Sphere: Related Content
Sometimes, even when things turn out pretty much how you expected them to, there's just a little something that throws you for a loop. Like this high speed car chase in Sacramento on Sunday. You kind of have to assume that anyone who makes the cops chase them for over 50 miles and at speeds topping 100 mph has: a) done something really wrong, and b) isn't just quite right. I knew that "B" was almost always a given. I didn't know that "A" was optional.
So this woman, a one 47-year old Annette Hurd, had "allegedly struck another car on Highway 12" according to the CBS13.com website, and that's when the chase began. Somehow, this wannabe NASCAR driver managed to drive for fifty miles and, for most of the ride, also managed to avoid most of the little spikey things the cops set out to blow out her tires. But even when she didn't avoid them and flattened her tires, did that stop her? Of course not! This is clearly one determined individual. That's why she kept right on driving, flat tires and all.
Now, at some point, if you're the driver and you thought it was a good idea to lead the cops on a high speed chase in the first place, your judgment is definitely in question. Certainly your decision making process is a little out of whack. But don't you think at the point where your vehicle has no tires that you might reconsider your choice? I mean, at that point, are you still thinking you're going to get away? With no tires?! It's over. Give it up. I don't get it.
The chase finally ends with one of the cops ramming her car with their squad car which caused her to spin out and finally stop. So she's stopped, they pull her out of the car and...well....see for yourself. Behold!
Yeah, see I wasn't expecting that. Nope. Actually, if I hadn't known ahead of time that it was a woman, I likely would have just assumed it was a man. I know, I know. But I've seen COPS! They're almost always dudes! I'm just going with odds! And speaking of odds, what are the chances that the five words that always explain this sort of behavior are applicable here? If you guessed 100% that "authorities believe alcohol was involved" you'd be correct! Bravo!
But I'm not done! There had to be a reason for this asinine little stunt, right? Of course. She had to get her dog home. Wait. What was that?
Correct. Again, according to the CBS13.com website, "Annette said she was tired and a "little bit" intoxicated after swimming all day, but was afraid that her dog would be taken away from her if she was arrested." Of course. Because swimming all day will cause one to become intoxicated. Right. I don't know, call me silly, but she doesn't strike me as much of a swimmer. Drinker? Yes. Swimmer? Not so much.
In an interview from the jail, she told a news correspondent, "I wasn't worried about me, I was worried about losing my dog." Why would you give an interview to the local news when you're sitting in jail? Why? Then again, why would you lead police on a 50 mile high speed chase whilst going 100 mph with the intention of taking your dog home? I'm pretty sure the kind of person that does one of those things is the kind of person that does the other one of those things. In this case, I'm really sure of it.
She also made the ridiculous sounding statement, "I didn't want to hurt anybody. I wasn't trying to hurt nobody." Hey, jackass! Were you trying to not hurt anybody? Most people who "don't want to hurt anybody" don't engage in 100 mph car chases with the cops so that they can get their dog home! Given as how you seem to have an IQ just a tad under that of a potted palm, it's a wonder that no one, including your freaking dog, was killed.