I'm more interested in wanting to know if this guys really prepared to go to prison for 5 years because he momentarily glanced down at his radio to change the station and rear ended someone, or if that should merely be a special privilege for the popo.

I agree about the lights on, but I'm not going down that road again.

I've been doing a pretty good job of ignoring this thread lately and I intend to keep it that way for the most part.

My reasons for speeding are far more important than that, I gotta get to the casino faster, ldo.

As for what *should* happen, that's pretty close to what did happen. I brought it up to illustrate that the traffic laws are there for a reason. I have no problem with emergency services speeding while responding to emergencies, as allowed by law, in that instance such measures were not warranted, hence the fine.

I think (although I'm not a member of the LPOA) what they're driving at is a two fold issue. First, they feel they're being investigated without suspicion of a crime. Cops are human. They don't like being investigated for no reason anymore than you do. Secondly, if they're really issuing reprimands for speeding to assist other officers, I call bull**** to that. That's dumb. FWIW, with my knowledge of police unions, it's probably also a lie.

Police unions are no different from other unions. I'd love to see a breakdown of how often they were responding to calls for help.

As for being investigated for no reason, well duh people don't like that. From the article it doesn't even sound like they were getting tickets or anything, just verbal warnings from their superiors (at least as far as the speeding went). You'll forgive me if I'm unsympathetic?

Nothing in the police world is verbal. It would amaze me if they weren't getting written reprimands.

I'm pretty much used to it. I didn't work for a union. Command staff could actually pull my dashcam up and stream it when I didn't even have it activated.

That didn't really bother me. The thing that did (which they denied) was that I truly believe they were pulling in car audio. They said they weren't. Now I have no problem whatsoever with them monitoring in car audio when I have a suspect in the car. That's perfectly acceptable. My issue was them listening in on a phone conversation I may have been having just while out patrolling, without my knowledge.

Yeah, and I don't like my boss having access to my email and web browsing records while at work, but that's too damn bad because it's their equipment and I'm their employee, so they have every right to monitor those things to make sure I'm doing my job properly.

As to your second point, I highly doubt they're issuing reprimands for speeding in emergent situations which required their immediate presence. The LPOA comment you cited is their stated complaint, but do you really think they'd come out and say, "We have a huge problem with reprimanding our officers when they break traffic laws on their way to court or lunch?" I'd be very curious as to what percentage of the reprimands fell under the category that the LPOA cited.

Lol Dallas Morning News walling off half an article that doesn't even go half a page.

The original article was significantly longer and more detailed.

The original article now appears to be unpaywalled

Or not...

try http://www.dallasnews.com/news/commu...complaints.ece

it works for me I dunno lol dot jpg

Right, it's like a trucking company that keeps trackers on their trucks. If the driver is speeding and it shows on the tracking logs, it's perfectly okay for the company to discipline the driver. If a cop isn't responding to a call, and their employer notices that they were speeding, it's perfectly legitimate for that cop to get written up for it.

No. FWIW It's probably IP based.

Don't you live in TX?

Sorry to break the streak of no bad/strange /sometimes good police news but

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/05...y-officer.html

But if you take off the uniform and do the same thing, you get judges telling you that your actions are "outrageous," "shock the conscious," and question your mental health. Then you go to jail (for longer than the prosecution asked for): http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamasc...l_time_fo.html

man that sux, i just want to point out that this
is completely false and that also pistols use magazines not clips.

What's the difference between a magazine and a clip?

16 in the clip and 1 in the hole?

So I'm guessing that Warren G really had 16 in a magazine

Doesn't roll off the tongue as well though. Maybe "16 in the mag and one in the hole."

I could be a rapper.

16 rounds of 9 millimeter ammunition contained in a magazine that is placed in a firearm that already has a round in the chamber/
Nathaniel Dwayne Hale is going to aim the firearm at people and pull the trigger, causing said people to have a lower body temperature either due to shock from gun shot wounds or death.

truly excellent

Serving time for legal gun ownership

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ers/55585176/1

Ugh sickening