Police Academy II - hypocrits on patrol

[johnb]

So last Wednesday afternoon I was driving down Maynard, from Kildaire Farm Road towards Cary Town Center Mall.

Right in front of me is a Cary cop....license plate number recorded....he is driving in excess of the posted speed limit from the time we passed the funeral home near Greenwood Forest Baptist Church until we pass Cary High. Of course, this is simply the way the CPD operates, traffic laws apply to their victims. What got me was that this guy is driving down Maynard, in excess of the posted speed limit, while talking on his friggin' cell phone.

That stretch of Maynard is VERY profitable for the CPD, they nail (no pun intended) high school kids with their impromptu speed trap near the White Plains UMC annex building mornings, lunch, and immediately after school quite regularly. Kids being kids, they don't seem to ever figure it out. However, my teenager quickly noticed that the cop in front of us was driving in a reckless fashion (driving while chatting on the cell phone). What does the law call it? Distracted driving?

Makes me wonder how many Cary High students have gotten citations this school year for driving 5 - 10 mph over the posted speed limit and driving while distracted by a cell phone. Insurance companies run tv and radio ads denouncing this unsafe practice.

Funny how hypocrisy works.

[kellyc]

Without knowing the specifics of why this officer was driving so fast...I can give you a little background info.


There are 3 ways they drive their cars on dispatches..

Code 1 is normal drivng, no lights
Code 2 is speedy driving, no lights except thru intersections. Lights are turned on and their button to change the light to green is flipped on.
Code 3Which is lights and sirens and the works.

A lot of times the officers will use their cell phones to communicate with one another...especially on domestic calls (which they do not want to go to in a code 3) or any kind of raids. They dont want people to be listening in on scanners and hearing where they are approaching. They also sometimes need to get somewhere fast, but dont want the bad guys to hear them coming. They arent like the fire deparment, its not always a good idea to announce you are on your way. So without knowing the specifics I would not judge the officer. However if it is that important to you, you can always call the watch commander and lodge a complaint.

Kelly

[johnb]

Code 1 is normal drivng, no lights
Code 2 is speedy driving, no lights except thru intersections. Lights are turned on and their button to change the light to green is flipped on.
Code 3Which is lights and sirens and the works.

True, but irrelevant. He has to be responding to a call in order for him to LEGALLY be allowed to drive contrary to the posted traffic regulations (speed limit, yield, stop, etc...)

He was not responding to a call as he stopped at the red lights on Maynard at Kildaire Farm Road and on Maynard at Walnut Street.

He was just casually driving/patrolling.

None of this would matter a hill of beans, EXCEPT that our Chief of Police / Head Gas Bag, runs his mouth off every so often announcing a "zero tolerance policy" for minor traffic infractions. He talks a good game but the talk doesn't match the actions of his employees. These actions of city employees make a mockery of the Gas Bag's "Zero Tolerance" campaigns. They're actually not "zero" tolerance, they're "certain people can drive in violation of traffic laws but not most" fund raisers.

However if it is that important to you, you can always call the watch commander and lodge a complaint.

Worthless. What Cary does in that situation is, blatantly outside of the law. The city will do nothing. The matter is handled as a "personnel matter" so that they can hide it. If it were otherwise the public could see the records of what was done. I spoke with the NC attorney general's office a couple of years ago on this topic. At length they admitted that there is, in fact, no basis in law in the state of NC for Bill Coleman and Windbag Hunter to treat violations of the law, traffic or otherwise, as a personnel matter for munincipal employees. When pressed the NC Attorney General's office cannot provide any statutory authority for Coleman/Hunter to behave the way they do and will admit as much.

The point being, the law is NOT applicable to everyone in the city of Cary and that is simply not going to change. What's more, the hypocrisy of allowing the law enforcers to violate the law at will creates nothing but contempt for the law among their victims. It's especially troubling to have this behaviour demonstrated by a cop in front of Cary High while the athletes and other students who stay late are leaving. It sends a powerful message and let me assure you, those kids are young, they're not blind or stupid.

[Wuptdo]

JohnB,

I don't know what is worse, the double-standard for government officials or the "open for business" sign left on by the local DA's. However, here is a related story about the one and only true law enforcement officer in North Carolina (and his fall from grace).

http://newsobserver.com/editorials/story/3598553p-3199895c.html


According to the Sears man who is refacing my cabinets (he lives in Davidson County); Sheriff Hege took the "bullet" for his wife, who was actually running his various trust funds. However, in the big picture, this had nothing to do with law enforcement, it was politics. Sheriff Hege was becoming a local folk here to many (Walking Tall type) and there was a "fear" that he would seek higher office -- and maybe clean house in the process. (How else would the Davidson Co. DA have access to two SBI agents?) There is much more to this case, but let us say, that today is yet another sad day for North Carolina.

Wuptdo B-)

[Don]

So last thursady evening I was reading the postings on Cary Politics.

Right in front of me is a post from johnb.....avatar recorded....he is bitching in excess of the posted bitch limit from the time his post started until it finished. Of course, this is the way johnb operates, forum laws apply only to his victims. What got me was this guy was bitching about our local law enforcement with no facts to back up his accusations of violation, only assumption

Johnb's stretch of imagination is VERY admirable. Unfortunately sometimes his imagination is skewed by hate or ignorance. johnb being johnb, he'll probably never realize our police department is here to protect and serve US, and that they are human too. My teenager quickly noticed that johnb was in fact bitching ("assuming" the officer was guilty without proof). What does the law call it? Innocent until proven guilty?

Makes me wonder how many abusive and/or disrespectful people the Cary Police have to deal with on a daily basis. How many complaints are filed against an officer when in fact the citizen is wrong or at fault? Somebody needs to run an ad about respect and what happens when you "assume".

[johnb]

You are correct Don. The two of us driving right behind the Cary cop didn't see him drivng down Maynard, including right past Cary High School with his cell phone on his ear.

You are correct again, the two of us were incapable of looking at the speedometer and at the road sign which posted the current speed limit.

You are also correct in something else, NEVER will that cop or any other cop in Cary have to worry about it. He'll always be "innocent" because no matter how many people see a Cary cop driving recklessly and complain about it it will NEVER be allowed to go in front of a judge. They short circuit the process. Your statement is technically correct, but it is correct because the laws don't apply to everyone equally in Cary. I do hope you can understand that Don. That, however, does not mean (in this case) that that cop was not driving over the posted speed limit nor does it mean he wasn't chatting on his cell phone while doing it. It just means Coleman and Windy won't ever let it get beyond their desks.

This is funny. The cops let you fire off a few rounds on full auto and now you seem ready to man the barricades for them. Gonna defend Cary High's SRO from last school year next? Sure the firing range can be fun but get a grip Don.

johnb being johnb, he'll probably never realize our police department is here to protect and serve US, and that they are human too.

Quite the contrary Don, I don't believe in deifying them simply because they wear a uniform. Attitudes like yours are dangerous. Corrupt cops require people who think as you do.

What's more, they create contempt for the law when the hold themselves above and beyond it. Police scandal after police scandal all across this nation on a regular and recurring basis should demonstrate to you the fact that they are mere mortals and in fact are probably no less likely to commit a crime than any other average citizen on the street.

It's just hypocritical for the chief to scream "Zero Tolerance" while his subordinates are driving in fashion that would get your teenager ticketed if caught droving the way that cop did in front of Cary High.

[johnb]

I dunno Wup, he seems to have had an attitude that coming from a cop would bother me:

That must have been preferable, in his view, to fighting a total of 15 felony counts (13 were dropped in the plea deal) and taking a chance on conviction and confinement. Affidavits collected in the course of an SBI investigation alleged racial profiling, misuse of money, intimidation of employees. The picture that emerged as a result of that investigation seemed to be one of an autocratic leader who tolerated no dissent. Hege's self-promotion couldn't have helped. He had an office like a military bunker. Charges and allegations were detailed in an N&O story Tuesday. The Dispatch of Lexington also did a thorough job on the Hege case.

Seems he had a heck of a fascination with the military, loved the camo, the weapons, his office was made up to look like a bunker. That fixation strikes me as being unhealthy. Combined with his apparent "I'm above the law" mentality, that sets off alarm bells.

Seems the Sherriff there forgot he was nothing more than a cop. He doesn't prosecute. He doesn't sentence. He doesn't decide guilt or innocence. He was just a cop. Nothing more. His rhetoric seems to indicate he thought he was judge, jury, and prison warden. To that I would say, good riddance.

[kellyc]

It's just hypocritical for the chief to scream "Zero Tolerance" while his subordinates are driving in fashion that would get your teenager ticketed if caught droving the way that cop did in front of Cary High.

John

I think you are full of donkeycrat crap. The only way that the Cary Police can know if there is a rogue officer is if citizens complain. The first time the officer can probably explain it away. But if a pattern of call after call is made by different people, its a different story and the burden of proof tilts towards the officer. Some officer's probably have lead foots just as the rest of us do.

The point of the matter is that unlike many police departments, the TOC Police department seems to be overwhelmingly staff with good people. When is the last time you heard about an officer stealing out of the evidence room? Do you know that there has never been a person shot by an officer in Cary. The bank robbery was the first time that they actually exchanged fire with someone. These guys have to be getting something right.

Kelly

[johnb]

No one suggested the majority of the staff of the Cary PD was good, bad or indifferent Kelly, your point is meaningless.

Whether there is a "rogue" cop or there is an endemic, casual disregard for "minor" breaches of the law is a good question. Pro-police organizations such as the Institute for Justice, have studies documenting the fact that police won't turn other cops in for what they deem to be "minor" infractions. This, of course, begs the question, what is minor?

Hypocrisy ranks real low on the values scale with me. If the beat cops are going to casually disregard the letter of the law, read that carefully Kelly and Don - the two of you seem to have a real hard time accepting criticisms of your new buddies, the Chief of Police better not jack his jaws about "Zero Tolerance" and making threatening noises about all infractions of the posted traffic laws being cited in Cary.

You cannot have both. Either we have "Zero Tolerance" or we don't. Period. Either the law applies to everyone with equal ferocity or it doesn't. Period.

The standard operating procedure the City of Cary has adopted to handle these matters is one that is: 1-not endorsed or established by law and 2-designed to prevent any public disclosure of these events.

You make the crazed assertion that the public needs to be protected from "rogue" cops and that they should be reported. The process is designed to ensure the public cannot be made aware of what is going on. Personnel matters of gov't employees are NOT public records Kelly, that is why the city insists on handling these matters in that fashion. This is not an open and transparent process they have in place, by design. The purpose is to conceal and obfuscate. Whether one cop gets reported 1 time of 50 times is irrelevant. "The public" would NEVER find out about it and that cop is effectively protected from the law.

Last time you got pulled over for a ticket did the cop cite you or call your boss?

We had one cop in Wake County killed this year by his own reckless driving in violation of established traffic control laws. That incident is proof positive that these folks are quite capable of and on occasion do in fact drive in a fashion that would justify the issuance of a traffic citation.

The problem is not that one cop, some number of cops, or all cops behave like this. The problem is there is no means to police the police, there is no way to protect the public from the law being mocked.

[Don]

You are correct Don. The two of us driving right behind the Cary cop didn't see him drivng down Maynard, including right past Cary High School with his cell phone on his ear.

You are correct again, the two of us were incapable of looking at the speedometer and at the road sign which posted the current speed limit.

You are also correct in something else, NEVER will that cop or any other cop in Cary have to worry about it. He'll always be "innocent" because no matter how many people see a Cary cop driving recklessly and complain about it it will NEVER be allowed to go in front of a judge. They short circuit the process. Your statement is technically correct, but it is correct because the laws don't apply to everyone equally in Cary. I do hope you can understand that Don. That, however, does not mean (in this case) that that cop was not driving over the posted speed limit nor does it mean he wasn't chatting on his cell phone while doing it. It just means Coleman and Windy won't ever let it get beyond their desks.

This is funny. The cops let you fire off a few rounds on full auto and now you seem ready to man the barricades for them. Gonna defend Cary High's SRO from last school year next? Sure the firing range can be fun but get a grip Don.

johnb being johnb, he'll probably never realize our police department is here to protect and serve US, and that they are human too.

Quite the contrary Don, I don't believe in deifying them simply because they wear a uniform. Attitudes like yours are dangerous. Corrupt cops require people who think as you do.

What's more, they create contempt for the law when the hold themselves above and beyond it. Police scandal after police scandal all across this nation on a regular and recurring basis should demonstrate to you the fact that they are mere mortals and in fact are probably no less likely to commit a crime than any other average citizen on the street.

It's just hypocritical for the chief to scream "Zero Tolerance" while his subordinates are driving in fashion that would get your teenager ticketed if caught droving the way that cop did in front of Cary High.

I'm dangerous? Ha ha, that's a good one. Yes you saw him on the phone. Yes you saw him exceeding the speed limit. But do you know where he was going? Do you know who he was talking to? You assumed. I agree with Kelly. "If" you feel so strongly about this, lodge a complaint.

This is funny. The cops let you fire off a few rounds on full auto and now you seem ready to man the barricades for them. Gonna defend Cary High's SRO from last school year next? Sure the firing range can be fun but get a grip Don.

FYI, I went to college to become a law enforcement officer and have ALWAYS held a high level of respect for them. This was the biggest reason I enrolled in the academy. I am ready to man the barricades for anyone publicly assaulted without all the facts. Again, inncocent until proven guilty. Or don't Libertarians believe in that? This thought process seems dangerous to me.

[johnb]

It's unfortunate your judgement is so clouded Don.

There are thousands of men across America who were sexually abused by priests when they were younger. All because of the attitude, then held, that left the priests unaccountable, above reproach, and beyond justice.

Before you get sanctimonious, it's a very valid comparison. Both were granted a degree of trust normally not granted to others based solely upon their employment and were given wide lattitude to resolve disputes and decide matters of conduct. Neither deserved the level of trust they were granted, not because they were all evil, but because they were and are all human.

Your attitude is dangerous Don. There is a young girl in Apex who was, quite probably, sexually molested by an Apex cop. That police chief is doing the same thing with that case that Cary does with traffic issues. She has a double burden. Her accusations will go nowhere and justice will probably be denied. If you really want to pretend the uniform makes the wearer a saint, be my guest, but how dare you demand others join you in that fantasy.

"If" you feel so strongly about this, lodge a complaint.

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result each time. I reported two incidents to the CPD in the past. An investigation of the process demonstrated that further reporting is, in fact, pointless.

The problem is not the lack of reporting, it is the process. So before you go off again on this "innocent til proven guilty" red herring, think Don, think carefully...the issue of guilt vs innocense in this matter can NEVER be decided since it ends at Windy Hunters desk. He isn't a judge nor is he a jury.

Frankly, I'd like to see the State Police set up an undercover unit to follow munincipal and county cops/deputies citing their traffic violations and other transgressions. If they are going to enforce the law they should live by it. If they can't or won't live by it, well, have fun elsewhere.

[johnb]

I'm dangerous? Ha ha, that's a good one. Yes you saw him on the phone. Yes you saw him exceeding the speed limit. But do you know where he was going? Do you know who he was talking to? You assumed.

Actually, no. You see, he is allowed to violate the posted traffic laws IF he is responding to a call.

Was he? Well, since he was traveling 5 mph over the posted speed limit and stopped through two red lights it makes highly unlikely he was responding to a call Don. Of course, don't let that critical thinking process get in the way of your defense of your new pards there. You know, you could join the Reserves and get to fire automatic weapons til you have an M60 cooking off a belt of ammo. That's fun too.

Most reasonable people would understand that a cop responding to a call would either have his lights on or would be driving in a fashion that makes it clear he is in a hurry to get somewhere. Stopping at red lights and travling 40 in a 35......possible, much like Montreal going to the World Series this year I suppose, but not a reasonable thing to believe.

Besides, when did driving while talking on a cell phone ever become a good idea? You now endorse it generally or only for some people?

If the cops need it, the city should buy them a headset for hands free use rather than leave them as is where they 1-present a danger to other drivers - same as anyone else driving while talking on a cell phone and 2-demonstrate the infamous family value of "hypocrisy" to high school aged drivers as this particular cop did in his drive past CHS in front of the kids leaving the high school.

[Don]

It is unfortunate that you stereotype all our police officers based on cases of "some" who have broken the law. It is really unfortunate that you chose to compare this with the scandals of priests as well.

When the heck did I say wearers of a police uniform were saints? I said YOU were making accusations based on assumptions, and now are making accusations based on the stereotypes YOU have of police officers.

Frankly, I'd like to see the State Police set up an undercover unit to follow munincipal and county cops/deputies citing their traffic violations and other transgressions. If they are going to enforce the law they should live by it. If they can't or won't live by it, well, have fun elsewhere.

I thought you just said officers would never turn in other officers?

It is unfortunate YOUR judgement is so clouded John.

[johnb]

I thought you just said officers would never turn in other officers?

Actually, that's something the National Institute for Justice found in a study it commissioned on the subject.

The study examined cops within a department. Whether that "professional courtesy" extends across department lines is not proven. Besides, I don't believe it would be difficult to incentivize an undercover unit to tackle the job. Their pay raises could be funded from the court costs collected from the resulting from the convictions.

We cannot leave the police unpoliced themselves. Surely accountability isn't a thing to be feared Don.

[dhyatt]

[snip]

Frankly, I'd like to see the State Police set up an undercover unit to follow munincipal and county cops/deputies citing their traffic violations and other transgressions. If they are going to enforce the law they should live by it. If they can't or won't live by it, well, have fun elsewhere.

Who's gonna' watch the State Police??? The SBI? Who will watch them? The FBI?? etc...etc...etc... (to quote the King of Siam)

[Don]

I'm dangerous? Ha ha, that's a good one. Yes you saw him on the phone. Yes you saw him exceeding the speed limit. But do you know where he was going? Do you know who he was talking to? You assumed.

Actually, no. You see, he is allowed to violate the posted traffic laws IF he is responding to a call.

Do you know for sure he wasn't? Answer the question

Was he? Well, since he was traveling 5 mph over the posted speed limit and stopped through two red lights it makes highly unlikely he was responding to a call Don. Of course, don't let that critical thinking process get in the way of your defense of your new pards there. You know, you could join the Reserves and get to fire automatic weapons til you have an M60 cooking off a belt of ammo. That's fun too.

Only if I get to shoot at you john. Your accusation that my support of Cary PD is based on a day at the range is hilarious. get real youself.

Most reasonable people would understand that a cop responding to a call would either have his lights on or would be driving in a fashion that makes it clear he is in a hurry to get somewhere. Stopping at red lights and travling 40 in a 35......possible, much like Montreal going to the World Series this year I suppose, but not a reasonable thing to believe.

Really? did you know Cary PD is NOT allowed to chase another vehicle? Did you know cary PD will use cell phones or other means of communication to avoid the possibility of criminals hearing them on a scanner they purchased at Radio Shack for this very reason? would you rather an officer responding to a call exceed the speed limit by 30 miles per hour without lights and siren? If they run the lights and siren, the criminals might hear them coming. Maybe he was responding to something not life threatening and felt 5mph without lights and siren was safe. maybe you don't know enough of Cary's policies to form an accurate case?

Besides, when did driving while talking on a cell phone ever become a good idea? You now endorse it generally or only for some people?

If it means a bad guy doesn't know Cary PD is coming, I endorse it.

If the cops need it, the city should buy them a headset for hands free use

great idea.

[johnb]

It is unfortunate that you stereotype all our police officers based on cases of "some" who have broken the law. It is really unfortunate that you chose to compare this with the scandals of priests as well.

I don't believe "all" Cary police are anything, well, I guess I do believe they are all employed by the City and they all work for Windy Hunter. But as far as making value judgements about them, nowhere have I done anything of the sort. The process in quesiton is deeply flawed and there are some CPD'ers who clearly don't abide by Hunters "Zero Tolerance" policy with respect to their own driving. The fact that I am willing to scorch a miscreant or two in order to prove a the point does not equate to my stereotyping anyone. You are throwing stuff at the wall hoping something sticks Don.

I suppose everyone could ignore reality and pretend all cops are honest, law abiding, etc... etc.... and that might make you happy. But it wouldn't demonstrate a sensible attitude on the subject.

As for the scandal with the priests, it actually a very apt comparison. As someone who went to a Catholic grade school I found the awe and reverence accorded the priests to be matched only by that accorded to cops. My illusions shattered back then. One of the kids in school had a father who was a cop who was busted for running a fencing operation. He also had an interest in a Shell gas station that sold Standard Oil (for those of you old enough to remember) motor oil, Marathon windshield wiper fluid, tires, batteries, and so on. It took awhile but someone finally got suspicious as to why the Shell station sold only branded stuff from other stations.

Doesn't mean all cops are theives. I don't believe that now or then. But it does mean they are completely human, they are capable of being crimminals, and there are in fact some that are active miscreants. It is foolish to act as if every infraction is the first time you've ever heard an accusation against a cop and that all cops are as pure as the driven snow. Do a google search on LAPD and Rampart my friend. Read up and enjoy.

[johnb]

Do you know for sure he wasn't? Answer the question

Unless the car he was chasing was invisible I'd have to go with yes I know he wasn't. On Maynard at Kildaire Farm Road he was first at the light and I was behind him. As we travelled down the road no one passed us, as they typically don't when it's a cop in front. Seeing how he stopped at Walnut at a red light with me behind him again and no one in front of him I'm going to have to suggest to you that if he was actively chasing anyone that car was either VERY VERY SMALL or quite invisible.

If it means a bad guy doesn't know Cary PD is coming, I endorse it.

I have no doubt Don. There is a reason we have laws. It's that funny bit in the Constitution about equal protection and all that. If it's unsafe for you or I to do it I'm afraid I don't see why it's less unsafe for a cop to do it. If it were just a question of a cop hurting himself or herself that would be a separate matter, but it isn't. It's like drunk driving. Distracted or impaired driving hurts other people. It'll be someone fumbling over a cell phone that slams into a minivan full of kids going to soccer practice, for instance. Perhaps we can query Steve, he's up on traffic stats and unsafe driving. How many people annually are injured or even killed by drivers who are on the phone while driving?

maybe you don't know enough of Cary's policies to form an accurate case?

You're grasping at straws Don. I once did call CPD for a munincipal vehicle that was being driven erratically, dangerously even, the driver cut across three lanes of traffic on Cary Park way at High House, far right to left turn lane. Swerving all over the place, lights not on...etc...

Dispatch knew the answer right away, it was a Raleigh k9 unit going to a call where a suspect had escaped custody and he was lost. When they have a legitimate excuse, they provide it. That's fine. That was 1 time. It's easy to tell when the cop is wrong, that's when they try to forward you to the duty officer.

[Don]

Lived in the LA area for 18 years, no need. I have heard plenty of cases where officers were in fact criminals. The good knews is I heard about it so therefore the info was public, and they were disciplined, fired, etc...

If you don't stereotype, then why the need to lash out at an officer who you "assumed" broke the law (which was driving 5 mph over the speed limit by the way)? Why not focus on something with a little more substance such as the issue in Apex? Why call Cary PD or Chief Hunter a Hypocrit? Was Windy in the car with the officer? What is the "real" issue here?

[Don]

Do you know for sure he wasn't? Answer the question

Unless the car he was chasing was invisible I'd have to go with yes I know he wasn't. On Maynard at Kildaire Farm Road he was first at the light and I was behind him. As we travelled down the road no one passed us, as they typically don't when it's a cop in front. Seeing how he stopped at Walnut at a red light with me behind him again and no one in front of him I'm going to have to suggest to you that if he was actively chasing anyone that car was either VERY VERY SMALL or quite invisible.

I wasn't only refering to chases. What about a call for service? What about a domestic disturbance?

If it means a bad guy doesn't know Cary PD is coming, I endorse it.

I have no doubt Don. There is a reason we have laws. It's that funny bit in the Constitution about equal protection and all that. If it's unsafe for you or I to do it I'm afraid I don't see why it's less unsafe for a cop to do it. If it were just a question of a cop hurting himself or herself that would be a separate matter, but it isn't. It's like drunk driving. Distracted or impaired driving hurts other people. It'll be someone fumbling over a cell phone that slams into a minivan full of kids going to soccer practice, for instance. Perhaps we can query Steve, he's up on traffic stats and unsafe driving. How many people annually are injured or even killed by drivers who are on the phone while driving?

Considering the amount of technology the officers have to fumble with in their patrol cars, him talking on a cell phone i find SAFER than many of his other options such as the computer. Would you rather he emailed another officer while driving? What is the difference between talking on the mic or phone?

[kellyc]

John

Just wanted you to know about my ride along tonight. We were on our way to what was told to us to be a car accident. While no one was injured, we needed to get there fairly quick because it was between the intersection of Tryon and Cary Parkway. THe officer was speeding, no lights, and stopped at every stoplight. Sound familiar?

Kelly

[johnb]

Kelly,

They can certainly fabricate a reason why the law does not apply to them or why every circumstance they ever find themselves in is covered by an exemption to law for emergency responses. I have no doubt about that. It only begs the question: when does the law ever apply to them? You and Don are going to make any and all excuses and blow nothing but smoke to cover for your new friends. When a Cary cop is wounded or killed in a wreck in a fashion similar to that Wake County Deputy was when he was out joy riding in his squad car I'll be looking to hear you repeat all these excuses. Willful and continuous disregard for the law on the part of gov't agents engenders contempt for the law in their victims. It is unfortunate the chief of police doesn't coordinate his rhetoric on "Zero Tolerance" with his employees actions.

By the way, was your ride along believing he had to sneak up on the wreck for some reason? As has been said, they don't use the lights for a reason, they don't want to alert the bad guys. Technically, he may have broken the law. There was no need for him to go in silently. The provision for the police to violate posted traffic laws is there for a specific reason. If there is no emergency requiring stealth (armed robberty, domestic dispute, etc...) he shouldn't have been driving like that without his lights on. He puts other people at risk for his carelessness. The lights and siren are there not to make him look cool, they're there for public safety.

Of course, any suggestion that the officer should have obeyed the letter and spirit of the law in an effot to not degrade public safety will be condemned by the CPD's Halleleujah Chorus. Flail away.

[johnb]

Considering the amount of technology the officers have to fumble with in their patrol cars, him talking on a cell phone i find SAFER than many of his other options such as the computer. Would you rather he emailed another officer while driving? What is the difference between talking on the mic or phone?

So playing Russian Roulette with four rounds is "good" beause it's less a threat than Russian Roulette with six rounds?

That logic is bizarre.

I'd rather the cop in question NOT be trying to send an email or browse the web, etc... while he's driving. If he needs to "fumble" with all this extraneous gear he should have a partner in the car or pull over. That excuse is mind boggling. Let's hope your auto insurance agent doesn't ever read this thread.

[/b]

[kellyc]

Willful and continuous disregard for the law on the part of gov't agents engenders contempt for the law in their victims. It is unfortunate the chief of police doesn't coordinate his rhetoric on "Zero Tolerance" with his employees actions.

By the way, was your ride along believing he had to sneak up on the wreck for some reason? .

Once again the amount opf donkeycrat crap spewing from you is enough to fill up my flower beds. I am beginning to think you are nothing more than all talk and no action. Again, if this is happening I suggest you contact the watch commander. They do track the trends on complaints. Technically, I could just as easily hold YOU responsible if an officer has an accident? Why because you saw him driving wrecklessly before and did NOTHING to mitigatge the situation. You are as guilty as he is.

Secondly, the accident we went to had no injuries, and didnt really qualify as a true emergency. However the location, did warrant getting there, because of its size and potential to get worse.

Kelly

[Don]

Once again the amount opf donkeycrat crap spewing from you is enough to fill up my flower beds. I am beginning to think you are nothing more than all talk and no action.

I could use some good fertilizer too Kel. If you have any left over, send some my way.

[Don]

Considering the amount of technology the officers have to fumble with in their patrol cars, him talking on a cell phone i find SAFER than many of his other options such as the computer. Would you rather he emailed another officer while driving? What is the difference between talking on the mic or phone?

So playing Russian Roulette with four rounds is "good" beause it's less a threat than Russian Roulette with six rounds?

That logic is bizarre.

I'd rather the cop in question NOT be trying to send an email or browse the web, etc... while he's driving. If he needs to "fumble" with all this extraneous gear he should have a partner in the car or pull over. That excuse is mind boggling. Let's hope your auto insurance agent doesn't ever read this thread.

[/b]

You are right john. An officer should do NOTHING but drive and concentrate on the road while on patrol. If the phone rings, he should never answer it - if dispatch calls on the radio, he should ignore it until parked. The computer should be OFF all the time, the switches for lights should all be voice operated so his hands never leave the steering wheel.........................

Your logic is bizzare. While still very human, These are trained professionals that require certain equiptment to do their job. Yes, I trust an officer on a cell phone a hulluvalot more than your or my teenager.

You are really reaching here John, remember, this is all about an officer who was exceeding the speed limit by 5 mph while talking on the phone. (not knowing where he was going or who he was talking to). What happened? Did Chief Hunter give you a ticket or something? What's your real beef with Cary PD? You now suggest that every police car have 2 officers so they don't have to use a phone or radio? How much would your taxes go up for that?

[johnb]

You two have an amazing inability to actually grasp basic concepts here.

Don, you complain I am basically making a mountain out of a mole hill by pointing out "minor" speeding infractions and distracted driving issues.

To a point, I agree. However, we part company when the chief of police insists on mounting "Zero Tolerance" campaigns in which he demands his employees cite others for the very violations they commit with impugnity. Can you not see the hypocrisy of that scenario? I am not sure how much more blunt it can be made. You and Kelly both go to great lengths to dance around it and make excuses for the perps. Fine. It still leaves the bare hypocristy right where it started. Now, if you want to make wild accusations and what not in order to defend your new pards, be my guest. The point still stands.

If you want to see an example of this hypocrisy, ask Windy if the new red light camera generated tickets can be written against Cary cops. It would be easy to correlate a particular, possible, violation against the police log to verify whether or not the cop was actually responding to a call or just be a reckless driver. Every violation, however, will be deemed "in response to a call" as a matter of routine. Ask Don. I'm sure the hemming and hawing you get in response will suit your limited curiousity on the subject.

[Don]

You two have an amazing inability to actually grasp basic concepts here.

Don, you complain I am basically making a mountain out of a mole hill by pointing out "minor" speeding infractions and distracted driving issues.

No, I don't think I am the one doing the "complaining".

To a point, I agree. However, we part company when the chief of police insists on mounting "Zero Tolerance" campaigns in which he demands his employees cite others for the very violations they commit with impugnity. Can you not see the hypocrisy of that scenario? I am not sure how much more blunt it can be made. You and Kelly both go to great lengths to dance around it and make excuses for the perps. Fine. It still leaves the bare hypocristy right where it started. Now, if you want to make wild accusations and what not in order to defend your new pards, be my guest. The point still stands.

Did you see another officer around to observe accused violation and cite said offender? The police academy was more than machine guns john. I thought Kel and I tried to inform all of you about how involved and informative the class was. One thing we learned was how professional these officers are, and how seriously they all seemed to take their job. We learned about internal affairs and these processes officers DO go through when complaints are filed. We learned who is responsible for what officers and when. Seeing that Cary has a LOWER officer to citizen rate than most muni's of it's size, how do you expect another officer tio always be around when John sees one "supposedly" break the law?

If you want to see an example of this hypocrisy, ask Windy if the new red light camera generated tickets can be written against Cary cops. It would be easy to correlate a particular, possible, violation against the police log to verify whether or not the cop was actually responding to a call or just be a reckless driver. Every violation, however, will be deemed "in response to a call" as a matter of routine. Ask Don. I'm sure the hemming and hawing you get in response will suit your limited curiousity on the subject.

Actually, someone in our class asked that very question, and the answer was YES. Would it happen? Remains to be seen. BTW, Have you ever seen an officer blow a red light while not having lights and siren on? I haven't. I'm sure you have though.

If you like, we can agree to disagree on this and move on.

[johnb]

I don't expect a second officer to be around.

I expect though that in cases where two or more citizens observe an infraction on the part of a cop that that would be handled the same way other possible crimes are handled when a cop isn't a witness. A call is placed, the cop is dispatched and the complaint taken down.

If you call animal control to report your neighbors dog running loose and that is a repetitive problem the owner refuses to amend, in cases where animal control officers don't see the alleged crime they can cite the owner and you then have to show up in court to testify. 1 on 1 with no supporting evidence would go nowhere, however, if you have a witness or two or photographic evidence the judge has some basis to find against the defendent. There is no reason cases of this nature should be any different.

What your pards have now is a situation where there is no one policing the police. I understand the police don't want that situation amended. It is, however, not in the best interests of the citizens to allow that to continue. Nothing good can ever come of it. Too many police scandals across this nation attest to that.

With that, I'm out.

[JeffC]

I propose we deputize all Cary citizens that are not currently police officers. Of course, before we do this, we should probably train everyone. I guess we could send everyone to the police academy in Raleigh, but I imagine that would be pretty pricey. Why don't we just send everyone to Wake Tech to get an associates in Criminal Justice. Let's see, each person will need to take about 17 courses, or 68 credit hours, to graduate. At approx. $32 dollars per credit hour, that will be about $2100 per person, or $210,000,000 for the population of Cary (based on 100,000 people - and yes, we might as well train the kids). Yikes, we're talking some real money now. But at least then John could whip out his little ticket book, and write a ticket anytime he witnesses a traffic violation.

Oh yeah. John. When you observed the police officer allegedly exceeding the speed limit, how did you verify the officer's speed? Do you have a police calibrated radar gun? If so, I'd like to borrow it sometime and use it over by my house. Without the radar gun, I suppose you could have estimated the speed of the patrol car by timing the car as it moved from point a to point b, but I thought that you said were riding behind the car. If that is the case, then the only other way to estimate the speed would be to track the car (i.e.: travel at the exact same speed as the car in front of you). Of course, wouldn't you also be violating the speed limit as well. I'm sure you would have turned yourself into the police for the traffic violation, if that was the case. If you do end up with a traffic citation, I suggest you fight it from the inaccurate equipment angle (i.e.: broken speedometer). Maybe you could get Don to help you out on that one. Even better, you could claim that the witness to the violation is mentally unstable, and therefore an unreliable witness. Oh, but that witness would be you wouldn't it...maybe you should just stick with the inaccurate equipment.

Oh well, enough for tonight. Goodnight, and dream of a day when everyone in Cary is a cop...ahh...tickets galore.

Jeff

[johnb]

Glad to see the CPD here.

[Don]

Maybe you could get Don to help you out on that one.

Nope. :wink:

[johnb]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5700440836&category=1498

Video cameras have saved a lot of people from some very bad cops. Radar guns for sale on Ebay, will cause other cops to behave in disreputable ways when they're caught. ;)

Radar guns are cheap, plentiful, and easy to get calibrated. Plus, they're not just for checking a pitchers fastball.

[JeffC]

Glad to see the CPD here.


Sorry to disappoint you John but I am not a cop, nor am I affilliated with any law enforcement agency. Don H can confirm this. I do however have a CJ degree, but work in the private sector. You know the story, better pay, better hours, no holiday work, and you don't really have to worry about the pesky little things, like: getting shot, or stabbed, or otherwise assaulted, getting spit on/thrown up on, or basically dealing with the lowest common denominator in human behavior.

Sure I've been pulled over before (never got a ticket though, knock on wood), but I tend to cut cops some slack. Not the beating Rodney King kind of slack, but I really don't get too hopped up when I see a cop going I few miles over the speed limit. After all, I am not in their car, so I really don't know the circumstances.

Thump Thump Thump Thump Thump...I hear the black helicopters coming...they're coming round the bend...they're going to pick up Johnny... and take him to Abu Gharib...

Just a little diddy to start off the day.

Jeff

[Brent]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5700440836&category=1498

Video cameras have saved a lot of people from some very bad cops. Radar guns for sale on Ebay, will cause other cops to behave in disreputable ways when they're caught. ;)

Radar guns are cheap, plentiful, and easy to get calibrated. Plus, they're not just for checking a pitchers fastball.

Interesting facts.

But you didn't answer JeffC's question.

[Brent]

maybe you don't know enough of Cary's policies to form an accurate case?

Don, you know that this doesn't stop JohnB. After he completes the Citizens Police Academy, I'll pay some attention to what he has to say on this topic. 'Til then, it's just the usual ranting.

[johnb]

It's amazing....some of you can get quite emotional when it comes to running interference for your friends there at city hall. I didn't realize having a politician know your name meant that much to some of you.

Simple observation by two people of the driving patterns of a Cary cop elicits all sorts of hyperventilating and emotionally distraught people making ad hominem attacks in order to divert attention away from the ultimate point of my post.

Again, Chief Hunter says "Zero Tolerance", his employees don't abide by that policy.

Brent, can the sanctimonious self-righteousness. Whether I shoot off a few rounds on full auto with the CPD at the rifle range or not is not going to change the fact that Hunter demands "Zero Tolerance" while certain of his employees violate the same. Attack me if you wish Brent but the point stands.

So, unless you guys are going to deny Hunter has ever articulated a "Zero Tolerance" policy for traffic infractions you really are doing nothing more than blowing smoke. So, that said, hyperventilate away, just don't get your panties in too tight a knot gentlemen.

[kellyc]

you really are doing nothing more than blowing smoke. So, that said, hyperventilate away, just don't get your panties in too tight a knot gentlemen.


Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black isnt it?

Kelly

[Don]

It's amazing....some of you can get quite emotional when it comes to running interference for your friends there at city hall. I didn't realize having a politician know your name meant that much to some of you.

Which politician have we ran interference for in this thread John? I believe we were standing up for Cary PD.

Simple observation by two people of the driving patterns of a Cary cop elicits all sorts of hyperventilating and emotionally distraught people making ad hominem attacks in order to divert attention away from the ultimate point of my post.

get real man. simple observation? sounded more like an assault to us.

So, unless you guys are going to deny Hunter has ever articulated a "Zero Tolerance" policy for traffic infractions you really are doing nothing more than blowing smoke. So, that said, hyperventilate away, just don't get your panties in too tight a knot gentlemen.

who said any of us wore underwear either? :-D More "assumptions"? 8-O

[johnb]

Jeffs question is pointless. Whether I drove at the same pace as the cop or I had a radar gun is immaterial. Neither I nor my employer is demanding Cary Police enforce a "Zero Tolerance" policy on traffic infractions. I'm not much of a fan of such poilices. These are the same types of non-thinking policies which, for example, would treat a high school girl who takes a bottle of Midol out of her purse to hand to another girl at school as a drug dealer, no different than if she had passed a valium or a joint to another student.

The point of the post, which you and a few others are trying desperately to conceal and ignore, is the hypocrisy inherent in a situation where the chief of police demands a "Zero Tolerance" policy, yet the officers he sends out to enforce that policy don't abide by it themselves. The fact that you cannot or will not understand or accept that that is inherently hypocritical says far more about where some of you have your nose than should be admitted.

Tell me Brent, exactly which laws should cops or other gov't employees be compelled to obey? Which are they free to ignore? Tell me, since you folks seem to be bent out of shape with a self-rightous indignation usually reserved for legitimate injustices, I really want to know. This should be good. See, I've always held to the belief that that 14th Amendment actually means something. I guess there are more than a few of you for whom the concept of equal protection under the law has little, if any value.

On a separate matter, I'm really curious what you will say when next a Cary cop is caught dealling drugs, extorting sexual favors from females, embezzlement, or other serious crimes. Given the fact that they are all human beings and that cops are caught on a regular, if not daily basis, all across this land committing crimes like those I cited, it will occur in Cary. Sooner or later we'll have a cop who gets caught. Some of you may have your illusions dashed. Others may imitate the cretins who defended the actions of the LAPD in the Rodney King case. It will be interesting to see. The fact that some percentage of people employed as cops are decent and honorable doesn't mean they all are. Nor should it be used as a justification to ignore the actions of those who aren't.

[kellyc]

On a separate matter, I'm really curious what you will say when next a Cary cop is caught dealling drugs, extorting sexual favors from females, embezzlement, or other serious crimes. Given the fact that they are all human beings and that cops are caught on a regular, if not daily basis, all across this land committing crimes like those I cited, it will occur in Cary. Sooner or later we'll have a cop who gets caught.

Except for the hottie, I expect them to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However none of us (including John) having any idea why the officer he has targeted was going 5 miles over the speed limit. It doesnt make us hypocritical. It means that we are giving him the benefit of the doubt. If he was going 5 miles over the speed limit, without a valid working reason....then again John is just as responsible for the officer's actions as the officer himself. John witnessed it, and did nothing to stop it. Its just like a bartender that witnesses a customer leaving drunk and does nothing to stop it. They both have some liability there.

Kelly

[johnb]

who said any of us wore underwear either?

I feel pretty confident in telling you that my day would have been fine without seeing that comment right before lunch. :roll:

[johnb]

Which politician have we ran interference for in this thread John? I believe we were standing up for Cary PD.

Isn't the CPD right there on the ground level of City Hall?

[johnb]

However none of us (including John) having any idea why the officer he has targeted was going 5 miles over the speed limit.

Kelly, given the fact that he stopped at two lights and was behind no one while travelling the plausible reason for his travelling the 5 over is the same reason most people do. He wasn't paying too much attention to the speedometer. It's a four lane road, recenly paved with a smooth surface and minimal traffic. It's easy to do. I'm not faulting HIM for the minor infraction other than to note his boss demands "ZERO TOLERANCE". Our standard can either be "Zero Tolerance" or it can be something else. "Zero Tolerance" is an exclusive standard. Period.

Two summers ago I spent some time with two Durham County deputies. While two of us were working on a car the second stopped by to visit periodically over a two week span of time. One day the visiting deputy was telling us a third deputy was pulling people over and citing them for out dated inspection stickers. The deputy I was working with said something that included an obscenity comparing that third deputy to a phallic symbol and stating he was an unreasonable person. I wouldn't expect all cops to be proponents of a "Zero Tolerance" policy. Anecdotally I have first hand instances demonstrating that that is not the case. However, being that they are all human there are some number of them who are unreasonable.

[Don]

who said any of us wore underwear either?

I feel pretty confident in telling you that my day would have been fine without seeing that comment right before lunch. :roll:

Bon appetite! :wink:

[kellyc]

Kelly, given the fact that he stopped at two lights and was behind no one while travelling the plausible reason for his travelling the 5 over is the same reason most people do. He wasn't paying too much attention to the speedometer. It's a four lane road, recenly paved with a smooth surface and minimal traffic. It's easy to do. I'm not faulting HIM for the minor infraction other than to note his boss demands "ZERO TOLERANCE".

Again with out knowing the specifics of what or where he was going, all you really can do is ASSUME.

Kelly

[JeffC]

exactly which laws should cops or other gov't employees be compelled to obey? Which are they free to ignore?

If you can provide some sort of evidence that the officer was in fact committing a violation, then he should be cited. And I am talking about providing evidence that a 1st year law student from the Inter-American University of Puerto Rico, could not decimate in about 30 seconds. The flimsy observation by someone (who obviously has an axe to grind) who is riding behind a cop, is not what I would call stellar evidence. Perhaps you should mount a video camera in your car, set up to record the data from the radar gun you are looking at buying. Evidence like that would be a bit more difficult to dispute.

I'm really curious what you will say when next a Cary cop is caught dealling drugs, extorting sexual favors from females, embezzlement, or other serious crimes.

Provided there is enough evidence to sustain an indictment, they should be treated like anyone else.

Jeff, who is nearly out of breath from hyperventilating

[johnb]

The flimsy observation by someone (who obviously has an axe to grind) who is riding behind a cop, is not what I would call stellar evidence. Perhaps you should mount a video camera in your car, set up to record the data from the radar gun you are looking at buying. Evidence like that would be a bit more difficult to dispute.

No it wouldn't. If someone, you for instance, finds it so easy to fabricate a defense against the witness of two people and a perfectly reliable speedometer through character attacks you'll find improbable reasons to denounce any and all evidence to support a charge against a cop. People like you defended Justin Volpe and you defended the LAPD in the King case, and you'll be there to do the same regardless of the evidence.

Truthfully Jeff, you think King deserved the beating he got don't you?

[JeffC]

I just typed "reliability of eye witness testimony" into my Google toolbar and came up with 42,800 hits. I did not actually read all of those hits (since I obviously do not have the time to put into research that you do), but I would be surprised if the vast majority did not say that eye witness testimony is unreliable. I know, I know, you saw what you saw, and you just had your speedometer calibrated, and you know that the police car's speedometer was just calibrated, and you know that the cop was talking to his mistress on the cell phone, and you know for a fact that the cop was driving to the donut shop instead of a legitimate call.

People like you defended Justin Volpe and you defended the LAPD in the King case, and you'll be there to do the same regardless of the evidence.

Truthfully Jeff, you think King deserved the beating he got don't you?

Trying to read my thoughts John? I thought that the CIA was the only agency that could read my thoughts, from the microchip they implanted in my brain. I guess I'll just have to wrap some more aluminum foil around my head. Do you have any to spare John?

Regardless of what you think, or the CIA has intercepted from my brain. I believe the officers involved in the King beating should have been thrown off the force, and served some real jail time. However, that is just my humble opinion.

Jeff

[johnb]

What is clearly established is that you have no point other than that you will make a lot of smoke and fury to shut down any critique of behaviour of the members of the CPD with respect to their bosses "Zero Tolerance" policy.

The standard you deride as being so unreasonable as to be within the realm of the conspiracy theories, is, oddly enough, a standard courts accept every day, even in Wake County. The testimony of a single cop, using nothing more for evidence other than his or her description of events drawn from his or her memory, perhaps jotted down, perhaps not,
is enough to guarantee a conviction against a civilian to such an extent that there is practically no defense possible.

This is hilarious, especially in light of the earlier claims that the cop in question is supposedly "innocent until proven guilty". You specifically seem incapable of thinking rationally. Of course he's "innocent" and he will always be, guilt can only be decided by a court and the current practice of the CPD and the city prevent matters such as this from ever getting to court. Your rant is circular. Not satisfied with the fact that these guys are merely above and beyond the law, or to quote Algor, beyond any "controlling legal authority", you now demand that the very means they employ against others to determine guilt be described as within the realm of the X files when used against them.

You've gone beyond being simply unreasonable and are now firmly entrenched in Mark's neighborhood, as such I reallly don't want to hear anymore about your fascination with Cary cops, their mistresses, and the CIA. Sub out the cops, the ho's, the CIA for Ashcroft, the FBI, and Halliburton and you two are a matched pair.

[Don]

No it wouldn't. If someone, you for instance, finds it so easy to fabricate a defense against the witness of two people and a perfectly reliable speedometer through character attacks you'll find improbable reasons to denounce any and all evidence to support a charge against a cop. People like you defended Justin Volpe and you defended the LAPD in the King case, and you'll be there to do the same regardless of the evidence.



John,
Are you 100% sure YOUR speedometer reads correctly? Are YOU 100% sure your tires are exactly the right diameter as designed for the vehicle? Even though your tires may be the right size, there are discrepecies between different tire manufacturers. This can cause speedometers to read incorrectly ya know. Is your speedometer cable controlled or sensor opperated? when was the last time you had YOUR speedometer calibrated? A lot of variables here that could cause a 5 mph discrepency. That's also one of the reasons an officer "Usually" won't stop someone for exceeding the speed limit by a few MPH. Just as I would not stop them. 10-15 MPH? Probably. Am I reaching here? Maybe, but not reaching as far as you.

Sounds to me like John has a "Zero Tolerance Policy" in regards to Cary PD. Sad.

[johnb]

You're right Don, except that it ain't MY policy, it's Chief Hunters policy.

When one throws down a gauntlet (the cops aren't the only ones or the worst in this regard *) the thrower better be VERY careful his or her gauntlet isn't thrown right back at them, as it was with Sherriff Hege this past week.

* schools are the worst and the "zero tolerance" policies they employ cause kids to be punished for having pocket knives, scissors with sharp ends, over the counter meds such as Midol or Benadryl, and a host of other nonsense....the announement of a "zero tolerance" (a "zero thinking") policy is an invite to watch the later humiliation of the announcer, someone usually gets bit in the ***.

[johnb]

Again with out knowing the specifics of what or where he was going, all you really can do is ASSUME.

As a closing though, Kelly, this may freak you and a lot of other people out. Ever heard of Ockham's Razor? Allow me:

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html


When a new set of facts requires the creation of a new theory the process is far from the orderly picture often presented in books. Many hypothses are proposed, studied, rejected. Researchers discuss their validity (sometimes quite heatedly) proposing experiments which will determine the validity of one or the other, exposing flaws in their least favorite ones, etc. Yet, even when the unfit hypotheses are discarded, several options may remain, in some cases making the exact same predictions, but having very different underlying assumptions. In order to choose among these possible theories a very useful tool is what is called Ockham's razor.

Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.

In many cases this is interpreted as ``keep it simple'', but in reality the Razor has a more subtle and interesting meaning. Suppose that you have two competing theories which describe the same system, if these theories have different predictions than it is a relatively simple matter to find which one is better: one does experiments with the required sensitivity and determines which one give the most accurate predictions. For example, in Copernicus' theory of the solar system the planets move in circles around the sun, in Kepler's theory they move in ellipses. By measuring carefully the path of the planets it was determined that they move on ellipses, and Copernicus' theory was then replaced by Kepler's.

But there are are theories which have the very same predictions and it is here that the Razor is useful. Consider from example the following two theories aimed at describing the motions of the planets around the sun

* The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance.
* The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance. This force is generated by the will of some powerful aliens.

Since the force between the planets and the sun determines the motion of the former and both theories posit the same type of force, the predicted motion of the planets will be identical for both theories. the second theory, however, has additional baggage (the will of the aliens) which is unnecessary for the description of the system.

If one accepts the second theory solely on the basis that it predicts correctly the motion of the planets one has also accepted the existence of aliens whose will affect the behavior of things, despite the fact that the presence or absence of such beings is irrelevant to planetary motion (the only relevant item is the type of force). In this instance Ockham's Razor would unequivocally reject the second theory. By rejecting this type of additional irrelevant hypotheses guards against the use of solid scientific results (such as the prediction of planetary motion) to justify unrelated statements (such as the existence of the aliens) which may have dramatic consequences. In this case the consequence is that the way planets move, the reason we fall to the ground when we trip, etc. is due to some powerful alien intellect, that this intellect permeates our whole solar system, it is with us even now...and from here an infinite number of paranoid derivations.

For all we know the solar system is permeated by an alien intellect, but the motion of the planets, which can be explained by the simple idea that there is a force between them and the sun, provides no evidence of the aliens' presence nor proves their absence.

A more straightforward application of the Razor is when we are face with two theories which have the same predictions and the available data cannot distinguish between them. In this case the Razor directs us to study in depth the simplest of the theories. It does not guarantee that the simplest theory will be correct, it merely establishes priorities.

A related rule, which can be used to slice open conspiracy theories, is Hanlon's Razor: ``Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity''.

I'm a big believer in Ockham's razor since observation demonstrates the stupidity of mankind is near limitless and repetition doesn't seem to drill the lessons home, we live in a Homer Simpson world. As such, Oswald killed JFK, Elvis is dead, there are no aliens at Area 51, and that cop was speeding for the same reason you and I and everyone else drives 5mph over the speed limit - he wasn't paying attention. It needs no convoluted conspiracies, no fairy tales, nor aliens.

[Don]

Anybody else see that UFO over town hall today?