Is Jon E. Prevo your real name? Or is it just a "Handle" for Team.Nuts???
Mike(I don't trust the police either)B. 99cm
jon e prevo wrote:
> I will preface this post with a warning that there is no autocross
> content. And for the many new members who may get the wrong impression,
> Let me say that Phil Osbourne is in my opinion the finest of autocross
> personalities and my disagreement is in no way intended as an attack on
> his character. If you have not met Phil, you are missing one of the
> great experiences to be had in autocross. I have missed his presence
> since he left Texas region and it is a joy to be able to converse on the
> 'net.
>
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 21:30:31 -0400 "Phillip S. Osborne" <psosborn@gte.net>
> writes:
> > I have been out of town for a couple of weeks, away from email, and
> > am just
> > now catching up.....
> >
>
> I was wondering why you never seemed to have an opinion, especially with
> your background.
>
> Just because you have been harrassed, with
> > questionable
> > reason, does not necessarily mean that all those fitting your
> > description
> > are harrassed.
>
> My comment, and the subsequent comments of several other t.n members was
> that __many__ of us are. There is an inherent distrust among us that can
> not be measured by research, and that distrust stems from abuse and
> suspicion of abuse, on a larger scale than you want to recognize.
>
> Have you done research to prove that the majority of
> > cops
> > abuse the system?
>
> Again, my comment does not implicate the "majority." Just a much larger
> demographic than law enforcement wants to admit. And why not? That
> would be an admission of criminal activity and I will admit that we
> (society) cannot afford for half our local law enforcement agencies to be
> shut down due to widespread class-action suits.
>
> Most cops will not waste time with
> > petty
> > traffic citations just to make numbers.
> > And,
> > although some departments may establish quotas where traffic
> > citations are
> > concerned, the great majority do not.
>
> I will disagree with you, respectfully but vehemently, on this point.
> And now I will pass the onus to you. Prove to me by research that there
> are not blatant traffic quotas in the _wide_ majority of departments,
> large and small. They _are_ there and that is not my opinion, that is
> from the mouths of multiple officers who are friends of mine and others
> who are acquaintences of people who are my friends. This is no "urban
> legend."
> ... traffic tickets mean money in the city coffers. Why
> > else
> > would a city of less than 200 people require a police department of
> > multiple
> > officers on duty at any one time? But even at that, you can't blame
> > the
> > officers if he is in fact only doing his job
>
> I do not blame any single officer for his department's illegitimate
> policies. I do, however, wonder sometimes, and have asked officers
> sometimes, how they can sleep at night knowing that their bosses require
> them to piss all over the various codes of ethics and legal statutes day
> in and day out, in the pursuit of municiple profits.
>
> ...legislating city
> > police
> > courts out of business. Most states have a district court system
> > that does
> > not allow local governments to reap the profits of multiple traffic
> > citations...
>
> An excellent idea, and one which should be adopted by Texas.
>
>
> > Admittedly, there are a few who find power of the badge too much to
> > resist
> > the temptation to play God, but those are far and few between.
>
> Once again, disagreed. I believe the police departments do a poor job of
> controlling their officers, and this is where the larger problem arises.
> To cover for inept management, and to avoid repercussions, inapropriate
> behavior is ignored and denied as a matter of course. Allow me to
> illustrate. Several years ago, there was a shop here in Fort Worth which
> mainly dealt in auto service, with a retail firearms showroom in the
> office. This business gained a reputation as "the tire shop that sells
> guns." The owner's son-in-law managed the auto service business while
> the owner spent most of his time managing the office. It was decided
> that it would be advantageous to create a "safety net" type security
> perimeter and as a portion of that plan the son-in-law began carrying a
> sidearm in the course of his daily work. Texas statute plainly states
> that the person who is owner or charged with control of a property may
> legally carry a handgun in plain view on the property. Over a period of
> a couple of years this security tactic was questioned multiple times by
> younger, inexperienced officers with a less than adequate knowledge of
> the statute, but the situation was always explained satisfactorily and no
> incidents or arrests were forthcoming. Until one day a tough-guy cop
> shows up, refusing to listen to reason, insisting on making an arrest,
> arrests the son-in-law and then goes inside store and assaults the owner
> while he is talking to a 911 operator, requesting help from a superior
> officer. The unlawful-carry charges were dismissed, the officer was
> relocated to another station but _not_ reprimanded, the innocent
> oppressed businessmen were out 3000.00 plus the trauma of the situation
> and the police department didn't even offer an apology. Nothing wrong
> happenned. No false arrest took place. No officer overstepped his
> authority. Now, that officer is on the street in Fort Worth with the
> tacit approval of his behavior from the local force. Do you think he
> will even think twice the next time a subject tells him he is making a
> mistake?
>
> As for the "great blue
> > wall,"
> > without it our society would be subject to a hell of a lot more
> > harrassment
> > than from a few bad cops. Think about it the next time you need
> > one...
> >
> I am reminded of the soliloquy delivered by Jack Nicholson's character at
> the end of "A Few Good Men". Phil, excusing poor coduct by certain
> members of law enforcement because across the board society is greatly
> benefitted by it's presence is similar to saying that child abuse is
> acceptable occasionally if it is intended to teach the child self
> discipline. The abuse, by one man or by several small podunk towns in
> Texas, is unacceptable and should be corrected or at least acknowledged,
> not minimalized and portrayed as insignificant. If a man spends years
> giving to the poor, then goes out and steals a car, is he less guilty of
> theft than someone who has led a life of self gratification?
> And I _have_ needed my local police for about 2 years now and they are
> continuing to fail to serve me and my neighborhood because the city
> government has more important issues than drug sales, minors drinking and
> public nuisance. Things like making sure all garage sales are permitted
> and that the city gets a better cable-service contract.
>
> In sincerity, not in judgement.
> Jon FP 73
|