Asshole Cop
RedXIII
scanner in my car. I tell him it's a hobby and that NJ state scanner law
states that having a scanner in your vehicle is not illegal unless it's used
for commiting a crime or evading police. Which is true. It's says so right
here:
http://www.siscanner.8m.com/laws.html
and here:
http://www.maxpages.com/frequencies/NJ_Laws
and here:
http://www.fordyce.org/scanning/scanning_info/nj-laws.html
That wasn't good enough for that asshole, so after he writes me for not
having a seat belt on, he tells me that the "NJ scanner law stuff is
hogwash" and that unless I'm a tow truck driver, EMT, fire
fighter....(insert own bullshit) that I can't have it in my car and that he
has 30 days to decide if he wants to charge me with the crime of having it
in my car.
What should I do? I know for a fact that it's not illegal and this asshole
harrassed me just cuz he was bored i suppose.
--
Get all the lastest info on the effort to liberate the Iraqi people, brought
to you by the greatest country on Earth.
Death to Islam! Death to Saddam!
God Bless The U.S.A.!
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/RedXIII1/Info.html
(Re-worded entirely)
The following is a list of morons.
That's all. Just morons. Doesn't matter
what they've done or what they said,
it's all been equally moronic.
The moron list: (Now in order of highest to lowest stupidity)
The top moron in any group on Usenet is Gandalf Grey -
ganda...@infectedmail.com - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater (Yes
Hanson. I do post your name in every one of my posts and now you're at the
top)
Bush Busta / A.K.A Jim Kennemur - Bush...@America.com -
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater (Usually giving Gandalf the reach
around)
banjocat - banj...@bellsouth.net - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
(Fuck you and you threats)
Gary Roselles - rose...@enetis.net - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
(Escapee from Rapid City Regional Hospital's psychiatric unit)
Dr. Fred Hambrecht Sr - w4...@charter.net - rec.radio.scanner (Threatened to
tell my ISP cuz I was cussin' on Usenet. Didn't work)
Al Patrick - a...@inet4u.com - rec.radio.shortwave (Thinks God kills people
for listening to Rock & Roll)
Usenet User - pke...@mil.edu - rec.radio.scanner
Jon Van Allen - kf...@qwest.net - rec.radio.scanner
MnMikew - MNMi...@aol.com - rec.radio.scanner
Lou Scannon - sca...@lmountain.com - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Steve Hiner - shi...@tampabay.rr.com - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
ad lib - leed...@yahoo.com - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
TW. - tan...@comcast.net - rec.radio.scanner
Never anonymous Bud - the...@san.rr.com - rec.radio.scanner
John T. Kennedy - jt...@no-treason.com -
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
DeWayne - k9...@indy.rr.com - rec.radio.scanner
Willy - willyc...@hotSPAM.com - rec.radio.scanner
GrtPmpkin32 - grtpm...@aol.com - rec.radio.shortwave
Baudolino - Baud...@wi.rr.com - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Aozotorp - aozo...@aol.com - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Donald L Ferrt - wolfb...@mindspring.com -
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
X98 - x...@earthlink.net - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater (Bin-Laden /
David Koresh Crossbreed)
M. Yoda - mini...@yahoo.com - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
HH2000 - hh2...@aol.com - soc.culture.iraq
A Voice of Reason - fur...@whereintheworld.org - soc.culture.iraq
Tempest - tem...@hotmail.com -soc.culture.iraq
Tim Vanhoof - timva...@gmx.net - soc.culture.iraq
Trebor - tre...@my-deja.com - soc.culture.france
pkgojak - pkg...@mydeja.com - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
B. Nice - seattled...@hotmail.com -
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Dr. Politiko - drpol...@hotmail.com - soc.culture.iraq (Likes defeated
dictator Saddam Hussein)
Zombix - zombixTR...@zombix.ma.cx -
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater (Just another America hater)
Nick - kn...@otenet.gr - soc.culture.iraq (Self -Proclaimed stand in for
Iraqi Information Minister)
banana - ban...@borve.demon.co.uk - soc.culture.iraq (Can't back up his
claims with credible sources)
gorgonzola2924 - gorgonz...@hotmail.com - soc.culture.iraq (Thinks
comedy spoofs of the fallen Iraqi regime are unfunny, because he loves
Saddam.)
Christy D - davie...@alvillage.net - rec.radio.shortwave (Wannabe
Newsgroup Moderator)
Road Warrior - 66.74.74.29 - soc.culture.iraq (Get's all his news and
opinions from Hollywood talking heads)
The Newsest Moron is: Pa...@usa.net - 4.pwlr2.xdsl.nauticom.net -
rec.radio.shortwave (Jealous cuz he wasn't on the list. I'm happy to oblige
though.)
Paul Keenleyside
"RedXIII" <x...@x.com> wrote in message
news:XiGdnQpVrN5...@comcast.com...
> So this asshole cop pulls me over today and starts asking me why I have a
> scanner in my car. I tell him it's a hobby and that NJ state scanner law
> states that having a scanner in your vehicle is not illegal unless it's
used
> for commiting a crime or evading police. Which is true. It's says so right
> here:
From looking at it, it may be true that the laws in NJ don't clearly and
distinctly prohibit the possession of a scanner, unless
that scanner is used in the committing of a crime, but best to look for the
most up to date version of NJ laws as laws
change and one of the pages is dated 1995.
> That wasn't good enough for that asshole, so after he writes me for not
> having a seat belt on,
he gotcha there. Bad Boy, bad boy, watcha' gonna do when they come for you.
he tells me that the "NJ scanner law stuff is
> hogwash" and that unless I'm a tow truck driver, EMT, fire
> fighter....(insert own bullshit) that I can't have it in my car and that
he
> has 30 days to decide if he wants to charge me with the crime of having it
> in my car.
Then I would seek legal advice. Don't try to do that on your own. There's no
crime for actually having it unless you
commit a crime.
> What should I do? I know for a fact that it's not illegal and this
asshole
> harrassed me just cuz he was bored i suppose.
Legal advice. Don't try to play TV lawyer. Best thing to do is wait to see
if he does something. But I'll bet he was just
talking to get you rattled. He pulled you over because you weren't wearing
your seat belt. I'd be surpised if he even
remembers you on his next shift. He'll remember that box of hot and tasty
Krispy Kremes before he remembers you ;-)
You were polite and respectful to the flat foot er I mean officer, right?
> --
> Get all the lastest info on the effort to liberate the Iraqi people,
brought
> to you by the greatest country on Earth.
"The greatest country on Earth"?? That's a bit of a stretch. I'd rethink
that one.
Stu Gotz
>What should I do?
Do us all a favor and hang yourself in your cell.
Steve Fleckenstein
--
>> Remove "zz" from e-mail address to direct reply. <<
"RedXIII" <x...@x.com> wrote in message
news:XiGdnQpVrN5...@comcast.com...
DeWayne
> scanner in my car. I tell him it's a hobby and that NJ state scanner law
> states that having a scanner in your vehicle is not illegal unless it's
used
> for commiting a crime or evading police. Which is true. It's says so right
> here:
>
> http://www.siscanner.8m.com/laws.html
>
> and here:
>
> http://www.maxpages.com/frequencies/NJ_Laws
>
> and here:
>
> http://www.fordyce.org/scanning/scanning_info/nj-laws.html
>
> That wasn't good enough for that asshole, so after he writes me for not
> having a seat belt on, he tells me that the "NJ scanner law stuff is
> hogwash" and that unless I'm a tow truck driver, EMT, fire
> fighter....(insert own bullshit) that I can't have it in my car and that
he
> has 30 days to decide if he wants to charge me with the crime of having it
> in my car.
>
> What should I do? I know for a fact that it's not illegal and this
asshole
> harrassed me just cuz he was bored i suppose.
You think you have rights but you don't, only if they are too busy picking
on others to mess with you.
DeWayne
"Steve Fleckenstein" <spf...@zzcitlinkzz.net> wrote in message
news:dxkpa.316$345...@news01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> get a good lawyer and deal with it
Yeah, get your wallet out!!! Or take out a loan.
Dr. Fred Hambrecht Sr
"RedXIII" <x...@x.com> wrote in message
news:XiGdnQpVrN5...@comcast.com...
RedXIII
news:vabtscr...@corp.supernews.com...
> Why do I suspect your attitude may have contributed to your problems?
Because you're an asshole too? Yep, that's gotta be it.
Dwight Stewart
>
> So this asshole cop pulls me over today and starts
> asking me why I have a scanner in my car. I tell
> him it's a hobby and that NJ state scanner law states
> that having a scanner in your vehicle is not illegal
> unless it's used for commiting a crime or evading
Does New Jersey define a traffic violation as a crime? If so, even a seat
belt violation could be covered in the legislation you quote. Section
2C:33-22 is perhaps the most relevant because it doesn't require the actual
use of a scanner - only possession while in the course of committing or
attempting to commit a crime.
Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Dr. Fred Hambrecht Sr
children, six grand-children, and two great-grand-children.
The three most important things for success in life are attitude, attitude,
and attitude.
"RedXIII" <x...@x.com> wrote in message
news:mVCdnTrGFYU...@comcast.com...
DeWayne
> "Dr. Fred Hambrecht Sr" <w4...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:vabtscr...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Why do I suspect your attitude may have contributed to your problems?
>
> Because you're an asshole too? Yep, that's gotta be it.
>
> --
> Get all the lastest info on the effort to liberate the Iraqi people,
brought
> to you by the greatest country on Earth.
>
> Death to Islam! Death to Saddam!
You belong with Saddam!!! You actually love him, don't you?
RamDog
The fact that the cop gave himself 30 days to "go back to the station and
pull the code book" should tell you something. If he knew it was illegal,
he would have impounded it then and there. He just gave himself an out,
that's all. He's ignorant of the law and THAT could be dangerous. I'd just
make an entry in your OWN records of the incident (document everything) and
keep it handy in case he tries something stupid.
Notes taken at the scene BY YOU have as much weight in court as Officer
Nastie's.
Peter
Power House CB & Scanner
> he tells me that the "NJ scanner law stuff is
> hogwash" and that unless I'm a tow truck driver, EMT, fire
> fighter....(insert own bullshit) that I can't have it in my car and that
he
> has 30 days to decide if he wants to charge me with the crime of having it
> in my car.
Inquire with another police agency as to whether or not you can be charged
with a "traffic violation" after the fact. You cold also as them what their
take is on the scanner law if you like.
Generally an officer can't charge you with something later on, unless he
wrote you up for it at the time you were pulled over. If he didn't give you
any type of "ticket" for your scanner, I'd have to guess that you are free
and clear of any charges. My best guess would be that he was just using a
scare tactic on you to try to get you remove it from your vehicle...
Apparently he has something against them...
Please note that the above is only an educated guess, and shouldn't be
considered factual as I know nothing of the laws of your state...
PH
DeWayne
"Power House CB & Scanner" <Power_House_CB_&_Sca...@PrivateBox.com> wrote
in message news:vad1kuj...@corp.supernews.com...
Lot's of guessing going one here.
>
> PH
>
>
>
VHFRadioBuff
with an explanation of the traffic stop.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com
Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net
VHFRadioBuff
>here. Now."
And do you know what the reply would have been? "Go to court if you think
you're right."
That's always my answer.
Jac...@city.net
DeWayne wrote:
Seems we have a newsgroup full of radio scanning lawyers.
Depending on what state you're in, laws change from state to state.
You can get a citation in the mail after the police let you go.
me
> scanner in my car. I tell him it's a hobby and that NJ state scanner law
> states that having a scanner in your vehicle is not illegal unless it's
used
> for commiting a crime or evading police.
Big mistake.
This is an Officer of the Law. As such, he and most cops feel they are
experts on the subject.
Had you simply said "really? I didn't know that - thanks for telling me!"
you probably wouldn't have even gotten the ticket, let alone the lecture on
the law.
> What should I do? I know for a fact that it's not illegal and this
asshole
> harrassed me just cuz he was bored i suppose.
No, he harrassed you because you came off like "I know the law and you're
just a dumb cop". If you had been the one to play dumb you'd be on your
merry way probably without the ticket. Trust me, I do it all the time.
The conversation usually goes like this. The cop says "that scanner's
illegal" and I say "really? I didn't know that. I just like to listen in -
it's so interesting. Say, were you working the other night when I heard..."
and I name something that is usually pretty funny, like someone sweeping
their driveway during a thunderstorm... in the nude. (You laugh but I really
heard that once). Many times I get to hear the parts of the story that
DIDN'T get broadcast over the air. The cop and I have a good laugh and guess
what? He says "Tell you what, I'll just let you go with a warning tonight.
Have a good evening."
Put it to you this way - I should have gotten about a dozen more speeding
tickets than I actually have over the years. Can you say the same?
--
-me
Saddam bad. War good.
Mmmmmmm... war......
Don Forsling
--
>
> Inquire with another police agency as to whether or not you can be charged
> with a "traffic violation" after the fact. You cold also as them what
their
> take is on the scanner law if you like.
>
What does _that_ mean? _All_ charges are made "after the fact." Have you
ever heard of anybody being charged _before_ the fact? I thought not.
> Generally an officer can't charge you with something later on, unless he
> wrote you up for it at the time you were pulled over.
And your authority is?
James S. Prine
>ever heard of anybody being charged _before_ the fact? I thought not.
>
LOL...you might acquaint yourself with some of the more 'interesting' portions
of the Patriot Act. Seems that most of what we *used* to be guaranteed by the
Constitution have been rendered obsolete, in our righteous quest to rid the
U.S. of terrorists.
<sarcasm mode switched OFF>
For that matter, go take a look at the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
James S. Prine
"Ignorance is Blix"
Android Cat
> I will pass on to you a bit of advice that has worked well for my four
> children, six grand-children, and two great-grand-children.
>
> The three most important things for success in life are attitude,
> attitude, and attitude.
Well, I think he's got the attitude part down pat. Perhaps you should be
more specific about what kind of attitude? :^)
Ron of that ilk.
DeWayne
"James S. Prine" <jsp...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030423171600...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> >What does _that_ mean? _All_ charges are made "after the fact." Have
you
> >ever heard of anybody being charged _before_ the fact? I thought not.
> >
>
> LOL...you might acquaint yourself with some of the more 'interesting'
portions
> of the Patriot Act. Seems that most of what we *used* to be guaranteed by
the
> Constitution have been rendered obsolete, in our righteous quest to rid
the
> U.S. of terrorists.
When judges, prosecutors, police, and social workers have absolute immunity
citizens only think they have rights!!!
DeWayne
Gary
>so after he writes me for not having a seat belt on,
Typical. If a cop doesn't like you, he'll find something to write you
up for.
A lot of people find themselves charged with disorderly conduct for
telling a cop, "I'm not doing anything wrong, and you've got no
business hasseling me". Vague, broadly defined charges, like
disorderly conduct allow, the cops to make the law as they go.
And sadly, the jury will vote for conviction.
>has 30 days to decide if he wants to charge me with the crime of having it
>in my car.
Also typical, intimidation technique.
>What should I do? I know for a fact that it's not illegal and this asshole
>harrassed me just cuz he was bored i suppose.
Learn from your experience.
On the street, you are at a serious disadvantage. Don't lecture cops
on the law. The less you say to them the better. Be wise to their
game of, "I'm going to take you to jail, unless you admit to something
I can take you to jail for". And most important, do whatever ass
kissing is necessary to end the confrontation as quickly as possible.
You can call his supervisor, but keep in mind, these people stand
behind each other, right or wrong.
Justin Time
Gee, I wonder why they pick on you?
"Gary" <nos...@dontsendit.com> wrote in message
news:lnbeavc1cqm4uditq...@4ax.com...
Power House CB & Scanner
<Jac...@city.net> wrote in message news:3EA6A194...@city.net...
> Seems we have a newsgroup full of radio scanning lawyers.
>
> Depending on what state you're in, laws change from state to state.
> You can get a citation in the mail after the police let you go.
>
Well, that is why I said that it's only a guess. I don't know the laws in
his state, as I stated, however getting a citation in the mail after the
fact sounds like a bunch of BS to me. If they don't do it on the spot, then
they shouldn't be able to do it at all...
PH
Power House CB & Scanner
"DeWayne" <k9...@indy.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1awpa.132875$JI.33...@twister.neo.rr.com...
Well, one can only make guess or speculate to the intent of the officer if
they don't know anything about the laws of the given state... I'm sure that
you couldn't have done much better unless you lived in or near the state in
question, or at least has some vague idea of the laws of the state.
PH
Power House CB & Scanner
"Don Forsling" <ddfor...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:vadrnk5...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > Inquire with another police agency as to whether or not you can be
charged
> > with a "traffic violation" after the fact. You cold also as them what
> their
> > take is on the scanner law if you like.
> >
>
> What does _that_ mean? _All_ charges are made "after the fact." Have you
> ever heard of anybody being charged _before_ the fact? I thought not.
>
You obviously mis understood what I was saying. What I meant was, that
through my experience, I've never heard of an officer giving someone a
traffic ticket after the stop has been completed; i.e., after both parties
have departed from the stop. If you don't get the ticket for something on
the spot, durring the stop, then they shouldn't be able to issue one "after
the fact." Just doesn't sound right to me, nor have I ever heard of it
happening.
PH
Dan Morisseau
PathOfT...@comcast.net says...
> Notes taken at the scene BY YOU have as much weight in court as Officer
> Nastie's.
Credibility, though ... now that's another matter!
--
Appease a tyrant? Not in my name!
Dan Morisseau - N 38°34'53", W 90°22'32", 680'
Cardinal Nation: On the sunrise side of Mo-Pac's famous Kirkwood Hill!
"¡Y tu madre tambien!"
RedXIII
> No, he harrassed you because you came off like "I know the law and you're
> just a dumb cop".
No he harrassed me because he's an arrogant pig that thinks he's above the
law, but I know the law and I called him on it. He can talk all the shit he
want's but the law in New Jersey that made it illegal to have a scanner in
your car was repealed in 1995 if not earlier. He's nothing but a goose
stepping KKKop that will embarass himself if he fucks with me.
--
Get all the lastest info on the effort to liberate the Iraqi people, brought
to you by the greatest country on Earth.
Death to Islam! Death to Saddam!
God Bless The U.S.A.!
RedXIII
> on the law. The less you say to them the better.
Fuck that. I ain't no pussy and I'm not going out like that. I'll make a pig
look like the fool he is, I've done it before. Obviously this one doesn't
get the hint that his card is gonna be pulled if he plays his little game of
"I know the law and the citizens don't."
RedXIII
news:vaeels6...@corp.supernews.com...
> I have never had any of the problems with cops that you guys describe.
> Gee, I wonder why they pick on you?
Do you by chance kiss their goose stepping asses?
Pa...@uas.net
Next time your rotten butt is in big trouble who the hell are you going to call?
Remember, your the one bashing the cops.
As far as morons go, your the one that brought this bull shit into this group
and wanted the readers to cry for you.
Stand up and at the least act like a man. Take you ticket and pay it, stop the
damn crying.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
VHFRadioBuff
>through my experience, I've never heard of an officer giving someone a
>traffic ticket after the stop has been completed; i.e., after both parties
>have departed from the stop. If you don't get the ticket for something on
>the spot, durring the stop, then they shouldn't be able to issue one "after
>the fact." Just doesn't sound right to me, nor have I ever heard of it
>happening.
There are times when this is neccessary, like if an officer tickets someone for
speeding and NCIC is down or the driver's state DMV isn't responding, then
after the stop, it's discovered the person is driving on a suspended license.
You'd be a fool to believe that he wouldn't get a ticket in the mail and an
invitation to meet the local jodge.
keith
this is not worthy of a lawyer. it is cut and dry. go to a judge if
this dickwad tries to cite you and most likely his write up will be
crap and illegible and the judge will throw it out based on that not
to mention the law. cops for the most part have an education level of
12 and that is it. not too bright. this one is no exception.
keith
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 06:54:54 -0400, Mark <ma...@nospam.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:48:25 GMT, "Steve Fleckenstein"
><spf...@zzcitlinkzz.net> wrote:
>
>>get a good lawyer and deal with it
>
>What is with you people and all the "get a lawyer" crap? This guy already did
>enough research and can probably recite these laws more accurately than any
>lawyer can. It's very straightforward. The law was not written for just
>lawyers to deal with - it was written so anyone can deal with it.
>
>Go to the station and raise a little hell - only if you are confident you are
>in the right. Jeez....
James S. Prine
>behind each other, right or wrong.
You've obviously never spent any time at all as a New Orleans police officer.
The rank doesn't stand behind their troops, they stand *on top* of them, if
it'll make points. There are exceptions, to be sure, but don't bank on it.
>Vague, broadly defined charges, like
>disorderly conduct allow, the cops to make the law as they go.
Yes, I can see a policeman in front of the screening unit at the District
Attorney's Office 'making the law' while trying to arrange for the DA to
prosecute the case. Yeah, right.
>Be wise to their
>game of, "I'm going to take you to jail, unless you admit to something
>I can take you to jail for".
Wow...you really must have had some *interesting* experiences with law
enforcement, to get you spouting this sort of stuff.
Dr. Fred Hambrecht Sr
enforcing YOUR laws. Then to state that people with just a high school
education, all border on the illiterate level. is really supercilious.
I get really disgusted with people that make a mountain out of a molehill.
He did not have his seatbelt on, this started the chain of events. His
obnoxious attitude pushed him down the slipper slope.
Next he comes in here with tears as big as horse turds rolling down both
cheeks. A little consideration for a fellow human would have gone a long way
towards preventing the problem.
He is a rectal orifice and getting exactly what he deserves. Your mileage
may vary.
Note to Keith, people in glass houses... R.E. Education
"keith" <mk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:l1qeavgq6m2mqoqo5...@4ax.com...
James S. Prine
>the spot, durring the stop, then they shouldn't be able to issue one "after
>the fact." Just doesn't sound right to me, nor have I ever heard of it
>happening.
It happens in Louisiana. As a matter of fact, I've issued 'after the fact'
citations myself, not that I wanted to. This is usually done after a traffic
accident, invariably with injury or substantial property damage.
The investigation is reviewed by higher authority and *usually* State Police
officials, and it's not uncommon for an officer to be ordered to issue a
citation when one wasn't issued at the time of the initial incident.
Sometimes, individuals are hospitalized and it's not very nice to cite injured
parties.
In other instances, facts come to light during the course of the
investigation...witnesses sometimes come forward, or additional information or
physical evidence is retrieved, that makes issuing a citation mandatory.
James S. Prine
>this dickwad tries to cite you and most likely his write up will be
>crap and illegible and the judge will throw it out based on that not
>to mention the law. cops for the most part have an education level of
>12 and that is it. not too bright. this one is no exception.
Yes, one can tell from your splendid usage of the English language that you've
obviously earned your Ph.D. in some esoteric discipline.
As for your assertion that 'most cops have an education level of 12', that's
untrue, and it has been for a number of years.
More and more departments require that *recruits* hold university degrees, just
to get through the application process.
Of course, in tiny municipal or some county departments, the standards are
invariably lower, but even then you might be surprised.
As for your recto-cranial inversion problem, I humbly suggest that you seek
immediate professional assistance <g>.
Justin Time
> "Justin Time" <yoow...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vaeels6...@corp.supernews.com...
> > I have never had any of the problems with cops that you guys describe.
> > Gee, I wonder why they pick on you?
>
> Do you by chance kiss their goose stepping asses?
You are an angry little fellow. I think you better double up on your meds.
DeWayne
<Pa...@UAS.net> wrote in message news:3EA75BB2...@UAS.net...
> Let's get down the real business Butt Breath.
>
> Next time your rotten butt is in big trouble who the hell are you going to
call?
>
> Remember, your the one bashing the cops.
>
> As far as morons go, your the one that brought this bull shit into this
group
> and wanted the readers to cry for you.
>
> Stand up and at the least act like a man. Take you ticket and pay it,
stop the
> damn crying.
>
> Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Do you know ALL the laws? Hell no! Nobody does, not even judges. The laws
are used to make EVERYONE who doesn't kiss government asses criminals! Do
you obey ALL the laws ALL the time? NO! Guess you're a criminal too.
DeWayne
RamDog
>> Notes taken at the scene BY YOU have as much weight in court as Officer
>> Nastie's.
>Credibility, though ... now that's another matter!
If credibility is an issue, then there may be something else going on.
VHFRadioBuff
actually get a ticket for it. They're also the same people that complain when
they feel the police take too long to get to them when the call.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com
Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net
Power House CB & Scanner
"James S. Prine" <jsp...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
OK, apparently it is possible, even though it still doesn't sound right to
me. In any case, thanks for explaining it a bit better. Far nicer to read
then some of the useless and completely rude comments others seem so eager
to dish out. Really makes them look likes asses... :)
PH
Power House CB & Scanner
"James S. Prine" <jsp...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> >Be wise to their
> >game of, "I'm going to take you to jail, unless you admit to something
> >I can take you to jail for".
>
> Wow...you really must have had some *interesting* experiences with law
> enforcement, to get you spouting this sort of stuff.
>
While I generally agree with most everything you write, James, I have to go
with the other party on this one, especially when it relates to the Michigan
State police. On occasion, I personally believe that the MSP are worse
criminals than the criminals themselves. If they can't pin something on
you, they make up laws that don't exist, or they twist and contort the laws
that do exist so they fit a situation, etc.
Case in Point:
Situation: Five (5) lane hi-way. (Two lanes each way with a turning lane
in the middle), 55MPH zone. Evening hour, (it was dark out) on a stretch of
hi-way with no lights of any kind (street lights, etc.). Person was heading
West, officer heading East. Person not speeding, and was traveling in the
outside (closest to the shoulder) lane. Officer whips around and pulls this
person over. Goes through the usual routine of this and that. Person asks
why they were pulled over. Officer refuses to answer the question. Officer
takes the paper work bad to his vehicle and runs everything. Everything
checks out, and he returns to the car. Person again asks why he was pulled
over. Officer tells him he was pulled over because he "has a faulty left
front tire".
Yup, that cop was able to tell that this person had a faulty front tire, in
the dark, three lanes away from each other, and going in opposite
directions, each at or near 55MPH... Son of a bitch must have infrared
binocular vision, let me tell you! Nope, it was just another case of
harassment by the MSP. They didn't have a real reason to pull this person
over, so they made something up after the stop... A fairly common
occurrence when it comes to them. Lying is a BIG part of their job
apparently, as is harassment...
BTW, no, this "person" was not me. It was someone I know, however, I too
have had my fair share of run-ins with these people. Corruption run rampant
in the MSP!
PH
James S. Prine
>have had my fair share of run-ins with these people. Corruption run rampant
>in the MSP!
They sound like they need some professional oversight. I was with the NOPD
when they were the essence of corruption; they became the first (and I believe
still the only) municipal police department in America to have an FBI Special
Agent assigned full-time to the Public Integrity Division.
As for not having a 'real reason' for the stop, it was possible that the
Officer might have been radioed a description of a wanted subject, and the
person you mention, might have matched the description. But, the Officer
should have had the professionalism to let the individual know that, before
leaving, since apparently no arrest was made, or even a citation issued.
Then again, there are *far* too many screwballs running around with badges,
most of them harmless, some of them a fatality looking for a scene.
James S. Prine
>me. In any case, thanks for explaining it a bit better. Far nicer to read
>then some of the useless and completely rude comments others seem so eager
>to dish out. Really makes them look likes asses... :)
LOL...agreed! Some other poster mentioned communications system failures, and
that, too, is a big problem. Criminal databases *do* fail, and often,
especially when systems are down due to weekly NCIC 'purges', etc., and it's a
pain to deal with, particularly if you're dealing with an obvious nutcase.
When I was an Officer, I always tried to err on the side of caution, not to
mention 'common courtesy', and it usually paid dividends. Not always, of
course <g>.
Mar...@city.net
Mark wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2003 11:43:54 GMT, vhfrad...@aol.comspamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote:
>
> >Isn't that always the way? People violate the law and then get upset when the
> >actually get a ticket for it.
>
> Go read it again. He DIDN'T violate any scanner law. That's the whole
> problem.
So he didn't violate NJ law, and he "DIDN'T" get a ticket.
So what's the problem?
So he got stopped, drivers get stopped every day.
That tells me the police are doing what we pay them to do.
VHFRadioBuff
>
>So what's the problem?
>
>So he got stopped, drivers get stopped every day.
>That tells me the police are doing what we pay them to do.
Actually, I think he got a ticket for the seatbelt.
VHFRadioBuff
>problem.
I seem to remember a few comments about the seatbelt ticket.
Dwight Stewart
>
> Go read it again. He DIDN'T violate any scanner
> law. That's the whole problem.
He also DIDN'T get a violation relating to the scanner laws. So that isn't
the "whole" problem. Instead, he got a ticket for not wearing a seat belt,
which is probably what he was pulled over for. While he was pulled over, the
police officer asked about the scanner. After determining no scanner related
violation existed, the officer let him go with just the seat belt violation.
What is the problem with that?
Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Dwight Stewart
>
> In this case, the cop either completely misinterpreted
> the law as written, or had no clue about it at all.
> THAT'S the gripe. (snip)
What's the gripe? He didn't get a ticket for having a scanner. Instead, he
got a ticket for not wearing a seat belt. While he was being ticketed for
the seat belt violation, he was also questioned about the scanner. After
the officer decided no scanner violation existed, the guy went on his way
with just the seat belt ticket. I'm sorry, but I just don't see anything
there to gripe about.
Dwight Stewart
>
> (snip) ...the Michigan State police. On occasion, I
> personally believe that the MSP are worse criminals
Really? So, when you or your family needs help, you believe it is better
to call criminals than the Michigan State police? Unless you're a criminal
yourself (afraid to call the police), I seriously doubt it.
> (snip) Yup, that cop was able to tell that this person
> had a faulty front tire, in the dark, three lanes away
> from each other, and going in opposite directions, each
> at or near 55MPH... (snip)
> (snip) Corruption run rampant in the MSP! (snip)
And that story is enough make you believe the Michigan State police are
"worse criminals than the criminals themselves?" Either you have lived a
very sheltered life or the criminals are really terrific in Michigan.
Your friend got pulled over because of some suspicion on the part of the
officer (a drug neighborhood, thought speeding, vehicle similar to a wanted
vehicle, erratic driving, or whatever). After your friend checked out okay,
he was allowed to go on his way. Why slander the Michigan State police over
such a minor incident?
> (snip) however, I too have had my fair share of run-ins
> with these people. (snip)
Ah, perhaps that explains it. And, since you didn't tell the story of your
own run-ins with the Michigan State police, perhaps you were not as innocent
as the friend in the story you did tell.
RedXIII
news:BACE0C7C.17AC1%ste...@say.net...
> After determining no scanner related
> violation existed, the officer let him go with just the seat belt
violation.
> What is the problem with that?
The KKKop didn't determine anything. He claimed that it was illegal to have
a scanner in my car unless I was a tow truck driver, EMT, firefighter...etc.
Then he threaten to charge me with a crime in the next 30 days, but only if
he felt like it. Besides him being total wrong, what kind of bullshit is
that?
Dwight Stewart
>
> The KKKop didn't determine anything. He claimed that
> it was illegal to have a scanner in my car unless I
> was a tow truck driver, EMT, firefighter...etc. Then
> he threaten to charge me with a crime in the next 30
> days, but only if he felt like it. Besides him being
> total wrong, what kind of bullshit is that?
Your story just doesn't ring true. If the officer believed your scanner
was a violation, enough to make a big issue out of it according to you, he
would have done something about it on the spot - he would not have
threatened to do something at some later date. The fact that he didn't do
anything clearly suggests your version of the story is not exactly the whole
story.
Dwight Stewart
>
> No, the arrogant and ignorant comments (snip)
What arrogant and ignorant comments? You're hearing only one side of the
story and are verbally attacking the police officer based on that. Read over
his version of the story again - it just doesn't ring true.
Pa...@usa.net
got hassled, how many people in your/our life have we hassled. What the hell are a
few words, it didn't cost and didn't hurt, unless this guy has such shin skin. Which
from all the crying he does. He is acting like a little child who got his hands
slapped. Cry- Cry- Cry. Get a life and move on.
Your last par Mark. Is that what the officer said? I "really" doubt that unless the
officer is looking for an unpaid vacation. Like it or not, when police officers
graduate from the academy they know the law. Any doubts, give it a try.
Why not go to the officer at his station and talk to him instead of posting this bull
shit here. NO balls and looking for sympathy.
Go else where little boy.
Mark wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:00:43 -0400, Mar...@city.net wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Mark wrote:
> >
> >> On 24 Apr 2003 11:43:54 GMT, vhfrad...@aol.comspamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Isn't that always the way? People violate the law and then get upset when the
> >> >actually get a ticket for it.
> >>
> >> Go read it again. He DIDN'T violate any scanner law. That's the whole
> >> problem.
> >
> >So he didn't violate NJ law, and he "DIDN'T" get a ticket.
>
> His bitch was about getting hastled about the scanner. The seabelt ticket was
> a side NOTE and not the complaint.
>
> >So what's the problem?
>
> I was going to ask you that.
>
> >So he got stopped, drivers get stopped every day.
> >That tells me the police are doing what we pay them to do.
>
> I didn't realize the police were being paid to tell citizens that certain
> state laws were junk and they would choose their own version of the law.
> Interesting...
Power House CB & Scanner
> "Power House CB & Scanner" wrote:
> >
> > (snip) ...the Michigan State police. On occasion, I
> > personally believe that the MSP are worse criminals
> > than the criminals themselves. (snip)
>
>
> Really? So, when you or your family needs help, you believe it is better
> to call criminals than the Michigan State police? Unless you're a criminal
> yourself (afraid to call the police), I seriously doubt it.
>
You missed the whole point... You made up your own version of it so you
could type that lame-ass answer that has absolutely nothing to do with what
I said.
>
> > (snip) Yup, that cop was able to tell that this person
> > had a faulty front tire, in the dark, three lanes away
> > from each other, and going in opposite directions, each
> > at or near 55MPH... (snip)
>
> > (snip) Corruption run rampant in the MSP! (snip)
>
>
> Your friend got pulled over because of some suspicion on the part of the
> officer (a drug neighborhood, thought speeding, vehicle similar to a
wanted
> vehicle, erratic driving, or whatever).
There was no suspicion, just the normal harassment. None of your theories
even hold a candle. "Drug neighborhood?" In the middle of nowhere on a
hi-way. Got that one right... "Thought speeding?" What the hell do I pay
taxes for if the cops aren't going to use their cancer-causing radar guns
that they used my money to buy? Sorry, wrong answer again... Similar
vehicle? Nope. It was pitch black outside with glaring headlights coming
at him, an equivalent speed of about 110MPH, and 3-lanes way... Sorry, he
would have never seen a thing... "Erratic Driving?" Sorry... Wasn't any
erratic driving... Keep guessing, as that's all your doing...
> After your friend checked out okay, he was allowed to go on his way.
Umm, yeah... Not even close. He was given a warning ticket for his front
right tire. That one that the officer saw with his infrared binocular
vision that allowed him to make the stop in the first place.
> Why slander the Michigan State police over such a minor incident?
Minor? You call non-stop harassment minor? You must be a cop yourself.
What I stated was ONE example of MANY MANY harassment problems around here.
What your referring to as "slander" is nothing but the truth and therefore
is NOT slander. Then again, slander is spoken, so it wouldn't be slander
anyway, as this is written...
> > (snip) however, I too have had my fair share of run-ins
> > with these people. (snip)
>
> Ah, perhaps that explains it. And, since you didn't tell the story of
your
> own run-ins with the Michigan State police, perhaps you were not as
innocent
> as the friend in the story you did tell.
>
That explains nothing except that all you like to do is argue with people.
You should take you delusional mind and go find a flame war newsgroup
somewhere as the general populous of this newsgroup doesn't appreciate your
hostile attitude. You remind me of a couple of crabby, 90 year old women I
know... Always bitching and arguing about something... Ever seen the movie
"Grumpy Old Men"? You'd fit right in...
You want my story? Here's a briefing of it:
I could tell you my story of how I was talking with a group of friends after
work one night. We all saw the MSP driving down the main street of town (a
US hi-way mind you) at about 11PM, with their lights off, only to pull into
the lot we were standing in and turn them on just as they were pulling in.
There were 8 witnesses to the incident, and the officers just kept denying
the whole thing. I could also tell you about how during this same incident
they decided they wanted to harass my about the stereo I have in my car. It
was just an after-market tape deck I had installed about 3-years prior;
nothing fancy. They questioned me to no end about it. One of the questions
was where I got it from. They used the information I gave them to claim
that a number of the same units had recently been stolen from that
particular store. Funny thing is, the unit I had had been discontinued at
that store 2-years prior to this incident. No other units by that
manufacturer, or even another unit that even came close to looking like
mine, had been sold at that store since they discontinued it. They
continued to harass me about it, and wanted me to rip my dash apart and
remove it so they could "inspect" it; check out the serial number, etc. I
could also tell you that they threatened to rip it out themselves if I
couldn't prove that I had purchased it by providing a receipt.
Of course, I'm not the only one that was getting harassed, the others were
as well, but you just wanted MY story...
There you go! How's that grab ya? Hope it grabbed your balls and stretched
them up over your head so as to mute your arguing ass!
I hope your happy now, there is a brief run-through of one of my harassment
incidents. Need I provide more? Nah, didn't think so... Needless to say,
the two asses, oops, I mean MSP officers, didn't stay in the area long, they
were transferred to another posts due to the number of complaints that were
filed against them. They weren't the first, and certainly haven't been the
last...
PH
RedXIII
Without a known violation, the officer let him go on his way
> with a warning there may be a follow-up if a violation existed.
No, he did make note that I was in violation of the law by having the
scanner in my car, but instead of taking action then, he choose to keep me
in distress by stating that if he feels like charging me for a breaking a
law that doesn't exsist, he'll do it within 30 days. I'm going to pay the
fine for the ticket today and I will be bringing the matter of the scanner
up to the Chief of Police.
I think your problem is that you're an ex-cop, one that most likely would
pull the same scare tactic shit that the one I encountered did.
God Bless The U.S.A.!
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/RedXIII1/Info.html
"Dwight Stewart" <ste...@say.net> wrote in message
news:BACE9ACE.17B22%ste...@say.net...
> "Mark" wrote:
>
> > How about when they are treated unjustly and
> > harassed about something that they were well
> > within their rights and the law on?
>
>
> He wasn't treated unjustly or harassed. He got a ticket for a seat belt
> violation. During that stop, the police officer questioned the legality of
> his scanner. Without a known violation, the officer let him go on his way
> with a warning there may be a follow-up if a violation existed. If no
> violation exists, nothing else is going to happen. How can you describe
that
> as unjust treatment or harassment?
Frank
^ You seem to be speaking for him. So he got hassled, how many
^ people in your/our life have we hassled. What the hell are a
^ few words, it didn't cost and didn't hurt, unless this guy has
^ such shin skin.
The point is that the cop was violating the public trust -- probably the
greatest crime a cop can commit. A violation of the public trust is an action
worse than those that we pay them to protect us from. We do not pay cops to
harass us, we pay them to keep our lives peaceful and safe. The cops actions
in this case were contrary to that. A cop lying to a citizen is a violation
of the trust we place in them. This particular cop should either be
disciplined or have his badge taken away.
^ Go else where little boy.
Ah, you must be a cop! If you can't do your job without creating as much
terror as the criminals then quit -- leave the job for someone better than
you.
Frank
Dave Holford
Power House CB & Scanner wrote:
> It was pitch black outside with glaring headlights coming
> at him, an equivalent speed of about 110MPH, and 3-lanes way...
> Sorry, he would have never seen a thing...
And yet for some reason he chose to stop YOU?
Is there something special about your lights?
Frank
Dr. Fred Hambrecht Sr
spends his entire life pushing on doors marked pull. I would bet he "copped"
an attitude with the cop.
Officer: "What is that thing in your car?
Whiney Baby: "It's a scanner so I can listen to you pigs out here harassing
people, what's it to ya"
"Frank" <soyfr...@erujpdojihaoysyz.com> wrote in message
news:01c30b73$91060020$0125250a@erujpdojihaoysyz...
Dr. Fred Hambrecht Sr
bump on his may pops?
"Dave Holford" <hol...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3EA9A24B...@sympatico.ca...
Blake Bowers
> And you should have interrupted him right there and said, "get your Sgt.
down
> here. Now." The discussion with him ends right there. You don't have to
say
> a word to him after this.
>
Telling the officer to "get your Sergeant down here. Now" does
not stop any discussion, nor does the officer have to comply. He
can simply advise you if you have an issue how to contact his
supervisor.
If he wants to write you, then you get the ticket. In this case, that
is exactly what happened, he got a ticket for the violation he was
pulled over for.
Attitude.... As others have said.
Blake Bowers
> Generally an officer can't charge you with something later on, unless he
> wrote you up for it at the time you were pulled over. If he didn't give
you
> any type of "ticket" for your scanner, I'd have to guess that you are free
> and clear of any charges. My best guess would be that he was just using a
> scare tactic on you to try to get you remove it from your vehicle...
> Apparently he has something against them...
>
While it may be an uneducated guess, it is still wrong. If the officer
feels it may be a crime, he can research the law, and then make an
arrest, (if the situation calls for it).
Done that way all the time.
Frank
^ I would bet he "copped" an attitude with the cop.
That isn't a valid excuse for the cops behavior. They're (at least they were)
trained to ignore such attitudes.
Frank
Neil Bell
wrote:
>
>Attitude.... As others have said.
>
out of a ticket - but you can always talk yourself into one!
Amen!
Neil Bell
--------------------------------------------------
For e-mail replies remove the "notreally."
James S. Prine
>out of a ticket - but you can always talk yourself into one!
Ours is, "You might beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."
In other words, if you really want to make a total ass of yourself *and* talk
yourself into a cell, we'll be glad to oblige <g>.
James S. Prine
>of the trust we place in them.
I've lied to 'citizens' more times than I can count. When I'm making a case on
a violent felon, there's no law that says I have to play fair or tell the truth
all the time.
All I have to do is obey the guidelines of the law, not make scumbags happy.
I'd rather play it nice, but all the incomprehensible restrictions...with more
being enacted all the time...make 'playing fair' virtually impossible, amigo.
If that's a 'violation of trust', so be it...my karma can take the dents. Of
course, we can play it *your* way and wind up with anarchy.
James S. Prine
>not stop any discussion, nor does the officer have to comply. He
>can simply advise you if you have an issue how to contact his
>supervisor.
When I was working 'on the street', I often called my sergeant(s) anyway...we
were required to get a ranking officer's signature on the arrest paperwork
before transport, if it was possible.
Of course, I quickly learned that if an individual was really making himself
into an anal orifice, any Sergeant on the scene would *demand* an arrest,
rather than issue a citation. Lieutenants were worse.
James S. Prine
>feels it may be a crime, he can research the law, and then make an
>arrest, (if the situation calls for it).
Folks, it's easier than that. I carry a PDA with the statutes plainly listed
and cross-referenced in it.
A more comprehensive version resides in my laptop computer.
I also have a current copy of my State's statutory criminal law &
procedure...the exact same lawbook the judges and district attorneys use, and
yes, I buy a new one each year, at my own expense.
And, if I can't find what I'm looking for in all that, I just pick up the
cellphone and consult with an Assistant District Attorney.
BTW, in my State (Louisiana), all the criminal statutes are listed and easily
accessed via the Attorney Geenral's website.
Not all that hard to research the current laws, is it?
RedXIII
news:vajdl16...@corp.supernews.com...
> Doubtful, anyone that has seen his signature line will recognize that he
> spends his entire life pushing on doors marked pull. I would bet he
"copped"
> an attitude with the cop.
Hey don't be mad at those not on the list just because you're a moron and
they aren't.
You were just like that KKKop. That's why you're on the list to begin with.
You tried some scare tactic bullshit with me talking about, "I'ma report you
to yer ISP on accounta ya'll is cussin'." It didn't work though did it
Jethro? NOPE! :)
RedXIII
news:20030425222314...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> Ours is, "You might beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."
Yours is "Sieg Heil". Fucking Nazi pig.
God Bless The U.S.A.!
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/RedXIII1/Info.html
"James S. Prine" <jsp...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030425222314...@mb-m10.aol.com...
Gary
wrote:
>>You can call his supervisor, but keep in mind, these people stand
>>behind each other, right or wrong.
>
>You've obviously never spent any time at all as a New Orleans police officer.
>The rank doesn't stand behind their troops, they stand *on top* of them, if
>it'll make points. There are exceptions, to be sure, but don't bank on it.
Ok, politics will be in play in a city that large, but what about your
immediate sergeant? If you told a victim there is insufficient
grounds for an arrest, couldn't you count on him to tell the victim
the same, even if he would have made the arrest had the been the one
to respond? Would he really take action if someone reported to him
that you did something minor, like swearing at them?
>>Vague, broadly defined charges, like
>>disorderly conduct allow, the cops to make the law as they go.
>
>Yes, I can see a policeman in front of the screening unit at the District
>Attorney's Office 'making the law' while trying to arrange for the DA to
>prosecute the case. Yeah, right.
Situation: I was part of a group of pro-life protestors, and we were
spread out along a busy public street. One of our members was
approached by a young cop. He was holding a sign and passing out
handbills. He had no megaphone, and was not yelling. He told the cop
he was peacefully exercising his constitutional rights, and that there
were no grounds to confront him. The cop demanded ID, and my friend
pulled out his wallet and lightly tossed it at the cop, bouncing off
the cop's chest. He then found his arm grabbed, forcefully twisted
behind his back, cuffs slapped on, and off to jail he went.
The DA filed the charges, and argued in court that my friend had
indeed done something wrong and criminal. (People in the justice
system do back each other up, right or wrong). The jury found him
guilty of disorderly conduct and obstructing a sidewalk.
The same guy also tells of an incident where he was patted down for
weapons, simply because, "Pro-Lifers are sometimes known to be
violent".
And funny you mention DA's. The papers told of one of the attorney's
in our local DA's office was convicted of disorderly conduct a few
years ago. He was in a liquor store and had forgotten his ID. The
sale was refused, and the unhappy attorney said the words f--- y---
several times to the clerk. An officer was present in the store, and
followed him into the parking lot and cited him.
As I said, vague, broadly defined charges, like disorderly conduct,
enable cops on the spot to declare anything they do not like to be
illegal.
>
>>Be wise to their
>>game of, "I'm going to take you to jail, unless you admit to something
>>I can take you to jail for".
>
>Wow...you really must have had some *interesting* experiences with law
>enforcement, to get you spouting this sort of stuff.
Right, I'm concerned about police excess, therefore I must be a
criminal. The fact that I do not have a criminal record should
effectively serve to refute this notion.
I simply know what it was like to have lived as a teenage boy in
suburban California, where any group of teenage boys hanging out in a
parking lot "must be up to something".
Can you honestly say that in your LE career, you never confronted
someone you suspected, but did not have grounds to make an arrest, and
used his fear of going to jail to get him to admit to something
incriminating?
Gary
>"Gary" <nos...@dontsendit.com> wrote in message
>news:lnbeavc1cqm4uditq...@4ax.com...
>> On the street, you are at a serious disadvantage. Don't lecture cops
>> on the law. The less you say to them the better.
>
>and I'm not going out like that. I'll make a pig
>look like the fool he is, I've done it before. Obviously this one doesn't
>get the hint that his card is gonna be pulled if he plays his little game of
>"I know the law and the citizens don't."
It doesn't matter how right you are, or how good you are at debate.
You will not win an argument with a cop in the street.
Gary
<yoow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I have never had any of the problems with cops that you guys describe.
>Gee, I wonder why they pick on you?
I'll bet at the sobriety checkpoint, they just wave you through. Now
the guy with the long hair, or the brown skin, with the dog slobbering
all over his upholstery, he must be a scumbag who deserves it, right?
Justin Time
<snipped>
I cant decide if I will cry for you now or later or both.
James S. Prine
>grounds for an arrest, couldn't you count on him to tell the victim
>the same, even if he would have made the arrest had the been the one
>to respond?
Well...we don't usually arrest victims, unless they've committed a criminal
offense. It *does* happen.
>Would he really take action if someone reported to him
>that you did something minor, like swearing at them?
Depending upon circumstances, the sergeant may, or may not. But we have a
Public Integrity Division, the Office of Municipal Investigation, the
Metropolitan Crime Commission, and the Civil Rights Division of the F.B.I., not
to mention the State Attorney General's Office, who can enter into the
proceedings if actual police misconduct is determined. And all complaints are
entered into the Officer's personnel jacket, and a history of complaints is
handled by retraining, counseling, or discipline, including termination or, if
warranted, criminal and/or civil prosecution.
>The jury found him
>guilty of disorderly conduct and obstructing a sidewalk.
I'd have also charged him with simple battery, which is a misdemeanor here. He
obviously had no legitimate reason to 'toss his wallet' at the Officer, did he?
As for 'confronting' the man in the first place, even you mentioned that your
group was 'spread out' along a busy public street.
For all you know, the Officer may have been responding to a valid complaint
from passing motorists, or trying to maintain orderly traffic flow. He might
have been ordered to check on the group, by senior Officers. He might have
been concerned about the group being so close to passing traffic...accidents
*do* happen, and I can tell you that if a Police Officer is merely *in* an area
and someone gets injured, it's automatically assumed that the individual
Officer is somehow responsible, and that a civil suit must ensue. I can attest
to that from personal experience.
Certainly we have the First Amendment in effect, but that doesn't guarantee
that a 'group' can endanger passing traffic, or themselves, in their zeal to
make themselves heard.
>The DA filed the charges, and argued in court that my friend had
>indeed done something wrong and criminal.
And I agree. But, if this incident troubles you so much, why not file a
complaint with the police department...or the city, or the state, or the
F.B.I.'s Civil Rights Division? Probably because the police actions were
deemed to be within legal guidelines.
>The same guy also tells of an incident where he was patted down for
>weapons, simply because, "Pro-Lifers are sometimes known to be
>violent".
Sounds suspicious, if it were limited to merely that, but the U.S. Supreme
Court has ruled that a Police Officer may legally 'pat down' an individual he
is 'officially interacting' with, for the purpose of ensuring the Officer's
safety.
>An officer was present in the store, and
>followed him into the parking lot and cited him.
Sounds like the Officer performed his duties correctly, and the D.A.'s
official was, quite properly, convicted for his criminal offense.
>As I said, vague, broadly defined charges, like disorderly conduct,
>enable cops on the spot to declare anything they do not like to be
>illegal.
If you've read any of my post(s), you'd see that Police Officers are *rigidly*
limited in how they can perform their duties. 'Disorderly Conduct' is hardly a
nebulous concept in any event.
>Right, I'm concerned about police excess, therefore I must be a
>criminal. The fact that I do not have a criminal record should
>effectively serve to refute this notion
I never said that. Within the confines of what you've shown here, you
seemingly feel that *all police* are corrupt, because you feel they limit your
freedom to do whatever you wish, in any matter you desire. Sorry.
>I simply know what it was like to have lived as a teenage boy in
>suburban California, where any group of teenage boys hanging out in a
>parking lot "must be up to something".
I was a teenager myself, once upon a time. And, from personal experience, both
as a teenager and, later, as a police patrolman, yes, most of the time, when
you find a group of teenage boys 'hanging out in a parking lot', they *are* up
to something.
>Can you honestly say that in your LE career, you never confronted
>someone you suspected, but did not have grounds to make an arrest, and
>used his fear of going to jail to get him to admit to something
>incriminating?
Hell no! That would be quite stupid, and totally unprofessional. *Real* bad
guys don't give a damn about going to jail, and I've had more than a few
experiences of people committing crimes just *to get* into jail...usually
because they needed medical attention, or wanted to fatten up a while.
No, my technique is to build a solid case, with physical evidence if possible,
and whatever corrobation is available, and, after the case is more or less
'made', *then* talk to a suspect. If pays to do your homework in the business.
I'm not so hard up to *make cases* that I feel I have to browbeat average
citizens who just want to get along in life. Most experiences cops I know feel
exactly the same way.
Certainly, bad eggs get recruited and make it through the Academy and even the
Field Training program, but they get caught sooner or later, and prosecuted if
at all possible. DA's LOVE to convict cops.
James S. Prine
>the guy with the long hair, or the brown skin, with the dog slobbering
>all over his upholstery, he must be a scumbag who deserves it, right?
Funny how 'intellectuals' like you always describe Police Officers as
'pigs'...and always portray them as bigots and racists.
If you want to see a *true* bigot at work...look in the mirror, amigo.
Pa...@usa.net
RedXIII wrote:
> Hey don't be mad at those not on the list just because you're a moron and
> they aren't.
>
> You were just like that KKKop. That's why you're on the list to begin with.
> You tried some scare tactic bullshit with me talking about, "I'ma report you
> to yer ISP on accounta ya'll is cussin'." It didn't work though did it
> Jethro? NOPE! :)
>
You really need to get a life. You posted your bull shit traffic stop in a
radio scanner group, when the readers posted their comments in opposition to
your wants you sat and cried, listed posters like a little child playing a game,
refereed to the police as KKK's. What the hell is wrong with you? Didn't your
Mommy love you enough when..........
This thread has gotten way out of hand. First of all, it doesn't belong in this
group, it does belong in some psychiatric bull shit group where people can air
their problems and all posters there cry together. Then take their prozac.
Pa...@usa.net
"James S. Prine" wrote:
"Outstanding" post James. We have a similar operation in PA.
The only "REAL" color here is "B L U E".
Fraternally, Pappy
Robert
"VHFRadioBuff" <vhfrad...@aol.comspamme> wrote in message
news:20030423234241...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> >You obviously mis understood what I was saying. What I meant was, that
> >through my experience, I've never heard of an officer giving someone a
> >traffic ticket after the stop has been completed; i.e., after both
parties
> >have departed from the stop. If you don't get the ticket for something
on
> >the spot, durring the stop, then they shouldn't be able to issue one
"after
> >the fact." Just doesn't sound right to me, nor have I ever heard of it
> >happening.
>
> There are times when this is neccessary, like if an officer tickets
someone for
> speeding and NCIC is down or the driver's state DMV isn't responding, then
> after the stop, it's discovered the person is driving on a suspended
license.
> You'd be a fool to believe that he wouldn't get a ticket in the mail and
an
> invitation to meet the local jodge.
Good grief, could we use some common sense here? He's obviously
talking about anything incident to the stop itself, ie: getting pulled over
for speeding, getting a ticket, and then later on getting a bunch of "Oh, by
the way" tickets in the mail _related to that stop_. I could stretch your
interpretation to the point where he's implying that getting past a cop once
clears your record. "Hannibal Lecter, you're under arrest!" "Ah-hah! You
can't! I was pulled over yesterday and the copper didn't know who I was, so
I'M A FREE MAN NOW, bwahahahaha!"
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 4/18/2003
Robert
"Dwight Stewart" <ste...@say.net> wrote
> And that story is enough make you believe the Michigan State police are
> "worse criminals than the criminals themselves?" Either you have lived a
> very sheltered life or the criminals are really terrific in Michigan.
Corruption and lawless behavior by those in official capacities,
particularly those with color of authority and access to deadly force, is
far, far worse than any sort of criminal behavior amongst the citizens.
Frank
^ > A cop lying to a citizen is a violation
^ >of the trust we place in them.
^
^ I've lied to 'citizens' more times than I can count. When I'm making a
^ case on a violent felon, there's no law that says I have to play fair
^ or tell the truth all the time.
The entire Constitution of the United States is based on fairness and truth.
Justice is by definition fairness -- what you are claiming is a travesty of
justice.
^ All I have to do is obey the guidelines of the law, not make scumbags
^ happy.
What is a scumbag? Someone who you believe to be a criminal but who in
actuality may or may not be?
^ I'd rather play it nice, but all the incomprehensible restrictions...
^ with more being enacted all the time...make 'playing fair' virtually
^ impossible, amigo.
Those restrictions are placed there to protect me, the innocent guy, and it
is the job of a cop to protect me from injustice by using those restrictions.
James S. Prine:
^ If that's a 'violation of trust', so be it...
Pappy:
^ The only "REAL" color here is "B L U E".
A cop is sworn to protect the people. That is why we have cops. What you and
Pappy are suggesting here is that you only protect yourselves and that the
people are an enemy. This is why you are seeing so many complaints here.
Ideally (though perhaps somewhat unrealistically) you should be protecting us
above yourselves, just as the military does, yet you have turned law
enforcement into a private community that protects only its own interests and
desires for the neighborhood and country.
^ course, we can play it *your* way and wind up with anarchy.
In my 50 years of life I have been victimized only once (articles stolen from
my vehicle) by someone who was not a cop (I assume), but I have been
victimized countless times by the people who we trust to protect us from
victimization, our own cops. You and Pappy are presenting a false dilemma:
you are suggesting that we either have abusive cops or we have anarchy. There
are many police departments across the US who do not subscribe to this false
dilemma, who have very good relationships with the people, and who are able
to satisfactorily suppress crime.
Frank
Power House CB & Scanner
Don't read part of the posts, read them all! He didn't stop me; this has
nothing to do with me at all... If you aren't going to get the whole story,
then you have no right to thrown in your uninformed 2ข...
PH
DeWayne
"Robert" <rdb...@prtcnet.org> wrote in message
news:b8b9gm$7be$1...@nd.eastky.net...
>
> "Dwight Stewart" <ste...@say.net> wrote
>
> > And that story is enough make you believe the Michigan State police
are
> > "worse criminals than the criminals themselves?" Either you have lived a
> > very sheltered life or the criminals are really terrific in Michigan.
>
> Corruption and lawless behavior by those in official capacities,
> particularly those with color of authority and access to deadly force, is
> far, far worse than any sort of criminal behavior amongst the citizens.
You are so right! The prosecutors are often worse criminals than those they
prosecute! Of course they have absolute immunity. As I said before, I was
told personally by a Federal Magistrate that county prosecutors have
absolute immunity to threaten the lives of witnesses.
DeWayne
James S. Prine
>Justice is by definition fairness -- what you are claiming is a travesty of
>justice.
Not at all, what you are playing at here is semantics, not justice. In case
you weren't aware of it, countless attorneys and legislators have been
subverting the Constitution for years. Justice is an ideal, not a reality.
>What is a scumbag? Someone who you believe to be a criminal but who in
>actuality may or may not be?
>
No, a 'scumbag' is an individual who is a professional criminal...the sort we
see time and again, with a multi-page rapsheet, and usually a veteran of
several prison terms. We don't create scumbags, they create themselves.
>Those restrictions are placed there to protect me, the innocent guy, and it
>is the job of a cop to protect me from injustice by using those restrictions.
No, not all of them, and you are, yet again, playing with semantics. Those
'restrictions' are what allows murderers and other violent criminals out on the
street, time and again, because of the revolving door 'justice system' that's
been allowed to proliferate. You really have this thing with 'justice', don't
you?
>A cop is sworn to protect the people.
No, a cop is sworn to enforce laws. In reality, the 'cop' is protecting
'society', not individual people. Of course, if an Officer sticks his/her neck
out in exigent circumstances to 'save' someone, the Officer is usually rewarded
for it...by a lawsuit, or discipline. You know...part of those 'restrictions'
we were discussing earlier.
>What you and
>Pappy are suggesting here is that you only protect yourselves and that the
>people are an enemy.
No, grasshopper, not at all. If I wanted to protect *myself*, I'd just quit
and stay at home. The 'people' aren't the enemy, but the 'people' who prey
upon them *are*. We call them 'criminals', and they don't worry about people
at all, other than as being victims.
>This is why you are seeing so many complaints here.
No, we are seeing so many complaints because people like you have so many odd
ideas about law enforcement. That is due, no doubt, to decades of social
programming and idiotic Hollywood representations of police work.
>you should be protecting us
>above yourselves, just as the military does, yet you have turned law
>enforcement into a private community that protects only its own interests and
>desires for the neighborhood and country.
I wonder what sort of tortured logic you devised to construct this odd bit of
reasoning? Law enforcement as a 'private community'? Protecting only it's
'own interests'? C'mon...you're from San francisco, right?
>In my 50 years of life I have been victimized only once (articles stolen from
>my vehicle) by someone who was not a cop (I assume),
Very cute...your hatred of law enforcers is showing itself a little here, be
careful...
>I have been
>victimized countless times by the people who we trust to protect us from
>victimization, our own cops.
I wish you'd expand on that. Countless times? Interesting.
>you are suggesting that we either have abusive cops or we have anarchy.
Not at all...I've never said anything of the sort. People like you portray
cops as 'abusive' just for going about their business in a normal, professional
fashion, obeying all the laws, statutes, rules, and regulations, and risking
their lives, time and again, in pursuit of their tasks.
>There
>are many police departments across the US who do not subscribe to this false
>dilemma, who have very good relationships with the people, and who are able
>to satisfactorily suppress crime.
You *must* live in a truly wonderful little paradise...hardly the real world,
and definitely not the world I've lived in for the past 52 years, but go ahead,
it sounds wonderful, Frank. I might retire and move there myself!
Frank
Semantics are a necessary part of language. If you ignore semantics then you
are ignoring the language.
^ >The entire Constitution of the United States is based on fairness
^ >and truth. Justice is by definition fairness -- what you are
^ >claiming is a travesty of justice.
^
^ Not at all, what you are playing at here is semantics, not justice. In
case
^ you weren't aware of it, countless attorneys and legislators
... and cops ...
^ have been subverting the Constitution for years. Justice is an ideal,
^ not a reality.
Precisely our complaint.
^ >Those restrictions are placed there to protect me, the innocent guy,
^ >and it is the job of a cop to protect me from injustice by using those
^ >restrictions.
^
^ No, not all of them, and you are, yet again, playing with semantics.
^ Those 'restrictions' are what allows murderers and other violent
^ criminals out on the street, time and again, because of the revolving
^ door 'justice system' that's been allowed to proliferate.
So you're suggesting that it's better to harass, terrorize, and convict
innocent people just so that one criminal doesn't go free? Hogwash! You can't
get them all all of the time and it is better to let some get by than to
violate an innocent person's liberties. There are innocent people in prison
-- even on death row! -- and by your implication that is much better than
taking the chance of letting a criminal go free! You should not have been a
cop and I'm glad that you no longer are -- I just hope that you didn't move
to another position in the justice/legal system somewhere.
^ You really have this thing with 'justice', don't you?
Yes!
I could continue with the remainder of your counter arguments but I think the
foregoing should be sufficient.
Frank
James S. Prine
>^ not a reality.
>
>Precisely our complaint.
It's too bad. I'd like to live in an ideal world, too...who wouldn't? ---but I
have to live in the real world instead.
>So you're suggesting that it's better to harass, terrorize, and convict
>innocent people just so that one criminal doesn't go free? Hogwash!
Hogwash indeed...I never said *anything* about harrassing, terrorizing, and
convicting inocent people...of anything. I go after criminals, not innocent
people. Why, indeed, would I risk losing my career, paying a fine,
imprisonment, and dishonor, merely to try to intimidate, harass, or terrorize
innocent people, when there are so many truly dangerous wackos out there?
>You can't
>get them all all of the time and it is better to let some get by than to
>violate an innocent person's liberties.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Again...let me emphasize this...again, I go
after violent criminals, *not* innocent people. Can you understand that simple
idea? I don't work traffic, I don't write parking tickets, I don't put people
in jail for simple little nonviolent crimes, my friend.
>There are innocent people in prison
>-- even on death row! -- and by your implication that is much better than
>taking the chance of letting a criminal go free!
You've apparently turned Blackstone on his head, and opine that it's better
that 100 innocent people be murdered than one violent felon be inconvenienced
by actually going to prison.
>You should not have been a
>cop and I'm glad that you no longer are -- I just hope that you didn't move
>to another position in the justice/legal system somewhere.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, even if you are rather a simple-minded
twit with pretensions of lucidity. You probably even mean well, but you're as
ineffectual and starry-eyed as most of you people usually are. Of course, you
say that you've been on the wrong side of law enforcers 'thousands of times',
so your reasoning might be in question, but that's neither here nor there.
>I could continue with the remainder of your counter arguments but I think the
>foregoing should be sufficient.
Yes, and the old Roman adage, which I personally utilize in my duties, might
prove of interest to you: "salus populi suprema lex esto"...which you might
better understand as 'the welfare of the people is the greatest law'.
Frank
^ I'd like to live in an ideal world, too...who wouldn't? ---but I
^ have to live in the real world instead.
We are constantly changing the real world. I'm glad you've given up -- it'll
make our task just that much easier.
^ Are you being deliberately obtuse? Again...let me emphasize
^ this...again, I go after violent criminals, *not* innocent people.
^ Can you understand that simple idea?
This discussion isn't about you -- it's about being harassed over a scanner
after being stopped for a seatbelt violation and other such incidents.
Possession of a scanner is not a crime and failure to properly wear a
seatbelt is not violent.
^ You've apparently turned Blackstone on his head, and opine that it's
^ better that 100 innocent people be murdered than one violent felon be
^ inconvenienced by actually going to prison.
I have suggested no such thing, that would also be a false dilemma. What I
suggested is actually the practice in many places.
^ Well, you're entitled to your opinion, even if you are rather a simple-
^ minded twit with pretensions of lucidity.
^ ... you're as ineffectual and starry-eyed as most of you people
^ usually are.
You are definitely typical of most cops, in that you are resorting to abuse
in an attempt to force your desires.
^ Of course, you say that you've been on the wrong side
^ of law enforcers 'thousands of times', so your reasoning might be in
^ question, but that's neither here nor there.
I said no such thing, I said "I have been victimized countless times by the
people who we trust to protect us", and my reasoning is from experience in
military law enforcement.
Frank
Justin Time
"Frank" <lsfvi...@mifqwgdxkjxchjhr.com> wrote in message
news:01c30c5c$fb32a270$0125250a@mifqwgdxkjxchjhr...
abuse
> in an attempt to force your desires.
From the above statement: Its obvious to me that you dont know your ass from
your elbow.
Justin Time
"Frank" <wvzha...@wwvgvqfgpcpawrte.com> wrote in message
news:01c30b36$c60a01f0$0125250a@wwvgvqfgpcpawrte...
> <3EA931DA...@USA.net>...
>
>
James S. Prine
>make our task just that much easier.
I have hardly given up. And this little piece you've just penned sounds much
like one of the rants of old man Kruschev.
>This discussion isn't about you -- it's about being harassed over a scanner
>after being stopped for a seatbelt violation and other such incidents.
>Possession of a scanner is not a crime and failure to properly wear a
>seatbelt is not violent.
Pardon, but you *made* this discussion about me, so I merely made my position
clear. And, contrary to your contention that 'possession of a scanner is not a
crime', that is patently untrue, in many jurisdictions, and in many
circumstances. As for the seatbelt violation, I agree with you...it certainly
isn't a violent crime.
Here in Louisiana, the legislature, in its infinite wisdom, passed legislation
that made driving an automobile without a seatbelt a criminal offense, and, in
the same session, did away with the law that required motorcyclists to wear
helmets.
However, if you don't like the laws, then by all means change them.
>^ You've apparently turned Blackstone on his head, and opine that it's
>^ better that 100 innocent people be murdered than one violent felon be
>^ inconvenienced by actually going to prison. I have suggested no such thing,
that would also be a false dilemma. What I
>suggested is actually the practice in many places.
Yes...Afghanistan, Syria, South Africa....
>You are definitely typical of most cops, in that you are resorting to abuse
>in an attempt to force your desires.
Abuse? Hardly. I'm not trying to 'force my desires' upon you or anyone else.
I couldn't care less what you or your cronies do or think...unless you violate
the laws I've been sworn to enforce.
>I said no such thing, I said "I have been victimized countless times by the
>people who we trust to protect us", and my reasoning is from experience in
>military law enforcement.
Ah...military law enforcement. That is truly interesting. Apples and oranges.
So sorry, my ESP module is out for service, and I wasn't aware that you were
actually equating military law enforcement with civilian law enforcement.
Point of fact, is that most civilian law enforcement agencies don't count
military law enforcement as legitimate experience, because of the vast
diversity in philosophies and methods, when hiring recruits.
James S. Prine
I don't know. I like to come here and read about scanning, because I'm a radio
enthusiast myself, and have been for many years...even before I went into law
enforcement.
I dislike people mindlessly bashing cops, especially when I've seen so many
good policemen badmouthed by people who count for little in *any* society.
As I've posted before, certainly lousy cops are out there, and I feel they must
be identified and removed from service whenever possible, as swiftly as
possible.
All this talk of 'justice' is nonsense, pure and simple. I was amazed and
disgusted when I was a rookie, when I saw the real effects of plea bargains and
how the 'justice system' is nothing more than lousy compromises, often for
political reasons.
However, I digress...back to radio scanning, for God's sake....
Dwight Stewart
>
I missed nothing. You said the Michigan State police are "worse criminals
than the criminals themselves." I'm still waiting for even a single example
to support that charge. If you can provide it, I'll gladly join you in
criticizing the Michigan State police. If you can't, you have no business
saying outrageous garbage you can't support.
> There was no suspicion, just the normal harassment.
> None of your theories even hold a candle. (snip)
I have no idea why your friend was actually pulled over, which is why I
said "or whatever." But I do know your claim of harassment is far less
logical than anything I suggested as a possible reason.
> Umm, yeah... Not even close. He was given a warning
> ticket for his front right tire. (snip)
Was his front tire bad? If so, he should have gotten a warning ticket.
Where is the harassment in that? If the officer really wanted to harass, he
probably could have impounded the unsafe vehicle and told your friend to
find other transportation until the tire was fixed. Instead, your friend
drove away with a warning to fix a defective tire - a tire that should have
been fixed anyway.
> (snip) I hope your happy now, there is a brief run-
> through of one of my harassment incidents. (snip)
Not really. What you say doesn't affect my happiness. However, I'm still
waiting for an example to support your claim that the Michigan State police
are "worse criminals than the criminals themselves."
Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Dwight Stewart
> Corruption and lawless behavior by those in
> official capacities, particularly those with
> color of authority and access to deadly force,
> is far, far worse than any sort of criminal
> behavior amongst the citizens.
But he didn't say anything about corruption and lawless behavior, Robert.
Dwight Stewart
> No, he did make note that I was in violation of
> the law by having the scanner in my car, but
> instead of taking action then, he choose to keep
> me in distress by stating that if he feels like
> charging me for a breaking a law that doesn't
> exsist, he'll do it within 30 days.
He said it exactly that way - you're violating the law? If so, why didn't
he do something about it on the spot?
Or did he instead say I "believe" you're violating the law, but I'm going
to check on it? That would better explain why he didn't do anything while he
had your pulled over.
Dr. Fred Hambrecht Sr
tire is exactly the same as someone entering your home in the middle of the
night, and killing your entire family.
Where is your compassion for those that were inconvenienced by the terrible
cops?
I should be able to treat a cop like scum and have him suppress any
animosity towards me. After all it is MY taxes earned flipping burgers that
pays his salary.
Besides he should be out chasing real criminals and leaving me alone. It's
my choice if I want to smoke dope and drive on may pops. Their all the same,
they only took the job to hassle people.
What more proof could you possible need? If you disagree, you are probably a
right wing, communist, Nazi.
(Removing tongue from cheek for the humor impaired)
"Dwight Stewart" <ste...@say.net> wrote in message
news:BAD0CCFA.17C07%ste...@say.net...
Dwight Stewart
>
> The point is that the cop was violating the public
> trust -- probably the greatest crime a cop can
> commit. A violation of the public trust is an action
> worse than those that we pay them to protect us
> from. We do not pay cops to harass us, we pay them
> to keep our lives peaceful and safe. (snip)
Read that over again in the context of this discussion - a person stopped
for a seat belt violation also being questioned about the scanner in his
vehicle. Once you're finished reading, please explain how it is a violation
of the public trust for a police officer to confront a person about a
possible scanner law violation. Then explain how that confrontation denied
that person of his peaceful and safe life?
> (snip) A cop lying to a citizen is a violation of
> the trust we place in them. This particular cop
> should either be disciplined or have his badge
> taken away.
A little extreme, don't you think, Frank? You read one person's
interpretation of what a police officer said (what he wrote wasn't exactly a
tape recording) and now you want the officer's badge taken away.
Yes, because it does undermine public trust, officers should avoid lying.
However, just like any other citizen, a police officer is only required to
tell the absolute truth in signed statements of fact or on the witness
stand. Beyond that, is is simply in the best interests of the officer and
his department to tell the truth where possible.
RedXIII
> Once you're finished reading, please explain how it is a violation
> of the public trust for a police officer to confront a person about a
> possible scanner law violation.
Because there is no violation of the states scanner law. So just the fact
that the KKKop didn't know the law he was supposed to be enforcing is a
violation of public trust. If a KKKop starts harrassing me about a law that
was repealed 8 years ago, then that is not working within the public trust.
Guess that's why they're cops and not lawyers. One actually knows the law
while the other doesn't.
--
Get all the lastest info on the effort to liberate the Iraqi people, brought
to you by the greatest country on Earth.
Death to Islam! Death to Saddam!
God Bless The U.S.A.!
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/RedXIII1/Info.html
(Re-worded entirely)
The following is a list of morons.
That's all. Just morons. Doesn't matter
what they've done or what they said,
it's all been equally moronic.
The moron list: (Now in order of highest to lowest stupidity)
The top moron in any group on Usenet is Gandalf Grey -
ganda...@infectedmail.com - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater (Yes
Hanson. I do post your name in every one of my posts and now you're at the
top)
Bush Busta / A.K.A Jim Kennemur - Bush...@America.com -
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater (Usually giving Gandalf the reach
around)
banjocat - banj...@bellsouth.net - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
(Fuck you and you threats)
Gary Roselles - rose...@enetis.net - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
(Escapee from Rapid City Regional Hospital's psychiatric unit)
Dr. Fred Hambrecht Sr - w4...@charter.net - rec.radio.scanner (Threatened to
tell my ISP cuz I was cussin' on Usenet. Didn't work)
Al Patrick - a...@inet4u.com - rec.radio.shortwave (Thinks God kills people
for listening to Rock & Roll)
Usenet User - pke...@mil.edu - rec.radio.scanner
Jon Van Allen - kf...@qwest.net - rec.radio.scanner
MnMikew - MNMi...@aol.com - rec.radio.scanner
Lou Scannon - sca...@lmountain.com - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Steve Hiner - shi...@tampabay.rr.com - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
ad lib - leed...@yahoo.com - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
TW. - tan...@comcast.net - rec.radio.scanner
Never anonymous Bud - the...@san.rr.com - rec.radio.scanner
John T. Kennedy - jt...@no-treason.com -
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
DeWayne - k9...@indy.rr.com - rec.radio.scanner
Willy - willyc...@hotSPAM.com - rec.radio.scanner
GrtPmpkin32 - grtpm...@aol.com - rec.radio.shortwave
Baudolino - Baud...@wi.rr.com - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Aozotorp - aozo...@aol.com - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Donald L Ferrt - wolfb...@mindspring.com -
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
X98 - x...@earthlink.net - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater (Bin-Laden /
David Koresh Crossbreed)
M. Yoda - mini...@yahoo.com - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
HH2000 - hh2...@aol.com - soc.culture.iraq
A Voice of Reason - fur...@whereintheworld.org - soc.culture.iraq
Tempest - tem...@hotmail.com -soc.culture.iraq
Tim Vanhoof - timva...@gmx.net - soc.culture.iraq
Trebor - tre...@my-deja.com - soc.culture.france
pkgojak - pkg...@mydeja.com - alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
B. Nice - seattled...@hotmail.com -
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Dr. Politiko - drpol...@hotmail.com - soc.culture.iraq (Likes defeated
dictator Saddam Hussein)
Zombix - zombixTR...@zombix.ma.cx -
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater (Just another America hater)
Nick - kn...@otenet.gr - soc.culture.iraq (Self -Proclaimed stand in for
Iraqi Information Minister)
banana - ban...@borve.demon.co.uk - soc.culture.iraq (Can't back up his
claims with credible sources)
gorgonzola2924 - gorgonz...@hotmail.com - soc.culture.iraq (Thinks
comedy spoofs of the fallen Iraqi regime are unfunny, because he loves
Saddam.)
Christy D - davie...@alvillage.net - rec.radio.shortwave (Wannabe
Newsgroup Moderator)
Road Warrior - 66.74.74.29 - soc.culture.iraq (Get's all his news and
opinions from Hollywood talking heads)
The Newsest Moron is: Pa...@usa.net - 4.pwlr2.xdsl.nauticom.net -
rec.radio.shortwave (Jealous cuz he wasn't on the list. I'm happy to oblige
though.)