"Cory Dunkle" <cadnews@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gpecncEYS_Q0f2ijXTWJjQ@comcast.com... Steve Furbish wrote: "Cory Dunkle" <cadnews@comcast.net> wrote in message news:Y52cnZvkz_12hnKjXTWJhA@comcast.com... Instead of being like every other punk-*** cop in this group and *****ing about how I didn't report it how about you tell me _how_ I report it and _what_ to do? I've asked several times, and I'm always ignored. Tell me _who_ exactly I call, and _what_ exactly I am to do to find out who it was that harassed me. If you want hand-holding then you ought to be a bit nicer to start with. Again, you dodge my question. Perhaps you are just trying to protect your fellow officers from being held responsible for their actions.

That tactic didn't work for John Menso either, Cory. It's not necessarily a
dodge when one fails to respond positively to a venom filled query like
yours. I'd like to think that your question was rhetorical since it should
be a whole lot easier for you to figure out what agency you dealt with that
fateful night than it is for me. You didn't seem like a stupid fellow in the
beginning so I'll assume that you're just "playing dumb"?
I'm not enamored with the idea that there's much to gain trying to satisfy or impress someone like you. So right off the bat you are telling you you don't feel it worth your time to 'protect or serve' someone like me. That's stereotyping and prejudice. Cops like you seem to just do wahtever they like ona whim, with little regard for the law, morlaity, or even logic.

Perhaps in Jersey you'll get positive results calling a "pig" or a "whiny
*****", but where I'm from that won't gain you loads of respect. So I guess
you're right - if you want to act that way then I don't think you're worth
my time. If, OTOH, you have a legitimate question and you ask politely I'd
be only too happy to try and answer if I'm able.
So you are saying it is perfectly reasonable what a police officer can stop 100% (or damned near it) of the people on the road whenever he wants for whatever reason? You just cannot help but try to paraphrase can you? It wouldn't be so bad except that you ALWAYS seem to get it wrong and I'm thinking that's quite intentional. That is effectively what you are saying when you rant about RS for DUI.
Your behavior for RS is behavior nearly all drivers exhibit under normal conditions.

Your opinion is noted. Perhaps then you could explain the vast majority of
drivers who never manage to get stopped? Why is it always the Cory Dunkle's
of the world who seem to get profiled?
Exactly! Now do you suppose that might cause an increased risk when you join the club? There is no risk in such normal behavior. It's unavoidable.

It is if you enter into absolute denial and refuse to consider any
suggestion that might make it "avoidable".
There is a difference between normal 'weaving' and excessive weaving. I
see everyone weaving slightly within their lane, or not tracking perfectly straight. It is easily accountalbe to humans not being perfect, road condition, and the type of vehicle and it's wear. This is normal and safe behavior, to notice it you usually ahve to be paying pretty close attention to detail, sort of like a cop hunting for any reason to stop people for suspected DUI. He was looking for something that wasn't there.

You gave him more than one "clue" kid. You attribute it to being nervous or
scared, but it's just as easy to see it as indicative of DUI and at that
point failure to investigate it would be the greater disservice to the
public IMO.
The red light runners come from all directions and almost to a person they all claim the light was ---- YELLOW. You know, just like you did. So because _some_ people lie you assume _everyone_ does? That's pretty illogic _and_ sleazy to boot. You also don't factor in that a good amount
of the time the police or cameras will be wrong.

It doesn't matter if you think it's sleazy or not and it has nothing to do
with your overall veracity. People do not, by nature, like to assume blame
for poor driving. Some do, but nobody like it. That you weren't immediately
pulled over for the "yellow" light seems to suggest that even if you were in
violation it was a close enough call that the officer did not feel compelled
to pull you over and cite you, but instead decided that you were worth a
closer look?
How fortunate that you were able to observe thing like a cop sees them on a regular basis. It's a shame, however, that you cannot be this objective about your own incident. I am looking at facts in all cases. The facts in my case are that I
entered on yellow and was clear of the intersection well before the intersecting traffic had a green. Perfectly safe and legal behavior. When I see people blatantly running red lights or violating the right of way it is usually left turners trying to squeeze through after their protected left, or
trying to squeeze through after their light is green. Such behavior is unsafe,
made even more unsafe when they start cutting corners and speeding thorugh the intersection.

You're looking for excuses for your own behavior and justification for your
complaints about getting stopped. The facts are that there appears to have
been enough reason to stop and check you, but not enough to hold you up for
a bogus consent search.
I then talked to the Chief of Police, who I have talked to a handful of times in the apst as he's a relative of a guy I know. He apologized for it and basically told me that the police are going to profile and stereotype people and there's nothing that can be done about it.

You expect me to believe that a Chief of Police actually told you that there
was nothing that he could do about the way his people interact with the
public? Does that sound strange to anyone else besides me?
Since when they profile and stereotype they inevitably catch some violators it's allowed to stay as SOP.

Profiling is not illegal. Racial profiling is. All profiling means is
looking for common non-specific signs of criminal activity.
That was how he put it at least. So my results talking to the local PD
were not good, but I tried. Because of the poor results with them I went to the mayor as I
stated above, which he may or may not have done as he said.

You'll get varying responses from different PDs. Often times it'll come down
to an issue of credibility. If you went in with a chip on your shoulder that
wouldn't be likely to help your cause, but most Chiefs that I've encountered
would not quietly pass over a credible complaint that alledges a person
being coerced into consenting to a search as you've previously described.
There's just no way to justify it.
That advice (at least where I'm from) is only for dealing with unmarked or low profile police vehicles. Even then it's an "at your own peril" type of thing since failure to stop (which is when you don't stop or speed up for the cop's signal) is a misdemeanor crime and eluding (where you speed up) is a felony crime. Generally you'll also encounter thing like spike strips or stop sticks and that'll ruin your day as well. All because I didn't feel safe stopping on the dark shoulder of the road where I would be at risk of being hit, and a greater risk of police abuse. Just goes to show how pompous and stuck up cops are if that's the kind of response they will give when I celarly signal my intent to stop by signalling right and slowing down.

Anytime you fail to do what statutory law requires you to do you'll assume
risks. Police usually try to pick the spot where it's most safe to make the
stop (in their opinion). There are many factors that might be used to
determine the place chosen and you may not be aware of some or all of them.
Generally someone failing to immediately pull over and stop is going to set
off red flags since that's a behavior most frequently associated with
criminal activity. Criminals will try to use the extra distance as an
opportunity to hide evidence or prepare for fight/flight upon being stopped
and the cop knows that.
I signalled right and moved to the right lane when his lgihts went on, my intent to stop was clear. I merely proceeded to a safer (for me) spot. If the cop feels safer in the dark shadows with no one around, then tough luck. He's there to serve the people, and I am one of the people. I did my best to make myself safe, and to comply with his request for me to stop as quickly as is practically possible. Deal with it, pig. I can't imagine why they ran you through the paces... Heaven forbid I'm nervous about stopping in the shadows on the side of the road in the middle of the night.

You should be more nervous that you weren't brought up with any manners and
you're almost sure to provoke a negative response in any cop that stops you.
> <yawn> Typical smart-*** cop remark. Appropriate considering the imediate audience. Just goes to show how cops view their duties as selective, if they don't agree with the views of the person in question they choose not to serve
him. Seems a bit corrupt to me.

They did "serve" you. You just didn't appreciate the service.
Of course that's why he stopped you. My point is there was no reason for the stop, no reason to suspect me of DUI.

We disagree. You should learn to deal with that. I've even given you a few
suggestions on how to avoid it from happening in the future and I've got
nothing but **** for it.
A "stale green" is a light that has been green for some time as you approach and thus is likely to be ready to cycle. A good driver recognizes the impending change and reduces their speed as they approach the intersection and thus is not as apt to find themselves in the position that you did. To not find themself in the position I was in they would have to treat the light as a stop sign. Nonetheless, I certainly did nothing illegal.

I guess if you didn't learn anything else in your DARE classes you learned
the broken record method?
However, a prudent driver will also do as I do and be on the watch for unpredictable behavior to minimize risk.

I honestly believe that you wouldn't know a prudent driver if one bit you.
Perhaps you SHOULD get together with John Menso?
The "right of way" is clear on green, but you still have an obligation to use due care. Due care is defined as "the conduct that a reasonable man or woman will exercise in a particular situation, in looking out for the safety of others". I think I am correct in thinking that most everyone will agree
that checking both ways before entering an intersection for any traffic that looks as though it may run the red light is due care.

You couldn't have check very well if you didn't see the "oh ****" police
cruiser until you were passing through the intersection.
Even if you were tried an convicted you'd never accept that you might be wrong. I'd never be convicted, as my behaviors are 100% in accordance with the
law, and the NJ drivers manual.

I'd recommend that you stay in Jersey then because you'll likely find that
cops elsewhere aren't any more to your liking.
I'd hardly call being harassed on two occasions in two years "always going to clash with police".

Either you have a beef or you don't.
So be it. It comes out to nearly one unjust harassment per year. Not enough to change my lifestyle and safe behavior. Fortunately just enough to get you going here, huh? I will mention every police harassment that I am subject to here, just as
I will mention it to my elected officials.

Live long and prosper.
No it doesn't. We swear out complaints for violations too. We know you're guilty of those because, in most cases, we've witnessed them. I see, so my "story" of how things happened, as an average citizen isn't worth anything when compared to your interpretation of events as a police officer. The fact of the matter is that when it's a police officer's word against an average citizen's word the police officer is going to win in practically all cases, regardless of the fact that he has no evidence and may not have even been in a position to accurately conclude that his observation was correct.

We were talking about the presumption of innocence. You apparently don't
understand that concept? Proof at trial will boil down to who sounds more
credible.
Failure to stop most likely would not hold up in court. Not important. Let the DA dismiss it or the jury find you not guilty. It's still a valid charge. Okay, that's something I'll deal with in the unlikely event it ever
occurs. I doubt most cops are so anal about not wanting their 'suspects' to feel safe. Especially when they clearly signaled their intent to stop.

It's good to see that you actually do have some degree of faith in your
local cops... ;-)
Admittedly, I'm quite biased by having "heard it all before". You just think you know it all don't you? You catagorize people by their views and then use that to belittle them. Pretty low.

You never came here looking for anything other than conflict. I'm just happy
to oblige.
> See, you can't even admit when you obviously didn't have a clue> about how those sensors worked. Weight has nothing to do with how> they work. Oh dear, do a little search on deja (google now) for posts by me, several months ago it was explained to me in RAD that they weren't weight sensors. Amazing how you allow your prejudices against me lead you to believe I'm ignorant and would lie about my knowledge. Yet you still referred to them as such in a recent reply to me? Slow learner or were you just being intentionally deceptive? As I stated before, I forgot what they were called. For the sake of simplicity I called them "weight sensors"

Well for the sake of simplicity - bull****.
Just make a slight adjustment to how you play the percentages and you'll be fine. Understand that a long (i.e. stale) green is likely to change and anticipate that a fresh green will still have risks from someone (like you are now) who is going to try and beat the red. Where did I ever say I was "going to try and beat the red"?

Hey, if you can paraphrase me then I should be able to read between your
lines.
>>> How do you suppose they recognize me as a cop when I'm out in my>>> F150 or on my GL1800?>>>> After your vehicle is stopped, that would be the case.>> I haven't been stopped since I was 19 years old. Good for you, perhaps it's becasue you know the behavior police look for and have changed your behavior to not be stopped. And I've tried to share that knowledge and experience with you, but received nothing but **** for it. Of course you still break laws though. It's all about choosing your spots Cory. And what exactly is taht supposed to mean?

You think about it and you'll eventually figure it out.

Steve

Steve Furbish wrote: "Cory Dunkle" <cadnews@comcast.net> wrote in message news:gpecncEYS_Q0f2ijXTWJjQ@comcast.com... Steve Furbish wrote: "Cory Dunkle" <cadnews@comcast.net> wrote in message news:Y52cnZvkz_12hnKjXTWJhA@comcast.com...> Instead of being like every other punk-*** cop in this group and> *****ing about how I didn't report it how about you tell me _how_ I> report it and _what_ to do? I've asked several times, and I'm> always ignored. Tell me _who_ exactly I call, and _what_ exactly I> am to do to find out who it was that harassed me. If you want hand-holding then you ought to be a bit nicer to start with. Again, you dodge my question. Perhaps you are just trying to protect your fellow officers from being held responsible for their actions. That tactic didn't work for John Menso either, Cory. It's not necessarily a dodge when one fails to respond positively to a venom filled query like yours.

I only use such derogatory comments after plenty have been dished out to me.
You went too far and keep pushing, so of course I'm going to get frustrated
with your poor attitude and respond accordingly.
I'd like to think that your question was rhetorical since it should be a whole lot easier for you to figure out what agency you dealt with that fateful night than it is for me. You didn't seem like a stupid fellow in the beginning so I'll assume that you're just "playing dumb"?

I don't know how to figure that out. So please, tell me who I call to track
down the perp.
I'm not enamored with the idea that there's much to gain trying to satisfy or impress someone like you. So right off the bat you are telling you you don't feel it worth your time to 'protect or serve' someone like me. That's stereotyping and prejudice. Cops like you seem to just do wahtever they like ona whim, with little regard for the law, morlaity, or even logic. Perhaps in Jersey you'll get positive results calling a "pig" or a "whiny *****", but where I'm from that won't gain you loads of respect. So I guess you're right - if you want to act that way then I don't think you're worth my time. If, OTOH, you have a legitimate question and you ask politely I'd be only too happy to try and answer if I'm able.

I never referred to you as a pig or a whiny *****. You got touchy and
interpreted my calling a cop who recklessly endangered my life as well as
the lives of other innocent motorists a pig as a personal insult towards
you. It was not such and I explained that to you after your vicious
response, furthermore I did not react in a vindictive manner, but rather
politely tried to explain that I meant you no offense and what not referring
to you. You continued to dish out rude and inappropriate, as well as
prejudiced comments towards me after that presumably because you disagree
with my opinions.
> So you are saying it is perfectly reasonable what a police officer> can stop 100% (or damned near it) of the people on the road> whenever he wants for whatever reason? You just cannot help but try to paraphrase can you? It wouldn't be so bad except that you ALWAYS seem to get it wrong and I'm thinking that's quite intentional. That is effectively what you are saying when you rant about RS for DUI. Your behavior for RS is behavior nearly all drivers exhibit under normal conditions. Your opinion is noted. Perhaps then you could explain the vast majority of drivers who never manage to get stopped? Why is it always the Cory Dunkle's of the world who seem to get profiled?

Well, perhaps it's the "Cory Dunkle's of the world" who get stopped because
they are the ones who will say something about it. You've been calling me a
'whiny *****' and such for some time now, telling me to do something about
it. I tell you I have, and you ignore me, then finally when you acknowledge
it you don't believe that I did.

The vast majority of drivers can't be stopped, as there aren't that many
cops or enough hours in the day. The cops will (self-admittedly) stop people
who are not breaking laws when there are plenty of people in sight who are
breaking the law. Most people won't make a big fuss over this type of stuff.
They just go on and resent the police even more than they did before,
occasionalyl telling the story to friends or family. Then there is me, who
will go out of my way to make the story heard. I write my elected officials,
tell all my friends, and post it to people on Usenet. Your basic stance is
to not post it to Usenet because you don't wanna hear anyone 'whining'. At
least that's how I'm interpreting it, if you feel differently please tell
me.
Exactly! Now do you suppose that might cause an increased risk when you join the club? There is no risk in such normal behavior. It's unavoidable. It is if you enter into absolute denial and refuse to consider any suggestion that might make it "avoidable".

Why should I go out of ym way to avoid a behavior that is safe? Especially
in favor of one that puts doubt in otehr motorist's minds of your
intentions, creating an unsafe situation. When your actions are easily
predictable by otehr motorists the road will be safer. Unpredictable
behavior will be less safe than predictable behavior, it's a simple fact of
the road.
There is a difference between normal 'weaving' and excessive weaving. I see everyone weaving slightly within their lane, or not tracking perfectly straight. It is easily accountalbe to humans not being perfect, road condition, and the type of vehicle and it's wear. This is normal and safe behavior, to notice it you usually ahve to be paying pretty close attention to detail, sort of like a cop hunting for any reason to stop people for suspected DUI. He was looking for something that wasn't there. You gave him more than one "clue" kid.

Here you continue to use derogatory terms and such, full well knowing it
just grates on my nerves. Why? Please tell me what there is to gain from it?
What are you getting out of being so rude and derogatory?
You attribute it to being nervous or scared, but it's just as easy to see it as indicative of DUI and at that point failure to investigate it would be the greater disservice to the public IMO.

Of course I'm gonna be scared when I'm stopped in the middle of the night
while breaking no laws by some cop that's been 10 ft. off my bumper for the
past 2 or 3 miles and was shining a spotlight in my mirrors so I couldn't
see him. Gee, his behavior really induces vast amounts of trust in me. Why
it makes me want to stop immediately in the middle of nowhere, get out of my
car, and law face-down in the grass with my keys and wallet laying neatly on
my front seat!

My point is that there's no reason to be reading too deep into things. The
most simple and obvious answer is usually the correct one. let's assume we
are the cop.
We can either take the situation at face value and assume that this young
man is a bit nervous for being stopped while violating no laws at 3:00 AM by
a cop who has been riding his *** for the past couple miles and shining
lights in his mirrors and such when being stopped, the fact that he doesn't
have his wallet with him would easily account for his nervousness.
That or we can try to think of what this nervous, worried behavior _might_
mean. Hmm... I _could_ mean he's high, perhaps he's running drugs, maybe
he's hiding something, perhaps a weapon (which is allowed in the
*CONSTITUTION*). Hmm... Maybe he's going to try to assault me if he's hiding
a weapon, perhaps he's thinking of killing me to get away with the drugs.

The latter is clearly not a reasonable line of thought. There are a million
reason I could be scared. The most reasonable is that I'm nervous because of
a combination of _obvious_ things. The whole nature of the stop, for one,
the tailgating for miles and the blinding me with the spotlight. Secondly,
not having a license on me is another obvious reason for someone to be
nervous. The easiest and most logical explanation is most often the correct
one.
The red light runners come from all directions and almost to a person they all claim the light was ---- YELLOW. You know, just like you did. So because _some_ people lie you assume _everyone_ does? That's pretty illogic _and_ sleazy to boot. You also don't factor in that a good amount of the time the police or cameras will be wrong. It doesn't matter if you think it's sleazy or not and it has nothing to do with your overall veracity. People do not, by nature, like to assume blame for poor driving.

I agree that msot people don't like to take blame for it. Though personally
I acknowledge every mistake I make while driving, every dumb little thing I
do. 99% of the time I do something stupid I realize it right after I've
started doing it. I'll stop when it's safe to do so, but sometimes there's
not much I can do about it so I'll just complete my maneuver but do it as
safely as possible. Last week I pulled out when I misjudged the distance of
a car that was turning. He accelerated from the turn quicker than I thought
he was. I coudln't do much about it as I already started pulling out. So I
gave it all I could without sliding the back around. That's a mistake I
suspect most drivers will make on occasion. Nonetheless, I'll do my best to
avoid it, and I learned something about the location and otehr drivers
behavior from the incident.
Some do, but nobody like it. That you weren't immediately pulled over for the "yellow" light seems to suggest that even if you were in violation it was a close enough call that the officer did not feel compelled to pull you over and cite you, but instead decided that you were worth a closer look?

Perhaps. That seems to make some sense. Though if I had to guess I'd say my
abnormally low speed would ahve got his attention more than entering a fresh
yellow. Nonetheless my driving was legal and safe after that and there
should have been no stop. Also, a closer look doesn't mean literally a
closer look, as in within 20 ft. of my car while doing 40-50 MPH.
How fortunate that you were able to observe thing like a cop sees them on a regular basis. It's a shame, however, that you cannot be this objective about your own incident. I am looking at facts in all cases. The facts in my case are that I entered on yellow and was clear of the intersection well before the intersecting traffic had a green. Perfectly safe and legal behavior. When I see people blatantly running red lights or violating the right of way it is usually left turners trying to squeeze through after their protected left, or trying to squeeze through after their light is green. Such behavior is unsafe, made even more unsafe when they start cutting corners and speeding thorugh the intersection. You're looking for excuses for your own behavior and justification for your complaints about getting stopped. The facts are that there appears to have been enough reason to stop and check you, but not enough to hold you up for a bogus consent search.

The facts are that none of my driving behavior was not typical/normal except
for my speed, which was _very_ abnormal for that road under those
conditions. Normal traffic on that road under those conditions in 20 MPH or
so faster than I was going. I believe that was a big part of the deciding
factor to stop me.
I then talked to the Chief of Police, who I have talked to a handful of times in the apst as he's a relative of a guy I know. He apologized for it and basically told me that the police are going to profile and stereotype people and there's nothing that can be done about it. You expect me to believe that a Chief of Police actually told you that there was nothing that he could do about the way his people interact with the public? Does that sound strange to anyone else besides me?

It bothered me a bit too. He seemed sypathetic towards my encounter, but it
didn't seem as though he really wanted to do anything about it. Probably
because there are enough people caught with drugs by such prejudice adn rude
tactics that he thinks the end justifies the means. The fact of the matter
is that the end _never_ justifies the means.
Since when they profile and stereotype they inevitably catch some violators it's allowed to stay as SOP. Profiling is not illegal. Racial profiling is. All profiling means is looking for common non-specific signs of criminal activity.

Such as obeying the speed limit?
That was how he put it at least. So my results talking to the local PD were not good, but I tried. Because of the poor results with them I went to the mayor as I stated above, which he may or may not have done as he said. You'll get varying responses from different PDs. Often times it'll come down to an issue of credibility. If you went in with a chip on your shoulder that wouldn't be likely to help your cause, but most Chiefs that I've encountered would not quietly pass over a credible complaint that alledges a person being coerced into consenting to a search as you've previously described. There's just no way to justify it.

You've got the situations mixed up. I didn't talk to the mayor or Chief
about the incident with the car search. I talked to them about a different
incident in which I was harassed for a curfer violation that didn't apply to
me, then harassed for allegedly being 'high' on drugs. In this incident I
was walking, not in my car.
That advice (at least where I'm from) is only for dealing with unmarked or low profile police vehicles. Even then it's an "at your own peril" type of thing since failure to stop (which is when you don't stop or speed up for the cop's signal) is a misdemeanor crime and eluding (where you speed up) is a felony crime. Generally you'll also encounter thing like spike strips or stop sticks and that'll ruin your day as well. All because I didn't feel safe stopping on the dark shoulder of the road where I would be at risk of being hit, and a greater risk of police abuse. Just goes to show how pompous and stuck up cops are if that's the kind of response they will give when I celarly signal my intent to stop by signalling right and slowing down. Anytime you fail to do what statutory law requires you to do you'll assume risks. Police usually try to pick the spot where it's most safe to make the stop (in their opinion). There are many factors that might be used to determine the place chosen and you may not be aware of some or all of them. Generally someone failing to immediately pull over and stop is going to set off red flags since that's a behavior most frequently associated with criminal activity. Criminals will try to use the extra distance as an opportunity to hide evidence or prepare for fight/flight upon being stopped and the cop knows that.

Once I was stopped (and the location of my stop) all his concerns should
have been put to rest. What he found was a young man nervous about being
tailgated for several miles by a cop after not breaking any laws or doing
anything unsafe, who was nervous about not having his wallet with him. I
think it was obvious from how I acted, that I was nervous because I didn't
have my license with me. It also should have been obvious that I relaxed a
lot when he told me it wasn't a problem and he would check the license in
his computer.
> I signalled right and moved to> the right lane when his lgihts went on, my intent to stop was> clear.> I merely proceeded to a safer (for me) spot. If the cop feels safer> in the dark shadows with no one around, then tough luck. He's there> to serve the people, and I am one of the people. I did my best to> make myself safe, and to comply with his request for me to stop as> quickly as is practically possible. Deal with it, pig. I can't imagine why they ran you through the paces... Heaven forbid I'm nervous about stopping in the shadows on the side of the road in the middle of the night. You should be more nervous that you weren't brought up with any manners and you're almost sure to provoke a negative response in any cop that stops you.

No manners, huh? Like how I was polite through the whole stop, until he
started threatening me and accusing me of drug use. Or like how I was
courteous enough to change lanes to allow another driver to easily merge?

I think it is the cop who was brought up with no manners, as his threats and
lies are _very_ rude and inappropriate.
>> <yawn>>> Typical smart-*** cop remark. Appropriate considering the imediate audience. Just goes to show how cops view their duties as selective, if they don't agree with the views of the person in question they choose not to serve him. Seems a bit corrupt to me. They did "serve" you. You just didn't appreciate the service.

They did not serve me. It was a disservice. I did nothing unsafe or illegla
and there should not ahve been a stop, furthermore, once I was stopped it
should have been blaringly obvious to all but the most thick-skulled moron
that I was nervous about not having my license with me and was not on drugs.
Of course that's why he stopped you. My point is there was no reason for the stop, no reason to suspect me of DUI. We disagree. You should learn to deal with that. I've even given you a few suggestions on how to avoid it from happening in the future and I've got nothing but **** for it.

Of course you get **** for it. I'm not going to start driving unsafely and
unpredictably to avoid a few cops. Nor will I break any laws to avoid a few
cops. If I start doing that I'll have to deal with fines and points. As it
stands, they can't give me any fines or points as I obey the law to the T
and in addition I go beyond what is required by the law to ensure safety for
myself and fellow motorists.
A "stale green" is a light that has been green for some time as you approach and thus is likely to be ready to cycle. A good driver recognizes the impending change and reduces their speed as they approach the intersection and thus is not as apt to find themselves in the position that you did. To not find themself in the position I was in they would have to treat the light as a stop sign. Nonetheless, I certainly did nothing illegal. I guess if you didn't learn anything else in your DARE classes you learned the broken record method?

Well you seem to not have learned how to process a situation logically. Do
you feel unpredicatable behavior while driving that sent conflicting
messages are more safe than normal and predictable behavior.
However, a prudent driver will also do as I do and be on the watch for unpredictable behavior to minimize risk. I honestly believe that you wouldn't know a prudent driver if one bit you. Perhaps you SHOULD get together with John Menso?

You don't feel checking an intersecting road for incoming traffic or
anything out of the ordinary is prudent?
The "right of way" is clear on green, but you still have an obligation to use due care. Due care is defined as "the conduct that a reasonable man or woman will exercise in a particular situation, in looking out for the safety of others". I think I am correct in thinking that most everyone will agree that checking both ways before entering an intersection for any traffic that looks as though it may run the red light is due care. You couldn't have check very well if you didn't see the "oh ****" police cruiser until you were passing through the intersection.

It was dark, I could not see the paint on the cars until I was closer.
However, I could see the outline on cars and their lights and reasonably
determine that none were about to enter the intersection.
Even if you were tried an convicted you'd never accept that you might be wrong. I'd never be convicted, as my behaviors are 100% in accordance with the law, and the NJ drivers manual. I'd recommend that you stay in Jersey then because you'll likely find that cops elsewhere aren't any more to your liking.

I drive in PA fairly often and have never been stopped there. Been down to
Delaware on a few occasions too, and was never stopped there either. I also
was not stopped when I drove up to ME and back on vacation. Though
admittedly I ignored speed limits at that time and just drove at a
reasonable and prudent speed. Perhaps if I obeyed all traffic laws I would
have been more suspicious?
I'd hardly call being harassed on two occasions in two years "always going to clash with police". Either you have a beef or you don't.

What the hell is that supposed to mean, and what is it's relevance? Are you
trying to say that anyone who has a problem with being stopped by the police
is "always going to clash with police"?
No it doesn't. We swear out complaints for violations too. We know you're guilty of those because, in most cases, we've witnessed them. I see, so my "story" of how things happened, as an average citizen isn't worth anything when compared to your interpretation of events as a police officer. The fact of the matter is that when it's a police officer's word against an average citizen's word the police officer is going to win in practically all cases, regardless of the fact that he has no evidence and may not have even been in a position to accurately conclude that his observation was correct. We were talking about the presumption of innocence. You apparently don't understand that concept? Proof at trial will boil down to who sounds more credible.

Who is going to sound more credible to a judge [who is most likely biased],
a cop, or your average Joe? One man's word should not be taken against
another's. If that is how a trial is to be decided, there should be
witnesses that can attest that there was a violation.

Also, there was no presumption of innocent when I was stopped. I was
harassed the whole 9 yards. Vicious barking dog in the background, thrown
against a car and searched, threatened to no end, everything.
> Failure to stop most likely would not hold up in court. Not important. Let the DA dismiss it or the jury find you not guilty. It's still a valid charge. Okay, that's something I'll deal with in the unlikely event it ever occurs. I doubt most cops are so anal about not wanting their 'suspects' to feel safe. Especially when they clearly signaled their intent to stop. It's good to see that you actually do have some degree of faith in your local cops... ;-)

I seriously do, as I know a few of them and they don't seem like the type
that would ***** about a 'suspect' wanting to feel safe before letting a
stranger approach.
Admittedly, I'm quite biased by having "heard it all before". You just think you know it all don't you? You catagorize people by their views and then use that to belittle them. Pretty low. You never came here looking for anything other than conflict. I'm just happy to oblige.

Where is "here", because I certianly didn't come _here_ looking for
conflict. Just seemed like an interesting group that was related to my
interests.
>> See, you can't even admit when you obviously didn't have a clue>> about how those sensors worked. Weight has nothing to do with how>> they work.>> Oh dear, do a little search on deja (google now) for posts by me,> several months ago it was explained to me in RAD that they weren't> weight sensors. Amazing how you allow your prejudices against me> lead you to believe I'm ignorant and would lie about my knowledge. Yet you still referred to them as such in a recent reply to me? Slow learner or were you just being intentionally deceptive? As I stated before, I forgot what they were called. For the sake of simplicity I called them "weight sensors" Well for the sake of simplicity - bull****.

Just stop being a smart-***, okay? It's downright rude.
Just make a slight adjustment to how you play the percentages and you'll be fine. Understand that a long (i.e. stale) green is likely to change and anticipate that a fresh green will still have risks from someone (like you are now) who is going to try and beat the red. Where did I ever say I was "going to try and beat the red"? Hey, if you can paraphrase me then I should be able to read between your lines.

Well what you read between the lines is wrong, but of course you'll never
believe me.

Cory

"Cory Dunkle" <cadnews@comcast.net> wrote:
Steve Furbish wrote:
"Cory Dunkle" <cadnews@comcast.net> wrote in message news:gpecncEYS_Q0f2ijXTWJjQ@comcast.com...
Steve Furbish wrote:
> "Cory Dunkle" <cadnews@comcast.net> wrote in message> news:Y52cnZvkz_12hnKjXTWJhA@comcast.com...>>> Instead of being like every other punk-*** cop in this group and>> *****ing about how I didn't report it how about you tell me _how_ I>> report it and _what_ to do? I've asked several times, and I'm>> always ignored. Tell me _who_ exactly I call, and _what_ exactly I>> am to do to find out who it was that harassed me.>> If you want hand-holding then you ought to be a bit nicer to start> with. Again, you dodge my question. Perhaps you are just trying to protect your fellow officers from being held responsible for their actions. That tactic didn't work for John Menso either, Cory. It's not necessarily a dodge when one fails to respond positively to a venom filled query like yours. I only use such derogatory comments after plenty have been dished out to me. You went too far and keep pushing, so of course I'm going to get frustrated with your poor attitude and respond accordingly.

Before you spend another precious moment fretting about Steve Furbish's
"poor attitude," plz take a peek @ this link:

http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

Cory, with all due respect, if you wish to keep feeding him, that is your
business. We all have our own motives for wanting to be associated with
"Steve Furbish."...:) <click>

Peace,

John M.

--
Why I Did Not Vote For Nassau County District Attorney Denis Dillion
In 2001

Subtitle: Police Corruption in Old Brookville, N.Y.; Witnessed & Described
By A Former NYPD Investigator

http://www.angelfire.com/nc3/li_cabbie

"Cory Dunkle" <cadnews@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g5CdnXom-6J0zWajXTWJhA@comcast.com... Steve Furbish wrote:>> Instead of being like every other punk-*** cop in this group and>> *****ing about how I didn't report it how about you tell me _how_ I>> report it and _what_ to do? I've asked several times, and I'm>> always ignored. Tell me _who_ exactly I call, and _what_ exactly I>> am to do to find out who it was that harassed me.>> If you want hand-holding then you ought to be a bit nicer to start> with. Again, you dodge my question. Perhaps you are just trying to protect your fellow officers from being held responsible for their actions. That tactic didn't work for John Menso either, Cory. It's not necessarily a dodge when one fails to respond positively to a venom filled query like yours. I only use such derogatory comments after plenty have been dished out to
me. You went too far and keep pushing, so of course I'm going to get
frustrated with your poor attitude and respond accordingly.

I guess by "went too far and keep pushing" you must mean that I don't buy
your BS?
I'd like to think that your question was rhetorical since it should be a whole lot easier for you to figure out what agency you dealt with that fateful night than it is for me. You didn't seem like a stupid fellow in the beginning so I'll assume that you're just "playing dumb"? I don't know how to figure that out. So please, tell me who I call to
track down the perp.

That would vary from agency to agency, but almost every department I've ever
had dealings with had at least one person who accepts and investigates
citizen complaints. Unfortuantely for you that's not often the chief himself
and it rarely helps to go in with a chip on your shoulder. You should
politely present your "facts" to the person assigned to field your complaint
and request progress notifications if they're not automatically offered. It
also helps to be realistic about your expectations. If you're looking to
change undesireable behavior so that it doesn't occur again then a complaint
to the department might be the proper avenue to present your grievances. If,
however, you're looking for personal satisfaction and/or monetary relief
you'll probably need to file a lawsuit and for that you'll likely need the
competent legal advice of a good attorney. Having the officer's job based on
a single incident where the most serious allegation is an allegedly coerced
search would be an unrealistic goal IMHO.
Perhaps in Jersey you'll get positive results calling a "pig" or a "whiny *****", but where I'm from that won't gain you loads of respect. So I guess you're right - if you want to act that way then I don't think you're worth my time. If, OTOH, you have a legitimate question and you ask politely I'd be only too happy to try and answer if I'm able. I never referred to you as a pig or a whiny *****. You got touchy and interpreted my calling a cop who recklessly endangered my life as well as the lives of other innocent motorists a pig as a personal insult towards you. It was not such and I explained that to you after your vicious response, furthermore I did not react in a vindictive manner, but rather politely tried to explain that I meant you no offense and what not
referring to you. You continued to dish out rude and inappropriate, as well as prejudiced comments towards me after that presumably because you disagree with my opinions.

Whatever...
Your opinion is noted. Perhaps then you could explain the vast majority of drivers who never manage to get stopped? Why is it always the Cory Dunkle's of the world who seem to get profiled? Well, perhaps it's the "Cory Dunkle's of the world" who get stopped
because they are the ones who will say something about it. You've been calling me
a 'whiny *****' and such for some time now, telling me to do something about
it. I tell you I have, and you ignore me, then finally when you
acknowledge it you don't believe that I did.

Perhaps you could repeat that in English?
The vast majority of drivers can't be stopped, as there aren't that many cops or enough hours in the day. The cops will (self-admittedly) stop
people who are not breaking laws when there are plenty of people in sight who are breaking the law. Most people won't make a big fuss over this type of
stuff.

Let's just concentrate on the experience that you started this thread with.
You seemed to indicate that the roads were fairly deserted and you didn't
mention any traffic other than you and your cop. So we have one potential
DUI (based on driving behaviors we've already discussed to near death) and
no other violations for the cop to deal with. Your argument is pretty weak
at this point since you apparently were the most serious situation to
investigate in the vicinity that night. Now accepting that you apparently
were not DUI and were not going to be cited for any minor violations - I
agree that the cop should terminate the stop at that point and not work to
coerce a "consent" search of your vehicle. But other than that your beef
amounts to little more than pissin into the wind in my opinion. You are not
going to convince "most people" that it's not a cop's job to investigate
potential DUIs.
They just go on and resent the police even more than they did before, occasionalyl telling the story to friends or family. Then there is me, who will go out of my way to make the story heard. I write my elected
officials, tell all my friends, and post it to people on Usenet. Your basic stance is to not post it to Usenet because you don't wanna hear anyone 'whining'. At least that's how I'm interpreting it, if you feel differently please tell me.

Actually I could care less whether you "post it to Usenet" or not. It's
whining because there's no one here that can truly and effectively address
your complaints. You've been provided with numerous options to address your
situation and as near as I can determine you've chosen an attack that's far
too wide to be effective in any venue. You'll get much further, again IMO,
by focusing on the real issues of being bullied and coerced after the stop
rather than whining about how there was no reason for the stop in the first
place.
You gave him more than one "clue" kid. Here you continue to use derogatory terms and such, full well knowing it just grates on my nerves.

It DOES! :-) Well, I'll have to address that sometime...
Why? Please tell me what there is to gain from it? What are you getting out of being so rude and derogatory?

Kid is not a derogatory term except to the extremely thin-skinned.
You attribute it to being nervous or scared, but it's just as easy to see it as indicative of DUI and at that point failure to investigate it would be the greater disservice to the public IMO. Of course I'm gonna be scared when I'm stopped in the middle of the night while breaking no laws by some cop that's been 10 ft. off my bumper for
the past 2 or 3 miles and was shining a spotlight in my mirrors so I couldn't see him. Gee, his behavior really induces vast amounts of trust in me. Why it makes me want to stop immediately in the middle of nowhere, get out of
my car, and law face-down in the grass with my keys and wallet laying neatly
on my front seat!

While that would probably work - it is kind of unneccesaary. :-)
My point is that there's no reason to be reading too deep into things. The most simple and obvious answer is usually the correct one. let's assume we are the cop.

That's easier for some of us.
We can either take the situation at face value and assume that this young man is a bit nervous for being stopped while violating no laws at 3:00 AM
by a cop who has been riding his *** for the past couple miles and shining lights in his mirrors and such when being stopped, the fact that he
doesn't have his wallet with him would easily account for his nervousness.

Most people are nervous to some degree by being followed or being stopped by
the cops.
That or we can try to think of what this nervous, worried behavior _might_ mean. Hmm... I _could_ mean he's high, perhaps he's running drugs, maybe he's hiding something, perhaps a weapon (which is allowed in the *CONSTITUTION*). Hmm... Maybe he's going to try to assault me if he's
hiding a weapon, perhaps he's thinking of killing me to get away with the drugs.

Unfortunately for you, all of those possibilities are encountered by police
officers every single day.
The latter is clearly not a reasonable line of thought.

Having been shot at myself on more than one occassion I can assure you that
it is extremely reasonable to treat any potentially suspicious behavior as
potential danger signs.
There are a million reason I could be scared.

That's true but it's quite selfish of you to not realize that not every
person the cops encounter are harmless scared kids.
The most reasonable is that I'm nervous because of a combination of _obvious_ things. The whole nature of the stop, for one, the tailgating for miles and the blinding me with the spotlight. Secondly, not having a license on me is another obvious reason for someone to be nervous. The easiest and most logical explanation is most often the
correct one.

Unfortuantely what's most reasonable to you is not so obvious to people who
go to work each day wearing "bulletproof" vests and carrying guns. You worry
about some rogue cop randomly targeting you for no reason yet you cannot
seem to understand that you're just one of potentially hundreds of traffic
stops in a single shift any one of which might be the "unreasonable"
alternatives you noted above.
It doesn't matter if you think it's sleazy or not and it has nothing to do with your overall veracity. People do not, by nature, like to assume blame for poor driving. I agree that msot people don't like to take blame for it. Though
personally I acknowledge every mistake I make while driving, every dumb little thing
I do.

Yeah, it shows.
Some do, but nobody like it. That you weren't immediately pulled over for the "yellow" light seems to suggest that even if you were in violation it was a close enough call that the officer did not feel compelled to pull you over and cite you, but instead decided that you were worth a closer look? Perhaps. That seems to make some sense. Though if I had to guess I'd say
my abnormally low speed would ahve got his attention more than entering a
fresh yellow.

So you trust your "guess" more than the opinion of someone who actually does
the job? That makes sense.
Nonetheless my driving was legal and safe after that and there should have been no stop. Also, a closer look doesn't mean literally a closer look, as in within 20 ft. of my car while doing 40-50 MPH.

Perception can be skewed by the types of stress you've already admitted to
have been under.
You expect me to believe that a Chief of Police actually told you that there was nothing that he could do about the way his people interact with the public? Does that sound strange to anyone else besides me? It bothered me a bit too. He seemed sypathetic towards my encounter, but
it didn't seem as though he really wanted to do anything about it. Probably because there are enough people caught with drugs by such prejudice adn
rude tactics that he thinks the end justifies the means. The fact of the matter is that the end _never_ justifies the means.

I have never encountered a police chief who would admit to anything less
than absolute control over his department. Perhaps things are just different
in Jersey?
Profiling is not illegal. Racial profiling is. All profiling means is looking for common non-specific signs of criminal activity. Such as obeying the speed limit?

No, such as the total picture taken without need of dissecting and
explaining each individual element.
You'll get varying responses from different PDs. Often times it'll come down to an issue of credibility. If you went in with a chip on your shoulder that wouldn't be likely to help your cause, but most Chiefs that I've encountered would not quietly pass over a credible complaint that alledges a person being coerced into consenting to a search as you've previously described. There's just no way to justify it. You've got the situations mixed up. I didn't talk to the mayor or Chief about the incident with the car search. I talked to them about a different incident in which I was harassed for a curfer violation that didn't apply
to me, then harassed for allegedly being 'high' on drugs. In this incident I was walking, not in my car.

No matter. Any chief who handles personnel complaints first hand probably
isn't the type to admit the lack of control you allege.
Anytime you fail to do what statutory law requires you to do you'll assume risks. Police usually try to pick the spot where it's most safe to make the stop (in their opinion). There are many factors that might be used to determine the place chosen and you may not be aware of some or all of them. Generally someone failing to immediately pull over and stop is going to set off red flags since that's a behavior most frequently associated with criminal activity. Criminals will try to use the extra distance as an opportunity to hide evidence or prepare for fight/flight upon being stopped and the cop knows that. Once I was stopped (and the location of my stop) all his concerns should have been put to rest.

Apparently, since you weren't assaulted and/or arrested - they were?
What he found was a young man nervous about being tailgated for several miles by a cop after not breaking any laws or doing anything unsafe, who was nervous about not having his wallet with him.

No, what he found was a kid who thought he knew more about what was the
safer course of action than he. What he found was someone who refused to
stop until he felt like it.
I think it was obvious from how I acted, that I was nervous because I
didn't have my license with me. It also should have been obvious that I relaxed a lot when he told me it wasn't a problem and he would check the license in his computer.

Of course "real criminals" would never try to pass of their nervousness as
being based on something as innocent as that, would they?
They did "serve" you. You just didn't appreciate the service. They did not serve me. It was a disservice. I did nothing unsafe or
illegla and there should not ahve been a stop, furthermore, once I was stopped it should have been blaringly obvious to all but the most thick-skulled moron that I was nervous about not having my license with me and was not on
drugs.

Too bad you didn't encounter one of those truly green rookie-types who was
more interested in piling on the questionable traffic tickets, huh?
We disagree. You should learn to deal with that. I've even given you a few suggestions on how to avoid it from happening in the future and I've got nothing but **** for it. Of course you get **** for it. I'm not going to start driving unsafely and unpredictably to avoid a few cops. Nor will I break any laws to avoid a
few cops. If I start doing that I'll have to deal with fines and points. As it stands, they can't give me any fines or points as I obey the law to the T and in addition I go beyond what is required by the law to ensure safety
for myself and fellow motorists.

If you truly are the bullheaded jerk I've come to picture you as here then
it's just a matter of time before you have your next encounter. You're never
wrong and you'll not adjust your behavior to avoid those stops you claim to
hate so it's just a matter when the next one's going to occur....
To not find themself in the position I was in they would have to treat the light as a stop sign. Nonetheless, I certainly did nothing illegal. I guess if you didn't learn anything else in your DARE classes you learned the broken record method? Well you seem to not have learned how to process a situation logically. Do you feel unpredicatable behavior while driving that sent conflicting messages are more safe than normal and predictable behavior.

Originally you gave the impression that other traffic was light to near
non-existent yet now your concern is with being "predictable"?
I'd never be convicted, as my behaviors are 100% in accordance with the law, and the NJ drivers manual. I'd recommend that you stay in Jersey then because you'll likely find that cops elsewhere aren't any more to your liking. I drive in PA fairly often and have never been stopped there. Been down to Delaware on a few occasions too, and was never stopped there either. I
also was not stopped when I drove up to ME and back on vacation. Though admittedly I ignored speed limits at that time and just drove at a reasonable and prudent speed. Perhaps if I obeyed all traffic laws I would have been more suspicious?

Take care this summer because there are work areas everywhere and they've
doubled the fines in construction zones. The range goes from around $200 up
to $480. We also have an absolute speed limit statute and the reasonable and
prudent defense which does work in some states doesn't work here.
I'd hardly call being harassed on two occasions in two years "always going to clash with police". Either you have a beef or you don't. What the hell is that supposed to mean, and what is it's relevance? Are
you trying to say that anyone who has a problem with being stopped by the
police is "always going to clash with police"?

I'm saying that a single incident (or even two incidents) does not prove a
rule of thumb.
We were talking about the presumption of innocence. You apparently don't understand that concept? Proof at trial will boil down to who sounds more credible. Who is going to sound more credible to a judge [who is most likely
biased], a cop, or your average Joe? One man's word should not be taken against another's. If that is how a trial is to be decided, there should be witnesses that can attest that there was a violation.

Here we go with the envy/jealousy thing again...
Also, there was no presumption of innocent when I was stopped. I was harassed the whole 9 yards. Vicious barking dog in the background, thrown against a car and searched, threatened to no end, everything.

The cops aren't held to presuming you innocent Cory. What part of that do
you not understand?
> Yet you still referred to them as such in a recent reply to me? Slow> learner or were you just being intentionally deceptive? As I stated before, I forgot what they were called. For the sake of simplicity I called them "weight sensors" Well for the sake of simplicity - bull****. Just stop being a smart-***, okay? It's downright rude.

Just calling it as I see it.
> Just make a slight adjustment to how you play the percentages and> you'll be fine. Understand that a long (i.e. stale) green is likely> to change and anticipate that a fresh green will still have risks> from someone (like you are now) who is going to try and beat the> red. Where did I ever say I was "going to try and beat the red"? Hey, if you can paraphrase me then I should be able to read between your lines. Well what you read between the lines is wrong, but of course you'll never believe me.

See! You can get one right every now and then.. ;-)

Steve

<acorn_s@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:20030627071913.394$Wh@newsreader.com...
Before you spend another precious moment fretting about Steve Furbish's "poor attitude," plz take a peek @ this link: http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

John, you might try

http://www.coping.org/growth/accept.htm
Cory, with all due respect, if you wish to keep feeding him, that is your business. We all have our own motives for wanting to be associated with "Steve Furbish."...:) <click>

As a disgraced ex-cop and violent cabbie your reasons are even more
disturbing than most.

Steve