As If The Job Isn't Already Dangerous Enough....

[SB 405]

....poor guy has this happen to him yesterday.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=4358558

[makakona]

ho. ly. CRAP. if he were MY husband, he'd be dead anyway. how lucky he is that it was so minor an occurrence and thank god that little boy wasn't hurt. we've always had shotguns and rifles in the house, but now with so many handguns in the house (my husband inherited his dad's off-duty weapons when he graduated from the academy) and with our kids both being toddlers... man, it's just something we take SO seriously.

wait, wait, wait... the kid was three, right? why wasn't he buckled into a carseat? if he was, how did he manage to get out without dad noticing? where was the gun that the kid could reach it??? i'll be really worked up if the kid wasn't properly restrained... that's a HUGE soapbox for me...

[SB 405]

I thought about the carseat question myself. Maybe the kid was buckled in and the gun was in a zipped up bag but junior figured out how to open it. Kids,ya gotta be five steps ahead of um.

[ExplorerSGT]

i was just watching the news and they said the kid was not in a seatbelt or car seat and that the officer might face child endangerment

[SB 405]

I don't mean to bad mouth this guy but come on for cryin' out loud... he's got a kid roaming around the inside of his vehicle with his service weapon within reach:rolleyes:

[makakona]

he'd darn well better face child endangerment charges, i don't care if he's a cop or not. he should be thanking his lucky stars his sweet little boy is alive.

i'm absolutely disgusted that his gun was accessable and that his child wasn't in a carseat. carseats are a major "cause" of mine and i think the laws are too lax as it is. i'm glad the officer is stable and i feel sorry for his boy who will likely grow up with issues related to his dad's paralysis, despite it being 100% dad's fault.

man, this story gets me all fired up...

[SB 405]

I had not head the paralysis part. Man this guy is really gonna pay a price.

[Chippysgt]

This case was just decided today.

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=local&id=4363020

Storing guns in a house with kids is always a tough call when it comes to safety. I think they have to be under lock and key. My wife always liked having a gun by her when I was working nights but when not needed it had to be locked up.

I have been there and done that. My dad was NYPD and he had left a .32 off duty in his overcoat pocket and I knew where it was. I decided to play with it one day when I was home from school sick. I ended up with a bullet hole in my hand and a very upset mother. It could have been worse. Gun safety education is important too but some of the kids that get into guns are pretty young so locking them up or using trigger locks is a good idea in my humble opinion.

[Tiredmotor]

Nowhere in the original story did I read anything about a carseat, while I obviously agree that the child should not have access to the firearm since when does jumping to conclusions solve anything? Why don't we let the investigative matters complete before we become judge and jury.

[not5150]

He is so grounded.

[SB 405]

Nowhere in the original story did I read anything about a carseat, while I obviously agree that the child should not have access to the firearm since when does jumping to conclusions solve anything? Why don't we let the investigative matters complete before we become judge and jury.

Well I'm going to piss a few people off with this post,but here goes....I find it very easy to be judge and jury in this tragic event because the Father is one hundered percent at fault IMO. I really don't care if the kid was in a carseat,riding in the bed or standing on the roof for that matter,I see no excuse for this happening.

[makakona]

Nowhere in the original story did I read anything about a carseat, while I obviously agree that the child should not have access to the firearm since when does jumping to conclusions solve anything? Why don't we let the investigative matters complete before we become judge and jury.
then perhaps you should read more than the initial report. it has since been reported that the child was not properly restrained, as was mentioned previously in this thread.

regardless, we are talking about a THREE YEAR OLD. not a six year old or a ten year old or a twelve year old. the kid was THREE. the father is the ONLY party with any responsibility and accountability for what happened. if something later comes out that says a third party was involved, i'll happily retract my judgement. as it stands, dad screwed up BIG time.

chippysgt, we also both grew up with guns in the home and have them in our home now. it's easy now because our kids are so small that even loaded guns can be kept safe enough. once they get older, i assume we'll approach them the same way our parents did. we were both made VERY familiar about guns, which took a lot of the mystery/interest out of them. i knew i could shoot one anytime i wanted if i asked my mom or dad and i never felt the need to play with any of them. we always knew that there were loaded revolvers on each side of my parents' bed, in the very top of their pier cabinets. as a small child, they were well out of reach and as we got older, we knew darn well that we shouldn't touch them. could have been a big mistake, i suppose, but i guess the right combination of kids and parents can make a difference? i'm not that comfy doing that with my kids, but i do agree with taking the wonder out of the gun for kids.

[Tiredmotor]

Trust me...it takes more than a few words on a message board to upset me.

My point is...yes it is inexcusable, however, it was NOT the child that was hurt...I repeat..was not. Could it have been yes, but monkeys COULD fly out of my butt. The old man paid the price for a poor decision (seems fitting actually)...reading into the situation is fruitless. It reminds me of all the people that complain about speeders in their area (or perception of speeders) they say...."someday they are going to kill somebody!" Yes, statistically speaking, they will someday.

Makakona, you're right I only read what was posted here and, hence, had no other point of reference. I guess you have more info and decided to make your decision based on that information........

[not5150]

To crucify someone without all the facts in inexcusable... just imagine if you were charged with something and the public already thought you were guilty.

From the OCRegister Article - "It is unclear how the boy, sitting in the back seat of his father's Ford Ranger, got his hands on the 9 mm handgun."

I can't tell you how many times I've assumed something to be true only to have it turn 180 degrees after all the facts came out. You can't let your emotion and past experiences cloud your judgement on these things.

[SB 405]

I think this story will just fade away in the media. You may hear something in a week or two about the Fathers condition but that's about it IMO.

[dw]

Trust me...it takes more than a few words on a message board to upset me.

My point is...yes it is inexcusable, however, it was NOT the child that was hurt...I repeat..was not. Could it have been yes, but monkeys COULD fly out of my butt. The old man paid the price for a poor decision (seems fitting actually)...reading into the situation is fruitless. It reminds me of all the people that complain about speeders in their area (or perception of speeders) they say...."someday they are going to kill somebody!" Yes, statistically speaking, they will someday.

Makakona, you're right I only read what was posted here and, hence, had no other point of reference. I guess you have more info and decided to make your decision based on that information........

Tiredmotor, I'm with you on this one.

On a side note, I thought the media investigated everything for us. Why do we have to think on our own when they can provide an opinion for us?

[Chippysgt]

I took a look at your Flickr Photo Gallery but the blood kept rushing out of my head and I kept fainting..................I hate getting old....................:evil:

[makakona]

To crucify someone without all the facts in inexcusable... just imagine if you were charged with something and the public already thought you were guilty.

From the OCRegister Article - "It is unclear how the boy, sitting in the back seat of his father's Ford Ranger, got his hands on the 9 mm handgun."

I can't tell you how many times I've assumed something to be true only to have it turn 180 degrees after all the facts came out. You can't let your emotion and past experiences cloud your judgement on these things.


you're kidding, right?! i'll tell you how the kid got his hands on the gun: dad was careless. do you think the gun was planted, or something? i don't care if the kid was in a carseat or not (well, i DO, haha, but that's not the point), dad left the gun SOMEwhere that the kid could get to it. like i said, if there's some third party found to be involved, i'll gladly retract my opinion... but i don't see how anyone BUT dad has any responsibility in this.

yes, i am overly emphatic about carseat safety (would be automatic child endangerment right there, if i ruled the world). yes, i have a three year old of my own. but neither of those tainted the formation of my opinion that dad screwed up.

[Tiredmotor]

No, he's not kidding. OBTW if your husband does the same thing on the job...he would be let go (probationary thing) You CANNOT be the judge and jury...sorry..its called the law.

By the way non-use or lack of carseat can be charged as child endangerment...but I thought you would know that.

Chippysgt - I saw those photos as well- yikes!

[makakona]

No, he's not kidding. OBTW if your husband does the same thing on the job...he would be let go (probationary thing) You CANNOT be the judge and jury...sorry..its called the law.

By the way non-use or lack of carseat can be charged as child endangerment...but I thought you would know that.

i'm sorry, i was under the impression that i was entitled to my very own personal opinion without the requirement of being judge or jury.

thanks for the passive-aggressive "by the way." exactly how frequently are carseat laws even upheld? not a whole heck of a lot. i'd be very interested in any stories officers here might have on it. shoots, my own sister-in-law turned my niece forward-facing at four months and often held her on her lap. although frequently stopped, they were never even ticketed, let alone slapped with child endangerment. like i said, if i ruled the world, there wouldn't be any wiggle room.

as i said in my op on this thread, my husband would be dead meat one way or the other, regardless of what anyone else thought. THERE is my emotional response.

[Tiredmotor]

Makakona - you are basing the efficacy of Child Seat laws on your sister-in-law? Doesn't seem to be a fair sampling of demographics.....I happen to know quite a bit about Child Seat laws and I happen to have some facts.

While some 90% of carseats have some sort of mis-use associated with them it's not because the parent/caregiver isn't trying to "do the right thing" Carseat laws/vehicles/carseats are a difficult task for a lot of people. Non-use contributes very high in infant deaths. There are several programs to help the general public in this very thing. I grew up in a generation where there was no such thing as a carseat and seat belt laws were not mandatory...so times change. You should channel your efforts in getting your sister-in-law educated, instead of saying the carseat laws aren't "upheld." Because that statement is wrong.

As far as your opinion goes...yes we have heard it on that and multiple other issues.

[makakona]

Makakona - you are basing the efficacy of Child Seat laws on your sister-in-law? Doesn't seem to be a fair sampling of demographics.....
perhaps i didn't make it clear that they were two separate statements.

I happen to know quite a bit about Child Seat laws and I happen to have some facts.

While some 90% of carseats have some sort of mis-use associated with them it's not because the parent/caregiver isn't trying to "do the right thing" Carseat laws/vehicles/carseats are a difficult task for a lot of people. Non-use contributes very high in infant deaths. There are several programs to help the general public in this very thing. I grew up in a generation where there was no such thing as a carseat and seat belt laws were not mandatory...so times change. You should channel your efforts in getting your sister-in-law educated, instead of saying the carseat laws aren't "upheld." Because that statement is wrong.
efforts are properly channeled, don't you worry! i wish i had regular internet access here to research it out a bit better... but like i said, i'd be VERY interested in stats on child endangerment actually being charged in carseat stops. i'm not as worried about the ones who improperly install their seats as i am the ones who blatantly disregard the law for convenience.

As far as your opinion goes...yes we have heard it on that and multiple other issues.
maybe you could check with a moderator about getting a filter so you wouldn't be seemingly bothered anymore?

[Tiredmotor]

For your viewing pleasure - http://www.safekids.org/certification/about.html go to resources

I already have that filter installed - I've been married for 16 years........

[sweetdancer]

TM...you ROCK!!! :lol:

[makakona]

For your viewing pleasure - http://www.safekids.org/certification/about.html go to resources
thanks... i'm actually a cps tech who let her recertification slip by. oops!

I already have that filter installed - I've been married for 16 years........
ouch! touch

[dw]

thanks for the passive-aggressive "by the way." exactly how frequently are carseat laws even upheld? not a whole heck of a lot. i'd be very interested in any stories officers here might have on it. shoots, my own sister-in-law turned my niece forward-facing at four months and often held her on her lap. although frequently stopped, they were never even ticketed, let alone slapped with child endangerment. like i said, if i ruled the world, there wouldn't be any wiggle room.

as i said in my op on this thread, my husband would be dead meat one way or the other, regardless of what anyone else thought. THERE is my emotional response.

Woah, nellie! (No, not you, nellie... The other one) Lets go back to our happy places. Serenity now!

The sleepy motor cop is just as entitled to be passive-aggressive as you are to have your personal opinion. So, you're both wrong. :shock: (Or maybe you're both right and I'm wrong -- who knows, who cares)

In regard to carseat laws, I can't imagine even the most cynical old fart of a Chippie making the statement "exactly how frequently are carseat laws even upheld? not a whole heck of a lot." Without a doubt, child seat violations are among those nearly every police officer is passionate about. There are few violations that will initiate a stop when the officer has worked six hours past his shift and en route home to get a couple hours of sleep before returning to work. I can say, without a doubt, that every police officer I know would make that stop for an unrestrained child.

In my limited experience, I have never seen a carseat violation dismissed or reduced in court, even in the case of financial hardship. (That's what community service is for.) Further, the only time I have seen a judge yell, and I mean yelling out of anger, was at a lawyer who went against me on two counts of child seat violations. (I cited the driver out of a minor collision investigation.) The lawyer argued that his client deserved a break because, after all, he was the innocent party who was rear-ended. I believe the judge's exact words were, "no, sir -- the break your client got was not having his children injured or killed and I suggest you stop your arguments right now."

Are child safety restraints misused? Absolutely. Does it constitute neglect because a parent does not take the time to read and fully understand an instruction manual? I don't know. Being a NHTSA certified technician, I can tell you that learning to properly install and use the variety of seats, in the variety of vehicles, with varying seat belt systems and configurations, is not an easy task. Some applications are relatively simple for a trained technician, but others require discussion and ingenuity to achieve the safest use. This isn't going to change or go away -- keeping children safe in motor vehicles is inherently complicated. The best thing parents can do is know when to ask for assistance.

(Now we're really off-topic)

[Tiredmotor]

Makakona - I'm actually a CPS intructor.....so vent away...

[sweetdancer]

Yes, to make that statement about carseat laws not being upheld is wrong. Having family and friends in LE, I know officers are very passionate about this subject. Just take a peek at the fatality stats for children 4 and under on the CHP web site. That is definitely an issue that the CHP is concerned with.

[dw]

efforts are properly channeled, don't you worry! i wish i had regular internet access here to research it out a bit better... but like i said, i'd be VERY interested in stats on child endangerment actually being charged in carseat stops. i'm not as worried about the ones who improperly install their seats as i am the ones who blatantly disregard the law for convenience.

Okay, I see -- you're going after child endangerment. I understand your point, but legally-speaking, child endangerment does not apply in a simple 27360 violation.

First, 273a PC (child endangerment) reads:
(a) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, four, or six years.
(b) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death,willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

From the California Jury Instructions, in regard to 273a:
The word "willfully," as used in this instruction, means "with knowledge of the consequences" or "purposefully.
Additionally, (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 43, 48-49 [119 Cal.Reptr. 780, 782], requires that when negligence is the basis for responsibility, the negligence must rise to the level of criminal negligence, relying on Penal Code section 20.

And "criminal negligence," as defined in the Jury Instructions: Criminal negligence means conduct which is more than ordinary negligence. Ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary or reasonable care. Criminal negligence refers to [a] negligent act[s] which [is] [are] such a departure from what would be the conduct of an ordinary prudent, careful person under the same circumstances as to be contrary to a proper regard for [human life] [danger to human life] or to constitute indifference to the consequences of those act[s]. The facts must be such that the consequences of the negligent act[s] could reasonable have been foreseen and it must appear that the [death] [danger to human life] was not the result of inattention, mistaken judgment or misadventure but the natural and probable result of an aggravated, reckless, or flagrantly negligent act.

Bottom line: unrestrained child, no 273a. Unrestrained child while driving 90 miles per hour under the influence of alcohol, maybe 273a.

[makakona]

good gravy, i didn't say the chp wasn't concerned with safety...

i typed a big ol' reply and my login timed out, dangit.

dw, thanks for the personal stories. it seems all too infrequent that i hear of people being written for it (and i've never personally heard of someone being charged with endangerment) and too frequent that i hear of people being verballed. i don't take issue with those who install the seats improperly, even though there are resources to help avoid that. it's the others that get to me... a new or decent carseat means i have to spend money, i'd have to buy a bigger car, but she's so much happier facing forward, but his legs were cramped facing rear, those who are just plain lazy, et cetera.

i was an auto insurance claims adjustor in a past life and had a case where a mom was driving while holding her newborn infant behind the steering wheel and feeding her a bottle. it was a minor parking lot accident, but the baby died after sustaining serious injuries. i wept for that baby.

i think the laws need to be revamped in terms of the limits and i think it SHOULD be endangerment, no other factors involved. my oldest (who hit 20 pounds before four months) faced rear until two weeks before her second birthday, when the she outgrew facing rear in the seat with the highest limit. my 19 month old is still facing rear, despite having hit the weight limit ages ago. when you look at what their bodies go through in even the most minimal impact, it's not worth it. heck, we get whiplash from minor stuff and our head weight to body weight ratio is far more favorable than it is for little ones.

[Tiredmotor]

Lack of child seat, however, can be charged as Child endangerment...been there...done that. Even in a 35-40 mph collision.

[dw]

Lack of child seat, however, can be charged as Child endangerment...been there...done that. Even in a 35-40 mph collision.

Do you know if they were actually found guilty? If they were, must have been an awesome jury. I'd imagine it is like getting a misdemeanor manslaughter conviction -- difficult because at least one person (bonehead) on the jury thinks, "I've done that before, that could be me in the defendant's seat."

[Tiredmotor]

I've told this story before - yes guilty - did not even go to trial. Mother, with unrestrained 8 month old (actually restrained with lap belt) is driving around side-show style when she loses control and is t-boned on a country road from an on-coming car. Mom (who is 17) is unremorseful when I arrive and I perform cpr on the unbreathing 8 month old. Child is airlifted to childrens hospital - paraplegic but lives. Easy verdict.

[ExplorerSGT]

weird how a kid that young can pop off a .45 it takes a little bit of pressure....

[dw]

I've told this story before - yes guilty - did not even go to trial. Mother, with unrestrained 8 month old (actually restrained with lap belt) is driving around side-show style when she loses control and is t-boned on a country road from an on-coming car. Mom (who is 17) is unremorseful when I arrive and I perform cpr on the unbreathing 8 month old. Child is airlifted to childrens hospital - paraplegic but lives. Easy verdict.

So my original argument still holds water (until someone disproves it): Simple 27360, no 273a. 27360 while driving recklessly / exhibiting speed, 273a is good-to-go.

I just think you need a little more than driving down I-5 at 75 mph with an unrestrained child to constitute endangerment. Not much, but you need more. Reckless, racing, 100+, DUI, they all work in my book.

[Tiredmotor]

I've told this story before - yes guilty - did not even go to trial. Mother, with unrestrained 8 month old (actually restrained with lap belt) is driving around side-show style when she loses control and is t-boned on a country road from an on-coming car. Mom (who is 17) is unremorseful when I arrive and I perform cpr on the unbreathing 8 month old. Child is airlifted to childrens hospital - paraplegic but lives. Easy verdict.

So my original argument still holds water (until someone disproves it): Simple 27360, no 273a. 27360 while driving recklessly / exhibiting speed, 273a is good-to-go.

I just think you need a little more than driving down I-5 at 75 mph with an unrestrained child to constitute endangerment. Not much, but you need more. Reckless, racing, 100+, DUI, they all work in my book.

I agree.

[SB 405]

Man-o-man lookie what I started. I feel like the kid standing at the end of the street with the lit match while the neighborhood burns and gets askes if I know anything about it.:badgrin:

[Tiredmotor]

SB405 - its all good. Debate is the cornerstone of democracy.

[bcjack]

I have to agree with Makakona on this one. In 35 years of cleaning up messes from s****y drivers, many of whom hurt or killed their kids because they didn't have them in a car seat has really pushed my button. When I was a Reserve Officer, I wrote EVERY SINGLE PERSON I saw without their kid in a car seat!!! :mad: The idea that some ass***** ADULT did not care enough about their child to put them in a car seat, just pissed me off to no end. If I ruled the roost, 273a would be charged instead of 27360. The child CAN'T make the decision to get in the car seat or not get in the car seat....that is the job of the ADULT!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

I guess that is enough ranting for now...

[makakona]

I just think you need a little more than driving down I-5 at 75 mph with an unrestrained child to constitute endangerment. Not much, but you need more. Reckless, racing, 100+, DUI, they all work in my book.
ick, makes me shudder to think of it... this is why i'm a mommy and not a cop!!!

in YOUR book, any consideration for age of minor? said scenario, in my head, varies in gravity with an infant, a toddler, an elementary school kid, and so on.

[dw]

I have to agree with Makakona on this one. In 35 years of cleaning up messes from s****y drivers, many of whom hurt or killed their kids because they didn't have them in a car seat has really pushed my button. When I was a Reserve Officer, I wrote EVERY SINGLE PERSON I saw without their kid in a car seat!!! :mad: The idea that some ass***** ADULT did not care enough about their child to put them in a car seat, just pissed me off to no end. If I ruled the roost, 273a would be charged instead of 27360. The child CAN'T make the decision to get in the car seat or not get in the car seat....that is the job of the ADULT!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

I guess that is enough ranting for now...

I think we're all in the same boat, bc...

It's the system, I tell you. Add this one to the list. DUI and child seats -- make them both actual crimes in terms of consequences.

[Tiredmotor]

Hey bcjack..the cops here agree with you..how about voting for the most restrictive judges you can when the election comes around...the problem does NOT lay with the enforcement end of this equation....but rather with the judicial end...WE have no control over this except for the voting!

[dw]

I just think you need a little more than driving down I-5 at 75 mph with an unrestrained child to constitute endangerment. Not much, but you need more. Reckless, racing, 100+, DUI, they all work in my book.
ick, makes me shudder to think of it... this is why i'm a mommy and not a cop!!!

in YOUR book, any consideration for age of minor? said scenario, in my head, varies in gravity with an infant, a toddler, an elementary school kid, and so on.

Let me rephrase that. In "my book" of the laws as they are currently written. As I just mentioned in another post, I think we, as a society, need to recognize some "white collar" violations as actual crimes with actual consequences.

To answer your question, no -- I don't think the age of the child plays a role in determining 273a. As long as they are under 16 (the age at which you become legally responsible for wearing your wearing your seatbelt), it's all the same. Age 0-16 is all, equally, the parent or driver's responsibility.

I don't write the laws, I just enforce them.

[makakona]

Hey bcjack..the cops here agree with you..how about voting for the most restrictive judges you can when the election comes around...the problem does NOT lay with the enforcement end of this equation....but rather with the judicial end...WE have no control over this except for the voting!
if we ever get my computer up and running again (issues with this bloody OLD house), i have fancy letters o' plenty to send around on this topic. like i said (and in case it wasn't obvious, ha!), this is one of my soapboxes.

[makakona]

I just think you need a little more than driving down I-5 at 75 mph with an unrestrained child to constitute endangerment. Not much, but you need more. Reckless, racing, 100+, DUI, they all work in my book.
ick, makes me shudder to think of it... this is why i'm a mommy and not a cop!!!

in YOUR book, any consideration for age of minor? said scenario, in my head, varies in gravity with an infant, a toddler, an elementary school kid, and so on.

Let me rephrase that. In "my book" of the laws as they are currently written. As I just mentioned in another post, I think we, as a society, need to recognize some "white collar" violations as actual crimes with actual consequences.

But legally speaking, to charge 273a, I still maintain you need more than a basic violation. I don't write the laws, I just enforce them.
i should have been more clear... my use of "your book" wasn't in relation to your use of "my book," ha. i took your initial statement of "i think" to be your personal opinion and was going off of that, not what's actually legal for you to write.

[dw]

if we ever get my computer up and running again (issues with this bloody OLD house), i have fancy letters o' plenty to send around on this topic. like i said (and in case it wasn't obvious, ha!), this is one of my soapboxes.

Are you saying you're participating in this endless rant via cellphone? Now that's dedication! :smile:

[bcjack]

TM:
I do....There seems to be something in some judges' genetic makeup that mutates after they get elected. During the campaign, they are "Hang 'em all" Judge Roy Bean, and after the election, they are "Well...." blah...blah...blah...:sad:

[dw]

i should have been more clear... my use of "your book" wasn't in relation to your use of "my book," ha. i took your initial statement of "i think" to be your personal opinion and was going off of that, not what's actually legal for you to write.

Copy. How about, "I think that legally, you need more"? :cool:

[makakona]

ha! yes! i'm not sure i would call it dedication, though... interest combined with boredom and lack of energy or desire to do anything that requires more action. i've been, um, under the weather as of late, haha.

we finally got the busted outlets fixed only to realize that we have to convert the outlets from two-prong to three-prong. the daughter of mr. know-it-all in me was thinking along the lines of rewiring for need of a groundwire. i didn't know they sold converters! i tracked them down today (coincidentally next to the range where my big, strong hunk of a man had range today), but we still need to figure out how to get internet other than dial-up in this ancient place. i think once we actually discuss it, we may just aim for wireless.

yes, we live in the dark ages... no internet, no cable (as in not a single channel, ha), no landline... good thing we like each other!!!

[Welpe]

Cable's overrated anyways. Most of what is on TV is garbage in my perfectly humble opinion. :biggrin:

[makakona]

i should have been more clear... my use of "your book" wasn't in relation to your use of "my book," ha. i took your initial statement of "i think" to be your personal opinion and was going off of that, not what's actually legal for you to write.

Copy. How about, "I think that legally, you need more"? :cool:
um... 10-4? sorry, i'm not one of those wives who learned all things chp or even helped her husband to memorize them, haha. "care to translate, i'm not a cop, you know" is frequently heard round these here parts. if only they sold a decoder ring...

[Tiredmotor]

TM:
I do....There seems to be something in some judges' genetic makeup that mutates after they get elected. During the campaign, they are "Hang 'em all" Judge Roy Bean, and after the election, they are "Well...." blah...blah...blah...:sad:

You are exactly right...and it sucks...Cops, in general, are in a difficult situation..generally we like the Democrats for the benefits/union/bla-bla but we need Republican leaders ie judges, District Attorneys, etc. Obviously this is a generality..but you get the picture..

[Mac]

You are exactly right...and it sucks...Cops, in general, are in a difficult situation..generally we like the Democrats for the benefits/union/bla-bla but we need Republican leaders ie judges, District Attorneys, etc. Obviously this is a generality..but you get the picture..
Yep - the Democrats give us pay/benefits, and the Republicans give us law and order. Too bad there's not a middle ground somewhere!

[kenny]

wow