To Protect and to Serve II

#8,456
#8,456
Orangeslice13 said:
Fing stupid
Click to expand...
It goes back to what I have been saying. Just because it is in the law books, that doesn't mean that the cops have to enforce the law. There are a thousand other things that these cops need to be worried about outside of someone eating a sandwich. But it just seems like most cops don't have enough common sense or discernment or wisdom to make these simple distinctions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GreyWolf1129
#8,457
#8,457
Rasputin_Vol said:
It goes back to what I have been saying. Just because it is in the law books, that doesn't mean that the cops have to enforce the law. There are a thousand other things that these cops need to be worried about outside of someone eating a sandwich. But it just seems like most cops don't have enough common sense or discernment or wisdom to make these simple distinctions.
Click to expand...
Exactly

They could also just inform him for next time and let him eat his last 2 bites with a polite explanation of the law. Most people want to follow the rules if they know about them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GreyWolf1129 and tennvols77
#8,458
#8,458
I don't know how anyone expects any different. I mean we are talking about the liberal cesspool of California. One of the budding communist states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#8,465
#8,465
The "Officer-Friendly" Police Fantasy

Unfortunately, there are endless pretexts for people to be arrested nowadays because federal, state, and local politicians and officials have criminalized daily life with hundreds of thousands of edicts. Capt. Steve Powell of the Colorado State Patrol commented, “Ninety percent of the cars out there are doing something that you can pull them over for. There are a jillion reasons people can be stopped — taillights, windshields cracked, any number of things.” Gerard Arenberg, executive director of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me in the 1990s, “We have so damn many laws, you can’t drive the streets without breaking the law. I could write you a hundred tickets depending on what you said to me when I stopped you.”
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#8,466
#8,466
New Legislation Will Throw People In Jail For Disrespecting Cops

We agree. This legislation is nothing short of tyranny and is paving the way for abuse by snowflake cops who cannot handle citizens talking back or disrespecting their authority. Instead of making respect a two-way street and earning it, this legislation sets out to mandate it through the threat of violence and kidnapping.

In the land of the free, a person can be kidnapped and thrown in a cage for arbitrary sounds made with their mouth or raising their middle finger that causes harm to no one.

Aside from this being clearly asinine, it’s well established by the Supreme Court that arresting someone for swearing and raising the middle finger is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Orangeslice13
#8,468
#8,468
Meh. Not me, or my style.

Week or so ago, I got tabbed to serve child support civil papers to a lady way out in the sticks that had given our Warrants/Civil Division deputies a hard time in the past. I go out there...single-wide trailer in a yard that could have served as the set for Sanford & Son...and she comes to the door. Maybe 100 lbs soaking wet, and I get the same treatment. She's mad at the world, me, the court system, the judge, her ex, me again...you get it. There's a pretty good-sized mutt behind her, and it's acting like trouble if it gets past her. She says "I ought to sick my dog on you". Now she's got my full attention, but summing up my ninja smart-ass powers, I say "Ma'am, if that dog has a lick of sense, it will piss on your leg on it's way out the door to a home where it will finally know what love is."

Served her and left. She called to complain. I never heard a word about it after they watched the video.

Poor dog. Has no idea what lies outside that house full of hate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, tennvols77, marcusluvsvols and 3 others
#8,469
#8,469
GreyWolf1129 said:
Meh. Not me, or my style.

Week or so ago, I got tabbed to serve child support civil papers to a lady way out in the sticks that had given our Warrants/Civil Division deputies a hard time in the past. I go out there...single-wide trailer in a yard that could have served as the set for Sanford & Son...and she comes to the door. Maybe 100 lbs soaking wet, and I get the same treatment. She's mad at the world, me, the court system, the judge, her ex, me again...you get it. There's a pretty good-sized mutt behind her, and it's acting like trouble if it gets past her. She says "I ought to sick my dog on you". Now she's got my full attention, but summing up my ninja smart-ass powers, I say "Ma'am, if that dog has a lick of sense, it will piss on your leg on it's way out the door to a home where it will finally know what love is."

Served her and left. She called to complain. I never heard a word about it after they watched the video.

Poor dog. Has no idea what lies outside that house full of hate.
Click to expand...
Child support? Saving the world putting one parent in jail at a time...
 
#8,470
#8,470
Rasputin_Vol said:
Child support? Saving the world putting one parent in jail at a time...
Click to expand...

Not jail, Ras...a court order for a hearing to determine child support obligations. Civil action.

It fell to me as a Patrol Deputy due to her previous aggressive behavior towards the Courts Division. I guess they figured my diplomatic skills would tip the scales, huh?

God forbid that those kids should get the financial support they need from both parents. Usually, when "Mom" gets served, that's what the FBI / GBI would call a "clue". Mom almost always gets the kids, and the money.

High and outside. Ball Two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ob79, marcusluvsvols and davethevol
#8,471
#8,471
GreyWolf1129 said:
Not jail, Ras...a court order for a hearing to determine child support obligations. Civil action.

It fell to me as a Patrol Deputy due to her previous aggressive behavior towards the Courts Division. I guess they figured my diplomatic skills would tip the scales, huh?

God forbid that those kids should get the financial support they need from both parents. Usually, when "Mom" gets served, that's what the FBI / GBI would call a "clue". Mom almost always gets the kids, and the money.

High and outside. Ball Two.
Click to expand...
Why is that even the responsibility of the govt? Govt sends one parent in the state (correctional facility) and puts the other on the state (state sponsored benefits).

Dont cops have killers and thieves to be catching as opposed to getting involved in civil/family matters?
 
#8,472
#8,472
Rasputin_Vol said:
Why is that even the responsibility of the govt? Govt sends one parent in the state (correctional facility) and puts the other on the state (state sponsored benefits).

Dont cops have killers and thieves to be catching as opposed to getting involved in civil/family matters?
Click to expand...

Because if the government (courts) did not compel a non-custodial parent to provide support for the children, exponentially more children (families) would be "on state-sponsored benefits". And non-paying parents typically do not get sent to "state correctional facilities" for non-payment. What they do get is garnishment of wages, and yes...put in the local jail if they defy the court order and fall months/years behind in payment. That usually gets their attention.

Sheriffs / Constables are the "arm of the court". They serve the written orders of the court, and see that those orders are followed. See, you can't just mail it to them, because they can (and do) say "I never got it."

Killers and thieves? Yes. Plenty of them to go around as well. Funny, if we could get people to understand how thinly stretched we already are, and just get normal people to voluntarily comply with the orders of the court, we could devote more time to trying to track down those killers and thieves. Alas, those who do not understand, or respect, the law of the land eat up precious resources that could be used to protect all instead of babysit the few.

Human nature, I suppose. Some folks are like canoes. They have to be paddled to get them to move.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, tennvols77, marcusluvsvols and 1 other person
#8,473
#8,473
Rasputin_Vol said:
Why is that even the responsibility of the govt? Govt sends one parent in the state (correctional facility) and puts the other on the state (state sponsored benefits).

Dont cops have killers and thieves to be catching as opposed to getting involved in civil/family matters?
Click to expand...
Imagine thinking that police could pick and choose what laws the government writes
 
#8,475
#8,475
GreyWolf1129 said:
Because if the government (courts) did not compel a non-custodial parent to provide support for the children, exponentially more children (families) would be "on state-sponsored benefits". And non-paying parents typically do not get sent to "state correctional facilities" for non-payment. What they do get is garnishment of wages, and yes...put in the local jail if they defy the court order and fall months/years behind in payment. That usually gets their attention.

Sheriffs / Constables are the "arm of the court". They serve the written orders of the court, and see that those orders are followed. See, you can't just mail it to them, because they can (and do) say "I never got it."

Killers and thieves? Yes. Plenty of them to go around as well. Funny, if we could get people to understand how thinly stretched we already are, and just get normal people to voluntarily comply with the orders of the court, we could devote more time to trying to track down those killers and thieves. Alas, those who do not understand, or respect, the law of the land eat up precious resources that could be used to protect all instead of babysit the few.

Human nature, I suppose. Some folks are like canoes. They have to be paddled to get them to move.
Click to expand...
How does putting someone in jail pay child support?

And who determines how much is enough to support a child (rhetorical question)?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top