--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F5G00226 Date: 04/24/98 From: ALAN RACKMILL Time: 08:24pm \/To: SCOTT MCQUILKIN (Read 0 times) Subj: "Setting the Record" Scott Mcquilkin wrote in a message to All: SM> To whom it Concerns, SM> Setting the record straight; I have no problem with Law SM> Enforcement Personnel as a whole, its the few immoral ones SM> I am targeting because of constant abuse of authority so SM> granted by individual Governing bodies when duly sworn. SM> OATH= You will provide honest and faithful service, that SM> you will up . hold the State and U.S. Constitutions. SM> . -That you will carry out that service honestly and to SM> the best of . your abilities, So help you God. SM> I've take such an oath myself as a notary, and even though SM> I am NOT sworn to enforce laws, I take that oath extremely SM> seriously because I legally represent the court as such. SM> Obviously I can't know for an absolute if the person who SM> appeared before me told the absolute truth, but I've SM> notarized a document and such document contains my SM> signature, or in most cases, has my name stamped on it and SM> is sealed, I've personally stated "I attest that the SM> information contained herewith is accurate", therefore I am SM> responsible *to an extent* for the accuracy of such SM> information. As is the case with Sworn Law Enforcement SM> Personnel. As a Notary, you are NOT responsible for the accuracy of the information contained in the statement. What you are responsible for is ensuring that the **signature** on the document belongs to the person who signed it. You are basically saying that the person who signed the paper you have notarized did so in your presense, and has shown you sufficient proof to estanblish the fact that he is who he says he is. And that is all you do as a Notary. Alan Team OS/2, Fidonet 1:107/101, ibmNET 40:4371/101, OS2NET 80:135/15 internet: alanrackmill@mindspring.com --- timEd/2 1.01 * Origin: The Maven's Roost * MAX/2 * WARP * v.34 1-908-821-4533 1:107/101) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F5G00227 Date: 04/24/98 From: LAWANDA TAYLOR Time: 06:51pm \/To: STEVE KEMP (Read 0 times) Subj: Legality of Commandeering GD> The police officer is there to protect and to serve. SK> Protect, maybe...but serve? SK> Hey, I ordered ham and eggs with a side of toast and some orange SK> juice from a cop and he hasn't brought me my order yet. SK> The service is terrible around here. :-P You show your true character by what you laugh at! LaWanda --- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0 * Origin: Solar Quest Online - Omaha, Ne - (402) 341-4951 (1:285/85) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F5G00228 Date: 04/24/98 From: RD THOMPSON Time: 06:18pm \/To: SCOTT MCQUILKIN (Read 0 times) Subj: "Setting the Record" Hi Scott, as you were just saying about "Setting the Record".... SM> I've take such an oath myself as a notary, and even though I am SM> NOT SM> sworn to enforce laws, I take that oath extremely seriously because I SM> legally represent the court as such. SM> SM> Obviously I can't know for an absolute if the person who appeared SM> before me told the absolute truth, but I've notarized a document and SM> such document contains my signature, or in most cases, has my name SM> stamped on it and is sealed, I've personally stated "I attest that the SM> information contained herewith is accurate", therefore I am responsible SM> *to an extent* for the accuracy of such information. As is the case SM> with Sworn Law Enforcement Personnel. Hmmmm, interesting. Both my wife and I have been notaries in two different states and our notarie stamps and signatures on a statement only indicated that proper identification was presented by the signer(s) that showed he/she (they) was (were) who they claimed to be. We were notarizing the validity of the signature(s), *not* the accuracy of the document to which it was affixed. RD sandman@azstarnet.com http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman A well-educated Congress being necessary for the governing of a free state, the right of the people to read and write books shall not be infringed. ___ X KWQ/2 1.2i X Take my advice, I don't use it anyway. --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: DPSystem:4285 OS2-WARPED 520-290-8418 USR V.e+ (1:300/105) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F5G00229 Date: 04/24/98 From: RD THOMPSON Time: 06:24pm \/To: SCOTT MCQUILKIN (Read 0 times) Subj: Commandeering = CarJack Hi Scott, as you were just saying about Commandeering = CarJack.... SM> Or, (as has been the case, especially with Cleveland PD) I come to SM> your department and say "I've just witnessed someone taking a child", SM> or, "I saw a car being stolen", do you honestly believe that the 'Sworn SM> LEO' would go right after the person, in the first situation they SM> would, the second they would not, at least immediately. SM> SM> It would go something like this; (while still at the department) SM> SM> 1. Did you see what they were wearing? SM> 2. What direction were they traveling? SM> 3. Were they in a vehicle, if so, what color, make, and model is it? SM> 4. How many people were in sight? SM> 5. Was there another vehicle seen? SM> SM> This has occurred more times than I care to imagine, and most likely is SM> wide spread because *some* officers and departments simply do not care SM> because "they're lazy", if it is not important enough to them to SM> pursue, or if there is not a life in peril, they will not act. Or, if SM> they do, it won't be in a timely fashion. Perhaps it could also be because Motorolas are much faster than Fords, Chevys or Mopars. RD sandman@azstarnet.com http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman A well-educated Congress being necessary for the governing of a free state, the right of the people to read and write books shall not be infringed. ___ X KWQ/2 1.2i X I do believe the cheese has slipped off your cracker. --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: DPSystem:4285 OS2-WARPED 520-290-8418 USR V.e+ (1:300/105) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F5G00230 Date: 04/24/98 From: RD THOMPSON Time: 06:28pm \/To: BLAKE BOWERS (Read 0 times) Subj: Legality of Commandee Hi Blake, as you were just saying about Legality of Commandee.... BB> CH> just compensation. As for the insurance, if your car has plates on it BB> CH> it's supposed to be insured. BB> BB> Yes, and no. BB> BB> You can always self insure. Put a bond up, which can be self BB> backed, with the state in place of insurance. BB> BB> Sort of like insurance, but the money would come out of your BB> pocket directly, instead of an insurance company. Actually, that makes the answer...yes. Both are forms of insurance. What the law usually requires is proof of financial liability. That may be done by purchasing insurance or posting a bond (self-insuring) for the amount required to meet state laws. RD sandman@azstarnet.com http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman A well-educated Congress being necessary for the governing of a free state, the right of the people to read and write books shall not be infringed. ___ X KWQ/2 1.2i X I don't know what apathy is and really don't give a damn. --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: DPSystem:4285 OS2-WARPED 520-290-8418 USR V.e+ (1:300/105) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F5G00231 Date: 04/23/98 From: RON TAYLOR Time: 09:13am \/To: RICH WILLBANKS (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: STREET PEOPLE >had working for someone else was one that I was >"unqualified" for. I got it because I came in every >day and filled out another application and asked to see >the manager/owner. After close to a month of this they >hired me just so I'd quit bothering them :) Reminds me of a very true story here at the company that I presently work for. Several years ago, they had a "down sizing" in the plant. One particular man refused to be laid off! He just simply kept coming to work. The supervisor tried to explain to him that he was no longer employed. But, he kept coming to work. This went on for nearly two weeks. Know what... they put him back on the payroll. Today, he is one of the shift supervisors and an extremely well respected one at that. As Paul Harvey would say, "And now, the REST of the story"... He is a black man. --- * QMPro 1.02 42-7029 * It's not hard to meet expenses, they're everywhere. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: CrimeBytes:Take A MegaByte Out Of Crime! (305)592-9831 1:135/5.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F5G00232 Date: 04/23/98 From: RON TAYLOR Time: 09:18am \/To: RICH WILLBANKS (Read 0 times) Subj: Teenage Smoking Since this thread has little to do with "ASKACOP", lets respect the moderators wishes to get back on topic. We probably wouldn't convince each other anyhow :) Thanks, Ron --- * QMPro 1.02 42-7029 * Misspelled? Impossible. My modem is error correcting. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: CrimeBytes:Take A MegaByte Out Of Crime! (305)592-9831 1:135/5.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F5G00233 Date: 04/23/98 From: RON TAYLOR Time: 03:30pm \/To: MARK RACIBORSKI (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Legality of Commandee >Thank you, it is a very true statement, it is called ON-STAR and is a [snip] > but all it takes is one phone call to a >GM dealer to confirm this. I am aware that the ON-Star system will do the functions you describe. As well, private individuals can easily engineer a similar system that operates via radio signals and embedded codes. No big deal in getting it to work. I'm interested in how the police would react if they did commandeer a vehicle so equipped, and the owner activated his theft prevention devices. The officer in hot pursuit in said commandeered vehicle, dead in the water. How would this turn of events be handled by the LEO? Would the car owner be charged with obstruction of justice? What if he was unsure of the status of the LEO and activated his theft prevention device in good faith that he was thwarting a crook? Interesting. --- * QMPro 1.02 42-7029 * PCDOS&MSDOS&CP/M&WINDOWSI'LLFIDDLEWITHOS/2WOULDN'TYOU --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: CrimeBytes:Take A MegaByte Out Of Crime! (305)592-9831 1:135/5.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F5G00234 Date: 04/24/98 From: RON TAYLOR Time: 08:12am \/To: EARL NEWSOM (Read 0 times) Subj: RE: TEENAGE SMOKING EN>It is seldom used and not real effective but there is some enforcement. >I failed to mention that Texas has, in the last legislative session (our >legislators only meet every other year so they do have the damages of >some legislators), passed a new law which prohibits those under the age >of eighteen from possessing tobacco products (that includes smokeless >tobacco which is a real problem for younger people). It is a problem everywhere and is becoming a bigger problem. I simply don't understand it either. It is a nasty and most inconvenient habit to say the least. However, I won't campaign against smokeless tobacco. It will never be a problem for me. That is selfish, I guess, but I'm a firm believer that someone should have the right to do with his own person, whatever he wishes. If some idiot wants to dribble snuff drippings down his own shirt, let him. So, in the process he creates a case of gum cancer for himself.... well, thats his choice. As long as he doesn't spit it on my carpet, I have no beef. As for children, there should be laws to prevent them from doing something harmful to themselves until they are of the age to take the responsibility for making wrong decisions. I believe, however, that the laws should be focused on those adults that take advantage of childhood for their own profit, rather than the child who falls victim to them. It is the parents job to teach the child, not the law. >The penalty is >interesting. It includes a small fine (I think the upper limit is $100) >and attendance at a class on tobacco effects. Failure to attend the >class can result in the persons drivers license being suspended. I >haven't seen any of these cases in our court yet. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of removing driving privileges as leverage to enforce some unrelated law, but I guess it is effective. I've lived in areas where driver's licenses were suspended for high school truancy. It kept kids in school, but still, I'm not a firm believer that the end justifies the means. I applaud a law that forces education onto anyone who uses tobacco illegally. Denial of the true effects of tobacco is the root of the problem (IMO) we have with its use. Thanks for the info. Ron --- * QMPro 1.02 42-7029 * People say I'm indecisive. Am I? I don't know. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: CrimeBytes:Take A MegaByte Out Of Crime! (305)592-9831 1:135/5.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F5G00235 Date: 04/24/98 From: RON TAYLOR Time: 08:43am \/To: CAROL SHENKENBERGER (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Teenage Smoking I'm hoping that the law and law enforcement angle of smoking is on topic enough that we can continue without getting into the pros and cons of tobacco usage. CS>*** Quoting Ron Taylor from a message to Rich Willbanks *** CS>RT> If it were that simple, I would agree with you. CS>RT> There are VERY few smoke free restaurants. When there is one >RT> available, I will patronize it. CS>Thats funny, I havent seen a place that allows smoking except in esignated > sections, in a LONG time. In my part of the country, a totally smoke free restaurant is almost unheard of. At the one good seafood place that is smoke free, there is up to an hour wait for a table most nights. On Friday and Saturday, you'd better have a reservation. As for "designated sections"... I've been to places that had designated _tables_. What the hell good is a "smoke free _table_" when the next table is not? One of my favorite on-the-road places is Cracker Barrel. Their dining room is usually divided into three sections, two non-smoking and one where smoking is allowed. The sections are separated by lattice slats. For some reason, the smokers beside the "wall" tend to blow their smoke TOWARD the wall. I guess that that is some kind of unconscious act of kindness to the others at their table. Problem is, the smoke goes through the wall into the non-smoking section. A "non smoking section" is a waste of the establishment management's time and a thumb in the nose to the non smoker when it doesn't provide a smoke free environment. The only effective "designated smoking section" is one that is _physically_ separate and has a ventilation system that prevents smoke from entering the so-called "non-smoking" section. The ONLY places that I've seen that have this kind of area are those whose owner's do not smoke and can appreciate the inconvenience to non-smokers who have to experience second hand smoke when they try to enjoy a meal. When the smoking community realizes the difference in "non-smoking" and "smoke free", and honors the non-smoker's wishes to be in a smoke free environment, we won't have a need for laws to ensure it. Until then, I'll have to stay on my soap box. CS>California Law makes it all smoke-free. I applaud them. Some day, ALL states will follow their example. >Made a mess of the finances >and >many restraunts folded because of it. See, something like 20% of the >populace smokes, and that 20% simply didnt dine out as often when they >changed the laws there. Restraunts, many of them, just couldnt survive n >almost 20% loss of business. With all respect Carol, I have a problem believing that. Do you have a cite to back up those statistics and the effects of the new law? I don't question the 20%. But I have a problem believing that that 20% totally stopped patronizing eating establishments. I really do! How many restaurants actually closed, citing the smoke-free laws as the reason? What is the source of the statistics? We travel extensively over the entire southeastern United States and eat out approximately 60% of our meals. If your scenario is accurate, why is it that we nearly always have to wait for a smoke free area when "next available" seating is available immediately? --- * QMPro 1.02 42-7029 * Soon To Be A Major Motion Picture. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: CrimeBytes:Take A MegaByte Out Of Crime! (305)592-9831 1:135/5.0)