Mr. Jones Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Shanton Let's say you mount up slicks on someones wheel. The tire clearly states that they are for off road use only. Now, This person drives off with the slicks mounted on the vehicle. You know that they are not being transported off of the car, but mounted onto the car itself. If they get into an accident and possibly kill someone, you will be held accountable. For one it is illegal. Two you mounted them knowing it was illegal to use on the street. Now, as far as going after GM and NOS and all the other BS companies for aftermarket parts. They clearly state for OFF ROAD USE ONLY. Thus, that is there way out of any charges being brought against them. Now you just sound mentally challenged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neonkiller Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Shanton Let's say you mount up slicks on someones wheel. The tire clearly states that they are for off road use only. Now, This person drives off with the slicks mounted on the vehicle. You know that they are not being transported off of the car, but mounted onto the car itself. If they get into an accident and possibly kill someone, you will be held accountable. For one it is illegal. Two you mounted them knowing it was illegal to use on the street. Now, as far as going after GM and NOS and all the other BS companies for aftermarket parts. They clearly state for OFF ROAD USE ONLY. Thus, that is there way out of any charges being brought against them. There DOT street legal. Thats what a cheater slick is. duh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedrx7 Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Now you just sound mentally challenged. Good point there, i see where you are coming from. That is a valid argument, you are far beyond my intellectual capabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedrx7 Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 There DOT street legal. Thats what a cheater slick is. duh I said Slicks not Dot drag radials or cheater slicks...duh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neonkiller Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Well I am guilty, I mount up tons of tires and customers say they will race on them, Dunno where, dunno why, Dont even care. I Guess maybe the people who make cheater slicks AKA street/drag use should be up for grabs also. Your statements are weak and I am sticking to my opinion on what should be done. Going after someone else that had nothing to do with his cars action is not the way the DA should go. I am quoting myself for you to see, Maybe you should quote and reply correctly. You cannot quote someone to prove them wroong with your own theory of things they said. http://www.vwparts.net/mm5/graphics/00000001/dotslick.gif THis is a cheater slick made by M&H CHEATER SLICKS are DOT approved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99FLHRCI Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 I am quoting myself for you to see, Maybe you should quote and reply correctly. You cannot quote someone to prove them wroong with your own theory of things they said. http://www.vwparts.net/mm5/graphics/00000001/dotslick.gif THis is a cheater slick made by M&H CHEATER SLICKS are DOT approved. Just to prove an example of the manufacturer clearing themselves of any possible charges, this is taken directly from M&H's website. # Due to conditions under which they are expected to operate M&H Racemaster tires are sold as is and M&H Tire Company Inc., makes no warranty express or implied as to the merchantability, fitness for any particular purpose or otherwise with respect to M&H Racemaster tires and shall not be liable for any special or consequential damages arising out of use thereof. # All D.O.T. tires have passed D.O.T. requirements but have reduced skid depth to facilitate racing without the expense of buffing of 50 to 60% of the skid that is standard on D.O.T. tires produced for normal highway use. Due to the reduced skid depth these tires are not recommended for normal highway use and are not economical for normal highway use as the expected miles of wear is greatly reduced due in part to the original shallow skid depth. In addition they note "Designed For Dry Pavement Racing Only". They know what people intend them to be used for but, they do everything they have to to make that intended use against there policy. If M&H was brought to trial all of these would be used in addition to them claiming that they are intended for track events limited to street legal cars. Any use other then that is not their intended use and outside of the design specs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedrx7 Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 I am quoting myself for you to see, Maybe you should quote and reply correctly. You cannot quote someone to prove them wroong with your own theory of things they said. http://www.vwparts.net/mm5/graphics/00000001/dotslick.gif THis is a cheater slick made by M&H CHEATER SLICKS are DOT approved. I didnt quote you, i just said "shanton" I was giving an example of a way of how mounting a tire could come back at you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neonkiller Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Just to prove an example of the manufacturer clearing themselves of any possible charges, this is taken directly from M&H's website. # Due to conditions under which they are expected to operate M&H Racemaster tires are sold as is and M&H Tire Company Inc., makes no warranty express or implied as to the merchantability, fitness for any particular purpose or otherwise with respect to M&H Racemaster tires and shall not be liable for any special or consequential damages arising out of use thereof. # All D.O.T. tires have passed D.O.T. requirements but have reduced skid depth to facilitate racing without the expense of buffing of 50 to 60% of the skid that is standard on D.O.T. tires produced for normal highway use. Due to the reduced skid depth these tires are not recommended for normal highway use and are not economical for normal highway use as the expected miles of wear is greatly reduced due in part to the original shallow skid depth. In addition they note "Designed For Dry Pavement Racing Only". They know what people intend them to be used for but, they do everything they have to to make that intended use against there policy. If M&H was brought to trial all of these would be used in addition to them claiming that they are intended for track events limited to street legal cars. Any use other then that is not their intended use and outside of the design specs. Either way a good lawyer and the funds to back up a law suit you can get what you want from anyone even M and H. Still does not prove they could be liable. It says nothing about street racing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Well I am guilty, I mount up tons of tires and customers say they will race on them, Dunno where, dunno why, Dont even care. I Guess maybe the people who make cheater slicks AKA street/drag use should be up for grabs also. Your statements are weak and I am sticking to my opinion on what should be done. Going after someone else that had nothing to do with his cars action is not the way the DA should go. if you want to go so far as to walk through all the steps including causing a death and testing the law then go right ahead. in the example you asked about I gave my opinion and don't believe you'd go down and I gave statements as to why...if you want to call them weak statements, the so be it. now you and other obviously feel the actions the DA is taking isn't the way it "should go" but according to the law it is. that said, you can go through life as you wish, but realize at some point as in a case like this, you and the law may clash and the end results will be as some people put it....a life being ruined; but don't blame the law for doing that to you. those that put the events in motion, begining with the criminal act are the ones who are to blame. what many aren't seeing is my last statement....who is to blame? was it soley george as some are saying? the DA doesn't think so nor does a grand jury and those are the ones that count. they are going pursue this to the point at which the events were put in motion, weigh that against responsibility and go after all that are seen as putting the events in motion that lead to the outcome. call that all weak-sauce if you wish, but it's a fact and it will play out. maybe Brandon will walk, maybe he'll plea it out, maybe he'll go down on all three...but it will play out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillJoy Posted December 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 blah blah blah http://www.snapoffracing.com/forums/images/smilies/deadhorse.gif KillJoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 I used to rock straight up ET Drags 24/7. Sup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 That is neither correct, nor intelligent. You fail. Hard. Edit: The part about the girl's family wanting cash and that they will sue if he gets convicted is 100% correct. Everything else you said was bullshit though... show me where I'm incorrect and fail. a civil suite is likely to happen and perhaps not just with Brandon, but it doesn't depend on "if" he is convicted. he can walk and still be found guilty in a civil matter as could others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 show me where I'm incorrect and fail. a civil suite is likely to happen and perhaps not just with Brandon, but it doesn't depend on "if" he is convicted. he can walk and still be found guilty in a civil matter as could others. True. Look at OJ Simpson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putty Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 True. Look at OJ Simpson. Guilty 2 counts of murder...just the other week! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 The police are monitoring this whole website. This is the major reason why I have been seriously thinking about not posting on here anymore. Seriously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tbutera2112 Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 i wish i could get paid to surf this site lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Seriously? I hope they know they're uesless fucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedrx7 Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 I hope they know they're uesless fucks. If you get pulled over later we all know why Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 If you get pulled over later we all know why Fuck them, I get pulled over all the time for bullshit anyway, what else is new. I've had a gun pulled on me for a fucking plate light - I told the guy I had a CCW and I WASN'T carrying, dude pulls screaming SIR WHY WOULD YOU TELL ME THAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A GUN ON YOU?! Uh, so you don't get freaked out when you run my info, you fucking cocksucker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Guilty 2 counts of murder...just the other week! No murder. Armed robbery and kidnapping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 i wish i could get paid to surf this site lol Wait, I'm at work.... drinking coffee.... browsing CR..... give me some donuts and a badge!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Wait, I'm at work.... drinking coffee.... browsing CR..... give me some donuts and a badge!! You'd get just as much done in a day as a typical CPD officer. I should be on that payroll as well, that's all I do at work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Apex Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Check the ORC about tires, wether the tire says "DOT" or not that doesn't make them legal for the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99ta Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 pdqgp - might as well give up. Guys these charges are for real. read the law. these are charges that weren't just thrown together, I can garuntee they were well thought out. I am not a law scholar and I know that if I was street racing and my compition killed someone I would be going down. I completly DISAGREE with the law, but its the law. How many times does tim have to post the law lang and prove this case meets all the req? We all may not agree with it, but thats what it is. I think the key to this whole situation is going to be whether they can prove they were actually racing that night. Personally I don't see it happening, as brandon would have been given a citation for streetracing. But arguing with Tim for 9 pages isn't proving anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 pdqgp - might as well give up. Guys these charges are for real. read the law. these are charges that weren't just thrown together, I can garuntee they were well thought out. I am not a law scholar and I know that if I was street racing and my compition killed someone I would be going down. I completly DISAGREE with the law, but its the law. How many times does tim have to post the law lang and prove this case meets all the req? We all may not agree with it, but thats what it is. I think the key to this whole situation is going to be whether they can prove they were actually racing that night. Personally I don't see it happening, as brandon would have been given a citation for streetracing. But arguing with Tim for 9 pages isn't proving anything. Fully agreed. The law is the law and it doesn't always make sense. Sad, but true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.