan: Um... so? The fact that he was distracted doesn't negate the fact that leaving an un-braked car on an incline endangers the lives of everyone else. The first ticket was appropriate. The second ticket and the comment are what we call "getting off light", because what he should have gotten was his kid taken away for a week or two pending a social services investigation. If your kid is jumping off thirty-foot cliffs your parenting is clearly dangerously insufficient and maybe you're one of the cases where the foster care system is a better option.

Yes, let's let you decide who gets to keep their kids. F*ck off.

If the officer had actually witnessed the whole event, yeah, I'd agree the cop is a dick.

But all the cop knew is that the man failed to properly brake his vehicle and it slipped into the river.

I still don't see the problem with this.

Hmmm.... think the cop could have allowed a bit of leeway here, but more importantly:

1 - five year olds really ought to know better than to go steaming out of a car and running over the edge of the cliff, so either there's something wrong with this kid or he hasn't been taught some fundamental basics of how not to get yourself killed (or he's a lemming). My three year old knows not to jump out of the car and run off without me.

2 - jumping out of your car without putting on the brake means that your car is now an extremely heavy and deadly rolling object. In my mind I picture the dad and son on the edge of the drop saying, "Phew, that was a close one!" just as their Jeep rolls into them and runs them over.

So yes, I'm glad that nobody was hurt but I'm failing to see how the "My kid just did something incredibly dangerous therefore I should be let off doing something equally dangerous" argument works.

Also, does anybody else have the slightest suspicion that the driver might be making up an excuse to get out of a couple of tickets? You know, cop sees the Jeep roll down the embankment and comes over to speak to the driver, driver comes up with story to see if he can get out of the ticket and now has to stick to his story or face penalties for lying to an officer?

KyDave: farkityfarker: Yep... rules are rules. Saving a kid's life is certainly not an extenuating circumstance. You're sooo right: parking brakes and drunk drivers are absolutely the same. very good point. How could I have been so blind??!?!

/put a helmet on
//caution: coffee is hot

"Saving a kid's life" sounds like a bullshiat story to tell the cops/insurance. And if he did ditch the car to save the kid, then not braking seems more likely to be a stupid oversight as he panicked, rather than something necessitated by the rescue. And in any case, crashing the car to save the kid's life was only necessary because his negligence put the kid's life in danger in the first place.

I'm not a "rules are rules" person, but I'm having trouble caring that this guy got a couple of penny ante tickets over both his small child and his moving vehicle being totally out of his control at the same time.

I think he should just be happy that his kid is ok, and maybe learn a lesson about using child safety locks (with which this model Jeep is equipped).

Am I really the only person that doesn't give a flying shiat about other peoples kids? All of the crap you hear about doing whatever for the sake of children, or for the children or what if a child was there makes me feel like I live around stupid people. I honestly don't give two shiats about you or your farking kids or anyone elses.

The simple fact of the matter is this guy has a dumb kid. A kid who jumped out of his jeep and ran to the cliff or whatever like he wanted to jump. The guy gets out of his jeep and saves his little crotch fruit. Sure, good call I guess, I mean, it was his kid. His jeep rolled into the river. He got a ticket for having his jeep in the river.

Great, he saved his kid. I am so farking happy that someone I don't know, will never know or want to know saved his own kid who again I don't know, never will know or care to know. He is the cause of a farking jeep in the river though, that has to be worth at least a small monetary punishment.

I just don't understand what it is about people and how they act about other people's children. Why they give a fark. Maybe there's something wrong with me, I can admit that. Maybe I'm flawed. Maybe I just don't give a shiat though about other people's kids and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

xxdangerbobxx: Am I really the only person that doesn't give a flying shiat about other peoples kids? All of the crap you hear about doing whatever for the sake of children, or for the children or what if a child was there makes me feel like I live around stupid people. I honestly don't give two shiats about you or your farking kids or anyone elses.

The simple fact of the matter is this guy has a dumb kid. A kid who jumped out of his jeep and ran to the cliff or whatever like he wanted to jump. The guy gets out of his jeep and saves his little crotch fruit. Sure, good call I guess, I mean, it was his kid. His jeep rolled into the river. He got a ticket for having his jeep in the river.

Great, he saved his kid. I am so farking happy that someone I don't know, will never know or want to know saved his own kid who again I don't know, never will know or care to know. He is the cause of a farking jeep in the river though, that has to be worth at least a small monetary punishment.

I just don't understand what it is about people and how they act about other people's children. Why they give a fark. Maybe there's something wrong with me, I can admit that. Maybe I'm flawed. Maybe I just don't give a shiat though about other people's kids and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

You never know, that kid could grow up to improperly cook your McBurger and end up killing you. Life is weird like that.

it's a crap law, right??

i got popped for this in chicago. i was driving a rental. the rental is insured per the policy i had and additionally through the rental agency. but hey, i had to fly back out to go to court over it.

it was all dropped, but i still had to fly back and forth to get out of it....

xxdangerbobxx: Maybe I just don't give a shiat though about other people's kids and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing

not at all ? really ?

xxdangerbobxx: Am I really the only person that doesn't give a flying shiat about other peoples kids? ...
I just don't understand what it is about people and how they act about other people's children. Why they give a fark. Maybe there's something wrong with me, I can admit that. Maybe I'm flawed. Maybe I just don't give a shiat though about other people's kids and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

I suppose the exact answer depends on how much you care about other people's grown children, i.e. adults, but so far you sound kind of sociopath-y.

cajunns: I guess the ccops quota was short by two toickets..everthing is alright now for him


WHAT A DICKHEAD COP

I know, right! What a dickhead that cares that where once there wasn't a jeep in the river, now there was in fact a jeep in the river!

xxdangerbobxx: I know, right! What a dickhead that cares that where once there wasn't a jeep in the river, now there was in fact a jeep in the river!

I entirely support your sentiment but BLOODY HELL that was a difficult sentence to read...

/fun though

xxdangerbobxx: cajunns: I guess the ccops quota was short by two toickets..everthing is alright now for him


WHAT A DICKHEAD COP

I know, right! What a dickhead that cares that where once there wasn't a jeep in the river, now there was in fact a jeep in the river!

Ahhh....but once where there was a jeep in the river, now there is in fact no jeep in the river! What of this circumstance should we all make?

xxdangerbobxx: cajunns: I guess the ccops quota was short by two toickets..everthing is alright now for him


WHAT A DICKHEAD COP

I know, right! What a dickhead that cares that where once there wasn't a jeep in the river, now there was in fact a jeep in the river!


What does ... what? Okay, let's work this out step by step:

- Tickets are a deterrent to keep you from doing the behavior again.
- In other words, society wants you to pay the $50 (or whatever) in order to beat it into your thick skull that you mustn't do that again in the future.
- However, deterrents are not productive in emergency situations. This case is a great example: if the loss of a $15,000 vehicle doesn't teach him not to roll Jeeps into the river, an additional $110 in fines isn't going to do it either.
- Officers have the right to issue citations whenever a crime is committed, but they also have the right to waive those citations for minor offenses in extenuating circumstances, such as this one.
- When officers don't use that discretion appropriately, we call them dickheads. Because that is what they are.

Now if the city makes him pay to have the vehicle removed, that's sensible, but a slap-on-the-wrist right after you lost tens of thousands of dollars, nearly lost your kid, and are already going to see huge increases in your insurance rates? That's just a dick move. Surely you can understand why?

AbbeySomeone: Yes, let's let you decide who gets to keep their kids. F*ck off.

At some point, the rest of us will have to live in a society that includes the kid you've trained so poorly that he thinks leaping off a thirty-foot cliff is safe behavior. Yes, I rather think that the rest of us should intervene if you're such a poor parent that your kid is a fantasy Lemming.

Do you have the same stick up your ass about us removing children that are physically beaten by their parents? Because that's significantly less dangerous to the child than teaching them that it's cool to leap down a thirty-foot drop.

It's all fine and good to be libertarian, but at some point you've got to protect people from each other to a degree, and I think a parent that's a threat to his children's lives probably falls into that category whether it's through malice or negligence.

Of course, this is somewhat sarcastic, since I doubt the kid is actually that retarded and I'm just taking the man's bullshiat excuse at face-value for purposes of empathizing with the cop. It's pretty clear that what actually happened was that the kid was in no danger whatsoever (because even a dog, which is basically a permanent 3-5 year old, isn't that stupid), the parent just farked up and put everyone in danger, and this is his weaksauce attempt to cover himself. The fact that his cover story indicates a worse than what actually happened is just funny because stupid people being stupid are funny. It's like your alibi for shoplifting being "no, man, I couldn't have stolen that pack of gum, I was busy looking for the gun I was going to use to murder my wife, and i thought I might have hidden it behind the gum rack."

9beers: It's not worth taking the time off work to fight the tickets. It is worth taking time off work for an all expense paid trip to the Today Show to tell everybody what a douche the cop is.

Correct.

Captain Wingo: a slap-on-the-wrist right after you lost tens of thousands of dollars, nearly lost your kid, and are already going to see huge increases in your insurance rates? That's just a dick move. Surely you can understand why?

It's only a dick move if you believe he really nearly just lost his kid, and this wasn't some story he concocted to try to get out of the ticket + to convince his company to pay out.

We really don't know. Did the guy jump out of his car to try to save his kid? Or did he forget to put his Jeep in gear (a hugely dangerous omission and one that's likely to put him, his kid and anybody else in its path in danger) and then create a story to minimise the repercussions?

If the guy had just crashed his car into a wall then he'd be faced with huge insurance increases and a lost vehicle, but I'd still expect him to get a ticket for driving without due care and attention, or distracted driving, or whatever you call it over there.

You don't get to escape legislative punishment just because the cosmos has made you suffer consequences of your actions.

/but as I say, if the guy really did have to jump out to save his kid then it's a dick move

Kids are stupid. They'll run over a cliff these days at the drop of a hat. And they DON'T understand english either. proper language is gooo goo gah gah.

Jim_Callahan: (because even a dog, which is basically a permanent 3-5 year old, isn't that stupid)

I submitted this only yesterday...

"Dog owners have been warned to keep their pets on leads after a border collie fell from a statue on Tyneside.

Jazz was chasing owner Michael Sinton, 59, on the Lord Collingwood Monument in Tynemouth when he leapt off the base of the statue and plunged 25ft (7.62m).

Mr Sinton from Wallsend, rushed to his aid and was "amazed" to find Jazz running around on the ground.

But later Mr Sinton saw a blood trail on the floor from Jazz, and a PDSA vet found the dog had an injured penis."

Link

One question I see here. How behind on payments was he?

farkityfarker: I hate to play devil's advocate, but I can understand why not making your car stationary before getting out of it is a ticketable offense, considering all the possible consequences of such action.

Improved story: Guy jumps out of vehicle to save kid from falling off cliff. Unattended vehicle with no brake set bumps into of them and knocks them both off of cliff then follows them down and lands on them. No tickets required.

Holy crap, I got a green light. Must be the end of days.

Seems several people saying (trolling?) that the guy deserves the parking brake ticket for not securing his jeep. It's not like he was in a rush to get to Pinkberry because they were almost out of Gummibears. His kid jumped out and went herp-derping towards a cliff. It doesn't matter how stupid your kids are, if you're a good parent, you will love them regardless, and want to protect them. He was most likely panicked and wasn't thinking about the e-brake. (or just putting it in park, since it was probably an automatic).

My brother's wife destroyed a brand new Blackberry when she dove in a pool after her two year old who fell in. She didn't take the time to stop and think "Okay, what do I have on me, that can't get wet?" The first instinct is to save the kid. The cop was being a douche. And the 2nd ticket was especially stupid. How are you supposed to show the insurance card if your jeep is underwater? What if the car had an electical problem and burned, would you still be expected to show your card?

CSB:

Had to go to traffic court for a speeding charge. (Some BS charge about doing 82 in a 55. Thats really worth a citation?) Anyway, the guy in front of me was there for a 'Failure to maintain control" (which is a class1 misdemeanor in VA...punishable by up to a year in jail. Same charge as DUI).
The guy had bee driving down a 55mph area of US 460, when he served to miss a dog. He ended up in a ditch and was injured. Caused no property damage, only hurt himself and his car. The guy had to be sent to a hospital via ambulance. The douchenozzle VA trooper gave him the citation as they were loading him into the truck.
Because he elected not to splatter a dog, which probably would have caused him to wreck anyway.

Fark cops that have no Goddamn common sense.

another view that the cop was a dick or the guy was lying about his kid in a desperate attempt to cover his butt thinking if he confessed to leaving the car in neutral he'd be nailed and the cop decided that. i bet it was a manual trans and he had it in the highest gear and it inched forward over time. if you have a manual you should use the parking brake every time you park.

starlost: another view that the cop was a dick or the guy was lying about his kid in a desperate attempt to cover his butt thinking if he confessed to leaving the car in neutral he'd be nailed and the cop decided that. i bet it was a manual trans and he had it in the highest gear and it inched forward over time. if you have a manual you should use the parking brake every time you park.

even people who drive manuals know this. insurance fraud. plain and simple..

MythDragon: Because he elected not to splatter a dog, which probably would have caused him to wreck anyway.

Unless it was a giant dog he wouldn't have wrecked.

I don't think I woudl have given him such a serious ticket, but I would have given him one.

Happy Hours: Why do some people keep their insurance i their glove box? Mine is in my wallet right next to my driver's license. My inurance company is also happy to provide multiple copies so my wife can keep hers in her wallet too.

Because insurance is required for the vehicle, regardless of who is driving, and it's a hassle to keep the right card for the right car in the right wallet at the right time. Also generally speaking the only need for the certificate is when you're in or near the vehicle, so unless you've driven into a lake or otherwise made your vehicle inaccessible the car is a fairly logical place to store the certificate.

It's also used incredibly rarely -- I often never need mine for the entire 12-month term, and replace the old one having never removed the previous one from it storage location. Storage space on my person it too precious to use for some item I need less than once every 12 months, particularly when there's another storage location that's already within walking distance in any circumstance I would need said item.