Sheriffs going back to request radar use

LOL "A Police Officer" is spitting things out huh!!!! Think he's pissed. WHO CARES!!!! One thing is true he said and thats not all cops are bad but thats just about 2% of them. Hell Jackson has a crooked mayor. I drive all over the state and I see first hand of all the traffice violations they do from speeding to weaving. No respect for the them at all and they only have their self to thank for that too.
They talk about how little pay they get or they might not come home one night. Well get a better paying job...and I believe that no one is guranteed to come home. I almost died in a car wreck after getting hit by 18 wheeler. The lady in the other car did die. So tell that to someone else.

Only me in 39047 wrote:

LOL "A Police Officer" is spitting things out huh!!!! Think he's pissed. WHO CARES!!!! One thing is true he said and thats not all cops are bad but thats just about 2% of them. Hell Jackson has a crooked mayor. I drive all over the state and I see first hand of all the traffice violations they do from speeding to weaving. No respect for the them at all and they only have their self to thank for that too.
They talk about how little pay they get or they might not come home one night. Well get a better paying job...and I believe that no one is guranteed to come home....

I guess I did spend a lot of my personal time on the range and nicked him a few times, enough that he might want to radio back to headquarters with a 10-40. Really, though, I think he was just 10-99, venting without a license, and not doing a very good job of it, either.

But let's stay on topic. Some here have come up with reasons to give sheriff's their radar gun again, but nobody has come up with any *good* reasons.

Does anybody have any *good* reasons to give sheriff's this power once again?

I haven't had anytyhing tanned, you think by telling me something on some internet site, that I happened to have stumbled accross doing research for a report. That you've accomplished anything ? You do research, Mr. King in LA did break the law, her refused to get out of a car, he refused to comply with orders from police, some of the police officers on the scene may have over reacted, yes, but everybody is different. And the point of this thread, about giving Radar, how long ago was it that, that this so called huge misuse of radar took place. Are you still living in the days of old. Bringing up Barney Fife, do you base everyday life off of a television show ? You are ridiculous. Stealing a pen, yes Employee theft costs US Consumers 15 BILLION dollars a year, there's your pen, you idiot. You are telling me that stealing office products, that is costing me and you 15 Billion a year, is not comparable to a ticket. I'll take the Ticket anyday. Also, you state that I don't get tickets, well tell that to Mississippi Hwy Patrol Officer J-29, who wrote me a ticket for speeding. I also recieved a ticket in Hattiesburg, for failure to use my seatbelt, I don't believe the government should have the right to tell me whether I need to be safe or not, but regarless, I too am not above the law. Yes it cost me, 190 dollars, the seatbelt was only 25 dollars, I went to court and I paid it. I accept responsiblity for my actions, I was wrong, I got caught, I paid the price. You talk about how it's hard to get by once you have to pay a ticket, well don't break the law, and you won't have to pay tickets, we do not give out tickets without just cause. We cannot even pull you over without probable cause, if you make the mistake of doing something that gives me probable cause to pull you over, don't blame me when you get a ticket. You give references to people wrongly accused, I admit they were, but neither of your examples were based upon what this thread is about. Besides that, do I even need to give examples of people that were convicted rightfully so, I can assure you, the rightfully convicted to wrongfully convicted ratio is astronomical. A Radar gun doesn't lie, it's a silent witness, you cannot make it lie. If it says your speeding, your speeding, end of story. By the way, a Deputy can write you for speeding, as it is now, they just don't have the capacity of using a radar device to help in court, as being presented as evidence. You talk about insurance rates going up. If a Deputy see's you speeding, he can stop you and write you for Careless Driving, look that up, a much worse ticket for your insurance, it shows you were driving without care for your surroundings or other human life! And different from speeding, careless driving doesn't have to be proven in court. It's officer verses suspect, and who is the judge going to believe. Yeah that's right, Law Enforcement, and why is that ? Because we are trusted, we are proven, we are honest, your pathetic lives are controlled by the responses I make. If I don't get to a call in time, then you don't make it home. See how you like that. I gaurantee, if you presented this nonsense to your local board there in Florence, you would be laughed out of the building, goto your local Police Department and tell them how you feel. You cannot, because you are scared, pathetic, coward. You take your useless opinion and post it on here, to make other cowards feel good about themselves, like minded people with no grasp on reality. I have made my point clear

Observer wrote:

Mr. King in LA did break the law, her refused to get out of a car, he refused to comply with orders from police, some of the police officers on the scene may have over reacted, yes, but everybody is different.

Look, Officer, Sir,*you* brought up the LA riots as an example of what police are for. Did some officers overreact? Well, only the six or so that beat King to the ground for the <huge> offense of "failure to comply." Anyway, you don't disprove my point: cops started it and cops did not end it.

Observer wrote:

And the point of this thread, about giving Radar, how long ago was it that, that this so called huge misuse of radar took place.

Oh, you mean it was long enough ago that we can trust sheriff's now with radar? If we couldn't trust you then, why are you more trustworthy now?

Observer wrote:

Are you still living in the days of old. Bringing up Barney Fife, do you base everyday life off of a television show ? You are ridiculous.

This was *your* point about getting rid of all the Fifes. Have you forgotten your own post?

Observer wrote:

Stealing a pen, yes Employee theft costs US Consumers 15 BILLION dollars a year, there's your pen, you idiot. You are telling me that stealing office products, that is costing me and you 15 Billion a year, is not comparable to a ticket.

Again, Officer, Sir,*you* were the one that brought up stealing the pen, not me, as justification for police. Look, I know crime is everywhere, but we really don't need police out on pen patrol. Just go back and look at your own post.

Observer wrote:

Also, you state that I don't get tickets, well tell that to ...

Well, we'll never really know, Officer, Sir, the truth of whether you got those tickets or not, will we?

Observer wrote:

We cannot even pull you over without probable cause, if you make the mistake of doing something that gives me probable cause to pull you over, don't blame me when you get a ticket.

Any cop will tell you: drive long enough behind somebody and he'll give you a reason to pull him over. Pulling someone over for "weaving" is always a popular one for cops. You know this. We all know it. Stop playing games.

Observer wrote:

You give references to people wrongly accused, I admit they were, but neither of your examples were based upon what this thread is about.

Oh,*NOW* you want to stay on topic? Look, Officer, Sir, I brought those up because it was *you* that said "follow the law and you have nothing to worry about." You're wrong; you do have something to worry about even if you follow the law. You *know* I'm right about this.

Observer wrote:

the rightfully convicted to wrongfully convicted ratio is astronomical

If it's *your* a$$ in jail from a wrongful conviction, it doesn't much matter how many rightfully convicted there are in the pokey with you, does it?

Observer wrote:

A Radar gun doesn't lie, it's a silent witness, you cannot make it lie. If it says your speeding, your speeding, end of story.

Sure. Next time I get pulled over by a cop who says he "clocked" me doing 90, I'll just tell him I want to see the radar. You can't make the radar lie, but that don't stop the cop from lying, does it?

Observer wrote:

...your pathetic lives are controlled by the responses I make.

Your attitude here just about says it all, Officer, Sir.

Observer wrote:

I have made my point clear

You sure have. I rest my case. Members of the Topix Jury, have you reached a verdict?

Oh, and by the way, the good officer *still* gives us no reason why sheriffs should be trusted again with radar.

You are a paranoid schitzophrenic, you need serious help. You think no one can be trusted, you think, everyone is out to get you. You think you are the only one who is correct. You need to be evaluated by a mental health professional. Everything I post was a response to your post, or something you refer to, then you ignore your own post, and tell me what I already said. I know what I said, I don't need you to repeat it to me. You have no defense for the items I have pointed out, but to tell me what I said. You have no clue how law enforcement works, or what it consist of. You do know, that you do have the right to look at the radar, it's not like it's a big deal. You do know that you can be arrested, booked and jailed on a traffic ticket. The "Ticket" is just a courtesy post arrest form. Because usually we have better things to be doing than taking speeders to jail. But on the rare occassion it's nice too. When you actually have some kind of intelligent response, with some proven facts, when you go out and actually try to do something worth while, when you make a difference in someones life, when you save a life, when you actually think about somebody else but yourself, then you can be on the same level as me, and talk to me like a human, until then, your are the scum of the earth. You don't have the privilage of speaking to me. I will for these purposes refuse to reply to your nonsense, it's childish, and something that I would expect out of a 3rd grader. You have no concept of how normal people function in society. You have no concept of how a government system works. You need to get a book, and quit getting your information from non creditable web sites, and television. And as for giving you a "good" reason for deputies getting radar, how about this one, You trust them with your life, with your childrens life (if you can actaully find somebody that will reproduce with you, which I would find hard to believe), your parents life, your friends and family's lives, but you don't trust them with a tool, that will further protect your sorry ass. Your priorities are extremely confusing. You trust them to drive a 3000 pound weapon, you trust them to carry high power fire arms, you trust them to keep you safe, while your sleeping in your bed, but your scared of them having a radar device, your an idiot!

Mencken, Oh yeah, One more small thing. MISSISSIPPI SHERIFFS DEPUTIES HAVE NEVER USED RADAR FOR ENFORCING SPEED LIMITS. Do the research. You repeadly say that they have had this before and abused the privilage. They have not, a bill has gone before congress before requesting the use of radar, but it was shot down because some senators "assume" that sheriffs would use them to get money for the county, instead of slowing down speeders, and when it failed the last time, a majority of the income of the counties were based off of traffic tickets. But today, it's not the case, a traffic ticket fine for the county is just a small fraction of it's income. If you didn't know this, MOST of the money from a traffic ticket goes to the state, not the county!!!! As I've said before, you are a complete idiot. You know nothing about everything! Do the research, learn the facts, don't just hate cops because they are cops. You are a anarchist, you are a paranoid schitzo!!!! I would hope you are at least adult enough to apologize for all the wrongful accusations you have given these sheriffs departments, but I can pretty much "assume" you aren't. Pathetic loser!

Well, you give me a lot to clean up here, Officer, Sir.

First off, if you use bullets like you do names and characterizations, there is a host of dead bodies around your little twon. "Pathetic loser," "complete idiot," "anarchist," "paranoid schizo (twice)," "childish," "3rd grader," "scum of the earth," "if you can find someone to reproduce with you," "idiot," "need serious help" ... I could go on, but even you would get the point by now. You say that you will no longer reply to me, Officer, Sir, yet you keep on a-comin' back.

On the other hand, the worst thing I've called you is "Officer, Sir." In short, you throw a lot of insults. You don't throw a lot of good sense, though. And let me back that up.

You *finally,**at last,* have come up with a reason to give the sheriffs the radar toy. Well, here's another reason that trumps your reason:*You* can't be trusted with the power. For almost 40 years, we've had a drug problem in this country. Year after year, you come to us saying give us more money, and we do. You say, give us more power, no-knock warrants, more power to search and seize, relax the rules of evidence. And we give it to you. Yet, year on year with all the money and the power, the drug problem only gets worse. We could pave a highway with law enforcement abuses *AND* we have an increased drug problem. Year on year, you tell us the crime rate is down; year on year, we reach new highs of incarcerated people. So, Officer, Sir, all can see that you can't be trusted with any more money or power.

Two things you've said are striking: 1")I know what I said, I don't need you to repeat it to me" and 2)"it's officer verses suspect, and who is the judge going to believe. Yeah that's right, Law Enforcement..."

The judge will believe *you* where there are no witnesses. But here, there are witnesses: your own words. Is that why, Officer, Sir, you are so angered when I quote your words back to you? Your responses are limited: name calling and excuses like "Sure, some are bad, sure, some overreacted."
But you suuuuure don't like it when I remind you what you said, do you?

You said, "MISSISSIPPI SHERIFFS DEPUTIES HAVE NEVER USED RADAR FOR ENFORCING SPEED LIMITS." "Do the research," you said. Okay. I choose to comply with your demand, Officer, Sir. The best place for me to start would be where you did. Give me your source that verifies the above assertion.

From time to time, I find myself passing near or through Lumberton, a pleasant little town. From now on, I will be careful there. I will not speed; I will not weave; I will use my turn signals. Because if I don't, the man standing at my car door where I can't see him will not be the kindly policeman in blue keeping the peace. He will be an angry young man dressed in storm trooper attire who wants to "enforce the law." He thinks I'm a pathetic idiot and a "civilian," not a citizen. He has to show that he has authority in the situation. He does not like to be questioned.

Are you old enough to remember when police were peace officers? There is a difference between keeping the peace and "enforcing the law." Or did you know, Officer, Sir?

First off, let me say this. If you come up with a plan to rid the entire country of illegal drugs, I'm all ears, or at least something that is better than we have now, which might I add, is off topic. Second, I call you what you are, if you don't like the names associated with your kind, then change your lifestyle. Third, WLOX TV, you know, the news, research their archives, or any Radar website, here I'll make it easier for you, http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp... , that would be WLOX TV, and here's one with more detail from the Meridian Star, http://www.meridianstar.com/local/local_story... , And Fourth, I don't work in Lumberton, I'm not from Lumberton, I don't live in Lumberton. Fifth, I cannot be trusted with power or money, like I personally get any money that a department might recieve, like I said before, your an idiot. And no-knock warrants, we don't have them, and what are you talking about by making evidence laws more relaxed, more search and seizure laws, I would love for you to give examples of these, being as how there are tons of new laws passed every year that makes the chain of custody for evidence harder, makes it harder to obtain evidence, and search and seizure laws, as applied to the search part, has gone unchanged since Terry Vs. Ohio, in 1968, so once again, I say, do your research before you speak.... idiot. And yes it angers me when all you can do is spew useless garbage, that doesn't hold merit to what we are discussing, nothing you said is creditable, so who can't be trusted, who is a liar. Look in the mirror and you will get your answer, I can back up everything I've said with facts, can you ? NO! The sheer thought that you would rather not run the risk of getting a false ticket over the chance of saving thousands of lives is ridiculous. Oh by the way, have you been to Lowndes County Mississippi ?, Have any of you that disagree with radar use been there ? Hmmmm seems that their deputies have had radar and been using radar to enforce speeding since, oh let's see, 1976, hmmm that's 32 years and it works, it's been working, with NO PROBLEMS, oh yeah except for one thing, speeding is down. Of 500 vehicles clocked in Lowndes county, 65% of them were going 11 mph over the speed limit, of that 65%, 17% were going 20 mph over the speed limit. A traveling weapon, that is what a vehicle is, when it is going above the posted speed limit. As of 2000 (the latest info I could find) there were 13,357 annual deaths from speeding related accidents, and that web site is, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speed_manage/docs/... , which the US Department of Transportation. So yes, you are paranoid, that you don't want to save lives, because you "might" get a ticket. I don't know why you drive, since you "Might" get in a wreck, or goto the store, you "might" get robbed, or leave the house in the morning you "might" get killed. like I said before, idiot, plain and simple!

Oh, and I know, since all you can do is say what I said back to me, I'll go ahead and tell you this...
Of 500 vehicles clocked in Lowndes county, 65% of them were going 11 mph over the speed limit, of that 65%, 17% were going 20 mph over the speed limit.

that, which is above, what I said, was BEFORE the use of radar was implemented in Lowndes county, in 1976, by deputies.... that can't have power... or be trusted. Funny thing, if you read the article which I gave a link to, in the Meridian Star, Lauderdale county Sheriff states that it is funny, because his part time officers, that work for the city of Meridian full time, get to run radar for the city, but don't for the county. Seems a bit stupid to me, same person, 2 different jurisdictions, but he can be trusted with the city, but not the county, pure craziness, at it's best!

Sorry, I can't resist. You keep bringing up this issue about us (law enforcement) referring to people as civilians, althought I don't exactly see what that matters, so I took the liberty of looking it up. If you have a problem with this, take it up with Wiki, not law enforcement.... idiot.

A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces. The term is also often used colloquially to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by law enforcement agencies, which often use rank structures similar to those of military units.

So, unless you are currently a member of the US Armed Forces, or a Member of Law Enforcement, guess what, I know it's shocking and all, but you are a... come on now, it's not hard, it's on the tip of your tounge, you can say it, yeah that's it, "civilian", of course, that is if you actually believe in International Humanitarian Law. But being a schitzo, you probably don't, I know, I understand. Your welcome. Also, one small other detail, You seem to blame law enforcement for the wrongful conviction of various people, might I remind you, all that Law Enforcement does, is arrest a person, based on facts at the time an arrest is made. I know, you don't know this, cause your, come on say it, an idiot. But after an arrest is made, and evidence is gathered, it is then presented, to a District Attorney, and A Grand Jury, You do know what those are right ?, I hope I don't have to explain that to you. Once presented before a DA, he has the option, based on the evidence to pursue prosecution or release the subject, once he decides to pursue prosecution, it is then presented to the Grand Jury, at which time Law Enforcement is done, no more, except to testify in court, just to confirm or deny the existance of evidence, if any. Once it goes to the Grand Jury, and they Vote to Prosecute (Grand Jury is a Jury of YOUR peers, by the way) then it goes to trial, where it is prosecuted by a DA, or ADA. Where it is heard by a judge, where evidence is presented, expert witness are summons, yadda yadda yadda. Then it goes to the Jury, of your peers might I add, not Law Enforcement. It is them, that convict a person, not Law Enforcement. It is a Judge that hands out sentences, not Law Enforcement. So there are several people you are leaving out, of your senerios. Let's recap. Wrongful Prosecution, would involve:
1. Law Enforcement
2. A District Attorney
3. A Grand Jury (that is citizens, I remind you)
4. An Assistant District Attorney
5. Investigators for the DA's office
6. A Judge
7. Expert Witnesses
8. Character, and Evidence Witnesses
9. A Jury (Again, a jury of citizens)

And Yet, you still only blame Law Enforcement, when all they do is make the initial arrest, and some, because most of it is done by investigators from the DA's office, not Law Enforcement, evidence gathering. Once again, I prove my point, you are only out to hate on cops, without any regard for respect. You are being, judge, jury and exicutioner, without a trial, and without evidence. I seem to remember, Innocent until proven guilty, somewhere... Hmmm, don't really remember, oh yeah, is that the Constitution, of the United States, and the State of Mississippi?, the ones that our laws, and our law enforcment officers uphold ? Yet, you are doing the very thing you say that Deputies would do if given radar, isn't that funny..... idiot....You are a walking contradiction. Do I really need to go on? I think not, I think my point is crystal clear. If you need any other proof that you are a hypocrit, or an idiot, or that you are doing the very thing that you say deputies would do, then let me know, i'd be happy to "tan" your hide again. Let me know what you think Topix Jurors, lol, they really showed up to support you didn't they, even they have the sense to realize you are just plain wrong. Period, end of story, see ya later....

Sorry, I stand corrected, this that I stated:

Of 500 vehicles clocked in Lowndes county, 65% of them were going 11 mph over the speed limit, of that 65%, 17% were going 20 mph over the speed limit.

Was referring to Lauderdale county, that is currently how many people were speeding, without radar enforcement, on 5 intersections in Lauderdale county. How are those figures for you, with radar, that number wouldn't exist!

One More thing... Just to prove how stupid you are once again, here is the definition of "Peace Officer".... idiot....

A law enforcement officer (also called peace officer), in North America, is any public-sector person charged with upholding the peace, mainly police officers, customs officers, correctional officers, probation officers, parole officers, auxiliary officers, and sheriffs or marshals and their deputies.

Modern legal codes use the term peace officer (or in some jurisdictions, law enforcement officer) to include every public-sector person vested by the legislating state with law-enforcement authority—traditionally, anyone "sworn, badged, and armable" but, basically, who can arrest, or refer such arrest for a criminal prosecution. Hence, city police officers, county sheriffs' deputies, and state troopers are usually vested with the same authority within a given jurisdiction.

And I do think that it mentions, Sheriff's Deputies in there, twice, if I still remember how to count, since I'm so dumb. Damn, the hits just keep coming.

By the way, that would be in response to your comment, listed below:

Are you old enough to remember when police were peace officers? There is a difference between keeping the peace and "enforcing the law." Or did you know, Officer, Sir?

So, yeah, I think I do know the difference, the question is, do you?

Schizophrenia (pronounced /&#716;sk&#618;ts& #601;&#712;fri&#720;ni &#601;/), from the Greek roots schizein (&#963;&#967;&#943 ;&#950;&#949;&#953 ;&#957;, "to split") and phr&#275;n, phren-(&#966;&#961; &#942;&#957;, &#966;&#961;&#949; &#957;-, "mind") is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality.

Idiot is a word derived from the Greek &#7984;&#948;&#953 ;&#974;&#964;&#951 ;&#962;, idi&#333;t&#275;s ("person lacking professional skill," "a private citizen," "individual"), from &#7988;&#948;&#953 ;&#959;&#962;, idios ("private," "one's own").[1] In Latin the word idiota ("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person."

Pathetic (comparative more pathetic, superlative most pathetic)arousing pity, sympathy, or compassion. Arousing scornful pity or contempt, often due to miserable inadequacy.

Anarchist is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support the elimination of all compulsory government, i.e. the state.

Childish, Of or suitable for a child.
Behaving immaturely.

Scum,(derogatory, slang) A person or persons considered to be reprehensible.

So, you said I called you these things, and that they are insults, and that you hope I don't use bullets the way I use them. Well, I hope I do. All these things I've listed above, I have called you, are dead on. Exactly what the definition describes. You to a "T". Tell me which one of those don't refer to you again ? If you have problems making that decision on your own, just read your past and current post, on here and other posts here on Topix. If you need help, let me know, I'll hold your hand, after all, that is what I'm here for, to serve right ?

I must first of all apologize, Officer, Sir, that I haven't been able to choose to submit to the abuse you've dealt towards me here these last few days. I've just been so busy with work and I don't get a lot of, as you law enforcement-types call it, "personal time." Just so you know, we in the civilized world call it "a day off."

Let's move on. Next, I see that you've been a busy little beaver here, posting scads of stuff, some of it trying to make a point, much of it just plain vitriol and spite.

We all know what this is. This is straight out of the law enforcement academy. Get in somebody's face, take control, and don't stop with the alpha dog routine until you have them curled up in a fetal ball. Threaten them arrest, the law enforcement-type's best friend ("I *will* arrest you for disorderly conduct!!!), tap them with the stick upside the head or wherever. And through it all, shout shout shout.

Those tactics just don't work here, Officer, Sir, and you'd do well to be cognizant of this. This is not some common traffic stop where the motorist has asked a question that hasn't agreed with your mood today. So all your bluster doesn't have any effect here. Sorry.

Now, back slooooowly away from the academy training and take a nice, long, deeeeep breath. Gooood.

We'll take this slowly and in small pieces. It may help you reason more thoroughly and keep your temper.

Know The Facts wrote:

First off, let me say this. If you come up with a plan to rid the entire country of illegal drugs, I'm all ears, or at least something that is better than we have now, which might I add, is off topic.

I don't purport to be an expert on the illegal drug trade. But it is must be obvious to even the meanest intelligence that 30 years' worth of giving cops more money and more power isn't working. I'm not sure why this idea angers you so, but perhaps it is rooted in the law enforcement man's dislike of being contradicted.

As I said, we'll take this nice and slow and in small pieces that you can better digest. These long tirades seem to give you indigestion. I'm still busy, but I'll be responding to your posts, or rants, or whatever they are, as time permits.

Yeah, I see how it is, your whipped and now your trying to crawfish out of it. Which is exactly what I expect, from a coward. If you feel so strongly in your beliefs why not bring it up, in open PUBLIC forum. Not here, on the internet where it does not good. Take it to City Hall, Council Meeting, Mississippi Congress. Why not, becuase you are a coward, you hide behind your keyboard and try to arm-chair quaterback law enforcement when it is perfectly clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you answer my questions about Lowndes County, and the fact that nothing you have said here even holds water because Sheriffs deputies have never had radar. Something you would know if you took the time to learn what your talking about. Like I said before, your an idiot. I am eagerly awaiting your futile response. And by the way, you have gone back to telling me what I have already said, which I thought I made clear, that it was pointless, but you don't seem to understand that. And I like your dodge everything attitude, that you did in your last post. Commenting entirely on what you THINK is YOUR idea of law enforcement, or the academy. Again. YOUR OPINION, not based on facts, such as my comments. But stating your opinion, and completely dodging the issue with your OPINION on law enforcement and the "Drug Problem". State sources, back up your facts. You cannot. I rest my case...... idiot.

Sorry, I cannot resist, Once again, the chance to make you look like an idiot. First off, what does it matter what I call "my personal time" or "a day off", how does that have any bearing on what we are talking about ? And as if it matters, if you technical about it, I don't really have a "day off" you see if something happens on my "personal time" and it envolves a law enforcement matter, which requires a law enforcement response, I am obligated by my oath, and the law to assist. So technically I don't have a "day off" I am obligated to work anytime I am needed. Secondly, I don't know what you mean by "straight out of the academy", I've been patrolling the streets, and making lives safer, for over 7 years. I graduated the academy in 2001. Once again you state something with now facts. Thridly, you use this word, in an apparent attempt to be intelligent, "Vitriol"? Here is the definition, in case you are curious:

Chemistry. any of certain metallic sulfates of glassy appearance, as copper sulfate or blue vitriol, iron sulfate or green vitriol, zinc sulfate or white vitriol, etc.

So I guess I'm really dumb, but I don't know what Chemistry has to do with anything we've discussed. Idiot....

Hello once again, Officer.

Sir.

Shall we continue with your education? We'll keep today's lesson short, too. These short lessons help you focus on the points I make that you very much need to recognize. Short lessons also keep your blood pressure low in the event that one of those you protect and serve don't respect your authori-tie fast enough.

Know The Facts wrote:

Second, I call you what you are, if you don't like the names associated with your kind, then change your lifestyle.

I'm hoping for the sake of everyone that this name-calling you engage in does not spill over into your daily duties. I suspect it does, though, and this surely reflects poorly upon you as an officer and your department. I'm praying for those you -- ahem, protect and serve, Officer.

Sir.

This name-calling you engage in, did you know, is what you engage in when you have no rational, logical arguments to use in reply. It is a sign of mental weakness and ill-education. Try to remember this as we continue your education.

That's enough for now. Now that we know where your head is at with this name-calling, I'll be better able to help you sort through your anger. See you next lesson, Officer.

Sir.

Holy Cow!

"This name-calling you engage in, did you know, is what you engage in when you have no rational, logical arguments to use in reply."

Are you serious ? Surely you have to be kidding me ? Nothing I've called you is "name-calling". I have given you definitions to back up the factual statements I make about you. They are fact. Look them up yourself. It is not use-less name calling, you are an idiot. Period. Logical Arguments? I seriously do not uderstand why you even continue to show your face here. You have been spewing this useless "knowledge" about how deputies have abused radar in the past, and they can't be trusted with it again, for ALMOST A YEAR!!!!!, and I within a couple of days, find out the truth, THE FACTS, and yet you still choose to ignore them. You are an IDIOT!!!!!!! Everything you posted in this forum about this subject is a lie. You have no data to back up your "logical arguments". I do, so go talk to somebody else about "logical arguments",.... idiot