Maybe you should have just paid the fine, kid.

Back in February of this year, I stopped a kid (19) for following too close. Coincidentally, as I pulled him over, he flicked his cigarette resulting in smoldering ash falling onto the roadway. I gave him the choice between a moving violation (a point on his license) and a non-moving violation (not a point).

I told him the mover would more than likely be cheaper, but again, a point. Conversely, the non-mover would be more expensive, but he needn't worry about the point. Kid picked the non-mover.

Fast forward to court last week. Kid decided to fight the ticket. Really?!? I hate when I give someone a break and they decide to fight a ticket. Irritating. At any rate, it turns out the regular Commissioner wasn't there. We had a temporary Commissioner. This one happened to know this kid, so he appropriately recused himself from the case and reset the trial for this morning at 0830 hrs.

As I was getting back on the bike earlier this week, I saw the kid stalking toward me. He didn't look happy. He threw up his arms in frustration and suddenly turned around and walked away. Far be it from me to not poke the bear in the zoo. I rode over to him and this is how it went:

MC: Hey there. Looked like you had something to say. What can I do for you?

Kid: Nothing (throws up hands)

MC: Okey doke. See you Friday.

Kid: Man, I can't believe this! I got bills to pay, you know! Now I'm supposed to come back here on Friday, too?

MC: Don't get all bent at me. The Commissioner is the one who rescheduled. It's not my fault you know the guy. And while we're on the subject, didn't I give you a warning for following too close?

Kid: Yeah.

MC: Didn't I let you choose which violation you'd be cited for?

Kid: Yeah.

MC: And yet, here we are. You could have taken responsibility for your actions, but apparently, you decided to handle it a different way.

Kid: It's a $400 ticket for dropping some ash!

MC: Yes, it is.

Kid: I'll smoke right now and drop some ash, it goes out!

MC: Well, I can see you're not really happy about it, so I'm not going to waste my time talking to you further about it. I'll see you Friday.

Fast forward again to court this morning. The judge called the first case and it took about 20 minutes. We were in the criminal court now, not traffic court, since it was the first available area. The judge asked me what case I was there for. I told him. He asked me if the defendant was there. He wasn't. The judge had the bailiff call the clerks office to see if the defendant had checked in. He hadn't. The judge called me forward. He apologized for the waste of time and added a charge of Failure to Appear (FTA) and issued a bench warrant for $3,000.

Awe. Some.

The FTA usually runs about $300. If the kid gets picked up on the warrant, that'll cost him another $300 (if he's booked). So now, his $400 non-moving violation could very well add up to $1,000 and maybe a field trip to the hoosegow.

I had to stifle my chuckle on the way out of the court room.

Hey kid...maybe next time the nice Motor offers you a break and lets you pick your own destiny, you don't try and renege on the deal? Whaddya think?

Ever have to sit around and chat with a whacko?

Let me get right out in front here and say I have no official psychiatric and/or psychological training. Consequently, my assessment of whacko is more than likely not accurate. However, it serves my point...

As I've repeatedly point out, I work a significant amount of OT. A large portion of said OT is in the form of covering a beat. Part of my responsibility in covering a beat is responding to any number of calls for service. On occasion, a call for service may include a 5150 evaluation. I'm not going to get into the specifics of how the 5150 section reads. Let's just operate under the assumption that if you're 5150, you need some help I can't provide you. For example, if you tell you boss (after you've been fired) you might as well kill yourself, you may very well fit the category. If you take a handful of Ambien and leave a note saying you can no longer live with the decisions you've made in your life, you certainly fit into the category. Basically, if you make a statement that leads an officer to believe you are a threat to yourself or others, you need to go talk to a mental health professional. Of which, I am not.

Our area Fire has contracted with an ambulance company to transport our 5150s. No worries. The trouble comes in when they give at ETA of 45 minutes. I kindly refer you back to the title of this post. In my aforementioned non-professional capacity, I may be sitting with someone who is in real danger of killing themselves if I leave. The flip side is that I may be sitting with someone who made an off-hand and admittedly f'n stupid comment out of hurt or anger and has no intention whatsoever to hurt themselves. Either way, I'm stuck with them for the duration.

Now, I'm not one for small talk with strangers anyway. So what exactly am I supposed to say to Nutty Nancy or Krazy Kevin? "So....um....how'd like that scene in Roger Rabbit about Toon Town?" Probably not. "You much of a Ken Kesey fan?" Google it...I'll wait.

The worst is the borderline 5150 where you just get an inkling that leaving this one behind is a bad idea. Then I get to spend 45 minutes following him/her around the house while the dog is let outside, a small bag is packed, phone calls are made, etc. At least the person is doing something and not boring crazy holes into my head staring at me.

5150s suck.

Not the end of the world

I, like I assume every other cop does, have a standardized speech that I give a driver upon contact. It usually goes something like this:

MC: Morning (afternoon, evening...you get it.). Know why I stopped you?

Driver: No.

MC: Do you know what the speed limit is?

Driver: No.

MC: It's 35. Do you know how fast you were going?

Driver: No.

MC: 50. It's not the end of the world, though. Do you have your license, registration and insurance?

A large percentage of the time, the driver makes no fuss about the stop or why I stopped them. Most people suck it up and face the responsibility of their actions. Once in a while, though....oh, once in a while....

MC: Morning (afternoon, evening...I assume by now you've certainly got it.). Know why I stopped you?

Driver: No.

MC: Do you know what the speed limit is?

Driver: No.

MC: It's 35. Do you know how fast you were going?

Driver: No.

MC: 50. It's not the end of the world, though. Do you have your license, registration and insurance?

Driver: It is the end of the world. I can't get another ticket! I can't believe this!

Really? World's gonna end on ya? Just gonna up and quit spinning? We're talking apocalyptic destruction and the finality of all human existence because you can't take a few lbs. of pressure off your accelerator? Man, you've got some responsibility in that right foot! I'd be afraid to leave the house if I were you. What with the apparently total weight of the world on your shoulders. Doesn't that get heavy? You must be a drinker. How else can you cope? Goodness me. Now, here I am, the apparent harbinger of all things doom. Wow.....okay, go ahead and sign on the yellow highlighted portion and we'll see you on the other side. Good luck and God bless.

Or am I being too literal? Food for thought...

The post formerly known as the Saturday Question

As I've no doubt demonstrated by now, the Saturday Question is a bit of a misnomer. With that in mind, I happily unveil the Weekly Question. Maybe it'll be on a Sunday, maybe a Tuesday. Stay on your toes!

At any rate, this week's question was submitted by Annoying Mouse:

Recently, there was a fatal collision in my area. I am puzzled over how the police were able to determine who was where etc. I know from the witness statements they would have the general “story” but how do You/motor officers prove those statements? What is the orange paint around the front tires for, how do you measure or whatever with all the fire truck traffic and cops cars going across the tire tracks? A very sad accident when an innocent person is killed. Or maybe if this question is too detailed you could explain the training for accident scene reconstruction, what you have to measure and why.

Thanks,

Annoying Mouse

There are a number of questions Annoying Mouse has asked. I'll try to take them in order. First off, how we figure out who was where. We do take a number of witness statements. In my opinion, if you can get three to four independent witnesses that all more or less say the same thing, it can be fairly reliable. However, nothing is better than evidence. Evidence has no agenda, morality, point of view, or ability to lie. It simply is. Evidence will tell you exactly what happened...you just have to know what to look for and how to interpret it.

In some collisions, you can see a tire friction mark, or skid mark, leading to one tire or another. This may be able to give you a good idea where that particular vehicle came from. Not only that, but a measurement or two, plus some good old fashioned math, can determine how fast that car was going. (This is a simplified explanation, to be sure, but the theory is sound.)

The orange paint you may see around the tires notates the position of rest of the vehicle. At the scene, we will mark each tire and the center of same with the notation LR (left rear), RR (right rear), RF (right front), and LF (left front). The purpose of doing that is so when the tow trucks come and take the cars away, it's still possible to have a good idea where the cars were. Ultimately, it's best to shoot the scene (using Forensic Mapping equipment) while the cars are still there for more reliable accuracy. Sometimes, though, that is not possible. We do the best with what we have.

With regard to the Evidence Eradication Team (or Fire, if you prefer), we wait until they've come and gone to do the lion's share of our evidence gathering. We shoot everything. Okay, not literally everything, but a lot of stuff. We shoot the basic structure of the intersection and/or roadway. We shoot the outlines of the vehicles at point of rest (if possible). If that is not possible, we'll shoot them at the tow yard and put them on paper after the fact. This goes back to marking the tires. If we know where all four tires were at point of rest, we can put those vehicles back there later on paper. We shoot the tire friction marks. We shoot debris related to the crash. We shoot points of body evidence and/or bodies. (I went to a shoot once where we had over 80 different points of body evidence...it was a solo vehicle collision with one occupant. Looked like the car exploded).

Once we've shot the entire scene, we hook up the data collector from the Forensic Mapping equipment to a computer and download all the points. The program then literally draws the scene for us. Using that drawing, we can use some fairly involved math equations to determine speeds and, hopefully, fault.

Believe me when I tell you this is the Cliff's Notes of the Reader's Digest version of how the collision was investigated. I have attended about 400 hours of Collision Investigation specific classes that I could not begin to do justice to in a post.

Hope that answered your questions, AM! Thanks for the question! I know you referenced some pictures and, originally, I posted them, but I was sent a message (appreciatively so) that posting pictures of a case that has not been adjudicated may present some issues...even though other news-related sites already have done so. I wouldn't want my posting the pictures to create any issues for those involved in the investigation. And...just to assuage any curiosity...I was not nor am I involved in any aspect of the collision.

And that does it, folks, the inaugural Weekly Post. See? It's Monday! Take that, Saturday!

Go with the Flow

What kind of lame ass excuse is this for speeding?

MC: Do you know why I stopped you?

Driver: No.

MC: You were speeding.

Driver: But I was just going with the flow of traffic.

Really? You're defense lies squarely on the shoulders of all the 'other' drivers that were speeding? This, of course, logically leads to the oft-quoted "If all the other drivers drove off a cliff, would you?" theory. Maybe you would.

See, though, here's the thing. You weren't 'going with the flow'. If you were in fact going with said flow, I would have pulled over more than just you. This is what I'll quaintly refer to as Hint #1. Hint #2 is that if you leave a pack of cars only to catch up to the pack in front of them, then you are surpassing the aforementioned flow. Hint #3: when you are passing other cars, you are, by definition, exceeding the flow. It's a physics thing, kids, I'm not making this shit up.

So, please, do us all a favor and maybe actually go with the flow, because the flow isn't going anywhere near as fast as you.

I go and catch "One Honest Guy"

Today, much like every other day, found me sitting at one of my favorite spots watching for the usual. Using my handy-dandy Lidar's DBC (Distance Between Cars) function, I get a rather large truck following much too close behind the car in front of it. The truck was an F-250...with a lift kit. It looked like it was going to eat the sedan in front of it.

At any rate, I stopped the behemoth and contacted the driver. It went a little something like this...

MC: Do you know why I stopped you?

Monster Truck Driver: Nope.

MC: You were following the car in front of you far too closely. (I then launch into my patented explanation of why I know a driver is too close...coming soon to a blog near you!)

MTD: Oh, man. Are you serious?

MC: Yes, sir. Do you have your license, registration and insurance?

MTD: Yeah. (turns around to previously unnoticed small human in rear seat of behemoth). Can you believe this, Angel (name changed for literary entertainment)? The one honest guy on the road and I get stopped.

MC tries to maintain a civil tongue while taking the requested items and returns to bike to write ticket. MC returns.

MC: Sir, I need you to sign on the highlighted yellow portion, please.

MTD: I can't believe this. People driving past me at 100 mph and you stop me when I wasn't even that close to the guy. It never fails, Angel, this guy is stopping us while people are out there running red lights, speeding, and doing much more dangerous things.

MC: Or, and this is just a suggestion, you could take responsibility for what you did.

MTD: I am. (Now holding the cite book)

MC: Alrighty, then, why don't you do that by signing the citation, please.

MTD: (glances at Angel) I can't believe this.

MC: Sir, no one was driving anywhere close to 100 mph. Stop being overly dramatic and exaggerating. You're setting a terrible example for Angel. Drive safely.

Yeah. The One Honest Guy. Such a shame...

Saturday Question

And we're back....

Today's Saturday (er, Sunday) question is provided by Justin:

Bicycles traveling in a street without a marked bike lane: Are they required to follow stop signs and stop lights or just barrel through intersections and yell at me?

Case in point: I am stopped at a 4 way stop and hoping to turn right after a full stop so I creep forward looking for bikes, pedestrians, dogs, the usual. Coming down the hill across from me is a bicycle who travels through the stop sign at high speed, cutting across the intersection turning left into my lane and narrowly missing my bumper as he cuts me off and I nearly miss hitting him. I honked, he gave me the finger. We caught up at a red light with heavy cross traffic and I informed him he had run the stop sign. He laughed and told me I could engage in amorous activity alone, he wasn't required to stop.

Well? Who was in the right?

Justin in Bike Heavy San Francisco

Well, Justin, I politely refer you back to this post. Long story short, you were right and had you hit him, subsequently knocking him into next week, he would have been at fault. Not that I condone hitting him of course.

It was a quick question, but I got to it! We now return you to your hopefully enjoyable Sunday afternoon...

Affirmation

I know I said I wasn't going to update until this weekend, but something happened to me today that I wanted to share.

There aren't many times in one's career, particularly in LE, that one feels as satisfied and affirmed to such a degree as I was today. Allow me to explain...

Today, I was notified by Dispatch that I had a phone call pending from a woman that I did not recognize. The detail offered no further information other than she asked for me specifically and refused to provide anything else. Great. These typically don't bode well. I checked her name in one of our many databases and saw that she's got a decently (and by decently, I mean more than your average) healthy history of citations...the last of which was issued last week...more than likely by yours truly for a seatbelt. *Sigh* Fantastic.

Always looking for some entertainment, however, I made the call on speaker anticipating an ear full and wanting to share the love with a couple co-workers. Here's how the call went:

MC: Hey, I'm looking for Seatbelt Sally.

SS: This is she.
MC: Hi, this is MC with Town PD, what can I do for you?

SS: You gave me a seatbelt ticket last week.

MC (anticipating drama and sharing a knowing look with the co-workers): Uh-huh.

SS: I just wanted to say thank you.

MC (waiting for the other shoe to drop): Ok.

SS: Earlier this week, I was involved in a pretty serious collision. The only reason I was wearing my seatbelt was because you gave me a ticket for not wearing it last week. If I hadn't been wearing it earlier this week, I would have been killed.

MC: Are you alright?

SS: Yes. It was scary. I think you saved my life.

That was it, in a nutshell. Apparently, she was driving a small coupe. You know, one of those cars you can pick up, rub against the carpet, and it takes off by itself? She hit a fairly large obstruction on the freeway (I didn't take the crash so I'm more than willing to give her the benefit of the doubt here) at no fault of her own. Her vehicle suffered major front end damage, almost like she hit the center median at freeway speed. She suffered a laceration on one of her arms. According to reliable sources and her own statements, if she hadn't been wearing her seatbelt, she would have been ejected through her front windshield and most assuredly been killed.

Quick physics lesson behind seatbelts. There was this guy once, Newton something-or-other, that said that a body in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force (I'm paraphrasing to avoid you science dorks getting all worked up). If her car suddenly goes from, say, 65 to 0, and she is not strapped to said car, where do you think her body is going to go? (Insert Jeopardy theme). What is straight ahead? Ding, ding....until, of course, it is acted upon by gravity...and the freeway.

I told SS how much I appreciated her phone call and disconnected. The truly amusing part of this is my two co-workers, who were listening, turned around and both said something to the effect of (and in stereo), "That's gotta go on the blog!" Hilarious.

I can't tell you how powerful it was to hear someone with genuine conviction tell you that they feel you are responsible for saving their life. Now, I'm not operating under the illusion that I actually saved this woman's life. She may disagree, but that's neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is she learned a simple and relatively financially inexpensive lesson that saved her life. She made the smart and, ultimately, life-sparing decision to put her seatbelt on. I couldn't be happier to have been the impetus behind her decision, but, at the end of the day, she deserves the credit for being a smart, safe, and responsible driver.

On a personal note, this past week has been so incredibly affirming for me. Between all of your support, well wishes, concerns and this phone call, I feel incredibly blessed. So, thank you, SS, and all of you, my supportive readers, for keeping me motivated!

The Decision

Let me start by taking a second to say Thank You. I am completely humbled and overwhelmed at the sheer volume of responses I received on the last post. Not to mention that, to a one, they were supportive and positive. I'd be lying if I said it didn't give me pause and bring a tear to my eye. Hey, hey, watch it...remember I carry a gun.

So, it's with no small sense of responsibility, humility and a little bit of nervous anxiety that I will continue to blog...with one caveat...it'll be a couple days. I'm going to go back over the past 174 posts and make sure I've appropriately covered my tracks vis-a-vis my anonymity, removed any questionable pictures, and, perhaps, edit myself a wee bit.

After a lot of thought, prayer, talks with the Wife, and some soul searching, I think this blog is bigger than me. I have faith that God is leading me in the right direction with my decision. I think I owe it to the Wife, the Kid(s) (yes, there's one coming soon), the rest of my family, and you to continue whatever it is I'm doing here.

We'll get back to the fun and frivolity with Saturday's Question in a few days...on Saturday. Really? Did I have to explain that?

Again, thank you all very much for your comments, emails, and messages. I will be forever grateful.

PTB....blame these folks. :-)

My Dilemma

Had an interesting conversation with the Powers That Be today regarding this little venue of mine. It was not negative in the least and I appreciated the perspective as PTB is in a position I am not. Specifically, Admin.

PTB's concerns were, I think, valid. Let me be clear, here. PTB was not saying to no longer blog. PTB wanted to give me some food for thought. I appreciated the time and the effort. There is no case law on the books (as of yet and at least in CA) regarding information contained within blogs. However, there is a case out of NY in which an officer used Facebook. Apparently, one of his status updates said something about watching the movie "Training Day" and made commentary about that being the way it should be done. (Don't quote me, I read about it a couple months ago). Suffice it to say, when the defense attorney got ahold of it after the officer was involved in allegedly brutal behavior, he used it to paint a pretty ugly picture of the officer.

Now, I know there are defense attorneys that read my blog. I also realize you have a job to do. Do I think taking a snippet of something I say here and using it out of context should, God forbid, I be involved in a case where someone got hurt and then blowing it up to paint a picture of me to a jury is fair/right/ethical/morally proper? No, I don't. Unfortunately, it's also your job.

The people that truly know me know exactly where I stand and understand the humor, sarcasm, and wit behind the things I write about here. As I've stated a number of times before, this forum began as a way to vent my frustrations about the folks I run into on a daily basis. I absolutely have certain opinions about them as people, but that does nothing to change the rights they have or the professional manner in which I conduct myself with respect to those rights. I took an Oath when I took this job and I believe in that Oath. I am also human and I have opinions. I have, what I believe to be, the ability to separate my personal feelings from my professional ones. I may very well find you morally reprehensible, but that doesn't mean you don't have the same rights afforded by the Constitution as I do.

Although it did start as a forum for venting and to entertain out-of-state relatives and friends, it morphed into what I have been told is a public service of sorts. This is why I started the Saturday Question weekly post. You all have emailed me a number of questions and I try to answer them the best way I know how. Prior to starting the weekly post, I would answer as many questions within the commentary section after readers have commented on a post. I have received quite a bit of positive feedback from non-LEO readers that never gave a second thought to how to properly act during a traffic stop, why officers approach vehicles a certain way, why we ask certain questions, etc.

There also remains the possibility that the "wrong person" will be led to the blog and not particularly enjoy the comedy within. Therein lies the possibility of being removed from a "Specialty Assignment" (e.g. Motors) and moved back to a different unit. Per PTB, this can be construed as neither disciplinary nor punitive as there is no loss of employment or pay. Some of you may have a different opinion. Hell, I may have a different opinion, but with a decade or so left until retirement is that a fight I want to take on? Take a guess...

Here's something else to consider. My family and I have talked on a number of occasions about how the blog has benefited me. I think my attitude towards the public and work has vastly improved since I began blogging. It has afforded me a healthy outlet for what otherwise has the possibility of creating a very hard core jaded and cynical man. The blog has become a creative outlet for writing...something I've long enjoyed but never did enough of outside of college. The blog introduced me to two people and their families that I think will be life long friends (CCCPSC in tha house!). I never would have met them, otherwise.

So...to the dilemma. Do I worry about the what if's and the maybe never's? Do I sanitize what I have to say and how I say it? (Fuck that last one, that'll never happen) Do I hope the spirit in which I say things shine through the profane way I say them? Do I straight nix the blog? Do I make it private? Do I buy a domain name and offer memberships after a vetting process to make sure the "wrong person" doesn't misconstrue my meaning? These are the conundrums swirling about my dome today.

If it came down to it, I'm willing to no longer post. I would miss it terribly (never thought I'd say that, by the by), but my family comes first. If PTB's PTB say, "The blog or the bike", it's bye bye blog.

The flip side to this is kind of ironic. For a guy that basically tells people what to do for a living, I really don't like being told what to do. Weird, right? I find it particularly loathsome when I feel like I haven't really done anything wrong and my First Amendment rights are called into question. Part of me wants to literarily thumb my nose at the Man (again, weird) and forge ahead with a "Damn the torpedoes" attitude. I don't know that I have that luxury, though. If I was a few months from retirement, it'd most assuredly be different, but again, not the case.

I've made it more than obvious I am not a political animal. At this point, I've no desire to promote. I like what I'm doing far too much. I have posted repeatedly about "Selective Enforcement" and how I feel about it. I don't do what I do to please PTB or PTB's PTB (a mouthful, I apologize....cost of remaining anonymous). I think PTB knows that and, believe it or not, understands and respects it. However, PTB's job description doesn't really allow for personal feelings to enter into the equation. So, while PTB may very well appreciate my point of view, having it out in the public eye isn't the easiest for PTB to deal with. I get that. The thing is, I don't care about the political ramifications of it all outside of the obvious impact it could have on me directly with regard to my current assignment.

I installed statcounter back in February. To date, I've had 19,523 unique visitors to my blog in over 50 different countries. That freaks me right the fuck out. I'm not saying all of them like what they read, but enough of you have come back repeatedly to check out the latest shenanigans I've experienced (or created, as the case may be). I must admit to feeling no small responsibility in continuing what I'm doing here. I feel connected to you and I appreciate all the emails and comments. Believe it or not, even the negative ones. What is life without conflict? F'n boring, that's what. Besides, out of conflict, understanding can grow. There is nothing wrong with seeing another side to the same blessed equation.

I don't know that I have a final point that can properly put the bow on this convoluted package. I don't know if I'm looking for your feedback or if I just needed to vent (how full circle is that?). I don't know what the outcome will be. I've long felt that the blog was going to lead me to something bigger or something positive. Have I reached that point? Is making two new friends the pinnacle? Did I educate enough of you that I can call it good? Or is there more to come? Is there some other outlet for me to both shirk off my yoke at the end of the day and maybe relay a much needed chuckle to you after a rough day on your end?

I guess time will tell. I'll sleep on it. Maybe for a few nights. I'll pray about it. Maybe for a few nights. If you're so inclined, feel free to do the same. If not, keep a happy thought for me. I'll do the same for you.

You're much nicer than the other guy

Whaaaa?

Yup. Some knucklehead actually said that to me on a traffic stop yesterday. I started laughing. Out loud.

MC (after filling out cite): Ok, I just need you to sign the highlited yellow portion.
Violator: Man, you are much nicer than that other guy.
MC: Which other guy?
V: The other motorcycle guy.
MC: Really?!?
V: Oh yeah. That guy is a son of a bitch. Mother fucker.
MC (laughing): Older guy? Younger guy?
V: Younger guy. Looks like his face his crammed into his helmet.
MC (still laughing): Honestly, it's usually the other way around.

My partner is quite a patient guy. He'll stop and explain things on a stop for much longer than I would. He rarely (if ever) gets complaints. I've no interest in selling my cites and I'm not a PR guy, so I'm usually pretty straightforward. "You did XYZ. Please sign here." On occasion, I'll get into a little more detail, but only if the driver has a good attitude. I've been accused of being curt and/or short (not height wise, by the by). Neither of which is a violation of policy. I'm not in the business of holding your hand and making you feel better about getting a ticket.

All of this is not to say my partner does any of those things, mind you, he's just a more gregarious guy with folks on a stop. Consequently, I found it monumentally entertaining that my driver called him a s.o.b. and a mother fucker. He must have really pissed off my partner.

Do you have any questions? Anything Else?

Seems like a simple question, doesn't it? Let's put it into context...

For those of you who've never been to traffic court (the smart ones who just pay the fine 'cause you know damn well you did something you shouldn't have), this is typically the procedure:

MC will get up and testify. You have the opportunity to ask questions. Then you have the opportunity to make a statement. If the judge feels I, as the representative of the State, have not met the burden of proof, you will be found not guilty (I just stop typing for a second because I was laughing too hard). More often than not, at least in my experience, the defendant is found guilty.

Here are a couple of procedural things that always nut me up....1) After both the defendant and I have done our thing, the judge will ask the defendant something to the effect of "Do you have any questions or anything else to say?" I swear that probably about 75% of people will reply in the negative....and then go on to say something else. Hey! Moron! When you say you have nothing further, how's about just shutting the fuck up and being done. Not to mention that neither I, the judge, or the audience needs to hear for the eighth fuckin' time how you totally stopped at the stop sign. 2) Here is where Booted Cop and I may differ a bit. BC takes a minor issue with our judge's procedural view...I think the guy has the patience of Job for maintaining decorum when faced with idiocy at virtually every turn. While I understand BC's point of view in that particular post, I offer an opposing view. Immediately after I've testified, the judge will ask "Do you have any questions for the Officer?" Almost 9 times out of 10, the defendant will begin by saying something like, "I was driving...". Did you catch it? That's right. Statement. Not a question.

Now, I can understand the first couple of defendants doing this. I understand nerves. But after a handful of cases, you'd think they'd wise up. Or even worse, I've seen defendants repeat their statements not twice, not three times, not even four times, but in excess of five times. reTarded.

Is it really that hard to differentiate between a question and a statement? I'd love to think it wasn't. Apparently, I'd be sorely mistaken. And again, if you've nothing further to say, don't continue to flap your gums. It's irritating. And it makes you look stupid because it appears you can't listen. Or follow directions. Wait...that's what got you here in the first place. Carry on.

The three second rule

So, here's the scenario:

I stop someone for running a stop sign. I ask the driver if they know why I stopped them. They say, "Because I didn't stop for three seconds?" Huh?

Can someone explain this to me? I can't count the number of times I've heard someone say, either in court or on a traffic stop that they didn't stop long enough and they tend to use the 'three second rule'. Where in the hell does it say in the CVC that there is any kind of requirement for how long you have to stop? What's that? There isn't one? Right. Refer back to the Stop post.

So, where do people think this originates from?

Saturday Question

Even though it's Sunday...

Ian actually asked two questions, but I'm gonna break 'em up between a couple weeks:

What do you feel someone interested in a career with a police/sheriff agency should do to prepare themselves for the application process and to prepare themselves upon entering their police/sheriff's respective academy?

Well, Ian, probably the best thing to do initially is do a ride along with an agency you're interested in. You can usually ride during any shift. Come to think of it, do a few on different shifts. Each shift has it's own vibe. Day shift is a little more paper heavy (cold details), swings and graves tend to have more in-progress details. When you're on a ride along, ask lots of questions. Hopefully, the agency you ride with and the Officer you are assigned to will be willing to answer them. Lots of us aren't always keen on a ride along, so you might consider just riding for a couple of hours. (We are a territorial lot and we set up our cars like an office, so anything that upsets the feng shui throws off our chi, you know?)

If you are further along in your pursuit of a LE career and you know some folks in the biz, have them sit down with you and do some practice oral board questions. That is by far the toughest part of the process. A retarded monkey could pass the written exam. Even the physical test isn't difficult. Oral boards are always the toughest bit.

Once you are accepted by an agency and sponsored to complete the Academy, the best way to prepare is to run your ass off. PT (Physical Training) is by far the most demanding and challenging part of the Academy. You can also sponsor yourself through the Academy, by the way, but I couldn't tell you the cost (I assume it's around 5K or so). I would start training as early as possible to get yourself into physical shape. Most Academies these days are no joke and a number of people wash out early because they can't hang. (I thank God almost daily I went through the Academy when I did, because there's much less of a chance that I'd make through now).

If you've got a four year college degree, all the better. It doesn't necessarily have to be in Criminal Justice, mind you, I was a Poli Sci major. However, the college experience is invaluable for a number of reasons with respect to a LE career. It prepares you to be a better report writer, increases your critical/analytical thinking skills, and exposes you to a myriad of different people/cultures. All these things are beneficial to you in your career. Not to mention you actually get a pay bump sooner in your career rather than later.

Lastly, study, study, study. Buy a copy of the Penal Code (PC), Vehicle Code (VC), and Legal Sourcebook. All of these books will be your LE Bible(s) until the day you retire. No time like the present to familiarize yourself.

Hope that answers your question, Ian. I'll get to your second one next week!

I don't control them, people.

I've gotten a number of odd emails of late regarding google ads. And one Hi-larious 'fail' comment from HM....smartass. Apparently, google ads has taken it upon themselves in their oddly framed thought process to ask "Is your man gay?" in the ads beneath recent post(s). Of course, with just about each comment, I ask, "What was the result?" I have yet to receive replies after that.

Huh.

I find it funny that when I saw the ad, again courtesy of HM, it was right before the "Hey! You! Stop being a pussy" post. You'd think the proper ad would say something like "Is your man addicted to Internet porn?" or something along those lines. Weird.

At any rate, I guess the only way to avoid google using ads like that one is to stop saying things like phallus, dong, a-hole, prick, and the like. I shall do my utmost to do that. After today.

Cock.

Couldn't resist. And I apologize to my Mom and the Wife. And eventually to the Kid...I assume some day she'll learn to read.

Why old people shouldn't drive

I know I've ranted before about the elderly drivers and so forth. Today, however, I offer current events to support my theory. Here are three images to back me up...

***IMAGES DELETED*** (But trust me, they illustrated my point excellently)

The 85 yr old driver was parked in the handicapped stall. For unknown reasons, he put his car in reverse and stepped on the gas like he was trying to kill a roach. The vehicle shot backwards and hit a parked car. Witnesses stated he messed with the gear shift lever and hit the gas again, resulting in backing up and hitting a second parked car. Witnesses stated he again messed with the gear shift lever, tromped on the gas and shot forward in an arc, eventually entering the same stall he originally was parked in, jumped the curb and center punched a light pole, saving the wooden porch of a local business. A porch where people were sitting enjoying their lunch.

Think maybe he shouldn't have a license? Neither do I. Oh...interesting addendum...his daughter was in the restaurant that the porch belonged to. She was in her 60's or so. Here's my question. Why the fuck wasn't she the one driving!?!?!?!?!

Thankfully, there were no pedestrians inside Methuselah's path of destruction, he wasn't overly injured, and no one else was involved in the crash.

Hey! You! Stop being such a pussy.

I realize that this, my infantile blog, is often a source of rants on my part. Well, far be it from me to break my stride. This one is for you Anonymous PR (Person Reporting....don't we know that by now?).

There are a number of things that nut me up a bit about my job. Some of them are unique to Motors and some are simply unique to me. This one, I think, is universally despised. At least at my PD.

The Anonymous PR.

The Anonymous PR is the man or woman who calls in the kids swimming in the HOA pool after hours but doesn't think they should just grow a set and say, "Hey! Get the fuck out of the pool!" No, no. The Anonymous PR fears confrontation and, ridiculously, reprisals. Because Johnny Snotlocker is gonna be so bent out of shape you caught him sneaking a beer and a spa-side hand job from Suzie Cheerleader that he will inevitably follow you back to your house and key the shit out of your car or put 18 M-80s in your mailbox.

The Anonymous PR is the man or woman who calls in the solicitor who is Black or Hispanic and "just doesn't look like they belong in Town". Because Kwame Mabotoo (because he obviously threw off his slave name) is going to rally the local chapter of the Black Panthers or Black Guerrilla Family and do a little cross burning of their own on your front lawn.

And today...the Anonymous PR calls in a reckless, possibly drunk, driver, in Town. Not sure if there was a plate given or not, but there was a vehicle description. As it happens, my partner found the car (after it was involved in a collision with a different vehicle). The problem could be that maybe the Anonymous PR is the only one that can positively ID the responsible driver. Any defense lawyer worth a shit is going to want someone to put the drunk behind the wheel. We, the police, arrive on scene after all the parties are out of the car. We can't put the drunk behind the wheel because we didn't witness the crash. Sure would be fucking helpful if there were, oh I don't know, a witness that could solve a major portion of the elements of our crime.

As it happens, with today's issue, we were able to put the proper parties in the proper vehicles and we arrested a 20 yr old for being under the influence of medication while driving a vehicle. It looks like it wasn't the first crash he got into today, by the way. It would have been much simpler had the Anonymous PR given a damn name and call back number.

So, please, Anonymous PR, stop being such a pussy and give us your info. We're not gonna dime you off, but it puts a hell of a lot more credence to your gripe if you've got the wherewith all to identify yourself. If you choose to remain Anonymous PR, maybe we'll get Anonymous Officer to respond to your typically trite and not-really-a-crime complaint....and no, I'm not saying the above fall into this category. More often than not, though, Anonymous PR calls are a waste of time and not a police matter.