My first experience with government civilian employment was an eye opener to be sure. My tenure as a 911 operator/supervisor years back taught me a whole lot about the mindset of many folk who tend to work in law enforcement in general. My findings were certainly confirmed on my in between jobs job last summer in a juvenile "supervision" facility. Something wrong with some of these govt honks. Something wrong indeed.
I used to work with one person by the name of Wiley, who believed that anyone who refused to have their address listed in the 911 system (you could do that back in the day) should be fined. She also was an advocate of field interrogations (interviews) where a police officer could just stop anyone anytime and conduct a search and even enter your dwelling on a whim. She told me this in person and I have not forgotten it. I, at the time, found this mindset both bizarre and dangerous to liberty. I still do and I am no longer a young buck. Oh. On a side note, this Wiley also proved to be a one of those who would stop at nothing to try to "get" anyone who she considered a danger to her "position" within the organization. I saw through her rather quickly while it took others a bit longer. All I worked with at the time recognized a problem (I hesitate to say evil) after a time. (She also appeared to be a typical cop "groupie" but that is perhaps another story for another time..)
What am I getting at exactly here other than taking a pot shot at one of the few people I have met that I truly detested? Not sure. Read on while I put things together. Shouldn't be too hard. Not writing a novel here, just blabbering ..........
Here in the Lone Star Republic some municipalities have been conducting a "no refusal" policy in order to combat driving while intoxicated. In other words, if an officer of the law has a suspicion that one may be intoxicated behind the wheel he/she can order the person to take a sobriety test. Sounds good right? We all know of the damage that some drunken fool who drives (although who among us is not guilty of that at least once in our life?) causes. Problem is, it is a violation of our rights concerning unreasonable search and seizure. Or do you disagree? If I told you that some of the sobriety "tests" included forced blood draws would you change your tune? Probably not. Still, in my mind this is a gross violation......
Still not convinced this is a wrong are you? Well what if a local yokel decides that he will just pull random drivers over just to meet his quota (of sorts) of checking driver sobriety? What is there to stop him? Cops tend to be notoriously lazy pricks (I can safely say this having vast knowledge on the subject) and that type of behavior could certainly become par for the course for many. (No, not just a few but the majority likely). How would you like to find yourself driving home from work, pulled over, and "asked" to do roadside calisthenics or, even worse, be forced to have your blood drawn and analyzed? What if you refused? Well off to the hoosegow you go. Sounds a bit Orwellian does it not?
But of course there are those who think that if they are not guilty then it is reasonable to be required to prove that when asked to do so by an "officer of the law." Those type folk are sheep......
Now there is some talk of "sobriety checkpoints" being set up in various locales throughout the region. Does this not bring to mind some third world country where armed thugs operate checkpoints? Perhaps a bit of a stretch comparing our country to the likes of say Syria. Yes a bit of a stretch.......
But you gotta start somewhere.
Oh this Wiley. She is a big wig last I heard in emergency communications. I hate to think how many folk she tried to damage in her mindless quest to reach the "top" of her "profession." Some people are like that. You can see that type in any profession I suppose and they are easy to recognize.
4 comments:
Most states, California being one, require you to sign an "implied consent" clause which says that you will agree to submit to sobriety testing when pulled over upon REASONABLE CAUSE to suspect drunk driving. That would include weaving, varying speed, etc. I have no problem with that. Pulling a driver over without cause just because the cop is behind on his quota is a BIG problem.
I also have no real problem with sobriety checkpoints. Several courts have found them legal, and reasonable cause still applies. All the checkpoint officer may do is hold a conversation with the driver and ask for license, insurance and registration. If, in the course of that conversation, he sees reasonable evidence that you are drunk...
The reasonable cause thing was a gray area for a long time. "I was not weaving," etc. Dashboard cameras on squad cars have pretty much taken care of that. If the cop does not have a video of you weaving, or whatever, you may get the ticket but are not going to be convicted if you fight it.
Oh, yes, about people screwing other people over.
I had a business partner thirty years ago that it turned out was screwing me over big time. We got into one of those "buy my half or sell me yours" battles which I finally realized was going to do nothing but make the lawyers rich, so I walked away from it. Lost something like half a million in assets.
I was contacted by the IRS a few years later wanting to know why something like $160,000 that he claimed he had paid to me had never showed up as income on my tax returns. Long story short, I was not only able to prove he was lying, but that he was doing so criminally. That was a very pleasant day.
A lot of lawyers advise that a person simply refuse to take these sobriety tests when confronted.(Especially if guilty) I don't know which I would do if pulled over for no probable cause. Risk a trip to the iron bar hotel or just bite the bullet and go through the humiliation.
It has always amazed me how many people there are in the workplace who like nothing more than to make others miserable.
I once worked with a witch named Margaret who made it her business to fuck with folks. There seemed to be no method to her madness other than just picking a different person here and there. One time she messed with the wrong person and an Asian man (who had a hard time with the English Language) had enough and went into her office and knocked shit out of her.
He did lose his job but nothing that involved police or lawyers ever ensued. He probably felt it was worth it.
The lawyers who advise refusal to take the sobriety tests are giving really bad advice. In states with implied consent, which is most of them, refusal to take the test is construed as an admission of guilt, and is the same as pleading guilty to the charge. No appeal is permitted when one pleads guilty.
Post a Comment