eandiver:
I didn't call them that time. The alarm company did.
After that I placed myself on the do not respond list.
No need to come if they won't do anything.
I can only speak from my experiances, which to date have not been good.
Venice - $168 fine for no flag..
- Thread starter bdrannik
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
I didn't call them that time. The alarm company did.
After that I placed myself on the do not respond list.
No need to come if they won't do anything.
I can only speak from my experiances, which to date have not been good.
RonDawg
Contributor
Scubaguy:
I too do not lose any sleep over this thread, nor with my beliefs. I was never interested in getting you to like me; when I first put on my badge, I realized that I would get treated badly as never before, and that it would test relationships with significant others, people I thought were my friends, even some members of my own family. As we tell young, innocent rookies in the academy "If you wanted people to like you, you should have taken the firefighters' test instead." It's pretty sad to start someone's career (one that's known to make bitter cynics out of Katie Couric-types) in such a fashion, but my opinion is it's better to expose them to the truth about the job before they, and we, invest too much time into their training only to have them drop out.
Nor was my intent to get you to change your opinions about the profession; in my experience persons with such strong anti-law enforcement sentiments such as yourself are beyond salvation. If anything, I was hoping that those reading this thread will at least see "the other side of the coin" before making up their minds about cops. We have a lot of young people on this board, and I wasn't about to stand by and let someone attack my profession with baseless allegations without being able to refute them. The reason police departments are getting involved with youth groups is not just to prevent them from entering a life of crime; it's also to help educate them about what we do, and to not just believe what they see on TV and read in the newspapers. Not an easy thing to do with an age group that's known for its overall rebelliousness.
Also, don't associate my zealousness in defending my profession with unhappiness. Again I sleep well at night, and I have other hobbies like SCUBA. Despite what you may believe, we are not all "Tackleberrys" whose lives revolve around the badge.
If you don't agree with "profiling" that's your opinion and you're entitled to that, but it's a practice approved all the way up to the US Supreme Court, with certain limitations of course. You make profiling sound like such a horrible thing, but in reality it's a police practice that goes all the way back to Sir Robert Peel (for those who don't know, he is considered the founding father of modern policing, and his impact on my profession still is felt in the way British cops are referred to as "bobbies"). If you think the beat cop of the 1930's wasn't doing the same thing, you're only fooling yourself. However, the word dates back to the 1980's and the heyday of Drug Interdiction, in which a FHP? trooper known for his arrests of drug traffickers gave training seminars to other cops to show them how he's been doing it. What has made people upset was that among the many common factors or "profiles" of drug traffickers, race inevitably was mentioned. Although a relatively minor factor among NUMEROUS other, more important ones, once it got out and was mentioned out of context the ACLU and others jumped on the bandwagon and we all know the rest is history.
Same goes with selective enforcement. You make it sound like a bad thing but it's a necessary tool in some situations. For example, we were having a problem with illegal street racing. So we saturated the area, and naturally the kids won't race while we're around; they just waited until we left and then they'd start up again. But one thing they all had in common were vehicle modifications not approved under the California Vehicle Code. Once we started handing tickets for tinted windows, illegally modified exhausts, illegal lighting modifications, and overly loud stereos, guess what? The racing problem subsided. And yes while we got a few complaints (mostly from those who were the problem makers in the first place), we got FAR more compliments from the local citizens who were fed up with the problem. So much so that when we've had to cut back the program due to budgetary issues (selective enforcement details are staffed with officers with overtime, to prevent negative impacts on response times), those same citizens then started to complain why we weren't doing it anymore.
You're right, we don't have information on things that form the basis of each other's thoughts. But I will say that as a cop, I have a lot of inside information on some controversial law enforcement incidents that not only reduces the negative connation associated with them, but sometimes is 180 degrees of the way they're portrayed. Rodney King is an excellent example; what started out as piss poor police tactics exacerbated by a lack of training somehow got turned into "the LAPD decided to pick on a poor black motorist." I have studied that incident, and while I'm not defending the officers involved (far from it) I can tell you the reality is nowhere near what the media and the ACLU have portrayed it to be.
Like Orlando Eric has said, this is a job that has changed a lot over the years, some for the bad, but some for the good. Long gone is the "blue wall of silence" that people like to say with a sinister tone, never mind that many other professions (medical, and yes even legal) are guilty of the same thing. In fact while people have no problem with doctors judging doctors, and lawyers judging lawyers, they think it's perfectly logical for cops to be judged by people who have absolutely no idea what it's like to be a cop.
But I digress. Going back to my original statement, like Eric said it's more likely than not to be a cop to be turning in another cop for bad behavior, particularly when that behavior becomes a civil rights violation. I know, because I did that myself. And while I know you won't believe me, I will say (for the benefit of others who don't have an opinion one way or the other), that cops like myself are more typical of what you'd find today. And never having met Baitedstorm's husband, I suspect he's more like me too.
I too do not lose any sleep over this thread, nor with my beliefs. I was never interested in getting you to like me; when I first put on my badge, I realized that I would get treated badly as never before, and that it would test relationships with significant others, people I thought were my friends, even some members of my own family. As we tell young, innocent rookies in the academy "If you wanted people to like you, you should have taken the firefighters' test instead." It's pretty sad to start someone's career (one that's known to make bitter cynics out of Katie Couric-types) in such a fashion, but my opinion is it's better to expose them to the truth about the job before they, and we, invest too much time into their training only to have them drop out.
Nor was my intent to get you to change your opinions about the profession; in my experience persons with such strong anti-law enforcement sentiments such as yourself are beyond salvation. If anything, I was hoping that those reading this thread will at least see "the other side of the coin" before making up their minds about cops. We have a lot of young people on this board, and I wasn't about to stand by and let someone attack my profession with baseless allegations without being able to refute them. The reason police departments are getting involved with youth groups is not just to prevent them from entering a life of crime; it's also to help educate them about what we do, and to not just believe what they see on TV and read in the newspapers. Not an easy thing to do with an age group that's known for its overall rebelliousness.
Also, don't associate my zealousness in defending my profession with unhappiness. Again I sleep well at night, and I have other hobbies like SCUBA. Despite what you may believe, we are not all "Tackleberrys" whose lives revolve around the badge.
If you don't agree with "profiling" that's your opinion and you're entitled to that, but it's a practice approved all the way up to the US Supreme Court, with certain limitations of course. You make profiling sound like such a horrible thing, but in reality it's a police practice that goes all the way back to Sir Robert Peel (for those who don't know, he is considered the founding father of modern policing, and his impact on my profession still is felt in the way British cops are referred to as "bobbies"). If you think the beat cop of the 1930's wasn't doing the same thing, you're only fooling yourself. However, the word dates back to the 1980's and the heyday of Drug Interdiction, in which a FHP? trooper known for his arrests of drug traffickers gave training seminars to other cops to show them how he's been doing it. What has made people upset was that among the many common factors or "profiles" of drug traffickers, race inevitably was mentioned. Although a relatively minor factor among NUMEROUS other, more important ones, once it got out and was mentioned out of context the ACLU and others jumped on the bandwagon and we all know the rest is history.
Same goes with selective enforcement. You make it sound like a bad thing but it's a necessary tool in some situations. For example, we were having a problem with illegal street racing. So we saturated the area, and naturally the kids won't race while we're around; they just waited until we left and then they'd start up again. But one thing they all had in common were vehicle modifications not approved under the California Vehicle Code. Once we started handing tickets for tinted windows, illegally modified exhausts, illegal lighting modifications, and overly loud stereos, guess what? The racing problem subsided. And yes while we got a few complaints (mostly from those who were the problem makers in the first place), we got FAR more compliments from the local citizens who were fed up with the problem. So much so that when we've had to cut back the program due to budgetary issues (selective enforcement details are staffed with officers with overtime, to prevent negative impacts on response times), those same citizens then started to complain why we weren't doing it anymore.
You're right, we don't have information on things that form the basis of each other's thoughts. But I will say that as a cop, I have a lot of inside information on some controversial law enforcement incidents that not only reduces the negative connation associated with them, but sometimes is 180 degrees of the way they're portrayed. Rodney King is an excellent example; what started out as piss poor police tactics exacerbated by a lack of training somehow got turned into "the LAPD decided to pick on a poor black motorist." I have studied that incident, and while I'm not defending the officers involved (far from it) I can tell you the reality is nowhere near what the media and the ACLU have portrayed it to be.
Like Orlando Eric has said, this is a job that has changed a lot over the years, some for the bad, but some for the good. Long gone is the "blue wall of silence" that people like to say with a sinister tone, never mind that many other professions (medical, and yes even legal) are guilty of the same thing. In fact while people have no problem with doctors judging doctors, and lawyers judging lawyers, they think it's perfectly logical for cops to be judged by people who have absolutely no idea what it's like to be a cop.
But I digress. Going back to my original statement, like Eric said it's more likely than not to be a cop to be turning in another cop for bad behavior, particularly when that behavior becomes a civil rights violation. I know, because I did that myself. And while I know you won't believe me, I will say (for the benefit of others who don't have an opinion one way or the other), that cops like myself are more typical of what you'd find today. And never having met Baitedstorm's husband, I suspect he's more like me too.
dive4funOften
Guest
Ya'all need to go suck on some nitrox!
Ron:
I'm going to recede from my earlier position to clear a misconception you have of me, hopefully for the last time; I am not anti-law enforcement; I am anti-injustice, regardless of who is the inciter of any given injustice, and yes, that includes those in the legal profession. Also, I believe no one is beyond salvation, and salvation not in a religious context. It is up to the individual itself, no one else, to determine whether they wish to be "saved."
As far as the rest of your post, as I said in my earlier post, I acknowledge there are officers worthy of the respect the badge deserves, only that I know just two of them, and the others with which I have, or anyone close to me has interacted in some way or another, have left a lot to be desired of their abilities to enforce the laws they're paid, and have sworn to enforce. This is something of which legal professionals are not exempt, and as one, I'll be the first to acknowledge this. But then again, in all fairness, I will limit that perception to the South Florida tri-county area.
If you are half the cop you say you are in your post, and given the fact that I don't know you personally, hence my "reservation," then Kudos to you. I happen to enjoy being the type of legal professional that doesn't have to worry about being in anyone's "S" list. In my firm I'm more of a "judge's clerk" than a paralegal, because I write all the argument, motions, and memorandums of law my attorney argues. So if he wins in court, I win also because he's just reciting my work, and if he doesn't win, hey, there's always someone better than you. Doing what I do is a great source of pride for me, especially when my involvement in a case helps to have a widow get a verdict that will allow her to provide for her 3 small children, after her husband was killed in a helicopter accident due to the negligence of another, or allows a hardworking man to get the overtime pay he's due because his greedy bosses didn't care about minorities, or the FLSA. That's what I call justice, and that's of what I'm the greatest advocate.
Anyway, my invitation stands. We didn't join Scubaboard to compare resumes, we did to discuss diving. So let's do that.
I'm going to recede from my earlier position to clear a misconception you have of me, hopefully for the last time; I am not anti-law enforcement; I am anti-injustice, regardless of who is the inciter of any given injustice, and yes, that includes those in the legal profession. Also, I believe no one is beyond salvation, and salvation not in a religious context. It is up to the individual itself, no one else, to determine whether they wish to be "saved."
As far as the rest of your post, as I said in my earlier post, I acknowledge there are officers worthy of the respect the badge deserves, only that I know just two of them, and the others with which I have, or anyone close to me has interacted in some way or another, have left a lot to be desired of their abilities to enforce the laws they're paid, and have sworn to enforce. This is something of which legal professionals are not exempt, and as one, I'll be the first to acknowledge this. But then again, in all fairness, I will limit that perception to the South Florida tri-county area.
If you are half the cop you say you are in your post, and given the fact that I don't know you personally, hence my "reservation," then Kudos to you. I happen to enjoy being the type of legal professional that doesn't have to worry about being in anyone's "S" list. In my firm I'm more of a "judge's clerk" than a paralegal, because I write all the argument, motions, and memorandums of law my attorney argues. So if he wins in court, I win also because he's just reciting my work, and if he doesn't win, hey, there's always someone better than you. Doing what I do is a great source of pride for me, especially when my involvement in a case helps to have a widow get a verdict that will allow her to provide for her 3 small children, after her husband was killed in a helicopter accident due to the negligence of another, or allows a hardworking man to get the overtime pay he's due because his greedy bosses didn't care about minorities, or the FLSA. That's what I call justice, and that's of what I'm the greatest advocate.
Anyway, my invitation stands. We didn't join Scubaboard to compare resumes, we did to discuss diving. So let's do that.
RonDawg:
Truly amazing, isn't it?? :11:
Orlando Eric:
A man after my own heart... I'm all about licensing boaters, and the licenses only good for the boat they qualify in just like airplanes.
I've got pictures by the way.. been building a collection of them digitally. I was REALLY ticked when I didn't have the camera readily avilable when the VBPD boat buzzed my buddies flag.. but about 8 other people witnessed that one. I write a lot of letters to
FL_Chad
Contributor
Licensing boat operators may be a bit too big a step in my opinion. Drivers are licensed and there are no shortage of fools on the road. I think a mandatory, certified boaters safety course before you can register your boat would do wonders. And it wouldnt force a whole new govt agency (read more taxes) to be formed to govern any licensing.
This is exactly why I am working on forming a 501c dedicated to education of boaters in FL. Going beyond what the CG Aux and Power Squadren already do.
RonFrank
Contributor
Wendy:
There are many sides to all this. I agree Wendy that name calling and generalizations are rude.
The reality is that (if posters are to be believed, and I think they are) boaters have been in violation of the law in plain view of the law enforcement, and they are ignored.
I don't live in FL, but I have spent much of my life around boats. I have certainly seen law enforcement turn a blind eye to watercraft violations.
OTOH, last year after doing some crabbing with my son we were asked to see our life jackets by the patrol.
Ironically this was as we were pulling the boat out of the water, so a bit late IMO for a safety check.
It may just come down to lazyness on the part of law enforcement. It's much easier to sit on the docks, and do checks vs. actually doing them on the open water where it would do the most good.
Ron
RonFrank
Contributor
Jenny,
You just said a MOUTH Full. "Huge Boater Lobbyists".
Boating is BIG Business. Did is say big, I mean HUGE
The old saying don't poop where you live comes into play, and the reality is that boating is huge revenue for the FL government. Diving provides revenue and increased tourism as well, but not nearly to the extent of boating.
Ron
You just said a MOUTH Full. "Huge Boater Lobbyists".
Boating is BIG Business. Did is say big, I mean HUGE
The old saying don't poop where you live comes into play, and the reality is that boating is huge revenue for the FL government. Diving provides revenue and increased tourism as well, but not nearly to the extent of boating.
Ron
Scuba_Jenny:
Similar threads
