"jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:
But they're working, and they're in a marked, on duty unit. They are exemptwhen working.

Unless the laws are unreasonable, why should they be exempt while "working"
("working" being completely separate from actually responding to a call).

As I've posted before, being exempt from the speeding law doesn't exempt
cops from driving in a safe manner.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc wrote: "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:But they're working, and they're in a marked, on duty unit. They are exemptwhen working. Unless the laws are unreasonable, why should they be exempt while "working" ("working" being completely separate from actually responding to a call). As I've posted before, being exempt from the speeding law doesn't exempt cops from driving in a safe manner.

I've already pointed out that both marked and unmarked units are not
exempt from anything in MD unless on call and with a minimum of siren
(but not necessarily lights) active. However, I see cops speeding all
the time, and usually driving faster than the flow of traffic as well.

nate

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:dtivfvc106o73fu6uuhkbu655emo36ghtm@4ax.com... "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:But they're working, and they're in a marked, on duty unit. They are
exemptwhen working. Unless the laws are unreasonable, why should they be exempt while
"working" ("working" being completely separate from actually responding to a call). As I've posted before, being exempt from the speeding law doesn't exempt cops from driving in a safe manner.

That's the same thing I've posted before too. It's called "due care".

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

On 01 Jul 2003, jaybird opined:
"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:dtivfvc106o73fu6uuhkbu655emo36ghtm@4ax.com... "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:But they're working, and they're in a marked, on duty unit. They are exemptwhen working. Unless the laws are unreasonable, why should they be exempt while "working" ("working" being completely separate from actually responding to a call). As I've posted before, being exempt from the speeding law doesn't exempt cops from driving in a safe manner. That's the same thing I've posted before too. It's called "due care".

Jaybird:
I've been watching this conversation off again, on again, but this particular
point has me very interested. You can see, can't you, why this seems like a
double standard. On duty officers being exempt from speeding laws
(particularly when not persuing a duly important objective) seems both
unnecessary and dangerous, not to mention hypocritical.

I'm not on either side of this discussion, but I tend to be supportive of law
enforcement all around while noting the ample times they themselves break the
very laws they enforce for little or no apparent reason (these most of the
time are very minor offenses, such as parking illegally in front of
restaurants during lunch breaks). These latter offenses irk me to no end (and
they are plentiful here in Chicagoland), and they fuel a perception that law
enforcement likes to bend the rules. I don't believe they do in the main, but
as a police officer, do you see why such patterns (I've named two, illegal
parking and capricious speeding) erode public perceptions of law enforcment?

Thanks for your response,
Chad

--
Looking for a pet? Adopt one! ** http://www.petfinder.com
Info for a healthy, happy dog? * http://www.dog-play.com


Boycott shampoo...demand REAL poo!!!

"Dimpled Chad" <dimpledc@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93AB65636B824cahDfncah555NO@130.133.1.4... On 01 Jul 2003, jaybird opined: "Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:dtivfvc106o73fu6uuhkbu655emo36ghtm@4ax.com... "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote: >But they're working, and they're in a marked, on duty unit. They are exempt >when working. Unless the laws are unreasonable, why should they be exempt while "working" ("working" being completely separate from actually responding to a
call). As I've posted before, being exempt from the speeding law doesn't
exempt cops from driving in a safe manner. That's the same thing I've posted before too. It's called "due care". Jaybird: I've been watching this conversation off again, on again, but this
particular point has me very interested. You can see, can't you, why this seems like
a double standard. On duty officers being exempt from speeding laws (particularly when not persuing a duly important objective) seems both unnecessary and dangerous, not to mention hypocritical. I'm not on either side of this discussion, but I tend to be supportive of
law enforcement all around while noting the ample times they themselves break
the very laws they enforce for little or no apparent reason (these most of the time are very minor offenses, such as parking illegally in front of restaurants during lunch breaks). These latter offenses irk me to no end
(and they are plentiful here in Chicagoland), and they fuel a perception that
law enforcement likes to bend the rules. I don't believe they do in the main,
but as a police officer, do you see why such patterns (I've named two, illegal parking and capricious speeding) erode public perceptions of law
enforcment?

Sure, I can sure see how you'd view those things as hurtful to your
perception of law enforcement. Let's look at your perception though. You s
ee those cars as normal cars driving down the road, or parking just like any
other car out on the street. They're not. Those cars are used to do a
special job outside the realm of normal driving and parking practices. Many
of those things a normal person wouldn't be privy to or as perceptive to
what that cop is trying to accomplish.

For the speeding issue, One example is that those police vehicles are in
their daily work travels to patrol the most amount of area in the least
amount of time. The greater area they can cover, the greater coverage and
visibility we, the citizen, get.

On the parking issue, I'm sure they enjoy being able to park up front and
not have to walk so far, but what happens if something goes wrong inside
that restaurant, or if someone runs in off the street and reports a
hit-and-run that just happened, or a hundred other different possibilities.
Those guys may need to get to that car in a hurry for us, the citizen.

They don't really bend the rules, they're exempt from the rules, because
they have a different function in society than we, the citizen, have. They
need to be able to get to those cars quickly and they need to be able to get
somewhere quickly.

I'm sure this has just touched off the next saga in the anti-cop flame war,
but just pause and think about these examples for a minute before you guys
hit the "post anti-cop message" key. The guys out there need special
accommodations to be able to help us all out better.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

On 01 Jul 2003, jaybird opined:
I'm sure this has just touched off the next saga in the anti-cop flame war, but just pause and think about these examples for a minute before you guys hit the "post anti-cop message" key. The guys out there need special accommodations to be able to help us all out better.

Hi Jaybird,

Thanks for the response.

If what you say above is reasonable, and we could quibble on some of the
detail but you could make a rational case perhaps on some of it, then law
enforcement really needs to do a better job at communicating these points to
the hoi polloi.

All we see is cops parking in no parking zones outside of starbucks, speeding
on the highway (albeit so is everyone else), and running through red lights
with sirens on only to turn them off and then, one block later, park at the
aformentioned starbucks for their morning latte. (We see cops behaving more
responsibly, too, of course, and probably much more often than not, but the
negatives are what sticks in the average person's mind).

These kind of incidents, while perhaps warranted by the special accomodations
you cite (I'm going to table that issue for now), are what underguirds public
ire when individual police officers actually do cross the line, and even more
generally a mistrust that is antithetical to the work you are trying to do.

It just seems to me, again as someone who generally supports the efforts of
law enforcement, that much much more needs to be done to communicate the
*why* about these special accomodations. Otherwise, the average citizen just
thinks that cops believe themselves to be above the law (as you say, not
bending it, but exempt from it), not just in the specifics we've mentioned,
but in other areas as well.

Chad

--
Looking for a pet? Adopt one! ** http://www.petfinder.com
Info for a healthy, happy dog? * http://www.dog-play.com


A dog is a dog. Unless it's facing you, then it's
*Mr.* Dog.

In article <6kiMa.37208$hV.2250073@twister.austin.rr.com>, jaybird wrote:
For the speeding issue, One example is that those police vehicles are in their daily work travels to patrol the most amount of area in the least amount of time. The greater area they can cover, the greater coverage and visibility we, the citizen, get.

So then it's not unsafe to exceed the speed limit and the speed limit
is not set correctly.
On the parking issue, I'm sure they enjoy being able to park up front and not have to walk so far, but what happens if something goes wrong inside that restaurant, or if someone runs in off the street and reports a hit-and-run that just happened, or a hundred other different possibilities. Those guys may need to get to that car in a hurry for us, the citizen.

Spoken like someone who's never experienced an illegally parked CPD unit.
I've seen them parked where getting out quickly wasn't an option. It was
simply a short walk. In fact, that describes most of the creatively parked
CPD units. Keep in mind most illegal parking is such to allow for good
traffic flow, by impeding that flow the quick response gained by the short
walk is nullified.
They don't really bend the rules, they're exempt from the rules, because they have a different function in society than we, the citizen, have. They need to be able to get to those cars quickly and they need to be able to get somewhere quickly.

If exceeding the typical speed limit was as dangerous as we a re led to
believe, then the police officers are putting people in danger for this
'greater visibility'. Danger that would exceed any benefit. And then if
they are driving faster they are less likely to see the very things you
claim that visibility is to prevent. Now that another of your complex
rationalization excuses is blown away let's look at the simple explaination.

The speed limits are underposted and the officers drive a comfortable, safe,
reasonable speed that happens to exceed the posted limit like *everybody*
else.
I'm sure this has just touched off the next saga in the anti-cop flame war, but just pause and think about these examples for a minute before you guys hit the "post anti-cop message" key. The guys out there need special accommodations to be able to help us all out better.

It's not anti-cop, it's anti-hyprocisy. It's seeing right through the
speed kills lies. If cruising on the typical open interstate at 85mph were
really dangerous the police shouldnt be doing it, therefore it's not
dangerous.

"Dimpled Chad" <dimpledc@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93AB74B0D6A41cahDfncah555NO@130.133.1.4... On 01 Jul 2003, jaybird opined: I'm sure this has just touched off the next saga in the anti-cop flame
war, but just pause and think about these examples for a minute before you
guys hit the "post anti-cop message" key. The guys out there need special accommodations to be able to help us all out better. Hi Jaybird, Thanks for the response. If what you say above is reasonable, and we could quibble on some of the detail but you could make a rational case perhaps on some of it, then law enforcement really needs to do a better job at communicating these points
to the hoi polloi.

I guess it's not really portrayed to the public because we assume that most
people with any common sense would realize it without having to be told.
All we see is cops parking in no parking zones outside of starbucks,
speeding on the highway (albeit so is everyone else), and running through red
lights with sirens on only to turn them off and then, one block later, park at
the aformentioned starbucks for their morning latte. (We see cops behaving
more responsibly, too, of course, and probably much more often than not, but
the negatives are what sticks in the average person's mind).

I appreciate you acknowledging that. It usually is only the bad ones that
stick out.
These kind of incidents, while perhaps warranted by the special
accomodations you cite (I'm going to table that issue for now), are what underguirds
public ire when individual police officers actually do cross the line, and even
more generally a mistrust that is antithetical to the work you are trying to
do.

I agree. I've always admitted to the fact that there are a minority of cops
who do abuse their authority, whether it be driving, use of force, or other
issues. We all know that happens. Aside from those happenings, don't let
that effect a persons view of what is necessary for the rest to get their
jobs done for all of us.
It just seems to me, again as someone who generally supports the efforts
of law enforcement, that much much more needs to be done to communicate the *why* about these special accomodations. Otherwise, the average citizen
just thinks that cops believe themselves to be above the law (as you say, not bending it, but exempt from it), not just in the specifics we've
mentioned, but in other areas as well.

I think that's part of the reason why I stick around this newsgroup. All
too often I end up being the unofficial spokesperson against an onslaught of
unwavering anti-cops. I say anti-cop because no matter what the possible
explanation to a situation is, it's never considered and the cop is always
at fault by many in here. As I said before, I completely acknowledge that
there are cops who stretch the line, I just like to always give the other
possibilities for people to consider before making up their mind that the
cops are always wrong. They're grown-ups with a lot of responsibility and a
lot of decisions to make each day that revolve around people's lives, well
being, and safety. I think they can be trusted to know when and how they
need to drive to get the job done. Many people forget that they don't know
what's going on inside that patrol car and they assume things to be a
certain way when many times they're not.

I think you and I have made more progress in two days worth of posting than
anyone else in here has over years worth of it.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

On 01 Jul 2003, jaybird opined:
I guess it's not really portrayed to the public because we assume that most people with any common sense would realize it without having to be told.

Then my hope is that this conversation communicates to you and your co-
workers that it is not as transparent as you've assumed. I think that common
sense, actually, communicates the opposite, that while you've been afforded
special accomodations it is incumbant upon you all to respect that (and by
and large you do), but as important to justify its use. The examples I cited
are those in which its use is not justified, and lamentably too few police
agencies either crack down on it or even critique it.

I think that the police really do need to work on their public perception,
rather than assume that common sense will explain and justify special status.
I think in some cases that special status might well be warranted, but it
also is plainly abused, or is properly exercised in ways that give the
appearance of abuse. In the latter, law enforcement relies on common sense to
justify said cases to their peril.
I appreciate you acknowledging that. It usually is only the bad ones that stick out.

Well, of course. The problem is that the bad experiences need to be
condemned, not just by citizen critiques but especially within the
department. Such actions would yield a reduction in incidents, which doesn't
seem to be happening, at least around here.

I agree. I've always admitted to the fact that there are a minority of cops who do abuse their authority, whether it be driving, use of force, or other issues. We all know that happens. Aside from those happenings, don't let that effect a persons view of what is necessary for the rest to get their jobs done for all of us.

Well, okay. That might be reasonable, but, again, law enforcement needs to do
a better job at articulating this to the public. As it is, the perception is
that protection of said cops is more important. That perception may be wrong,
but it is the standard perception. And that is dangerous to your work.
I think that's part of the reason why I stick around this newsgroup.

But what is discussed here has little impact in real life. Insofar as you
agree with the above, *and* articlate strongly to that effect, you seem to be
an exception.
All too often I end up being the unofficial spokesperson against an onslaught of unwavering anti-cops. I say anti-cop because no matter what the possible explanation to a situation is, it's never considered and the cop is always at fault by many in here. As I said before, I completely acknowledge that there are cops who stretch the line, I just like to always give the other possibilities for people to consider before making up their mind that the cops are always wrong. They're grown-ups with a lot of responsibility and a lot of decisions to make each day that revolve around people's lives, well being, and safety. I think they can be trusted to know when and how they need to drive to get the job done. Many people forget that they don't know what's going on inside that patrol car and they assume things to be a certain way when many times they're not.

Much of that is true. The other side is true, too, lamentably, that many cops
are so rabidly pro-cop that they ignore the real dangers of either their
job's power or of cops that abuse that power and go undisciplined. Even in
the most extreme cases, the perception is that these cops are defended rather
than disciplined from within the ranks.

I agree that much on these boards (and usenet, generally) is "anti-cop," or
better, critical of law enforcement (sometimes rationally, sometimes not).
But their critique often has some valid basis, and law enforcement would do
well to act more diligently in articulating why some of that basis is wrong
and, in the cases that that criticism is correct, to amend their practices.

For instance, there is no reason why cops need to run red lights with their
lights on, and then go park in front of starbucks for their morning latte. I
know you agree with that. But said critique needs to be acted upon by the
police themselves, and unfortunately I don't see enough of that. *shrug* I think you and I have made more progress in two days worth of posting than anyone else in here has over years worth of it.

Oh, I don't know. I see the validity of much of what some of the others say
as well, even if I don't agree completely with it. Brent has a point about
speed limits and the rhetoric of safety, though I disagree with him (and
some other regulars here) on a few points (though I don't want to get into
that).

There are many trolls here (of course, it's USENET), but many of the others
arguing against you have much commendable to say; but, again, I think the
work that the police do is hard work, and I'm generally supportive of it, and
I think that you are a good example of a police officer that is trying hard
to present a responsible face for the department.

I've noted that you work hard at presenting rational points of view. I just
hope that more police officers across the country are willing to accept some
of this criticism and work more diligently to correct abuses of power that
has been afforded them. In our country, effective police work is harmed when
those abuses are not actively curtailed through disapprobation among fellow
officers and strong internal checks and balances.

Chad


--
Looking for a pet? Adopt one! ** http://www.petfinder.com
Info for a healthy, happy dog? * http://www.dog-play.com


"He is your friend, your partner, your defender,
your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader.
He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last
beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy
of such devotion." - Unknown

In article <6kiMa.37208$hV.2250073@twister.austin.rr.com>, jaybird wrote:
For the speeding issue, One example is that those police vehicles are in their daily work travels to patrol the most amount of area in the least amount of time. The greater area they can cover, the greater coverage and visibility we, the citizen, get.

So then it's not unsafe to exceed the speed limit and the speed limit
is not set correctly.
On the parking issue, I'm sure they enjoy being able to park up front and not have to walk so far, but what happens if something goes wrong inside that restaurant, or if someone runs in off the street and reports a hit-and-run that just happened, or a hundred other different possibilities. Those guys may need to get to that car in a hurry for us, the citizen.

Spoken like someone who's never experienced an illegally parked CPD unit.
I've seen them parked where getting out quickly wasn't an option. It was
simply a short walk. In fact, that describes most of the creatively parked
CPD units. Keep in mind most illegal parking is such to allow for good
traffic flow, by impeding that flow the quick response gained by the short
walk is nullified.
They don't really bend the rules, they're exempt from the rules, because they have a different function in society than we, the citizen, have. They need to be able to get to those cars quickly and they need to be able to get somewhere quickly.

If exceeding the typical speed limit was as dangerous as we a re led to
believe, then the police officers are putting people in danger for this
'greater visibility'. Danger that would exceed any benefit. And then if
they are driving faster they are less likely to see the very things you
claim that visibility is to prevent. Now that another of your complex
rationalization excuses is blown away let's look at the simple explaination.

The speed limits are underposted and the officers drive a comfortable, safe,
reasonable speed that happens to exceed the posted limit like *everybody*
else.
I'm sure this has just touched off the next saga in the anti-cop flame war, but just pause and think about these examples for a minute before you guys hit the "post anti-cop message" key. The guys out there need special accommodations to be able to help us all out better.

It's not anti-cop, it's anti-hyprocisy. It's seeing right through the
speed kills lies. If cruising on the typical open interstate at 85mph were
really dangerous the police shouldnt be doing it, therefore it's not
dangerous.

In article <X3kMa.35906$XV.2076436@twister.austin.rr.com>,
jaybird <nospam@me.com> wrote:I think that's part of the reason why I stick around this newsgroup. Alltoo often I end up being the unofficial spokesperson against an onslaught ofunwavering anti-cops.

Don't sell yourself short; I'm sure you've created and confirmed
plenty of those anti-cops.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

"jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in messagenews:dtivfvc106o73fu6uuhkbu655emo36ghtm@4ax .com... "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:But they're working, and they're in a marked, on duty unit. They areexemptwhen working. Unless the laws are unreasonable, why should they be exempt while"working" ("working" being completely separate from actually responding to a call). As I've posted before, being exempt from the speeding law doesn't exempt cops from driving in a safe manner.That's the same thing I've posted before too. It's called "due care".

And if a civilian is going the same speed and is exercising "due care?"

How about a civilian traveling a speed high enough that no one could follow
at the same speed and exercise "due care" at the same time? Do you let
them go and radio ahead? Or do you follow at an unsafe speed?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:
They don't really bend the rules, they're exempt from the rules, becausethey have a different function in society than we, the citizen, have.

The speeding rules and a number of the parking and turn arounds are set
aside for them. However, I've seen nothing in TX law that allows the
police (even when on call) to, say, not use proper turn signals. However,
cops on regular patrol (not a call) often don't follow many of the rules,
let alone when on a call.

From what I can tell, cops break many laws often and regularly. Not the
ones they are excerpt from, but the ones they are not exempt from. How can
you expect anything from contempt from the people that watch cops
continually break the law, only to have the same laws enforced by the cops
that break them?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"Dimpled Chad" <dimpledc@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93AB8A4EFFCCCcahDfncah555NO@130.133.1.4... On 01 Jul 2003, jaybird opined: I guess it's not really portrayed to the public because we assume that most people with any common sense would realize it without having to be told. Then my hope is that this conversation communicates to you and your co- workers that it is not as transparent as you've assumed. I think that
common sense, actually, communicates the opposite, that while you've been
afforded special accomodations it is incumbant upon you all to respect that (and by and large you do), but as important to justify its use. The examples I
cited are those in which its use is not justified, and lamentably too few police agencies either crack down on it or even critique it. I think that the police really do need to work on their public perception, rather than assume that common sense will explain and justify special
status. I think in some cases that special status might well be warranted, but it also is plainly abused, or is properly exercised in ways that give the appearance of abuse. In the latter, law enforcement relies on common sense
to justify said cases to their peril.

Then that is the fault of the person who is perceiving the practice. I'm
not going to hold a sign out the window while I'm passing everyone saying
that I'm looking at cars for interdiction purposes, or put up any kind of
parking decal when I park at the front curb of a business. The sign is
plain enough already and it says "Police" on the side. A police vehicle is
not a normal vehicle and isn't subject to the normal rules because of the
job that is performed.
I appreciate you acknowledging that. It usually is only the bad ones that stick out. Well, of course. The problem is that the bad experiences need to be condemned, not just by citizen critiques but especially within the department. Such actions would yield a reduction in incidents, which
doesn't seem to be happening, at least around here.

That's another fault of the person outside doing the perceiving. Internal
affairs investigations are not public, for the most part, and when people
screw up, they do get called on it. Not everyone sees that, but just know
that it happens. We don't condone the bad cops.
I agree. I've always admitted to the fact that there are a minority of cops who do abuse their authority, whether it be driving, use of force, or other issues. We all know that happens. Aside from those happenings, don't let that effect a persons view of what is necessary for the rest to get their jobs done for all of us. Well, okay. That might be reasonable, but, again, law enforcement needs to
do a better job at articulating this to the public. As it is, the perception
is that protection of said cops is more important. That perception may be
wrong, but it is the standard perception. And that is dangerous to your work.

That's not the fault of the cops, that's the fault of the media, the ACLU,
the NAACP, and countless other orgainzations who constantly hound the police
and present a bad image of things that are mostly unfounded.
I think that's part of the reason why I stick around this newsgroup. But what is discussed here has little impact in real life. Insofar as you agree with the above, *and* articlate strongly to that effect, you seem to
be an exception.

Sure I am. The cops know that they're doing what they're supposed to be
doing and they just go on about their business. It's the uniformed,
uneducated, or non-common sense public who jumps to conclusions without
knowing the facts. And, most of the time they're not going to know the
facts. They've created their own mistrust of the police.
All too often I end up being the unofficial spokesperson against an onslaught of unwavering anti-cops. I say anti-cop because no matter what the possible explanation to a situation is, it's never considered and the cop is always at fault by many in here. As I said before, I completely acknowledge that there are cops who stretch the line, I just like to always give the other possibilities for people to consider before making up their mind that the cops are always wrong. They're grown-ups with a lot of responsibility and a lot of decisions to make each day that revolve around people's lives, well being, and safety. I think they can be trusted to know when and how they need to drive to get the job done. Many people forget that they don't know what's going on inside that patrol car and they assume things to be a certain way when many times they're not. Much of that is true. The other side is true, too, lamentably, that many
cops are so rabidly pro-cop that they ignore the real dangers of either their job's power or of cops that abuse that power and go undisciplined. Even in the most extreme cases, the perception is that these cops are defended
rather than disciplined from within the ranks. I agree that much on these boards (and usenet, generally) is "anti-cop,"
or better, critical of law enforcement (sometimes rationally, sometimes not). But their critique often has some valid basis, and law enforcement would
do well to act more diligently in articulating why some of that basis is
wrong and, in the cases that that criticism is correct, to amend their
practices.

Believe me, they do. It's just not always known. I don't want someone I
can't trust backing me up.
For instance, there is no reason why cops need to run red lights with
their lights on, and then go park in front of starbucks for their morning latte.
I know you agree with that. But said critique needs to be acted upon by the police themselves, and unfortunately I don't see enough of that. *shrug*

I agree with that, if those are the plain facts. What if the guy was going
to a call that required lights on, but got cancelled during the trip and
just happened to pull into the coffee shop right after? It may be the case,
it may not, but people jump to conclusions without knowing the facts.
I think you and I have made more progress in two days worth of posting than anyone else in here has over years worth of it. Oh, I don't know. I see the validity of much of what some of the others
say as well, even if I don't agree completely with it. Brent has a point about speed limits and the rhetoric of safety, though I disagree with him (and some other regulars here) on a few points (though I don't want to get into that).

Yeah, that's an old conversation that I try to stay away from now. It's
been argued and re-argued so many times I can't count them anymore.
There are many trolls here (of course, it's USENET), but many of the
others arguing against you have much commendable to say; but, again, I think the work that the police do is hard work, and I'm generally supportive of it,
and I think that you are a good example of a police officer that is trying
hard to present a responsible face for the department.

Thanks. I just want to present the side that is hardly ever heard. The
cops know what they're doing, and they know they're doing it right. When
accusations fly, they are thrown all over the media and the public's word of
mouth, but the cops remain silent because most of the time they know they
did it right. They don't feed the media, they just let the courts quietly
decide. Just think about how many prior-to-trial headlines you've seen
compared to the number of post trial headlines that come out. When the
whiners lose, they don't make much of a deal about that.
I've noted that you work hard at presenting rational points of view. I
just hope that more police officers across the country are willing to accept
some of this criticism and work more diligently to correct abuses of power that has been afforded them. In our country, effective police work is harmed
when those abuses are not actively curtailed through disapprobation among
fellow officers and strong internal checks and balances.

I strongly agree. I just hate to see the good cops hurt by the actions of
the bad ones, and the perception of people when a good one does something
someone doesn't understand and thinks is bad.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

On 02 Jul 2003, jaybird opined:
Sure I am. The cops know that they're doing what they're supposed to be doing and they just go on about their business. It's the uniformed, uneducated, or non-common sense public who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts. And, most of the time they're not going to know the facts. They've created their own mistrust of the police.

Hi Jaybird,
Thanks again for the post. I read it all, and only want to respond to the
above because I don't want to rehash old points.

If one grants most of your points (their merits aside) on the misperceptions
and ignorance of the public, then I still think that cops ought be wary about
the idea you presented above.

Here is my point: Regardless of who created mistrust of the police, it is a
dangerous phenomenon for your job, and while you can't and shouldn't be
expected to justify each of the seeming excesses of police use of power, the
impression you give is that it is not the cops' job to justify any such use,
and I think that is incorrect, for both theoretical and practical purposes.
Most important are those practical purposes: regardless of who created what
mistrust is there, that mistrust is *dangerous* for your work, and it is the
little things that build up to larger problems.

Running reds; parking "illegally"; crusing at higher rates of speeds while
ticketing. These things may have a legitimate justificiation. But police fail
to justify them to the public at their peril (again), and I think it is wrong
to assume that it is neither law enforcement's responsibility nor benefit to
work on articulating clearly that justification. Not at each individual
instance, but certainly through some public education campaign, and perhaps
through debate and oversight.

That's all. What I see underguirding this conversation between you and the
others here is *this* issue: ought police have special accomodation, and why.
You assume it, and assume others should to. My point is that it is not that
plain.

best,
Chad


--
Looking for a pet? Adopt one! ** http://www.petfinder.com
Info for a healthy, happy dog? * http://www.dog-play.com


It is a new day

In article <sqDMa.39530$hV.2433624@twister.austin.rr.com>, jaybird wrote:

Then that is the fault of the person who is perceiving the practice. I'm not going to hold a sign out the window while I'm passing everyone saying that I'm looking at cars for interdiction purposes, or put up any kind of parking decal when I park at the front curb of a business. The sign is plain enough already and it says "Police" on the side. A police vehicle is not a normal vehicle and isn't subject to the normal rules because of the job that is performed.

If "speed kills" were true, you would be endangering the public in
conducting your interdiction efforts when exceeding the posted limit.
While it may help police departments catch criminals, if we are to
believe the other statements issued by departments such speed is
endangering the public. It doesn't make sense to endanger the public
by driving in excess of the posted limit for something that isn't
an immediate and greater hazard. Thinking some guy is hiding a bag
of crack cocaine in his car doesn't qualify, neither does covering
more ground in order to get a wider sampling of drivers to find such
a person.

I would like to think that the officer is cruising at safe and reasonable
speeds to do this sort of thing. And if he is, well the posted limit
is not safety based. And that's the ultimate point.

In fact, if the speed limit is lower than the actual maximum safe speed to
allow officers to do this sort of interdiction, by driving safely and
faster than the public, you've again shown that low (underposted) speed
limits are for the purpose of catching criminals on the road, a tool of
law enforcement and are not based in road safety. Safety is nothing
but a ruse, an excuse, a way of hiding what is nothing more than a 'tool'
a way around citizen's protections to make catching criminals easier.

I don't think the public would stand for low speed limits for that
purpose, obviously police departments don't either.

"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:QQWdnQscwq-gcZ-iXTWc-w@speakeasy.net... In article <X3kMa.35906$XV.2076436@twister.austin.rr.com>, jaybird <nospam@me.com> wrote:I think that's part of the reason why I stick around this newsgroup. Alltoo often I end up being the unofficial spokesperson against an onslaught
ofunwavering anti-cops. Don't sell yourself short; I'm sure you've created and confirmed plenty of those anti-cops.

Then their priorities were set in the wrong place to begin with.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

On 2 Jul 2003 16:19:52 GMT, Dimpled Chad <dimpledc@hotmail.com> wrote:
while you can't and shouldn't beexpected to justify each of the seeming excesses of police use of power, the

Yes they should. Every time a cop breaks the law, or is accused of
it, the public should have access - full access - to the evidence.
That would end the cover ups that certainly happen every day across
America.

"Dimpled Chad" <dimpledc@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93AC73591A64cahDfncah555NO@130.133.1.4... On 02 Jul 2003, jaybird opined: Sure I am. The cops know that they're doing what they're supposed to be doing and they just go on about their business. It's the uniformed, uneducated, or non-common sense public who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts. And, most of the time they're not going to know the facts. They've created their own mistrust of the police. Hi Jaybird, Thanks again for the post. I read it all, and only want to respond to the above because I don't want to rehash old points. If one grants most of your points (their merits aside) on the
misperceptions and ignorance of the public, then I still think that cops ought be wary
about the idea you presented above. Here is my point: Regardless of who created mistrust of the police, it is
a dangerous phenomenon for your job, and while you can't and shouldn't be expected to justify each of the seeming excesses of police use of power,
the impression you give is that it is not the cops' job to justify any such
use, and I think that is incorrect, for both theoretical and practical
purposes. Most important are those practical purposes: regardless of who created
what mistrust is there, that mistrust is *dangerous* for your work, and it is
the little things that build up to larger problems. Running reds; parking "illegally"; crusing at higher rates of speeds while ticketing. These things may have a legitimate justificiation. But police
fail to justify them to the public at their peril (again), and I think it is
wrong to assume that it is neither law enforcement's responsibility nor benefit
to work on articulating clearly that justification. Not at each individual instance, but certainly through some public education campaign, and
perhaps through debate and oversight. That's all. What I see underguirding this conversation between you and the others here is *this* issue: ought police have special accomodation, and
why. You assume it, and assume others should to. My point is that it is not
that plain.

I agree that uninformed people would consider the behavior to be wrong. The
law enforcement community could waste time and money educating people on
these things, but it's something they should already know. Anyone can look
up their state's traffic law and see the reasons written there in black and
white, and they can trust the people that they give guns and badges to. The
problem is that they don't. They don't take the time to do some research
and to realize that the guys are busy doing what they're paid to do. Our
society today is too concerned with who they can sue and who they can
complain on to realize that some people are just doing what they're supposed
to do. People don't trust the police anymore mostly because of what their
media and their own distrust of their fellow man has been feeding them.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

"jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:
I agree that uninformed people would consider the behavior to be wrong.

And you stated that internal investigations are now and should remain out
of the public domain. The effect is that you know ignorance breeds
contempt. But you work to promote the ignorance, and you condemn the ones
that have contempt.

It seems you are working hard to shoot yourself in the foot. If good PR
increases the ability of the cops to do their jobs, then it should be part
of their jobs. Proclaiming that you shouldn't need to do PR because it is
the stupidity or ignorance of the public that causes them to misinterpret
your actions isn't productive. You just appear to be expending extra
effort to make your job more difficult.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 04:06:00 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:
I agree that uninformed people would consider the behavior to be wrong. Thelaw enforcement community could waste time and money educating people onthese things, but it's something they should already know. Anyone can lookup their state's traffic law and see the reasons written there in black andwhite, and they can trust the people that they give guns and badges to. Theproblem is that they don't. They don't take the time to do some researchand to realize that the guys are busy doing what they're paid to do. Oursociety today is too concerned with who they can sue and who they cancomplain on to realize that some people are just doing what they're supposedto do. People don't trust the police anymore mostly because of what theirmedia and their own distrust of their fellow man has been feeding them.

Wouldn't have anything to do with the occasional bad cop, would it?
Since cops have powers over civilians, they need to be held to a
higher standard. The old "who watches the watchers" line comes to
mind here.

If there were no corruption, you might be right about us just giving
you a badge and gun and trusting you to do your job. Unfortunately
you and your compatriots are human. That means that a large portion
of you are worthy of the trust that is put in you. It also means that
a portion of you are not. Since you support closed door
investigations, how am I to know the difference?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

jaybird wrote: "Dimpled Chad" <dimpledc@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns93AC73591A64cahDfncah555NO@130.133.1.4... On 02 Jul 2003, jaybird opined: Sure I am. The cops know that they're doing what they're supposed to be doing and they just go on about their business. It's the uniformed, uneducated, or non-common sense public who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts. And, most of the time they're not going to know the facts. They've created their own mistrust of the police. Hi Jaybird, Thanks again for the post. I read it all, and only want to respond to the above because I don't want to rehash old points. If one grants most of your points (their merits aside) on the misperceptions and ignorance of the public, then I still think that cops ought be wary about the idea you presented above. Here is my point: Regardless of who created mistrust of the police, it is a dangerous phenomenon for your job, and while you can't and shouldn't be expected to justify each of the seeming excesses of police use of power, the impression you give is that it is not the cops' job to justify any such use, and I think that is incorrect, for both theoretical and practical purposes. Most important are those practical purposes: regardless of who created what mistrust is there, that mistrust is *dangerous* for your work, and it is the little things that build up to larger problems. Running reds; parking "illegally"; crusing at higher rates of speeds while ticketing. These things may have a legitimate justificiation. But police fail to justify them to the public at their peril (again), and I think it is wrong to assume that it is neither law enforcement's responsibility nor benefit to work on articulating clearly that justification. Not at each individual instance, but certainly through some public education campaign, and perhaps through debate and oversight. That's all. What I see underguirding this conversation between you and the others here is *this* issue: ought police have special accomodation, and why. You assume it, and assume others should to. My point is that it is not that plain. I agree that uninformed people would consider the behavior to be wrong. The law enforcement community could waste time and money educating people on these things, but it's something they should already know. Anyone can look up their state's traffic law and see the reasons written there in black and white,

They're not codified in the laws of *my* state.
and they can trust the people that they give guns and badges to.

How does that follow?
The problem is that they don't. They don't take the time to do some research and to realize that the guys are busy doing what they're paid to do.

Sure they are. They're paid to write tickets for things that they do
themselves with impunity. My "job" is to avoid them.
Our society today is too concerned with who they can sue and who they can complain on to realize that some people are just doing what they're supposed to do. People don't trust the police anymore mostly because of what their media and their own distrust of their fellow man has been feeding them.

That and the evidence of our own eyes that police officers have less
regard for the law than the average citizen.

nate

On 02 Jul 2003, jaybird opined:
The law enforcement community could waste time and money educating people on these things, but it's something they should already know.

Thanks for the response.

Would, should, could. That's beside the point I'm trying to make. I'm merely
suggesting that, if police assume that this is not their problem because it
should be apparent that somehow police officers simply ought to be exempt
from the law, you are in for a world of pain long term.

As plain as I can state it: it doesn't matter what perception the citizens
*ought* to have, it is both to your benefit and I think your responsibility
to provide continual justification for ways in which law enforcement
exercises its duly granted authority. It is not a waste of time or money, but
absolutely vital for the smooth functioning of your job and your safety long
term.

Each time a citizen thinks you are abusing your authority for personal
reasons (whether justified or not, whether malicious or not, whether serious
or inconsequential, regardless of whether another interpretation is
reasonable *or* the reasonableness of the citizen's interpetation) public
confidence in your work decreases.

I fear that these things can erode perception of law enforcement in ways that
can make things quite dangerous for them. The work involved at improving the
situation would not be difficult to implement. I agree that it would have a
cost, but such cost would be worth it and ought be lobbied hard for, inside
the police department as vigorously as it is by outside observers clammoring
to know what is happening behind the concrete walls of our local police
department.

Chad
(PS: All of this should be tempered with my general approbation and
commendation of how our local PD works hard at this kind of thing)

--
Looking for a pet? Adopt one! ** http://www.petfinder.com
Info for a healthy, happy dog? * http://www.dog-play.com


You enter into a certain amount of madness when you
marry a person with pets." -Nora Ephron

"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:uh97gvspkr4rqteukcjd4qkdm1b4qmakuq@4ax.com... On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:06:48 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote: What a tangled web we weave.Then that is the fault of the person who is perceiving the practice. I'mnot going to hold a sign out the window while I'm passing everyone sayingthat I'm looking at cars for interdiction purposes, or put up any kind ofparking decal when I park at the front curb of a business. The sign isplain enough already and it says "Police" on the side. A police vehicle
isnot a normal vehicle and isn't subject to the normal rules because of thejob that is performed. And police wonder why people hate them.

I don't wonder. I know there are many people like you.
That's another fault of the person outside doing the perceiving.
Internalaffairs investigations are not public, for the most part, and when peoplescrew up, they do get called on it. Not everyone sees that, but just
knowthat it happens. We don't condone the bad cops. Sure they do. What, once every thousand times a cop murders someone, one cop gets a slap on the wrist. You DO CONDONE the bad cops, you DO lie to protect them, you DO refuse to testify against them when you see them commit crimes.

I've never condoned a bad cop, never lied to protect one, and never refused
to testify against one. I value my career too much.
Cops love to say how there is nothing worse than someone who shoots a cop, because they would shoot anybody. Wrong - those people are just acting in self defense, cops have guns and shoot, usually without provocation.

Not usually. It takes quite a bit of provocation to get shot. As long as
the person is following the verbal direction given by the cop there isn't a
problem.
I like to say there is nothing worse than a cop, judge or other person in power who commits crime. Any cop, judge, politician, CEO or other person in authority who commits a crime, should get 10 times the penalty that anyone else does. If it is a death penalty case, then revive them each time you kill them, and do it all over again.That's not the fault of the cops, that's the fault of the media, the
ACLU,the NAACP, and countless other orgainzations who constantly hound the
policeand present a bad image of things that are mostly unfounded. Bad image? Film doesn't lie. The media didn't beat Rodney King. The media didn't beat the guy in Ohio who yes, did shoot at a cop and wound his hand, but who the cops later attacked when he surrendered and beat into a coma. The media didn't sodomize a Haitian immigrant in NY, and then refuse to testify against other cops because of some sick idea that cops never commit crime.

Rodney King was, is, and will continue to be a crackhead who caused the
police to chase him that night. He wasn't following direction when told to
do something by the police. Of course, the media didn't show the entire
film, only the part with the white on black nightstick application. I guess
the Ohio guy made his own bed. Some cops do commit crimes, but not nearly
to the extent that you're making it out to be.
Sure I am. The cops know that they're doing what they're supposed to bedoing and they just go on about their business. It's the uniformed,uneducated, or non-common sense public who jumps to conclusions withoutknowing the facts. And, most of the time they're not going to know thefacts. They've created their own mistrust of the police. No, it is the asshole cops who create the mistrust of the police, and the fault of the "good" cops for not standing up to the bad ones. Don't try to blame us for your sins.I agree with that, if those are the plain facts. What if the guy was
goingto a call that required lights on, but got cancelled during the trip andjust happened to pull into the coffee shop right after? It may be the
case,it may not, but people jump to conclusions without knowing the facts. Try to pull that **** on the No Spin Zone. We aren't that stupid.Thanks. I just want to present the side that is hardly ever heard. Thecops know what they're doing, and they know they're doing it right. When Most cops are not doing it right. Very few are. Every once in a while you see film of the good ones. Rarely though.

Well of course you only see the bad ones on film. The good ones don't make
the ratings. It's a societal problem.
I strongly agree. I just hate to see the good cops hurt by the actions
ofthe bad ones, and the perception of people when a good one does somethingsomeone doesn't understand and thinks is bad. Doesn't understand. Like cops have higher IQs than normal people. Just the opposite.

No, I'm sure they're about the same.
Some of my best friends are cops. Some of them are very good at what they do, some are average. Almost all of them break the law frequently, and get away with it because they are cops. They think it is OK. Kind of a blue-ignorance thing going on there I guess.

So what, you want a cookie? I have a lot of friends who are cops too. Many
people do.
Still, there is hope. The state cops I know, because they are better trained, better paid, required to hold an actual degree from a college - they tend to actually have sense. One of the best stories I have heard is where one female cop was on the scene of a motorcycle accident, where someone she knew had been driving under the influence and ditched their bike. When she said she had to take him into custody, he threatened to smash her. Being a couple hundred pounds heavier, he probably could have. She explained, calmly mind you, how when her backup arrived they would have to hurt him, arrest him for attacking her, he would be tried, convicted and placed in prison for years, or he could let her cuff him, spend the night in jail, and then go home with nothing more than a possible DUI conviction. She gave him the choice, he chose wisely. Had she been a typical testosterone induced cop, she would be dead.

Sounds like a rational thing that anyone would've done, not just one
particular cop.
If half the cops out there used some brains, and if the other half followed some semblance of the law, YOU wouldn't have the issues that you cause.

They do, they just have to put up with people like you badmouthing them
because you have a bad taste in your mouth from something.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:8mv4gvkfoip1hdvg3g36vg2jtd0049tfm0@4ax.com... "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in messagenews:dtivfvc106o73fu6uuhkbu655emo36ghtm@4ax .com... "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote: >But they're working, and they're in a marked, on duty unit. They areexempt >when working. Unless the laws are unreasonable, why should they be exempt while"working" ("working" being completely separate from actually responding to a
call). As I've posted before, being exempt from the speeding law doesn't
exempt cops from driving in a safe manner.That's the same thing I've posted before too. It's called "due care". And if a civilian is going the same speed and is exercising "due care?"

Is the civilian a cop? No.
How about a civilian traveling a speed high enough that no one could
follow at the same speed and exercise "due care" at the same time? Do you let them go and radio ahead? Or do you follow at an unsafe speed?

If it can't be done, then it can't be done. You ask some of the weirdest
hypothetical questions. Of course you'd have to radio ahead if you couldn't
catch the violator while using due care.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:41:43 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:
"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:uh97gvspkr4rqteukcjd4qkdm1b4qmakuq@4ax .com... On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:06:48 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote: What a tangled web we weave.Then that is the fault of the person who is perceiving the practice. I'mnot going to hold a sign out the window while I'm passing everyone sayingthat I'm looking at cars for interdiction purposes, or put up any kind ofparking decal when I park at the front curb of a business. The sign isplain enough already and it says "Police" on the side. A police vehicleisnot a normal vehicle and isn't subject to the normal rules because of thejob that is performed. And police wonder why people hate them.I don't wonder. I know there are many people like you.

Yes, 99% of the population. Because of people like you.
That's another fault of the person outside doing the perceiving.Internalaffairs investigations are not public, for the most part, and when peoplescrew up, they do get called on it. Not everyone sees that, but justknowthat it happens. We don't condone the bad cops. Sure they do. What, once every thousand times a cop murders someone, one cop gets a slap on the wrist. You DO CONDONE the bad cops, you DO lie to protect them, you DO refuse to testify against them when you see them commit crimes.I've never condoned a bad cop, never lied to protect one, and never refusedto testify against one. I value my career too much.

Yes you have. Right here. Your defense of bad cops is condoning
every bad cop there is.
Cops love to say how there is nothing worse than someone who shoots a cop, because they would shoot anybody. Wrong - those people are just acting in self defense, cops have guns and shoot, usually without provocation.Not usually. It takes quite a bit of provocation to get shot. As long asthe person is following the verbal direction given by the cop there isn't aproblem.

Yes, and if they don't follow that verbal direction they get shot.
Like the deaf person shot in Chicago recently because he couldn't hear
the racist cop who was telling him to stop. So he was shot in the
back. Rather proper, as you would say.
I like to say there is nothing worse than a cop, judge or other person in power who commits crime. Any cop, judge, politician, CEO or other person in authority who commits a crime, should get 10 times the penalty that anyone else does. If it is a death penalty case, then revive them each time you kill them, and do it all over again.That's not the fault of the cops, that's the fault of the media, theACLU,the NAACP, and countless other orgainzations who constantly hound thepoliceand present a bad image of things that are mostly unfounded. Bad image? Film doesn't lie. The media didn't beat Rodney King. The media didn't beat the guy in Ohio who yes, did shoot at a cop and wound his hand, but who the cops later attacked when he surrendered and beat into a coma. The media didn't sodomize a Haitian immigrant in NY, and then refuse to testify against other cops because of some sick idea that cops never commit crime.Rodney King was, is, and will continue to be a crackhead who caused thepolice to chase him that night. He wasn't following direction when told todo something by the police. Of course, the media didn't show the entirefilm, only the part with the white on black nightstick application. I guessthe Ohio guy made his own bed. Some cops do commit crimes, but not nearlyto the extent that you're making it out to be.

Rodney king eventually stopped, got out of his car as requested, and
did everything he was asked to. The asshole cops beat him for what
happened before that.

But you think it is fine to beat people, as long as one day, some
time, they didn't listen.
Sure I am. The cops know that they're doing what they're supposed to bedoing and they just go on about their business. It's the uniformed,uneducated, or non-common sense public who jumps to conclusions withoutknowing the facts. And, most of the time they're not going to know thefacts. They've created their own mistrust of the police. No, it is the asshole cops who create the mistrust of the police, and the fault of the "good" cops for not standing up to the bad ones. Don't try to blame us for your sins.I agree with that, if those are the plain facts. What if the guy wasgoingto a call that required lights on, but got cancelled during the trip andjust happened to pull into the coffee shop right after? It may be thecase,it may not, but people jump to conclusions without knowing the facts. Try to pull that **** on the No Spin Zone. We aren't that stupid.Thanks. I just want to present the side that is hardly ever heard. Thecops know what they're doing, and they know they're doing it right. When Most cops are not doing it right. Very few are. Every once in a while you see film of the good ones. Rarely though.Well of course you only see the bad ones on film. The good ones don't makethe ratings. It's a societal problem.

No, that is blatantly untrue. The good ones do make film. Yet you
continue to blame society for your problems. Typical bad cop.
I strongly agree. I just hate to see the good cops hurt by the actionsofthe bad ones, and the perception of people when a good one does somethingsomeone doesn't understand and thinks is bad. Doesn't understand. Like cops have higher IQs than normal people. Just the opposite.No, I'm sure they're about the same.

No, the typical cop has a much lower IQ. There are some who are
average, and a lot who are above average, especially if you include
the FBI. However, you and your buddies bring the average down quite
sharply.
Some of my best friends are cops. Some of them are very good at what they do, some are average. Almost all of them break the law frequently, and get away with it because they are cops. They think it is OK. Kind of a blue-ignorance thing going on there I guess.So what, you want a cookie? I have a lot of friends who are cops too. Manypeople do.

You just don't get it. Your attitude shows how corrupt you are.
Still, there is hope. The state cops I know, because they are better trained, better paid, required to hold an actual degree from a college - they tend to actually have sense. One of the best stories I have heard is where one female cop was on the scene of a motorcycle accident, where someone she knew had been driving under the influence and ditched their bike. When she said she had to take him into custody, he threatened to smash her. Being a couple hundred pounds heavier, he probably could have. She explained, calmly mind you, how when her backup arrived they would have to hurt him, arrest him for attacking her, he would be tried, convicted and placed in prison for years, or he could let her cuff him, spend the night in jail, and then go home with nothing more than a possible DUI conviction. She gave him the choice, he chose wisely. Had she been a typical testosterone induced cop, she would be dead.Sounds like a rational thing that anyone would've done, not just oneparticular cop.

Anyone? Then how come the cops in Oklahoma think it is OK to shoot
someone who is not allowing himself to be arrested, but is not doing
anything wrong? Just holding his arm out so the moron cop who is
beating him with his baseball bat can't cuff his other arm to increase
the cops ability to violate his civil rights. Yet the cops, the
supervisors and the trainers used by Oklahoma all say the cop had the
right to use deadly force.

All because some black guy was tired of being beaten by racist cops.
If half the cops out there used some brains, and if the other half followed some semblance of the law, YOU wouldn't have the issues that you cause.They do, they just have to put up with people like you badmouthing thembecause you have a bad taste in your mouth from something.

Something - that something would be all the bad behavior by asshole
cops like you. See in this country we have a right to defend
ourselves. We work with the good cops, and assist them every chance
we get. Like when we see some idiot cop allow a crazed idiot to take
his gun, and we jump in to save the cop's life. We also stop when we
see an altercation that resulted in a cop getting shot, being left for
dead, and we assist them as best we can until help arrives. We call
in drunken drivers, we call when people are taking things out of homes
under construction at night, we call when people are destroying public
property.

Then, we have to put up with idiots who believe they are above the
law. People who think that having a badge in their wallet entitles
them to speed on or off duty, even though the law is clear that they
can not. People who frequently use that badge to get out of tickets.
People who drive drunk, have accidents, and are then driven home by
their fellow assholes, never to be charged. People who beat blacks
and other groups because those blacks violated the "No driving while
black" unwritten cop rules. People who murder citizens because said
citizen did not follow their orders, even though those orders were
illegal and the citizen had the constitutional right to refuse.

As in all groups, the majority of cops are not that bad. But due to
idiots defending EVERYTHING they do, saying the public just doesn't
understand and doesn't have a right to understand, most cops get a bad
name.

You should be proud of continuing the tradition of encouraging hatred
of cops. Take a bow.

"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0b6bgv8abutn5b6j29rb8cbj45k8j0d8ri@4ax.com... On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:41:43 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:uh97gvspkr4rqteukcjd4qkdm1b4qmakuq@4ax .com... On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:06:48 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote: What a tangled web we weave. >Then that is the fault of the person who is perceiving the practice.
I'm >not going to hold a sign out the window while I'm passing everyone
saying >that I'm looking at cars for interdiction purposes, or put up any kind
of >parking decal when I park at the front curb of a business. The sign
is >plain enough already and it says "Police" on the side. A police
vehicleis >not a normal vehicle and isn't subject to the normal rules because of
the >job that is performed. And police wonder why people hate them.I don't wonder. I know there are many people like you. Yes, 99% of the population. Because of people like you.

Where's your cite for that figure?
>That's another fault of the person outside doing the perceiving.Internal >affairs investigations are not public, for the most part, and when
people >screw up, they do get called on it. Not everyone sees that, but justknow >that it happens. We don't condone the bad cops. Sure they do. What, once every thousand times a cop murders someone, one cop gets a slap on the wrist. You DO CONDONE the bad cops, you DO lie to protect them, you DO refuse to testify against them when you see them commit crimes.I've never condoned a bad cop, never lied to protect one, and never
refusedto testify against one. I value my career too much. Yes you have. Right here. Your defense of bad cops is condoning every bad cop there is.

I still have not condoned any bad cop.
Cops love to say how there is nothing worse than someone who shoots a cop, because they would shoot anybody. Wrong - those people are just acting in self defense, cops have guns and shoot, usually without provocation.Not usually. It takes quite a bit of provocation to get shot. As long
asthe person is following the verbal direction given by the cop there isn't
aproblem. Yes, and if they don't follow that verbal direction they get shot. Like the deaf person shot in Chicago recently because he couldn't hear the racist cop who was telling him to stop. So he was shot in the back. Rather proper, as you would say.

They don't always get shot. They may get thrown around a bit, pepper
sprayed, or batoned first. It depends on what actions they're doing when
they're being directed.
I like to say there is nothing worse than a cop, judge or other person in power who commits crime. Any cop, judge, politician, CEO or other person in authority who commits a crime, should get 10 times the penalty that anyone else does. If it is a death penalty case, then revive them each time you kill them, and do it all over again. >That's not the fault of the cops, that's the fault of the media, theACLU, >the NAACP, and countless other orgainzations who constantly hound thepolice >and present a bad image of things that are mostly unfounded. Bad image? Film doesn't lie. The media didn't beat Rodney King. The media didn't beat the guy in Ohio who yes, did shoot at a cop and wound his hand, but who the cops later attacked when he surrendered and beat into a coma. The media didn't sodomize a Haitian immigrant in NY, and then refuse to testify against other cops because of some sick idea that cops never commit crime.Rodney King was, is, and will continue to be a crackhead who caused thepolice to chase him that night. He wasn't following direction when told
todo something by the police. Of course, the media didn't show the entirefilm, only the part with the white on black nightstick application. I
guessthe Ohio guy made his own bed. Some cops do commit crimes, but not
nearlyto the extent that you're making it out to be. Rodney king eventually stopped, got out of his car as requested, and did everything he was asked to. The asshole cops beat him for what happened before that.

No, he didn't do any of that.
But you think it is fine to beat people, as long as one day, some time, they didn't listen.

No, only the time in question.
>Sure I am. The cops know that they're doing what they're supposed to
be >doing and they just go on about their business. It's the uniformed, >uneducated, or non-common sense public who jumps to conclusions
without >knowing the facts. And, most of the time they're not going to know
the >facts. They've created their own mistrust of the police. No, it is the asshole cops who create the mistrust of the police, and the fault of the "good" cops for not standing up to the bad ones. Don't try to blame us for your sins. >I agree with that, if those are the plain facts. What if the guy wasgoing >to a call that required lights on, but got cancelled during the trip
and >just happened to pull into the coffee shop right after? It may be thecase, >it may not, but people jump to conclusions without knowing the facts. Try to pull that **** on the No Spin Zone. We aren't that stupid. >Thanks. I just want to present the side that is hardly ever heard.
The >cops know what they're doing, and they know they're doing it right.
When Most cops are not doing it right. Very few are. Every once in a while you see film of the good ones. Rarely though.Well of course you only see the bad ones on film. The good ones don't
makethe ratings. It's a societal problem. No, that is blatantly untrue. The good ones do make film. Yet you continue to blame society for your problems. Typical bad cop.

Society has it's own problems.
>I strongly agree. I just hate to see the good cops hurt by the
actionsof >the bad ones, and the perception of people when a good one does
something >someone doesn't understand and thinks is bad. Doesn't understand. Like cops have higher IQs than normal people. Just the opposite.No, I'm sure they're about the same. No, the typical cop has a much lower IQ. There are some who are average, and a lot who are above average, especially if you include the FBI. However, you and your buddies bring the average down quite sharply.

Again, do you have a cite for that? I'd be interested to see those figures.
Some of my best friends are cops. Some of them are very good at what they do, some are average. Almost all of them break the law frequently, and get away with it because they are cops. They think it is OK. Kind of a blue-ignorance thing going on there I guess.So what, you want a cookie? I have a lot of friends who are cops too.
Manypeople do. You just don't get it. Your attitude shows how corrupt you are.

I'm actually quite un-corrupt.
Still, there is hope. The state cops I know, because they are better trained, better paid, required to hold an actual degree from a college - they tend to actually have sense. One of the best stories I have heard is where one female cop was on the scene of a motorcycle accident, where someone she knew had been driving under the influence and ditched their bike. When she said she had to take him into custody, he threatened to smash her. Being a couple hundred pounds heavier, he probably could have. She explained, calmly mind you, how when her backup arrived they would have to hurt him, arrest him for attacking her, he would be tried, convicted and placed in prison for years, or he could let her cuff him, spend the night in jail, and then go home with nothing more than a possible DUI conviction. She gave him the choice, he chose wisely. Had she been a typical testosterone induced cop, she would be dead.Sounds like a rational thing that anyone would've done, not just oneparticular cop. Anyone? Then how come the cops in Oklahoma think it is OK to shoot someone who is not allowing himself to be arrested, but is not doing anything wrong? Just holding his arm out so the moron cop who is beating him with his baseball bat can't cuff his other arm to increase the cops ability to violate his civil rights. Yet the cops, the supervisors and the trainers used by Oklahoma all say the cop had the right to use deadly force.

Interesting case. I'd like to read up on it if you have a cite. I can see
how he was resisting and why the cops were using that amount of force to
take him into custody, but I wonder what he did to get himself shot.
All because some black guy was tired of being beaten by racist cops.

Regardless of his race, he probably needed to clean up his act if he kept
attracting the attention of the cops.
If half the cops out there used some brains, and if the other half followed some semblance of the law, YOU wouldn't have the issues that you cause.They do, they just have to put up with people like you badmouthing thembecause you have a bad taste in your mouth from something. Something - that something would be all the bad behavior by asshole cops like you. See in this country we have a right to defend ourselves. We work with the good cops, and assist them every chance we get. Like when we see some idiot cop allow a crazed idiot to take his gun, and we jump in to save the cop's life. We also stop when we see an altercation that resulted in a cop getting shot, being left for dead, and we assist them as best we can until help arrives. We call in drunken drivers, we call when people are taking things out of homes under construction at night, we call when people are destroying public property.

I'm glad to hear it. At least you're not completely anti-cop yet.
Then, we have to put up with idiots who believe they are above the law. People who think that having a badge in their wallet entitles them to speed on or off duty, even though the law is clear that they can not. People who frequently use that badge to get out of tickets. People who drive drunk, have accidents, and are then driven home by their fellow assholes, never to be charged. People who beat blacks and other groups because those blacks violated the "No driving while black" unwritten cop rules. People who murder citizens because said citizen did not follow their orders, even though those orders were illegal and the citizen had the constitutional right to refuse.

Yeah, I completely agree. Those cops are the bad ones.
As in all groups, the majority of cops are not that bad. But due to idiots defending EVERYTHING they do, saying the public just doesn't understand and doesn't have a right to understand, most cops get a bad name.

It is true that the public does not understand a lot of what cops do. If
you ask most people on the street to define what deadly force is, or when
they can use it, they have no idea. They don't know what most of their own
traffic laws are. Then, those people are the ones who condemn cops just
because they saw some video clip on TV, or they heard from a friend of a
friend that something happened. I enjoy defending cops because in most
cases the cop did what they were trained to do and what the law defines as
legal behavior. In most cases, the cops are right.
You should be proud of continuing the tradition of encouraging hatred of cops. Take a bow.

Only to people like you. You have no idea.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:ign9gv801iasafu3svma5mc2h6getgujui@4ax.com... "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in messagenews:8mv4gvkfoip1hdvg3g36vg2jtd0049tfm0@4ax .com... "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote: > >"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message >news:dtivfvc106o73fu6uuhkbu655emo36ghtm@4ax.com... >> "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote: >> >> >But they're working, and they're in a marked, on duty unit. They
are >exempt >> >when working. >> >> Unless the laws are unreasonable, why should they be exempt while >"working" >> ("working" being completely separate from actually responding to acall). >> >> As I've posted before, being exempt from the speeding law doesn'texempt >> cops from driving in a safe manner. > >That's the same thing I've posted before too. It's called "due care". And if a civilian is going the same speed and is exercising "due care?"Is the civilian a cop? No. Does that change whether the same action is or is not safe? The "why" has nothing to do with whether it is safe.

You're correct. The actions of the cop may not be safe, but they are
required to use due care to make sure that those actions do not endanger
anyone while they're having to be done.
How about a civilian traveling a speed high enough that no one could
follow at the same speed and exercise "due care" at the same time? Do you let them go and radio ahead? Or do you follow at an unsafe speed?If it can't be done, then it can't be done. You ask some of the weirdesthypothetical questions. Of course you'd have to radio ahead if you
couldn'tcatch the violator while using due care. That is contrary to the real world actions of cops. Multiple times they have followed until they themselves crashed. If they crash while trying
to keep up, then they were obviously not exercising "due care."

Correct.
I guess you continue to see what should be done and see my comments as stupid questions. I see what is done and wonder why. When a cop drives unsafely and crashes, they blame the person they were following, the
person that had the green light that couldn't stop for the speeding cop in time, or anything other than the cop (at least in public, they may chide the officer in private, but we wouldn't want an appearance of humanity, I mean weakness in cops, so all discipline should remain secret).

Yeah, you're about half correct. I can see where your questions come from,
but I think I've explained the answers time and time again throughout this
thread and no one here seems to be catching on. When those cops crash,
they're not exercising due care. For instance (and now we're getting into
particulars since no one just wants to take my word for it) when you drive
outside the normal limits of the law, as in running red lights or stop signs
the cop is required to slow down or stop until it is safe to proceed through
that intersection. There are many more cases, but if I went through each
individual one I'd be typing forever.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

"jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:ign9gv801iasafu3svma5mc2h6getgujui@4ax.com...
I guess you continue to see what should be done and see my comments as stupid questions. I see what is done and wonder why. When a cop drives unsafely and crashes, they blame the person they were following, the person that had the green light that couldn't stop for the speeding cop in time, or anything other than the cop (at least in public, they may chide the officer in private, but we wouldn't want an appearance of humanity, I mean weakness in cops, so all discipline should remain secret).Yeah, you're about half correct. I can see where your questions come from,but I think I've explained the answers time and time again throughout thisthread and no one here seems to be catching on. When those cops crash,they're not exercising due care. For instance (and now we're getting intoparticulars since no one just wants to take my word for it) when you driveoutside the normal limits of the law, as in running red lights or stop signsthe cop is required to slow down or stop until it is safe to proceed throughthat intersection. There are many more cases, but if I went through eachindividual one I'd be typing forever.

I think I've got it now, the prima fascia point for intervention because of
improper driving is different, but both civilians and police must remain
safe. For civilians, they are presumed unsafe when they exceed an
arbitrary limit usually set below the average speed (and in some cases,
below the speed of the slowest traffic). For cops, they are presumed
unsafe when they crash.

The law applies to both, but the level of competence assumed for the
civilians is that they are unable to drive and shouldn't be on the roads.
The presumed level of competence for cops is that they are infallible and
are treated as such.

Is that about right?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 03:03:10 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:
I still have not condoned any bad cop.
Yes, and if they don't follow that verbal direction they get shot. Like the deaf person shot in Chicago recently because he couldn't hear the racist cop who was telling him to stop. So he was shot in the back. Rather proper, as you would say.They don't always get shot.

Wow, if that isn't condoning bad cops, I guess you think you actually
have to fire the bullet to be guilty of condoning the behavior.

But you think it is fine to beat people, as long as one day, some time, they didn't listen.No, only the time in question.

Yet you claim you don't condone bad cops.

OK, now I understand. You are a bad cop.
However, you and your buddies bring the average down quite sharply.Again, do you have a cite for that? I'd be interested to see those figures.

Sure. Your posts.
You should be proud of continuing the tradition of encouraging hatred of cops. Take a bow.Only to people like you. You have no idea.

No, we do. We know how bad you are, and hopefully IA gets your number
soon, before you murder more people.

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 03:07:14 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:
For instance (and now we're getting intoparticulars since no one just wants to take my word for it)

Who would?
when you driveoutside the normal limits of the law, as in running red lights or stop signsthe cop is required to slow down or stop until it is safe to proceed throughthat intersection. There are many more cases, but if I went through eachindividual one I'd be typing forever.

OK, how about the cop that approaches an intersection on a state
highway, where the cross road is also a state highway. The
intersection has 3 lanes of through traffic in each of the four
directions, 2 left turn lanes in each, and one right turn lane in
each. Asshole, driving in his personal vehicle, does not want to stop
to wait for the vehicles in the right turn lane to yield to the
oncoming traffic from the left, so he navigates into the left most
left turn lane, and then proceeds to make a right turn in front of the
traffic approaching at approximately 45 MPH.

I heard his excuse. I, and everybody else, would love to hear yours.

"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:832ngvcqc2718btppobn2vfl3gd2amd7s4@4ax.com... On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 03:03:10 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:I still have not condoned any bad cop. Yes, and if they don't follow that verbal direction they get shot. Like the deaf person shot in Chicago recently because he couldn't hear the racist cop who was telling him to stop. So he was shot in the back. Rather proper, as you would say.They don't always get shot. Wow, if that isn't condoning bad cops, I guess you think you actually have to fire the bullet to be guilty of condoning the behavior.

That's not what I mean at all. Read the rest of that part of the reply, and
get back on your meds.
But you think it is fine to beat people, as long as one day, some time, they didn't listen.No, only the time in question. Yet you claim you don't condone bad cops.

I don't condone bad cops. I do condone using the appropriate level of force
when it's necessary. If someone has to be beat, then it's ok to beat them.
OK, now I understand. You are a bad cop.

That's not bad at all. That's an appropriate level of force when necessary.
However, you and your buddies bring the average down quite sharply.Again, do you have a cite for that? I'd be interested to see those
figures. Sure. Your posts.

Good job, buddy.
You should be proud of continuing the tradition of encouraging hatred of cops. Take a bow.Only to people like you. You have no idea. No, we do. We know how bad you are, and hopefully IA gets your number soon, before you murder more people.

I haven't murdered anyone. I've never shot at anyone. I've never had to
hit someone with a baton (yet). I have pepper sprayed quite a few people.
IA has never had a problem with me.

You need some help, dude.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

"jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in messagenews:e53jgvkb27suf5r9pdn48t6nb6eh4rb6ls@4ax .com... "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in messagenews:ign9gv801iasafu3svma5mc2h6getgujui@4ax .com...> I guess you continue to see what should be done and see my comments as> stupid questions. I see what is done and wonder why. When a copdrives> unsafely and crashes, they blame the person they were following, theperson> that had the green light that couldn't stop for the speeding cop intime,> or anything other than the cop (at least in public, they may chide the> officer in private, but we wouldn't want an appearance of humanity, Imean> weakness in cops, so all discipline should remain secret).Yeah, you're about half correct. I can see where your questions comefrom,but I think I've explained the answers time and time again throughoutthisthread and no one here seems to be catching on. When those cops crash,they're not exercising due care. For instance (and now we're gettingintoparticulars since no one just wants to take my word for it) when youdriveoutside the normal limits of the law, as in running red lights or stopsignsthe cop is required to slow down or stop until it is safe to proceedthroughthat intersection. There are many more cases, but if I went through eachindividual one I'd be typing forever. I think I've got it now, the prima fascia point for intervention becauseof improper driving is different, but both civilians and police must remain safe. For civilians, they are presumed unsafe when they exceed an arbitrary limit usually set below the average speed (and in some cases, below the speed of the slowest traffic). For cops, they are presumed unsafe when they crash. The law applies to both, but the level of competence assumed for the civilians is that they are unable to drive and shouldn't be on the roads. The presumed level of competence for cops is that they are infallible and are treated as such. Is that about right?No, read it again.

Just did. You claim that cops are safe and legal up to the point where
they crash. You claim that civilians are illegal when they are speeding.
Speeding in TX is defined as speed that is not reasonable and prudent (and
law is written so that civilians can expect to be pulled over above the
posted limit). You claim that pulling civilians over for reasons of
"safety" is the limit.

The point at which civilians become unsafe is the speed limit, the point at
which cops become unsafe is when they crash. That is what you said, right?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:2ndngv4kvhvth7uieijnof0auhqb1qrp9i@4ax.com... "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in messagenews:e53jgvkb27suf5r9pdn48t6nb6eh4rb6ls@4ax .com... "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote: >"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in messagenews:ign9gv801iasafu3svma5mc2h6getgujui@4ax .com... >> I guess you continue to see what should be done and see my comments
as >> stupid questions. I see what is done and wonder why. When a copdrives >> unsafely and crashes, they blame the person they were following, theperson >> that had the green light that couldn't stop for the speeding cop intime, >> or anything other than the cop (at least in public, they may chide
the >> officer in private, but we wouldn't want an appearance of humanity,
Imean >> weakness in cops, so all discipline should remain secret). > >Yeah, you're about half correct. I can see where your questions comefrom, >but I think I've explained the answers time and time again throughoutthis >thread and no one here seems to be catching on. When those cops
crash, >they're not exercising due care. For instance (and now we're gettinginto >particulars since no one just wants to take my word for it) when youdrive >outside the normal limits of the law, as in running red lights or stopsigns >the cop is required to slow down or stop until it is safe to proceedthrough >that intersection. There are many more cases, but if I went through
each >individual one I'd be typing forever. I think I've got it now, the prima fascia point for intervention
becauseof improper driving is different, but both civilians and police must
remain safe. For civilians, they are presumed unsafe when they exceed an arbitrary limit usually set below the average speed (and in some cases, below the speed of the slowest traffic). For cops, they are presumed unsafe when they crash. The law applies to both, but the level of competence assumed for the civilians is that they are unable to drive and shouldn't be on the
roads. The presumed level of competence for cops is that they are infallible
and are treated as such. Is that about right?No, read it again. Just did. You claim that cops are safe and legal up to the point where they crash. You claim that civilians are illegal when they are speeding. Speeding in TX is defined as speed that is not reasonable and prudent (and law is written so that civilians can expect to be pulled over above the posted limit). You claim that pulling civilians over for reasons of "safety" is the limit. The point at which civilians become unsafe is the speed limit, the point
at which cops become unsafe is when they crash. That is what you said,
right?

I see where it could be interpreted that way. If it makes you happy, you
can think of it like that. Civilians (without any type of medical
emergency) are required by law to stick to the speed limit for safety. As
I've said before, cops traveling in excess of the speed limit is not safe,
but it is necessary at times. I've already listed examples, etc., blah,
blah.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------