I thought Tony was always right.......

Tony Shelton said:
Why don't you post a poll?

You already know my position. I'll state it again for the record:

1) Every police officer who breaks the law, violates civil rights, causes unnecessary harm, or willfully violates his oath by enforcing unconstitutional laws or regulations (i.e. gun confiscation, etc) is a scumbag.

2) Every police officer who witnesses, suspects, or participates in the above activities and DOES NOT IMMEDIATELY REPORT IT AND PROSECUTE IT (if it is within their power) is a scumbag.

3) Whoever is left deserves our utmost respect and thanks for the job they do.

#3 are the ones I am addressing here in these posts. They are the ones who have the ability to make positive changes in this country. I will admit, I believe they are few and far between, but I know they exist.

The ones who fall into categories 1 and 2 will never give a crap about what I say or what the public says until their job is on the line. By that time it is too late, they don't have what it takes to be trusted by the public.
Click to expand...

That should be part of there swearing in oath.


Call or Text 281.883.8470
Clean and Green Solutions
 
RGilliam said:
ok theres bad apples everywhere, look at our military. How many of them are getting charged with killing innocent people. Theyre put in danger everyday. So what do we do? Let everyone protect there communities on there own? Ron, your daughters a police officer, would you say she is she a good officer?
Click to expand...
Sorry but in war there are no innocent people.
 
Michael DeRose said:
That is an idiotic statement.
Click to expand...

Oh really?

Ok, lets take a not so hypothetical situation from when I was in my early twenties.

I went to a company dinner party with my mother (I was single at the time and didn't have anything better to do). After the dinner I ran into some former colleges and we had a few drinks and laughs and one thing lead to another we got pretty much bombed. When I left I could tell I was drunk and that I needed to go home, so I did. I drove 15-20 miles and got home safely and without incident, but I'm sure if I were to be stopped I would have received a DUI (DWI back then).

Back then, my car was my source of income and my income paid my bills. The fact that I made it home ok on my own, does not justify my actions, but had the alternative happened, here's what would have ensued;

  • I would have lost my job (income)
  • My bills would not get paid
    • Utilities turned off
    • Car repossessed
    • House (probably) foreclose
My whole life would have been turned upside down into a dumpster. I, more than likely, would have not recovered for at least a year and without a means to support myself became a burden on friends and/or family.

I learned my lesson without the assistance of any LEO. I'm not a regular drinker in the first place, so that incident was rare to say the least. The fact that I did make it home safely and none of that horrible stuff happened to me proves there is no need to fleece people for their money and ruin their lives. I injured noone or anyone's property therefore "no harm - no foul".

Cops, whether "good" or "bad" love to put a notch in their belt whenever they can. They certainly don't care about the consequences in the aftermath of a DUI. This does not apply if there is an actual injury or damage to someone elses property.

Wait... I already know what you're going to say (I've heard it a hundred times). The cop protecting everyone else. That may be true on some insignificant level, but he/she is doing far more damage. The simple act of a cop getting an impaired driver home safely is as easy as calling a cab and putting the driver in it. Problem solved, noone hurt, no damages ... and so on.

That's the difference between a "police officer" and a "peace officer". Police officers enforce policee (policy), while peace officers maintain the peace.

Most cops don't give a rats ass about what happens to someone that gets a DUI, they just want their notches.

A friend of mine a few years back got caught up in the DUI scandal and I became his transportation for more than a year. That's how he kept his job. The fact that he was alone on a highway around midnight didn't matter to the cop that pulled him. He needed another notch in his belt. Had the cop not been there, he would have probably made it home without incident.
 
Last edited:
My uncle's department used to pull people over and give them rides home all the time. They only arrested the habitual offenders.

He was shot once by an escaped convict. Rather than shoot him he rushed him and took him down with his bare hands never unholstering his weapon. When asked why he didn't shoot him he responded "I knew he wasn't in his right mind and if I killed him I would never be able to look his mother in the face."

He made it 28 years and never fired his weapon in the line of duty.

He was one of the few who rose up against Sheriff Buford Pusser of "Walking Tall" fame for his atrocities.

A foreign movie maker came to the town to make a documentary about the horrid jail conditions in Podunk Tennessee but went home frustrated and never published the documentary when he couldn't get the inmates to say anything bad about him. My mom still has a copy of it.

This is the heart of a real public servant. That heart is dead in this country.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Tony R said:
Why does the direction of your career effect whether or not you would turn in bad cops?

I want to ask you how do you look kids in the eye as you send mom/dad off to prison for a victimless crime? Or did you never have to deal with that?
Click to expand...
Sorry I never did a bogus arrest ever. That may disappoint you because of what the brain washing tactics thats happening here.
 
Red if an officer gets a drunk off the road then its one less that a family driving around has to worry about. When you drink then drive you know what can happen if you get pulled over so you have a choice to take that risk and if you decide to take the risk then you are prepared for the consequences.
 
I know more than five people that have killed someone else while driving drunk and they all went to prison and deserved everything plus more of what they got. Now if they would have been pulled over and charged with a due then those people would still be alive. Not one of those drunks got killed and that is the saddest part.

Using drunk driving as an example is just being a dumb selfish person in my opinion. I can handle a little weed but not drunks.
 
Michael DeRose said:
I know more than five people that have killed someone else while driving drunk and they all went to prison and deserved everything plus more of what they got. Now if they would have been pulled over and charged with a due then those people would still be alive. Not one of those drunks got killed and that is the saddest part.

Using drunk driving as an example is just being a dumb selfish person in my opinion. I can handle a little weed but not drunks.
Click to expand...

Merry Christmas Michael!

It must be Christmas, We are almost in complete agreement.

We have all done stupid things in our lives at one time or another.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Clean County PW said:
Sorry I never did a bogus arrest ever. That may disappoint you because of what the brain washing tactics thats happening here.
Click to expand...

Tell me why the direction of your career effects whether or not you turn in the bad cops? While maybe you stayed within your department's definition of the law with your arrests, I'm sure people that care about freedom would consider many of them bogus. How many stop and frisks have you done?
 
Tony R said:
Tell me why the direction of your career effects whether or not you turn in the bad cops? While maybe you stayed within your department's definition of the law with your arrests, I'm sure people that care about freedom would consider many of them bogus. How many stop and frisks have you done?
Click to expand...

Good question for everybody here.

Totally 100% unconstitional.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
RGilliam said:
yea there ya go Red. drinking and driving. No big deal. Yea if you'd go pulled over you'd lost your job. But if you'd got in an accident youd probably ruined someones life. thats a selfish thing to do. I understand a no tolerance on drinking and driving.
Click to expand...

No argument from me and it is a big deal. Drinking and driving is irresponsible and should be prevented as much as possible. My point was not to let drunk drivers go, but to get them home safely and without ruining their lives. Once the damage is done, that's a different story all together. As Tony mentioned about habitual offenders, this is where the line is drawn and a tough action is taken.

Michael DeRose said:
Red if an officer gets a drunk off the road then its one less that a family driving around has to worry about. When you drink then drive you know what can happen if you get pulled over so you have a choice to take that risk and if you decide to take the risk then you are prepared for the consequences.
Click to expand...

None here either, but I take exception to the fact that if a cop does pull someone over, that ruining their life (with no injured party or damaged property) is not acceptable to me "just because it might have happened".

Michael DeRose said:
I know more than five people that have killed someone else while driving drunk and they all went to prison and deserved everything plus more of what they got. Now if they would have been pulled over and charged with a due then those people would still be alive. Not one of those drunks got killed and that is the saddest part.

Using drunk driving as an example is just being a dumb selfish person in my opinion. I can handle a little weed but not drunks.
Click to expand...

This is the opposite side of the coin... after the damage is done. I won't argue this either because once you do injure someone or do damage you are liable for your actions.

Ruining someone's life for NOT injuring anyone or doing any damage is not acceptable (to me).

The friend I mentioned previously had his life turned upside down, yet harmed noone or damaged anything. He had shared custody of his daughter so he spent as much time with her as he could. When he got his DUI all his money went to;

  • Attorneys
  • Courts
  • Probation Officer
  • Fees to install a breath analyzer in his car
  • Monthly fees to use that equipment
  • Had to "rent" a steering wheel lock (anti-theft device)
  • Other expenses (I can't remember off hand, but I do remember him bitching about them)
Had I not drove him to and from work for more than a year, I don't know that he would have been able to keep his job. I can't say that he would have lost it either, but he would have needed transportation to whatever job-site we were on that week.

He needed transportation to see his daughter, which meant he had to call someone to take him to see her. He needed someone to take him to do his normal errands. His funds for everyday expenses were all but gone, and his monthly bills were all of a sudden a hardship. This man was punished for harming noone.

I am not condoning drinking and driving in any way, shape or form. What I am not condoning is the way the matter is handled in a particular situation, that being where noone is harmed in any way. To make a comparison to their "rule of thumb" is to arrest someone for going to the gas station. They might actually run into one of the pumps and cause an explosion that kills people. Sure this is a stupid example, but if you think about it, it amounts to the same thing. Arresting someone for something that "might" have happen. The sad thing about my example is, although property is damaged and people killed, the driver will more than likely walk away with a ticket. Insurance will take care of the rest.

I agree completely that drinking and driving should not occur, but when it does make the punishment fit the circumstances. Ruining someones life based on something that "might" have happened, in my opinion, is wrong.
 
"Red" said:
No argument from me and it is a big deal. Drinking and driving is irresponsible and should be prevented as much as possible. My point was not to let drunk drivers go, but to get them home safely and without ruining their lives. Once the damage is done, that's a different story all together. As Tony mentioned about habitual offenders, this is where the line is drawn and a tough action is taken.



None here either, but I take exception to the fact that if a cop does pull someone over, that ruining their life (with no injured party or damaged property) is not acceptable to me "just because it might have happened".



This is the opposite side of the coin... after the damage is done. I won't argue this either because once you do injure someone or do damage you are liable for your actions.

Ruining someone's life for NOT injuring anyone or doing any damage is not acceptable (to me).

The friend I mentioned previously had his life turned upside down, yet harmed noone or damaged anything. He had shared custody of his daughter so he spent as much time with her as he could. When he got his DUI all his money went to;

  • Attorneys
  • Courts
  • Probation Officer
  • Fees to install a breath analyzer in his car
  • Monthly fees to use that equipment
  • Had to "rent" a steering wheel lock (anti-theft device)
  • Other expenses (I can't remember off hand, but I do remember him bitching about them)
Had I not drove him to and from work for more than a year, I don't know that he would have been able to keep his job. I can't say that he would have lost it either, but he would have needed transportation to whatever job-site we were on that week.

He needed transportation to see his daughter, which meant he had to call someone to take him to see her. He needed someone to take him to do his normal errands. His funds for everyday expenses were all but gone, and his monthly bills were all of a sudden a hardship. This man was punished for harming noone.

I am not condoning drinking and driving in any way, shape or form. What I am not condoning is the way the matter is handled in a particular situation, that being where noone is harmed in any way. To make a comparison to their "rule of thumb" is to arrest someone for going to the gas station. They might actually run into one of the pumps and cause an explosion that kills people. Sure this is a stupid example, but if you think about it, it amounts to the same thing. Arresting someone for something that "might" have happen. The sad thing about my example is, although property is damaged and people killed, the driver will more than likely walk away with a ticket. Insurance will take care of the rest.

I agree completely that drinking and driving should not occur, but when it does make the punishment fit the circumstances. Ruining someones life based on something that "might" have happened, in my opinion, is wrong.
Click to expand...

This is not normal thinking.

Red, How many people die on the roads in this country as a result of alcohol related accidents??
In one breath, you say that people should be given a break for their actions (when you feel it is appropriate) and then you say that cops should be liable for their actions. Why can't everyone be liable for their own actions???

I hate to break it to you, but this is not Red and Tony's world, as such, the legislature creates laws and specifies the penaltys for getting convicted of breaking thise laws. In order for someone to be punished for breaking a law, the legislature had to crate the law, the executive branch (police etc) had to catch you and charge you and then the judicial branch had to convict you of it or you pled guilty. No one section of government covers all three. People have to be held responsible for their actions, which is rare today. That is likely part of the entitlement felling among most of society today.

If you don't like how thngs are, do something besides complaining on a internet pressure washing forum to change them. Become involved in government and make or attempt to make changes from where you will be listened to.
 
NJWashingGuy said:
This is not normal thinking.

Red, How many people die on the roads in this country as a result of alcohol related accidents??
In one breath, you say that people should be given a break for their actions (when you feel it is appropriate) and then you say that cops should be liable for their actions. Why can't everyone be liable for their own actions???

I hate to break it to you, but this is not Red and Tony's world, as such, the legislature creates laws and specifies the penaltys for getting convicted of breaking thise laws. In order for someone to be punished for breaking a law, the legislature had to crate the law, the executive branch (police etc) had to catch you and charge you and then the judicial branch had to convict you of it or you pled guilty. No one section of government covers all three. People have to be held responsible for their actions, which is rare today. That is likely part of the entitlement felling among most of society today.

If you don't like how thngs are, do something besides complaining on a internet pressure washing forum to change them. Become involved in government and make or attempt to make changes from where you will be listened to.
Click to expand...

Michael, you are the only one in this conversation who is currently in a position to make immediate change. What are you personally doing?

Or, are you saying with all this abuse everything is just fine and nothing needs changing?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Tony Shelton said:
Michael, you are the only one in this conversation who is currently in a position to make immediate change. What are you personally doing?

Or, are you saying with all this abuse everything is just fine and nothing needs changing?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Tony,
I remain objective with whatever situation I deal with at work and take each situation on its own merits. I do not see or experience what you portray with law enforement on these boards in my work environment. We have had this discussion before.
I just think that what is posted above about "no harm - no foul" is foolish. When that approach is taken, does someone learn a lesson which prevents future re-occurrences? To suggest that you should only arrest someone for DWI if they crash and hurt someone else is ignorant. The same goes with drugs, should you be able to drive high on heroin as long as you don't kill another because after all its your body? The plain answer is no. Marijuana impairs ones physical condition regardless of where you stand on the legalization issue. Should people be able to drive around smoking weed as long as they do not kill someone else??
We have a fundamental difference in how we each believe the law should be applied. This is not something we will hash out on an interent forum.
Merry Christmas to you and your family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top