You know what really chaps my hide?

Are you a flasher?  Err....let me re-phrase that.  When you see a police radar trap, do you flash your headlights at oncoming cars to warn them to slow down?  I do.  

Speed traps really chap my hide.  To think that we have crime in the streets and are perpetually short of police (?), yet they can spare dozens of cops to hide in obscure places and blindside drivers is ridiculous.

I'm not saying it's OK to drive recklessly, just that ALL cops should keep an eye out for dangerous drivers and pull them over as needed, yet spend the bulk of their time on patrol looking for the REAL bad guys.

Freedom of speech?

Here's where I'm going:  There is a growing trend for citizens who "obstruct justice" (the citation they're given if they flash or put out signs to warn others) to claim flashing is protected by the Constitution as "freedom of speech".  In fact, Florida, Utah, and Tennessee have made citing flashers illegal, and others who have pleaded "freedom of speech" in court elsewhere often have their tickets dismissed.  

The city's concern is someone will take up the cause as a class-action lawsuit, and that (might) result in cities having to go back and reimburse flashers who were previously convicted and fined.

It seems to me flashers are actually HELPING the police.  If the purpose of speed traps is to get people to slow down, and flashing others to get them to slow down accomplishes the same thing, then we're helping, right?....only without having to take the time to write millions of dollars worth of those pesky 'ol tickets.

But....could it be it's NOT so much about safety, but about THE MONEY?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The logic here escapes me.

There has been widespread civil unrest and sporadic violence across the country ever since George Zimmerman was found "not guilty" of murdering Trayvon Martin last weekend.  I understand why some would be upset.  I can see why they would write letters to their congressman, their newspaper, attend rallies, sign petitions, etc.

What I don't understand is the violence.  "Yeah....I'm pissed.  I'm gonna burn up a few cars, bust out a bunch of windows, and if I can find me a nice 48" flat screen, I'm gonna take it.  I'll steal it 'for Trayvon'.  JUSTICE!"

And even sillier, remember the major violence in past years when rioters burned up entire sections of town?  "OK, now I'm REALLY pissed!  I'm gonna burn up MY OWN NEIGHBORHOOD.  My grocery store, my barbershop, my kid's school, where I work....everything.  THAT'LL SHOW 'EM!  Umm....hey....that's MY house!"  DUH!

Idiots.

S

Perry Mason it wasn't

For 18 years I served on my city's Civil Service Commission overseeing the police and fire departments.  In the event of a dispute between a police officer or firefighter and their chief, we heard the issues and rendered a decision.  These disputes usually involved hiring, firing, discipline, and promotions.

I remember one instance when the Police Chief "indefinitely suspended" (fired) an officer, and the officer felt this was an unfair and excessive punishment.  We heard the case and agreed, giving him some time off without pay, but allowed him to keep his job.  

I later heard the Police Chief was furious with us for our decision.  The city's Director of Civil Service calmed him down by telling him that regardless of what the Chief knew to be the facts, the City Attorney on that day, in that hearing, did NOT prove the city's case, and therefore our decision was correct.

This sounds like what might have happened in the George Zimmerman case in Florida, too.  Zimmerman was, IMO, an idiot.  He should never have been armed while on citizen patrol (a huge no-no) and he should never have confronted Trayvon Martin.  He should have made the call and waited.  Shoulda, woulda....

Nevertheless, during the course of the trial the state did NOT prove their case.  Too much of their crucial testimony was refuted by credible defense witnesses.  Based on the evidence presented there was not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", regardless of what really might have happened that night.  

I think this is probably why the local police chief and DA didn't charge Zimmerman immediately....they didn't have enough evidence to go to court with.  This is what happens when popular opinion instead of solid evidence moves prosecution forward.  

I hope cool heads prevail and the city stays calm after the "not guilty" decision.  The thoughtful jurors did their job.  The system worked.

S