The perfect road!

SVTKate wrote:
> Out west there was a stretch of road if I rmember correctly it was highway
> 4.
> It went from the valley up to Angels Camp.
>
> Out here, nowhere so far. Haven't really had an opportunity to look around
> much. That and the other drivers kind of give me the heebie jeebies. You can
> be approaching a turn and find the oncoming car in your lane heading right
> at you. That and the TST every 1/4 mile.
>
> This spring I hope to get her out a bit and look around.
>
> Kate
>
> "Wound Up" > wrote in message
> ...
> | "So where do -you- like to fish?"
> |
> | SVTKate wrote:
> | > LOL!
> | > I can see it now.
> | > John goes out for a nice run on his favorite piece of highway and sees
> | > Mustangs all over the place.
> | >
> | > Kate
> | >
> | > "JohnW" > wrote in message
> | > ...
> | > | Try either Odenton or Crofton, in Maryland.
> | > |
> | >
> http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?ed...=us&cat=&trf=0
> | > |
> | > | Of course, much have it has been developed at this point...
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | "JohnH" > wrote in message
> | > | ...
> | > | > On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 07:40:00 -0500, "JohnW"
> >
> | > | > wrote:
> | > | >
> | > | > >Patuxent Road, Anne Arundel County Maryland...
> | > | > >
> | > | > Where is Patuxent Road? I tried to find it on Mapquest, but it wants
> | > | > more info. What town(s) does it go through. If it's along the
> Patuxent
> | > | > River, it can't be too far from Alexandria, VA.
> | > | >
> | > | > John H
> | > | >
> | > | > On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
> | > | > on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!
> | > | >
> | > | > "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and
> necessary
> | > to
> | > | resolve it."
> | > | > Rene Descartes
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
> | --
> | Wound Up
> | ThunderSnake #65
> |
>
>
Hey Kate, Long time no talk! Highway 4 is a great scenic cruiser, but
for ultimate Cobra roads it's gotta be Del Puerto Canyon, Patterson Pass
or Corral Hollow! You do remember those don't you? The absolute greatest
ways to get from the Central Valley to the East Bay (almost no CHiPs)

Spike I guess my beef comes down to this

The system is horribly flawed and unjust. If its front line has a bad
day, a prejudice, makes a mistake or has an attitude problem, I am
wrongfully put into the flawed system. This has happened to me a couple
of times. It will happen to everyone sooner or later. Some of those
who get ****ed when they are pulled over are people like me, who have
been screwed, and some far worse than I. We start hating cops. We
start to think they are egomaniacal, profiling, prejudiced, power-drunk
a-holes with nothing better to do than walk around my car and write
tickets and "let me 'fight' them" when they know I haven't a chance in
hell, basically. We are all susceptible to prejudice. But patterns
develop, and the conviction (no pun intended) becomes stronger. I am
certainly not alone in this experience. I think I'm in the majority.

We then might call you when our $1500 stereo is stolen, a felony theft,
and you go through the motions, and just laugh at us when we ask "do
these things ever turn up". Or if you're renting the best apt. you can
afford in college, but Section 8 neighbors move in next door and start
selling crack, and crackheads are crawling all around looking for ****
to steal, or rape victims, you do jack squat, and get ****y with me for
calling you. Sorry to bug you, but there are crackheads looking in my
windows and in my car at 2am every damned night. So you know that
house, too, huh? Why aren't you there, crime fighter? Jesus. And if a
crackhead gets in and threatens me or my girlfriend, suddenly my life is
screwed for good if I spray him all over the wall out of genuine fear
for my life. "Manslaughter case? Are you kidding?" says the
prospective employer, and many other important people, forever. Or
potentially for 7-10 years, whichever comes first. The self-defense
defense is a joke. Some say "there is no self-defense", literally and
figuratively.

So the attitude of "I will cite you if I want to, right or wrong, and
it's up to you to fight it" is just saying, "I will use my authority to
screw with whomever I wish, whenever I wish". That person, especially
with a badge and a gun, who is a public servant, deserves and gets
nothing but my contempt and hatred.

You said you didn't do this, and I believe you, for the most part. But
understand how ****tily the average person is treated by the system, and
understand that they front line - you - has the biggest impact on what
happens and when. To make matters worse, cops and courts and lawyers et
al. are constantly and relentlessly glorified by TV shows and other
media, and I'll be damned if I'll ever know why. It's like they're
saying, "please believe us, it's not so bad". Cops have a tough and
dangerous job. I wouldn't want it. But they use that to justify every
other ridiculous and glaring failure there is. Not acceptable.

I'm not as naive as you might be thinking. Life isn't fair, hence my
cynical attitude and anger about a lot of things. But to me, and to
many, many others, the on-average unenlightened, arrogant cop sure
doesn't help nudge the needle closer to "fair". And them reminding and
haughtily telling us just how easily they can screw us over makes us
have more contempt for them, and hurts their image more.

Spike wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 05:02:13 GMT, Wound Up
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Spike wrote:
>>
>>>The comment about preferring gotcha.... Just as ignorance is no
>>>excuse... failure to pay attention to EVERYTHING will get ya under
>>>"inattentive operation".
>>>
>>>No matter what you say or do, you open yourself up.
>>
>>How comforting. And from a veteran (pun intended), no less. And I'd
>>expect you to be busting the chops of the cocky rookies.
>
>
> Why? People will do what people will do. I was never the judge or
> jury... I just enforced the laws that were there. The cop who gets too
> wrapped up in it all burns out fast. You do 2 things.. you do your job
> as best you can and you make sure you go home after work.
>
>>Failing to pay attention to this unqualified "everything" is impossible.
>
>
> That may be but the laws are written in such a way that it's the
> driver's responsibility to pay attention to everything even if it's
> not possible. One of the reasons drivers are supposed to be taught to
> continuously be watching all around... it's called defensive
> driving... and that can include defending against being stopped.
>
>>>If I am on patrol (mind you I am retired now) and I see you driving, I
>>>can fall in behind you and in a short period of time find a citable
>>>offense.
>>
>>As could most anyone; what's your point?
>>
>>
>>>For example... can you prove you came to a complete stop?
>>
>>Wait a minute. It's the burden of the law to prove beyond a reasonable
>>doubt that a person did something illegal, not the burden of the
>>suspected person to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he or she DIDN'T do
>>something illegal. Did you forget that?
>
>
> Wrong. Many of the laws assume you are guilty out of hand. A simple
> example is parking illegally. It makes no difference who was driving.
> The car was registered to you. Or if drugs are found in your car, it's
> on you unless someone else in the car admits they put it there.
> Seatbelts... your kid or whoever undoes their seatbelt and a cop sees,
> bingo. Get real and see how the court system really works.
>
> You are SUPPOSED to be innocent until proven guilty, but quite often
> you have already lost the moment you walk in the door.
>
>
>>If
>>
>>>in my opinion your wheels did not come to a total and visible
>>>cessation of motion... then you rolled the stop.
>>
>>What if I drive a stick, come to a stop sign on a slight hill, and roll
>>forward toward the sign, then back a little, as I disengaged and then
>>re-engaged the clutch. I did actually stop, but for a very short period
>>of time. Would you be able to tell, every single time? Don't think so.
>
>
> Doesn't matter. I can write the cite and it's up to you to fight it.
>
>>Once I have you
>>
>>>stopped, I can check you out for DUI, look in visible sight/within
>>>your reach for anything illegal, etc. and if I see/detect anything...
>>>well let's just say it doesn't look good for you.
>>
>>I just don't understand this attitude, and never will. You not only
>>screw up the whole "who's got to prove what" thing just to serve your
>>own ego trip, you waste my time, the court's, your own, and the public's
>>with your "I'm the Terminator" power trip.
>>
>>It's crap like this that makes the work of the police officer look petty
>>and egomaniacal rather than noble, which it actually is.
>
>
> I gave you examples of how it could go. NOT how I personally operated
> during my 21 years. You are correct. There are cops like that that do
> ruin the system, and I spent a lot of time training rookies that this
> is NOT the way they should function.
>
> I have also experienced a great many citizens who violate the rules of
> the road on a daily basis, and then get irate when the get stopped. As
> one "gentleman" put it, "I've been running this intersection for ten
> years and your and AH for stopping me." I didn't stop him. The lady
> with the car load of kids he wiped out stopped him.
>
> It's a tough enough job, but it's one rarely understood by anyone who
> has never had to deal with the worst side of life on a daily basis.
>
> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16


--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 05:02:13 GMT, Wound Up
> > wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>
>>Spike wrote:
>>
>>>The comment about preferring gotcha.... Just as ignorance is no
>>>excuse... failure to pay attention to EVERYTHING will get ya under
>>>"inattentive operation".
>>>
>>>No matter what you say or do, you open yourself up.
>>
>>How comforting. And from a veteran (pun intended), no less. And I'd
>>expect you to be busting the chops of the cocky rookies.
>>
>>Failing to pay attention to this unqualified "everything" is impossible.
>>
>>
>>>If I am on patrol (mind you I am retired now) and I see you driving, I
>>>can fall in behind you and in a short period of time find a citable
>>>offense.
>>
>>As could most anyone; what's your point?
>>
>>
>>>For example... can you prove you came to a complete stop?
>>
>>Wait a minute. It's the burden of the law to prove beyond a reasonable
>>doubt that a person did something illegal, not the burden of the
>>suspected person to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he or she DIDN'T do
>>something illegal. Did you forget that?
>>
>
> No he didn't, but he is right. When I went to court over the very
> issue you are talking about it was simply a he said, he said issue.
> Judge believed the officer and revoked my bail which is the pre-paying
> of the fine. I showed up with pictures, graphs, and notes showing I
> could not have run the stop sign on the day & time in question. No
> dice, we need the revenue, your outta here. Next case.

We need the revenue. Exactly. Such a noble end. It's so transparent
it's sickening.

>
>>If
>>
>>>in my opinion your wheels did not come to a total and visible
>>>cessation of motion... then you rolled the stop.
>>
>>What if I drive a stick, come to a stop sign on a slight hill, and roll
>>forward toward the sign, then back a little, as I disengaged and then
>>re-engaged the clutch. I did actually stop, but for a very short period
>>of time. Would you be able to tell, every single time? Don't think so.
>>
>>Once I have you
>>
>>>stopped, I can check you out for DUI, look in visible sight/within
>>>your reach for anything illegal, etc. and if I see/detect anything...
>>>well let's just say it doesn't look good for you.
>>
>>I just don't understand this attitude, and never will. You not only
>>screw up the whole "who's got to prove what" thing just to serve your
>>own ego trip, you waste my time, the court's, your own, and the public's
>>with your "I'm the Terminator" power trip.
>>
>>It's crap like this that makes the work of the police officer look petty
>>and egomaniacal rather than noble, which it actually is.
>
>


--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

I think this falls under the category of Urban Legend... but there is
always a possibility that some court case has brought this about.

While it is standard practice to Mirandize right away... it is NOT
required UNLESS the person in custody is being questioned about the
"crime". Personal identification does not required Miranda.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 06:06:52 GMT, "Richard" > wrote:

>The person who told me about getting the stamp told me that he has used it.
>He told me that the officer asked him about it and he responded that he was
>merely protecting his identity. The officer then went back to his car and
>called in and then came back and said asked for his copy of the ticket and
>was told that he would just be given a verbal warning.
>
>I don't think that the issuing of a ticket or being stopped is the same as
>being arrested. Arrested implies that you have been taken into custody .I
>would think that being arrested would also at the very least require the
>officer to "read you your rights". Is that being Mirandaized?

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

When you are stopped, you are "detained" for the purpose of
preliminary investigation. Technically, you are free to depart at any
point up to the point where you are told that you are being placed
under arrest.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 06:21:22 GMT, Wound Up
> wrote:

>Richard wrote:
>> The person who told me about getting the stamp told me that he has used it.
>> He told me that the officer asked him about it and he responded that he was
>> merely protecting his identity. The officer then went back to his car and
>> called in and then came back and said asked for his copy of the ticket and
>> was told that he would just be given a verbal warning.
>
>Interesting..
>
>>
>> I don't think that the issuing of a ticket or being stopped is the same as
>> being arrested. Arrested implies that you have been taken into custody .I
>> would think that being arrested would also at the very least require the
>> officer to "read you your rights". Is that being Mirandaized?
>
>Yes it is. But when stopped, you are under the control and direction of
>the officer, so it is in a being taken into a sort of custody. Not
>quite the same thing as being physically taken away, so I get your point.
>
>>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

You get very little argument from me. But, if you had to deal with
what many very good cops have to deal with on a daily basis, often the
result of a "bad" cop, you might have a bit more understanding. Go out
on the road and listen to the excuses, and then pick up a child's
broken body, or be the one to inform your neighbor his wife, son, and
unborn child were killed by a drunk driver.

I often watched drivers actions. Then used a minor violation to make a
stop and check them for DUI, being over tired, or whatever. Generally,
I knew when I approached the driver whether I was going to issue a
cite or not. Driver's attitudes sometimes change my mind. The
important thing was that I got drunks off the road. I also got those
who were over tired from pulling a double shift at the hospital or
whatever, to take a break... open the window and get some fresh air...
and get home alive.

I've also been know to transport such people home rather than jail
them.

Like every walk of life, a small percentage of people (well except for
car salesmen and lawyers LOL) can ruin the image of the 90% who are
good. Also remember that the cop, like it or not has to speak from a
position of authority and be commanding. Off duty you would likely
find that same person is totally laid back, beer swilling, country
loving, God fearing, and an all around nice person. On duty, is a
whole different world. It also makes a heck of a difference where the
cop works; city, highway, small town, etc; because those differences
subject the officer to different kinds of people.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:16:32 GMT, Wound Up
> wrote:

>Spike I guess my beef comes down to this
>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

And as populations grow, and revenues shrink, don't be surprised if it
gets worse. Fortunately, I never had anyone tell me how many tickets I
had to write. Everywhere I worked, I was free to write as many as I
wanted... : )

I'm not making light of how you feel. But, having been out there;
having bullet holes appear in my car door, drunks deciding they want
to resist (never had a pot smoker cause me any problem though),
spouses abusing spouses, parents abusing children and vice versa,
traffic cite complaints are low on my priority list. When I got
stopped, I knew I was in violation. I signed the cite and paid the
fine (yes, cops do get cited).

You really have to care about people to go out there every day and try
to make a difference when things keep getting worse with each passing
year, and nobody wants you around until something happens to them.
Yes, there are those on power trips. I have personally seen to the end
of several careers for that reason. But the vast majority of us are
really people who care enough to lay it on the line every day for you.
We really do keep chaos at bay. Most of us would rather be finding
lost children or helping grandmas out of snow banks, then dealing with
a puking drunk or whatever.

You have your attitude. Maybe you have good reason. Just try to
understand things from my side of the fence. The very nature of my job
made us adversaries of sorts. You want to do your thing without
restriction, and I have to enforce the restrictions.

On the plus side... I'm retired, and we will never meet in that
situation.



On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:19:55 GMT, Wound Up
> wrote:

>ZombyWoof wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 05:02:13 GMT, Wound Up
>> > wrote something wonderfully witty:
>>
>>
>>>Spike wrote:
>>>
>>>>The comment about preferring gotcha.... Just as ignorance is no
>>>>excuse... failure to pay attention to EVERYTHING will get ya under
>>>>"inattentive operation".
>>>>
>>>>No matter what you say or do, you open yourself up.
>>>
>>>How comforting. And from a veteran (pun intended), no less. And I'd
>>>expect you to be busting the chops of the cocky rookies.
>>>
>>>Failing to pay attention to this unqualified "everything" is impossible.
>>>
>>>
>>>>If I am on patrol (mind you I am retired now) and I see you driving, I
>>>>can fall in behind you and in a short period of time find a citable
>>>>offense.
>>>
>>>As could most anyone; what's your point?
>>>
>>>
>>>>For example... can you prove you came to a complete stop?
>>>
>>>Wait a minute. It's the burden of the law to prove beyond a reasonable
>>>doubt that a person did something illegal, not the burden of the
>>>suspected person to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he or she DIDN'T do
>>>something illegal. Did you forget that?
>>>
>>
>> No he didn't, but he is right. When I went to court over the very
>> issue you are talking about it was simply a he said, he said issue.
>> Judge believed the officer and revoked my bail which is the pre-paying
>> of the fine. I showed up with pictures, graphs, and notes showing I
>> could not have run the stop sign on the day & time in question. No
>> dice, we need the revenue, your outta here. Next case.
>
>We need the revenue. Exactly. Such a noble end. It's so transparent
>it's sickening.
>
>>
>>>If
>>>
>>>>in my opinion your wheels did not come to a total and visible
>>>>cessation of motion... then you rolled the stop.
>>>
>>>What if I drive a stick, come to a stop sign on a slight hill, and roll
>>>forward toward the sign, then back a little, as I disengaged and then
>>>re-engaged the clutch. I did actually stop, but for a very short period
>>>of time. Would you be able to tell, every single time? Don't think so.
>>>
>>>Once I have you
>>>
>>>>stopped, I can check you out for DUI, look in visible sight/within
>>>>your reach for anything illegal, etc. and if I see/detect anything...
>>>>well let's just say it doesn't look good for you.
>>>
>>>I just don't understand this attitude, and never will. You not only
>>>screw up the whole "who's got to prove what" thing just to serve your
>>>own ego trip, you waste my time, the court's, your own, and the public's
>>>with your "I'm the Terminator" power trip.
>>>
>>>It's crap like this that makes the work of the police officer look petty
>>>and egomaniacal rather than noble, which it actually is.
>>
>>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

I would advise that you NOT "DEMAND" to be allowed to leave. If
anything you should state that you are leaving. At that point they
will either allow you to leave, or make an arrest. That is not to say
that you refuse to sign for a citation, etc. Just once business is
completed, you don't need to hang around and give them reason to check
further.

I would advise saying as little as possible, keeping any answers short
and direct (don't start talking about the wife and kiddies, etc). The
more you say, the more apt you are to say something wrong.

I would advise, at the same time,e being "co-operative", "compliant",
"respectful" (even if you don't), and even "pleasant". Often,
depending upon the reason for being stopped, attitude will make a big
difference in how your case is handled.

Oh, and when you leave, whether they are finished with you or you have
told them you are leaving and they let you.... DO NOT BURN OUT!!!!!
How many times have I seen someone get so PO'd that they burn the
tires, throw some gravel, etc, and in doing so have now committed
"exhibition of speed" and other violations of the vehicle code. And if
you have ticked off the cop, you just made his day.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:36:25 -0500, ZombyWoof >
wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:03:14 -0800, Spike > wrote
>something wonderfully witty:
>
>>When you are stopped, you are "detained" for the purpose of
>>preliminary investigation. Technically, you are free to depart at any
>>point up to the point where you are told that you are being placed
>>under arrest.
>>
>But that is still a moral condition, once you are cuffed you are
>apprehended. Or something like that.
>
>I've been told more then once that should Joe Officer decide to play
>Joe Dickhead, that one should go ahead and demand to be allowed to
>depart. One should also never ever say anything once they have been
>read their rights until the have representation.
>
>>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 06:21:22 GMT, Wound Up
> wrote:
>>
>>>Richard wrote:
>>>> The person who told me about getting the stamp told me that he has used it.
>>>> He told me that the officer asked him about it and he responded that he was
>>>> merely protecting his identity. The officer then went back to his car and
>>>> called in and then came back and said asked for his copy of the ticket and
>>>> was told that he would just be given a verbal warning.
>>>
>>>Interesting..
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that the issuing of a ticket or being stopped is the same as
>>>> being arrested. Arrested implies that you have been taken into custody .I
>>>> would think that being arrested would also at the very least require the
>>>> officer to "read you your rights". Is that being Mirandaized?
>>>
>>>Yes it is. But when stopped, you are under the control and direction of
>>>the officer, so it is in a being taken into a sort of custody. Not
>>>quite the same thing as being physically taken away, so I get your point.
>>>
>>>>
>>
>>Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>>1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>>Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>>Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>>w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:33:14 -0500, ZombyWoof >
wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:19:35 -0800, Spike > wrote
>something wonderfully witty:
>
>>You get very little argument from me. But, if you had to deal with
>>what many very good cops have to deal with on a daily basis, often the
>>result of a "bad" cop, you might have a bit more understanding. Go out
>>on the road and listen to the excuses, and then pick up a child's
>>broken body, or be the one to inform your neighbor his wife, son, and
>>unborn child were killed by a drunk driver.
>>
>>I often watched drivers actions. Then used a minor violation to make a
>>stop and check them for DUI, being over tired, or whatever. Generally,
>>I knew when I approached the driver whether I was going to issue a
>>cite or not. Driver's attitudes sometimes change my mind. The
>>important thing was that I got drunks off the road. I also got those
>>who were over tired from pulling a double shift at the hospital or
>>whatever, to take a break... open the window and get some fresh air...
>>and get home alive.
>>
>This is a very true statement for a LOT of LE officers. I was headed
>home one night after a late night poker game. The Highways runs right
>threw the little burg I live-in and the speed limit drops from 60 to
>35 mph. Well it being 3am, not a car on the 4-ine divided road, and
>me being tired I forgot to slow down and just zipped through downtown
>@ 70mph. Of course I get quickly pulled-over. Officer walks up to
>the car and says "Boy I got just one question and you better get it
>right. All I want to know is if your drunk or stupid?" I admitted to
>being stupid and was sent on my way with a rather stern warning to
>grow some intelligence and get to bed.

Many times, I got answers to questions that were so darn funny,the
violator was on his/her way because I was laughing to hard to write.
Yours was an intelligent response. Now, if you had opened your window
and the odor of ethanol flowed into the cop's face... it would have
been a lot different.
>
>>I've also been know to transport such people home rather than jail
>>them.

In fact, I have brought the wife back to get the car or taken the
driver home, and if it was early in the shift, gone back and picked
him/her up at the end of the shift and taken them to the car. I
profited from that. Not in money.... jeeezzzzzz.... but later, while
working an investigation, I might get a call with a solid lead, which
resulted in the investigation being solved. And it was good PR for the
department.
>>
>I've had that heaven as well.
>
>>Like every walk of life, a small percentage of people (well except for
>>car salesmen and lawyers LOL) can ruin the image of the 90% who are
>>good. Also remember that the cop, like it or not has to speak from a
>>position of authority and be commanding. Off duty you would likely
>>find that same person is totally laid back, beer swilling, country
>>loving, God fearing, and an all around nice person. On duty, is a
>>whole different world. It also makes a heck of a difference where the
>>cop works; city, highway, small town, etc; because those differences
>>subject the officer to different kinds of people.
>>
>A great many folks simply do not understand what the day-to-day life a
>patrol officer is like. They should all do a ride-along for one night
>just to see some of the crap a typical "Mid Shift" office has to put
>up with.

Unfortunately, it seemed every time someone wanted to ride along... it
turned into a dead night. And the following night all hell would break
loose.
>
>In my cousins department where he is now a Captain having worked his
>way up from patrolmen, tickets are part of their revenue stream. They
>get 50% of the faace-value of each ticket, the town the other 50% and
>the court system keeps the court costs, which is included in every
>ticket whether you show up in court or not. While their officers do
>not have any ticket quotas, come the last week of the month they are
>made aware of whether or not they are making the months projected
>revenues. The ticket pace may pick up towards the end of the month.

>
>Pretty much anyone can get a ticket for just about anything if they
>are watched often & long enough during their course of travel.

Unfortunately, even the best people can make mistakes in judgment and
it costs them. Hopefully it won't be something they have to live with
for the rest of their lives. Even today, my attitude is still that the
vast majority of people are good.

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

"ZombyWoof" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 04:52:46 GMT, "Richard" > wrote
> something wonderfully witty:
>
> >Now I have a self inking stamp that I dying to use if I get a ticket. The
> >printed text is:
> >
> >Without Prejudice
> >Non Assumpsit Contract
> >All Rights Reserved
> >
> >Now, I'm told that if I use the stamp then sign the ticket (which only
> >acknowledging receipt) the ticket becomes a useless piece of paper. Any
> >lawyers out there that would care to offer an opinion?
> >
> Well I'll tell you not to put much faith in it working. Almost all
> tickets in the various states I've gotten one in explicitly say that
> it is not an admission of guilt, but only an acknowledgement of
> receipt and promise to appear.

I believe that was the purpose of using the "all rights reserved" before
signing in that they could not now use the ticket without violating your
copyright (signature). In other words one cannot perform an illegal act
(violate your copyright) in order to obtain a conviction. To use the ticket
would require your explicit approval either in writing or verbally. I think
that it's the same principal that would be applied if there were
unauthorized wiretape and/or search evidence being used to obtain a
conviction. Hence the need to obtain court approval/search warrant for what
would otherwise be an illegal act.

That's why I was wondering if there was someone who could provide some legal
insight to the use of the stamp.

Richard