What Next wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:12 AM:
" What next, a no changing CD law while driving... "
hopefully wrote on Jun 29, 2008 11:28 AM:
" Hopefully the wonderful HPD will make sure they are great examples and will not be on the phone everytime they go down my street. "
Concerned wrote on Jun 29, 2008 5:13 PM:
" I listen to the police scanner quite a bit and
there are hit and run car accidents all the time
where the guy is chasing the one who hit him.
Is he now going to get a ticket himself for reporting
a hit and run accident and gives chase? "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Jun 29, 2008 6:27 PM:
" I totally concur this law is way over due, my wife and I joke about the traveling phone booth who is all over the road in front of us. So let me ask you a question if I see this again and use my cell phone to take a picture of an officer (using his cell phone) to submit to Chief Mestas will I be cited for using my cell phone? Just want to know before it happens, because you can bet the Watchdog will be watching. What is good for the Goose should be good for all the Ganders as well. By the way I've seen CHP Officers and Sheriff Officers using their cell phones while driving too. So this is quite common in law enforcement. I thought taxpayers paid for radio and computers for communications not cell phones. So if they are on a cell phone it must be private business, not public business, right? So then they are not using this device in the line of duty and should be cited just like any other civilian, right? Most of us are prevented from cell phone use at work. "
A CITIZEN wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:36 PM:
" One more way for the governments to steal money from the law abiding citizens. When is the last time you saw an officer of any type pull over an old beater he sees driving 50 in a 55 and cited them for no license, no insurance, no registration and no right to be in this country. I think it is absurd when one law is enforced (when a law like this makes it easy) and others are blatently ignored like the ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION problem that is sucking the life blood out of this great country! "
bad news wrote on Jun 30, 2008 12:17 AM:
" law enforcement is exempt. you may use the phone to report emergencies. "
Mrs.D wrote on Jul 4, 2008 1:08 AM:
" If you can spend the money to get a fancy cell phone, you can spend the money to get a hands free device for that cell phone.
Mine cost $39.99 at Costco; the Motorola Visor Unit which is so easy to use. "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Jul 4, 2008 2:18 AM:
" Foiled again, why is it they don't have to follow the same rules we do, law enforcement is exempt. What about the off duty cop driving his own vehicle are they exempt too?
I think from now on we should lobby the lawmakers to either include all law enforcement, fire and emergency personnel or not pass the law. I am a professional truck driver with years of exoperience over the road not jetting around from spot to spot in a little car, yet their experience and somehow their prestigous position makes them exempt? Why? Well you can't win them all we can follow them and check and see if their license plate light is lit though! Because they aren't exempt from that one. Let's see how many and who we can catch operating a law enforcement vehicle with the license plate light burned out cruising town and take a photo with your unauthorized talking device and send it into the Hanford Sentinel for publication. Sounds like fun and they won't even know who took the picture. That's the handy thing about cell phones they even record video and audio. "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Jul 4, 2008 2:19 AM:
" I hope you realize that following the cops stuff was just a joke in that last blog. You really shouldn't follow an officer on duty, he will probably pull you over and ask you what you are doing and if you knew your license plate light is out. "
Melissa wrote on Jul 4, 2008 7:24 AM:
" I love my cell....but I have yelled at many people to get off their phones and drive so I have to be ok with this law a little bit.
What Next: LOL!! Anyone up for a revolution? I wonder when someone will be able to answer the statement "A government is too big when..... "
Jerry wrote on Jul 4, 2008 7:32 AM:
" Hmmmm.... call somebody who cares.... "
FINALLY wrote on Jul 4, 2008 10:55 AM:
" I couldn't wait for this law to be passed. Now I'm on Bluetooth and I can use two hands on my computer while driving. Score! "
Get Real wrote on Jul 4, 2008 3:11 PM:
" My brother-in-law is a Kings Co. Fireman, a good friend is a Hfd Police Officer, my neighbor is retired from the Highway Patrol. Talking to these fine people you hear a common thread. Bad things happen to good people!! They try with a passion to keep our lives safe and normal as possible. So give them a brake!! If they need to talk on their phones, so be it. We don't want them till we NEED THEM!, until then it more big government? Get Real. How many times have we all seen drivers performing poorly while on their cell. "
Response to WD Fredrick wrote on Jul 4, 2008 5:28 PM:
" Believe it or not, the Sheriff;s Office and the PD issues their personnel cell phones to conduct business. As far ast the CHP goes, they march to a different beat. Think about this Freddy-an officer with a phone saves time and money in the long run. They can contact reporting parties, make contact with victims, witnesses to schedule interviews rather than driving across town and leaving their beat unattended only to find out nobody is home. They can also personally contact dispatch and other law enforcement agencies while in the field. This frees up the dispatchers and keeps the officer in the field. For years, we had to use our own phones and no, the city did not get billed. I can schedule a ride along for you if you wish so you can think before your spout your propaganda here. Many violent felons have gone to prison for having their license plate light out. Have a great 4th! "
Lilly Munster wrote on Jul 4, 2008 5:53 PM:
" I've been using the Bluetooth for a long time. Use it at work, driving and etc. I think it is a good thing. Only one problem...sometimes the other person can't hear you that well. Picks up back round noise pretty good. To "What Next"..don't give them more ideas! "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Jul 5, 2008 1:56 AM:
" To: Response to WD Fredrick wrote on Jul 4, 2008 5:28 PM:
You take my comments entirely to personal and serious. I have several family members who are or were in law enforcement. But I just think if you guys are gonna pull us over for a license plate light being out, then I should be able to make a citizens arrest when you choose not to use your turn signal., or speed down 3rd street headed to the freeway to blow the carbon out of your car. Blowing the carbon out of your patrol car is not an emergency. I think it's almost comical the way you all take your breaks at Ryan's at the same time, it is like o.k. post a look out at Ryan's cause everything else is wide open for at least forty minutes. If I know that so do the crooks, cause they are watching your every move and don't think they aren't. As for your cell phone, I reported a theft and it took a cop one hour to show up, why didn't he just call me on his cell phone and phone it in? "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Jul 5, 2008 2:01 AM:
" To: Response to WD Fredrick wrote on Jul 4, 2008 5:28 PM:
Then when the officer finally showed up he suggested I take a video camera over to a neighbor and get him to get the evidence on tape. I don't need a cop for that, if I can get the evidence on tape I can make a citizens arrest. I was looking for more patrols in the area, more often, I thought that was policy when crimes are being commited? Are you guys so far behind schedule while you solve crimes on your cell phones and bypass dispatch that you can't take your regular calls from dispatch?
That's the only thing I can think would explain an hour response time, I'm glad I wasn't be held at gunpoint or there wasn't a home envasion going on. You may not be that type of cop but I'll tell ya right now you are working with them. "
another reason wrote on Jul 5, 2008 2:40 AM:
" This is just another reason for the police to pull you over. Now they can say I saw you on the phone to pull you over. Now it will be hard to fight a police stop in court. Police do not need a probable cause to pull anybody over anymore. I see the police using their phones. Can they not get blue tooth as well? I know they are using the phones for personnel business. I hope that people do take pictures of them on the phone. I know I will and will send them to the Sentienal, and we should send them to the police chief as well. Hanford should set up a watchdog team to watch the police, not just for the phone useage but other laws they break as well. "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Jul 5, 2008 7:07 AM:
" I would still like to know what can be accmplished with a cell phone that can't be accomplished through dispatch, unless it is of a personal nature. It was brought up that an officer wouldn't have to leave his beat to contact a witness or waste gas on a trip when they weren't home. If you are on your beat the crime took place on your beat you will eventually get back to that area anyway if you are patrolling properly. So unless it is a physical crime then it should be lights and siren, not cell phone and smoke signals. Your excuses for being on the cell phone don't hold water. That's why the citizens pay for your communication network, computer, radio and pay a dispatch person to take calls. Otherwise what do you need a Dispatcher for if you are determining your calls and their priority without regard of the Dispatcher. I thought the Supervisor and Dispatcher worked together to establish priorities. I didn't realize that now resides in the decision of the responding officer. Boy did I have it backwards. 1 Adam 12 doesn't take orders anymore. "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Jul 5, 2008 7:14 AM:
" To Get Real - I think the word you were looking for is spelled break. Since we are correcting one another on the blog these days.
Also, give them a break meaning let them talk as long and whenever they want. How do you know they are on a business related call. If they are busy on personal calls all shift then they are ignoring their radio and dispatch to do it. That is what they claim we do as we are driving, ignoring traffic. They are human's not overly skilled or exceptionally trained in eye hand coordination, how is it they can multi-task goinng down the road and never be questioned. They go down the road listening to the police radio, talking on their cell phones eating sunflower seeds and dinking a soda all at the same time, I've watched them do it. Not long ago an officer was ejected from his car in an accident because he wasn't wering a seat belt, that is wrong, way wrong. I've talked to other officers in other departments and they have all said if they did that their Police Chiefs would can them. "
Hmmmmmm wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:52 AM:
" Thank you "California" that now puts two hands back on the wheel but don't know that having two hands on the wheel is going to keep people from being distracted by their calls. This town is like a bunch of traveling phone booths, seems many think that the minute they get in their car they have to start making phone calls. Is everyone in this town that important that it can't wait a few minutes till they get where they are going. Quit whining and get a headset to go with your phones! "
so much for rights wrote on Jul 5, 2008 3:08 PM:
" Just another right removed from us. Gays get a right to marry, and we can't even hold a cell phone while driving. Give me a break. "
Rebecca Patterson-Kmet Texas Retired Pharmacist wrote on Jul 5, 2008 9:18 PM:
" Using cell phones while driving is now banned unless there is a handsfree attachment. Actually the law should go further than that, requiring a headphone and wire attachment for cell phone use when people are not driving. Dr. Al Sears email medical newsletter recently discussed the unusual brain cancer US Senator Edward Kennedy has. It is the kind of brain cancer associated with frequent cell phone use. People should look up the FDA SAR rating for their cell phone on the internet to see if it is in the range that cooks brain cells or not. 0.5 is a good range. l.5 is a dangerous range. What I do is to take the battery out of my cell phone when I am not using it since radiation is emitted when the battery is in it and it is turned on or off. A regular phone should be used when possible because the radiation emission from a regular phone is not a health problem. Cell phone use should be limited to what is necessary for work or contact with significant others for brief calls, not long conversations. Long talks should be for regular phones. "
W.O.W. wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:03 PM:
" The "knee-jerk" solution to accidents by outlawing our right to freedom of speech is as bad as the Homeland Security Act that takes many of our rights away for "our own good".
Tint your windows, report cops talking on cell phones, vote to stop pay hikes for those "who protect us" from ourselves!!!
Shades of "Watchdog Fred". "
Phone Law wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:33 PM:
" This new Law just like so many others are DUMB! "
To WD Freddy wrote on Jul 6, 2008 1:00 AM:
" You addressed everything except the ride along! Do you not want to know what we do? I can arrange anytime, anyday for you. Let me know if want to accept the challenge and we can go from there. "
WDF wrote on Jul 6, 2008 2:31 AM:
" Fred, self appointed Watchdog: As much as you watch officers, criminals do too. If we are on the radio, criminals are scanning. Cells are used with dispatch and other law enforcement in dealing with patrol issues. Why don't you sign up for a ride-along between the hours of 11 and 7 a.m. on a Saturday night to see how the process works. As for using turn signals, etc. that is called "telescoping" and something you should not do to give a criminal an upper hand. Read the penal code before condemnation of law enforcement. "
rj wrote on Jul 6, 2008 2:54 AM:
" to Watchdog Fred..
Have you spoken to any of your family members that are in law enforcement lately about how busy they are? Maybe they work in a very small town where not much really does happen and they can have realistic response times to the more minor types of calls. I can tell you for a fact that there are times when it's busy here in Hanford that it has taken over four hours to get an officer to be able to respond to the low priority calls because they were busy going call to call on high priority calls. Also, the officer's using their cell phones does free up a lot of time for them in handling the calls. Probably close to a third of their calls they are able to handle by phone. Then you have to factor in the fact that they have lots of follow ups they conduct on calls they have been working on and use the phones to contact witness, suspects etc... And you seem to really harp on the license plate light alot. Should they let all those drug smugglers, felons and other criminals that getted stopped like this go? "
FED UP wrote on Jul 6, 2008 12:47 PM:
" cell phone useage may cause some inattentiveness and cause some accidents, i dont disagree with that at all. i think law enforcement should also go to hands free communications in there patrol cars as they all have radios no doubt but i cant count how many in this area fail to use turn signals,are inattentive,fail to stop at stop signs or signal lights, getting tailgated,etc. read the vehicle section if you dont have lights and sirens, you must obey the laws as anyone else. why dont you all set the standard as role models, numerous people have written on this topic. i wanna get a bill passed making it illegal for lawenforcemet also to use there phones, you all can use the same feature everyone else has too.... "
checks n balances wrote on Jul 6, 2008 12:59 PM:
" WHATS THE PROBLEM? july 3 in the evening i witnessed a white marked chp unit stop a vehicle at douty north of grangeville on my way up town i noticed 3 hpd marked units in the parking lot of geta express. geez how many were on then? interesting., its like Starbucks near target in the mornings the who dept is there i guess thats call roll call and briefing!!! Be a good role model and stay off the phone......i urge citizena to contact your represenatives and ask they make this an official departmental policy eventually a california law... officers driving while on the phones is like listening to music in the cars and not listening to the outside world..... get pictures of these folks on those phones..... "
Get Real wrote on Jul 6, 2008 1:28 PM:
" To Big Head (watchdog) Fred. You got to much time on your hands old dog. When I said give them a brake, that's what I meant dawg! Like CAL TRANS!! Get it now? "
W.O.W. wrote on Jul 6, 2008 5:33 PM:
" Times have changed folks! Cell phones are a way of life! "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Jul 7, 2008 11:09 PM:
" Get Real - I have a life it is pestoring you. Furthermore you didn't get it, you should only talk on your phone when you brake your patrol car and you are on your break. Get it now?
I lost a whole lot of respect for policeman back in the late 80's when battery operated television were introduced and I drove by and watched a Hanford City Policeman watching a football game while parked along the road on 10th Avenue. You guys no, no limits, and think and believe you are above the law. Had I ever got caught watching television or a game while working at any of my jobs I would have been canned immediately. I didn't report the Officer you know why, because you guys back each other and nothing would have happened. Just like Chief Mestas and his no seat belt law for officers, every other officer I have talked with in other departments says that it is rediculous to be on duty and on patrol to not be wearing a seat belt. They all say the same thing one click and they are undone. "
ALEJANDRO wrote on Jul 8, 2008 6:35 PM:
" W.O.W. says
" Times have changed folks! Cell phones are a way of life! "
Yes, but stupidity apparently has not. "
ALEJANDRO wrote on Jul 8, 2008 6:52 PM:
" I always wondered: how can someone safely drive a 5-speed manual vehicle around town and talk on a hand held cell phone?
Use their knees for steering?
Reminds me of the time on the four corners by SaveMart I saw two women yammering on cell phones turning in different directions. Then another woman in a huge SUV was putting on eye makeup with both hands while watching herself in the visor mirror - while simultaneously driving through the intersection heading west!
No doubt her cell phone was in her lap at the time.
Idiots. "
cynic wrote on Jul 8, 2008 7:19 PM:
" Oh Rebecca, I hope you'll talk to someone about this paranoia - or maybe it's time to head to the hills and live off the land. You know, many parts of the pine tree are edible. "
To all Citizens wrote on Jul 9, 2008 4:53 PM:
" GO ON A RIDE ALONG! Just think of the evidence you can gather to write more blogs. Or are you afraid your opinions will change? Ride on a weekend night shift. You will not be disappointed. GO ON A RIDE ALONG! "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Jul 10, 2008 2:15 AM:
" Alejandro,
You brought back such fond memories of Southern California they have women who are professional at putting makeup on, talking on their cell phones and scratching whatever itches going down the road at 10 mph reading the newspaper. Those traffic jams down there let you see it all, they will change underpants while moving along at a snails pace, it is ungodly what some of them do on the way to and rom work. Then you have the men who aren't good at multi=tasking unless you consider picking your nose and flicking the bugers on other cars multi-tasking. It's amazing what you can spot going on down the road on the way to work during rush hour. Then the speed picks up then this all continues at 70MPH going down a crowded freeway, go figure. Why don't they just go ahead and install automatic pilot so we are all safer? "
DAIRY OWNER wrote on Jul 10, 2008 12:52 PM:
" THIS IS HILLARIOUS... LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE ALWAYS SMILING AS THERE TALKING ON THE PHONES IT DOESNOT SEEM LIKE ITS PROFESSIONAL U CAN TELL BY THERE DEMEANOR, COME ON... IM NOT GOING TO STOP USING MY PHONE TIL THE POLICE DEPT AND SHERIFFS OFFICE ADAPT A POLICY AGAINST PERSONAL CALLS ON THE JOB.... GET YOUR TICKETS READY ILL GLADLY TALK TO THE JUDGE AND WHEN I SEE OFFICERS DRIVING GET THEM ON VIDEO AND PUT IT UP ON YOU TUBE!!!!!!!!!!!! "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Jul 11, 2008 11:47 AM:
" Dairy Farmer - ah two who see the like give away's of the demeanor of officers as they smile and chat on their cell phones and claim it is in the line of business. However, during many conversations with law enforcement seldom do you see such a glimmer of happiness upon their faces. I guess it is more than one can possibly expect for a law enforcement officer to obey a law he/she enforces. You know they arrest drunks and then turn around on their days off and enbibe, everyone who ever knew a cop knows that for sure. They are only asked to do their drinking at home or in another county. So Dairy Owner, I see your plite and understand your immense distain for their obvious above the law attitudes, but you can clearly thank upper management within the Department itself for such a glaring, irresponsible attitude, what do you expect from a department when the Chief of Police saya; " No my officers do not have to wear seatbealts in a patrol car owned and operated by the taxpayers of Hanford, California? This is wrong fellow citizens. "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Jul 11, 2008 11:55 AM:
" Dairy Farmer - are we not responsible for the well being of officers and civilians alike when accidents are caused by the officer and he/she isn't wearing a seat belt while talking on their cell phones. Why should we pay for what is obviously against the law for any citizen to do? The Officer while operating a city vehicle should be held responsible to obey all traffic laws that fellow citizens are required to obey. If they option out then Chief Mestas and that Officer should be held accountable financially for that accident personally. I thought that it was illegal under the provisions of the state labor board for a senior management person to direct any employee to do anything against the law in the performance of their duties? Is giving permission to ignore a law essentially an order of approval from senior management to break a law? Would that not then constitute a direct violation of the California State Labor Code? Come on one of you attorney's weigh in on this and let us know, is this a violation of the labor code, or any other California Statutes? "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Jul 11, 2008 12:00 PM:
" Dairy Farmer - you violate the law while operating a vehicle and you watch how fast the insurance company drops their responsibility for that accident. We should do the same thing on officers not obeying traffic laws in the performance of their duty. We should be able to option out and let them be held accountable for their actions. Why should the cities safety management people allow this to go unnoticed or unpunished when it happens. I thought the City had stoploss management to protect the cities interests in matters of safety? If policing was a private industry OSHA would even have a part in making sure the basic traffic laws were followed for the officers safety as well as the citizens safety. But since this policy is now widely known, just wait until an officer is in an accident and is found at fault. The fur will fly high and wide and it will be a very costly lesson for the city and others involved, but once again the price tag will just simply be handed over to the citizens of Hanford to pay for it. "
NotHomeGrown wrote on Jul 11, 2008 2:02 PM:
" To Watchdog Fred, this is the first time that I disagree with you in part, and someone answered about police using cells so they are not being scanned on their radio calls. Now if the officer is using if strictly for personal use, then shame on them, but are you really sure that it is personal, for me I am not a lip reader. I know from all of your posts that you support Peace Officers, you porbably just want them doing the right thing and set a proper example.
The police have always been able to pull you over at any time while talking on a cell phone, it was called "wreckless driving"!
To Dairy Owner, thank you volunteering to add to the State/County/City coffers, hope you contribute tons of money, Me personally can't afford to give them a dime. Do all the videoing that you want, Peace Officers and other first responders are allowed to use cell phones while driving.
To all of those that are authorized to use cell phones while driving, my hopes are that you are in fact engaged in business while conducting those calls and not abusing the system. "
DAIRY OWNER wrote on Jul 11, 2008 5:41 PM:
" TO NOT HOME GROWN,
FIRST OFF IF YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT WOULD BE A START. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF AGENCIES IN CALIFORNIA WHERE A PUBLIC SAFETY PERSON IS FORBIDDEN TO HAVE ON HIS/HER PERSON A PERSONAL CELL PHONE IN A CITY/COUNTY VEHICLE. SECONDLY I DONT NEED ANYONES APPROVAL TO VIDEO ANYONE IN PUBLIC. LAST BUT NEVER THE LEAST ALOT OF LAWENFORCEMENT SUPPORT COMES FROM CITIZENS BUSINESSES ETC. LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS TO CHANGE ITS BIG ME LITTLE U ATTITUDE. I DONT KNOW ANYONE WHO HAS AN (E) BRANDED ON THERE BEHIND, NO EXEMPTIONS NO EXCEPTIONS. BE ROLE MODELS,ITS OLD ALREADY... "
put it to vote wrote on Jul 11, 2008 9:26 PM:
" This law is an abuse of government powers. We should vote to legalize cell phone use. This law doesn't ban dialing the phone which is most dangerous. I drive with one hand even when not on the phone, they will probably write tickets for not having both hands on the wheel next. Poor one armed people, what will they do. This is a knee jerk kind of law from a knee jerk kind of state. "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Jul 12, 2008 7:08 AM:
" NotHomeGrown - you are correct I do support law enforcement, but I also have sense enough to know as a former professional over the road driver. That experience counts but it does not eliminate the always present possibility of an accident. Just because patrolman log many hours behind the wheel doesn't make them safer. I watch them change lanes and turn without signaling, I watch them speed down a crowded street for no apparent reason, no lights no sirens so they can't be on an authorized call or they would at the very least be using their emergency lights. I've watched them make illegal u-turns in the pursuit of someone who made an illegal u-turn, what sense does that make? My point being if it is not safe for us to talk on a cell phone it shouldn't be safe just because they wear a badge. My point being that they are the law, they are not above the law and anyone can make a citizens arrest. First time an officer t-bones a car in an intersection while talking on his cell phone we will see how far this exemption carries. "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Jul 12, 2008 7:19 AM:
" To Response to WD Fredrick wrote on Jul 4, 2008 5:28 PM:
Well Thank God to whoever invented the cell phone looks like cops weren't even effective until that happened. I still go back to more arrests a safer community when cops walked a beat. Not now that they cruise in air conditioned vehicles with all the windows rolled up tight, listening to their radio, talking on their cell phone, chewing on sunflower seeds drinking a coca cola patrolling our streets. Now all they need is a naked woman/man on their rearview mirror to be completely distracted from doing their jobs. How can you dare defend all this nonsense and if you tell me a cop never uses his city or county issued cell phone to call home? Oh even though they have a city issued cell phone are they allowed to carry a personal one as well? If so how do you know which one they are talking on at any given time. So now you throw the illegal use of two cell phones into that mix. Does the armored car come with it's own cell phone? "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Jul 12, 2008 3:14 PM:
" Attention: Mr. Property Loss Manager for the city of Hanford.
Would you please make part of your investigation in officer involved accidents the determination if there is damp/dried cola, empty sunflower seed shells/hulls and was he/she talking on their cell telephone prior to or at the time of the accident? Also was a seat belt being warn and if not why not? You can make your report public to the Hanford Sentinel and I am sure they would print the information for free.
See how many of these reports the Hanford Sentinel gets? My bet is zero. "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Jul 12, 2008 3:27 PM:
" I just don't understand if these officers all get a Code 7 (breakfast,lunch,dinner break) but countless times I pass their vehicle and they are drinking and eating, while driving. Someone tell me that isn't as dangerous as talking on a cell phone and driving.
I've been on ride alongs, granted not recent ride alongs but back when law enforcement was a deterrant not an after the fact police report. Back when officers stopped even pedestrian traffic and checked for i.d., suspicous activity/person, vagrancy, truancy the full gamet, not riding around watching the homeless encamp upon public land, littering and defacing public property. Homeless are better off in a mission atmosphere not burning wild fires to stay warm out in our community. I'm still waiting for the short version on the signs they have, I just want to see by got a job, won't be here begging any longer. What their signs should say is the truth, I am too lazy to work so I am gonna set on a empty milk case and wait for you to pay for my miserable existance. Get them off the streets and into a program 51/50 them. "
FancyPants wrote on Jul 12, 2008 7:52 PM:
" I personally know of law enforcement using there cell phones for personal use while on duty. Even using department issued phones for personal use. They don't care because they all feel they are above the law themselves. Just like law enforcement officer who has abused there wife or girlfriend, have the wife or girlfriend report it to their supervisors, and the wife or girlfriend be told by a commander that they don't want to get involved with there personal matters and refuse to listen. It's disgusting to be a victim when law enforcement and the courts won't protect you because of the "good ol' boys" network. "
Subscribe Now
Mobile Site
Place an Ad
Email Updates
Obituaries
Classifieds
Find a Job
Find a Car
Real Estate
Contact Us
RSS HanfordSentinel.com