Comments on: Rural Mayor to Cops: Do Not Chase Criminals

By: Vito

Vito — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:58:07 +0000

These rural pigs dont show an urban cop like me any proffessional courtesy. They are useless. Not too bright.

By: Johnny Law

Johnny Law — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:37:32 +0000

John Birther needs to take a class on logic. How do you expect an officer to catch a speeding car without speeding himself? Your comment at using a camera to take a picture of the car and simply arresting the next day shows your lack of understanding about how the real world works.

I know it is a shocker but some people drive cars that are not registered to them. Other people may not live in the same place on the plate and have no fixed address. Some crooks swap license plates. Some take the plates off. Some crooks go on crime sprees and commit multiple crimes in one night so letting them go exposes the public to substantial risk.

Get away from your computer and go walk around in the real world for a while before posting such nonsense.

By: Peter the Bubblehead

Peter the Bubblehead — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:58:28 +0000

Hello? John ‘Birther’? I want to know what law a police officer breaks when he chases a criminal?

If I don’t hear back today I’m going to conclude you admit you were wrong.

By: Peter the Bubblehead

Peter the Bubblehead — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:19:10 +0000

Oh come on, I was really hoping to learn what law a police officer is supposedly breaking by fulfilling the obligations of his/her job and chasing after crooks and criminals!

By: Chuck

Chuck — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:53:27 +0000

I guess the mayor does not have the ability to think past the front of her nose. I am amazed at how such stupid people like her get elected. I think I know how she got elected, but that’s another story in itself. I feel bad for those police officers that must work for that “Moronic Mayor” Maybe “Georgie Porgy Puddin Pie Gascon” will leave San Francisco and run to her town to work for her. Crime will run rampant in her City. The miscreants know that they only have to run and they’re free.

By: Peter the Bubblehead

Peter the Bubblehead — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:38:46 +0000

Actually, perhaps I am going about this the wrong way.

Please explain, exactly, what law is being broken by a police officer who, in the course of their duly appointed job for which they affirmed an oath to serve and protect the public, chases and catches a criminal in the course of, or shortly after, committing an act known to be against the law?

By: prospector4au

prospector4au — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:45:39 +0000

I have always thought thay fleeing from the police was a crime in itself——

By: Peter the Bubblehead

Peter the Bubblehead — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:31:54 +0000

25. John “birther” Samford wrote:
‘Some one accused of a crime SHOULD be apprehended IF there is enough evidence to warrent a trial.’ Any words there you have trouble understanding?
‘The Police should NOT commit a crime in the process of apprehending that suspect’. Any more tough words there?

Peter writes: A criminal holding up a victim at gunpoint is committing a crime, no? They should be apprehended, even if they try and flee and dispose of the weapon, no? The criminal, even if there is not enough evidence to be found guilty at trial (until MORE investigation is done) SHOLD be chased. By your own logic, you say no, he shouldn’t. You’re letting the criminal get away with his crime just because he hasn’t already been found guiulty in a court.

The police officer chases the criminal, even though the crook has not YET been found guilty. By YOUR logic, you say the police are committing a crime by chasing an ‘innocent person.’ The police are merely doing their job, trying to arrest and prosecute the crook.

Get back onto the right side of the law. Support your police, not the crooks who would sooner shoot you as give you the time of day.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:27:45 +0000

By: John "birther" Samford

John "birther" Samford — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:54:16 +0000

“By your ‘logic’ there should be no one in jail or out on bail either, because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. But by that ‘logic’ you can’t arrest or hold anyone until they have already been to trial, and since you can’t take them to trial unless you arrest them for a crime, ergo no one in jail anymore by your ‘logic.’”

Abosuletly NOT what I wrote. You should re-read it. I didn’t use any big words, maybe the concepts were beyond you ability to understand.
Let try to be even simpler. ‘Some one accused of a crime SHOULD be apprehended IF there is enough evidence to warrent a trial.’ Any words there you have trouble understanding?
‘The Police should NOT commit a crime in the process of apprehending that suspect’. Any more tough words there?

The basic concept here is committing a crime to apprehend a criminal means there has been TWO crimes committed. Two crimes IS NOT an improvement over one crime.
Or are you arguing that a cop speeding, reckless driving and committing actions hazardous to the public welfare (reckless endangerment) is not a crime?
Please explain your logic there.

I am not arguing against arresting the speeder, I’m arguing against breaking the law to do it. Especially when there are ways to arrest that suspect that do not involve breaking the law. A Digital camera in the squad car and you have a tag number. Send over a car the next day and pick up the suspect. Two cars if that seems wise. If the owner of those tags wasn’t driving the car, then odds are they know who was. Hold them for the 72 hours allowed by law and see if it jogs their memory.
If you want to attack me, fine. I’m a big boy and take care of myself. I just would ask that you don’t put words in my mouth then attack those words.

“because everyone is innocent until proven guilty.”
That isn’t logic, that is the LAW of the land. If you have a problem with it, either immigrate, or try to get a Constitutional amendment passed.