Conference back40::soapbox

    It appears we have our very own version of the South Carolina cop
    screaming at a woman driver.  Taunton police have apparently been rude
    and rough in handling a 75 y.o. woman that is hard of hearing and was
    not wearing her glasses as required by her license when she failed to
    stop when signalled to do so.  Shall be interesting to see how this
    pans out but the Chief of POlice is toast, it appears as are the
    officers that were involved in the incident.  The Mayor was ready to
    hang these guys last night.  Should be good for some votes.  
    
    Brian

    
    <--- was she carrying a concealed screwdriver, perhaps?

    Boy, cops are getting angrier and angrier these days. Eesh.

    
    
    	re:  the 75 year old woman.
    
    	Although I didn't see this report on TV and am only going
    	on what I heard on the radio.......  I'll give the woman
    	the benefit of the doubt and say it was probably a little
    	overboard that the police handcuffed her BUT....... if she's
    	hard of hearing and wasn't wearing the glasses she was supposed
    	to be, she shouldn't have even been on the road!  I don't think
    	they should press any charges against her but I do think it would
    	be a wise idea to take away her license.
    
    	I'm a firm believer in giving the elderly yearly road tests to
    	make sure they are still capable of driving.  This woman clearly
    	was not.
    
    	JJ
    

>                                                         I don't think
>    	they should press any charges against her but I do think it would
>    	be a wise idea to take away her license.

How can they take her license away without pressing charges?

>        <<< Note 14.7807 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Spank you very much!" >>>

>    Boy, cops are getting angrier and angrier these days. Eesh.

	You're basing that on what?  Some incidents that have gotten
	a lot of press, or some statistical evidence?

    Yes, they are. especially in Toronto. The trends are not good.

About the 75 year old woman.

	She failed to yield to police lights and siren.
	She failed to yield when they pulled aside of her and motioned
		to pull over.
	She refused to produce her license on request.
	
	She stated that she can drive without glasses even though her license
		requires it. She wasn't wearing them.
	She stated that she did not hear the siren, the cruiser being right
		behind her.
	She stated she rarely looks in her rearview mirror.
	She stated she thought the cops were young kids pulling aside of her
		and she ignored them.
	She drove 1 mile to her home without pulling over for the police
		according to the Boston Globe.

	She did not cooperate with the officers.
	She was arrested and charged with 4 violations when she
		would not comply with officers requests.
	Police policy is to handcuff anyone under arrest, no exceptions.

	Her actions and attitude are what got her arrested, not the demeanor of
	the cops. They were doing their job.

	Doug.

    They were frustrated and they got mad. You don't ever want to make a
    cop mad. Now they're in trouble because they couldn't control their
    temper when dealing with a 75 year old woman who was ignoring them.
    Sure, she was in the wrong. So what? Was this woman such a threat that
    they needed to cuff her? Come on!

    Be that as it may, their illustrious careers are over.

>	Police policy is to handcuff anyone under arrest, no exceptions.

It's a bad policy, pure and simple.

    
    	RE: .7820
    
    	Well, not really.  They don't want to take unnecessary chances.
    	How do you know what someone is capable of?  I mean, mob bosses
    	can easily be 70 years old and possibly frail ... do you want 1
    	of them shooting you if you turn your back on him?
    

re: Police action & 75 year old woman

There was a short piece done on the Channel 7 news one evening last week
about "What to do if you're pulled over by a police officer". The claim
was that "just because he's pulled you over doesn't mean he's going to
ticket you." They "supported" this contention by citing several cases
where the detained motorists only got "warnings", presumeably due to
their "courteous nature".

The guidlines given included such things as "smiling at the officer
when he approaches the car", "Addressing him directly as 'Officer'
or using his rank if you can determine that from his nameplate",
"admitting that you were in error [EXCUSE ME??]", and "not trying
to make excuses for your actions."

There you have it, sports fans.

Don't yell "Eat lead, copper!"  HTH.

    Last time I did that, was nice and said nothing, I got a very polite
    ticket.
    
    Last time, I was friendly and blathered a bunch of things, I got a
    warning.

Re: .7818, .7820

    Sure, she was in the wrong. So what? Was this woman such a threat that
    they needed to cuff her? Come on!


And if they wound up gut shot or stabbed, would you then cry out "Why didn't they
follow policy?", or would you still stand by "Don't cuff a 70 y.o. woman?"

Obviously, police need to use discretion in deciding whether to give a
ticket, give a warning, or arrest someone.  Why can't they use discretion
in deciding whether to handcuff someone?

    Did they check to see if she had a knife or a gun? 
    
    she had no weapons? Well then, why cuff her?

    
    I always get warnings, not tickets.
    

    
    	SHADDUP, YOU!!
    

    
    	RE: Glenn
    
    	They check EVERYONE for weapons if they're going to be detained.
    	So why cuff ANYONE who's unarmed?
    

If someone's unarmed, where do you put the cuffs?

>    They were frustrated and they got mad. You don't ever want to make a
>    cop mad. Now they're in trouble because they couldn't control their
>    temper when dealing with a 75 year old woman who was ignoring them.

You, of course, have evidence of this 'temper tantrum' ...

>    Sure, she was in the wrong. So what? Was this woman such a threat that
>    they needed to cuff her? Come on!

	She was wrong, on several counts, and would not respond as she is
	required too by law to the officers requests. Had it been anyone
	else but a 75 year old lady making a scene this would be a non
	event.

	Being a threat is not the point. She was put under arrest, as she
	should have been. She was handcuffed, as required by department
	policy. You can't blame the officer for doing his job and following
	policy in the face of an uncooperative multiple offender, 75 years
	old or not.

	If you don't like the policy, then change it.

	Doug.

    
    	Think, Gerald ... just because someone's unarmed it doesn't
    	mean they don't have wrists.
    
    	Eesh!!
    

>	If you don't like the policy, then change it.

See .7820.

    So, this was only about hand cuffs? So what's the big deal then?

  >  	They check EVERYONE for weapons if they're going to be detained.
  >  	So why cuff ANYONE who's unarmed?
  

>    	Think, Gerald ... just because someone's unarmed it doesn't
>    	mean they don't have wrists.

Whoosh!

> See .7820.

One mans opinion ...

    Look, two cops, and elderly woman, with no weapons yet functional arms
    complete with wrists, who is obviously stubborn.
    Why couldn't these guys just write her up, make sure she got her
    license revoked and let her go home to bed?

    Noooo! She defied them! Pissed them off she did! They had to show her
    who was in charge eh? They used poor judgement and now they'll be doing
    desk work.
    
    I don't feel sorry for the woman, and I don't feel sorry for the cops.

    >>They "supported" this contention by citing several cases
    >>where the detained motorists only got "warnings", presumeably due to
    >>their "courteous nature".
    
    obviously, they never road with the cops that have ticketed me.  in
    fact, the officer that issued me my very first ticket was incredibly
    rude.  the only time i was not 'nice' to a police officer was when he
    pulled me over for running a stop sign that was covered up by tree
    branches.  and i when i saw that there was a cop right there and
    witnessed it, i pulled right over and waited for him to bang a u-ee and
    come get me.  he was still un-nice and that ticked me off.  i fought
    the ticket and won.  but still, every single time i have been pulled
    over, i have been ticketed.  no warnings (well, except that time a cop
    pulled me over after school for having a 'reject' sticker on my
    father's car...but it was still within the timeframe of getting it
    fixed, so i am pretty sure he couldn't have ticketed me anyway).
    
    oh, and deb, remind me to smaq you...
            

I have to agree with Gerald. From all reports, the woman did not threaten
the officers. She did not physically "resist arrest" once she was confronted 
by them in her own driveway. She's perfectly free under the constitution to 
show  them absolutely nothing provided that she's willing to bear the 
consequences for her actions.

They shouldn't have cuffed her. They'll deserve all the bad press that
they get as a result of the impropriety of their actions under the 
circumstances.

OK, so why does Deb get warnings and Raq get tickets?  FWIW, I've got warnings
3 out of 4 times, including once on I-84 in Connecticut (which I'm told is
pretty rare).

Jack, I'm surprised you're not in favor of frying the old lady.

    You mean, the I-84 in Connecticut is not always there? Someone is
    pulling your leg.

> Jack, I'm surprised you're not in favor of frying the old lady.

It sounds like the cops were a whole lot more violent than she was.

    
    
    	I've only gotten a couple warnings.  Others were tickets.
    	And one of those times I had a legitimate reason for speeding
    	(I was sick to my stomach and was about a mile from home) and
    	told the officer that reason.  I sat there in my truck hoping
    	that I wouldn't ummmmmm.....'have an accident' while waiting
    	for the ohsonice officer to write me a ticket.  I was crying
    	by the time he got back.  Jerk.  Other tickets I knew I was
    	in the wrong and the officer was right in writing me up.
    
    	Shane's had a couple run-ins with a local cop recently.
    	One of his cars needs to be inspected so he's brought it
    	into work, hoping to find a place to get it inspected.  Did
    	that yesterday, couldn't find a place that would take him
    	without an appt, got stopped on the way home.  Explained
    	everything to the cop, told him he had an appt. for this
    	morning to get it inspected..... still wrote him up.  Was
    	not a happy camper when he got home last night.
    

|   I-84 in Connecticut (which I'm told is pretty rare).
    
    I-84 in Connecticut is not rare at all.  In fact it's more common
    today than it was just a few years ago.
    
    								-mr. bill

>  <<< Note 14.7847 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>Jack, I'm surprised you're not in favor of frying the old lady.

	Jack would naturally be conflicted when there are scum-sucking
	law enforcement officials involved.

    You didn't think, as a cop, you would fry?
    You shoulda let that old lady drive by.

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think I've characterized law
enforcement officials as "scum-sucking", even though I frequently point
out the fact that they are overbearing and power-crazed. I fail to
understand why it's in anyone's interests _not_ to point that out,
or why it would be desireable to downplay such tendencies. I calls 'em
as I sees 'em.

    
    	Just because she's 75 it doesn't mean she's above the law.  A
    	25-year old would have been cuffed and arrested [or vice versa]
    	so she deserved to have the same done to her.
    
    	How do we even find out about these things?  Do the police call
    	the newspapers and inform them of everything?
    

    Don't want to end up with your hands locked in 'cuffs
    Be courteous to the cops and they won't act so tough

    
    "Don't wanna wind up in the brink?"
    "shoulda pulled over pretty quick"

    People of different age groups should be treated differently. They
    behave differently.

    
    re: the handcuffs
    
    The reason for the police using handcuffs is twofold. It protects them
    against an attack by the arrestee, and it protects the arrestee from
    doing bodily harm to themselves. hth

  .7854  I'll admit it's hard to keep track of all the people you
	 characterize as scum-sucking, Jack.  Seems to me you used it
	 to describe the guy who was camped out in your yard, but maybe
	 it was some other set of adjectives, I don't know.

    
    	Hard of hearing and forgot your glasses?
    	Stay between the lines, drive slow as molasses.
    
    	Didn't see the lights in your rear-view?
    	Don't be surprised if they handcuff you.
    
    	Broke the law, you deaf/blind bat?
    	Prepare to soak in an acid-filled vat.
    

    
    "Don't want spend time in jail?"
    "shouldn't have thrown that pail"

    don't want to impersonate houdini?
    don't be such a cop meany!

>  .7854  I'll admit it's hard to keep track of all the people you
>	 characterize as scum-sucking, Jack.  Seems to me you used it
>	 to describe the guy who was camped out in your yard, but maybe
>	 it was some other set of adjectives, I don't know.

Well, as I said, I could be wrong, but I don't believe I characterized
him as scum-sucking. I generally reserve "scum-sucking" for lawyers
and punks.

    
    Actually, the woman had no business ignoring the cops when they
    attempted to pull her over. I mean driving without your glasses and
    being deaf puts her at a disadvantage to other drivers. What would
    you all have said had she hit someone or something whilst driving to
    her home?? The police were more than courteous with her. She should
    have been cuffed, she was behaving erratically.

>    Look, two cops, and elderly woman, with no weapons yet functional arms
>    complete with wrists, who is obviously stubborn.
>    Why couldn't these guys just write her up, make sure she got her
>    license revoked and let her go home to bed?

	Because she would not produce her license so they could write her
	up.

>   Noooo! She defied them! Pissed them off she did! They had to show her
>    who was in charge eh? They used poor judgement and now they'll be doing
>    desk work.
 
	What's this 'Pissed off' business? While reports indicate she was
	yelling and screaming that her wrists hurt as they cuffed her they
	had nothing about irrate cops (unless you listen to Claptrap and Whitly).
	After handcuffing they assisted her into the back of the cruiser which
	has been described as 'roughing her up'. 

>   I don't feel sorry for the woman, and I don't feel sorry for the cops.

	I feel sorry for both. The cops, because their job requires they do
	things they may not wish to do, and the woman, because it is clear that
	she has many problems, the likes of which growing old is the primary 
        cause and contributor to her behaviour.
	And both, because of this unfortunate encounter.

	Doug.

re: Battis

	>The police were more than courteous with her. She should
	>have been cuffed, she was behaving erratically.

    Re .7855:
    
    > Just because she's 75 it doesn't mean she's above the law.  A
    > 25-year old would have been cuffed and arrested [or vice versa]
    > so she deserved to have the same done to her.
    
    Neither a deaf 75-year-old nor a deaf 25-year-old should be cuffed for
    failing to obey a police officer's order.
    
    
    Re .7829:
    
    > And if they wound up gut shot or stabbed, would you then cry out "Why
    > didn't they follow policy?", or would you still stand by "Don't cuff a
    > 70 y.o. woman?"
    
    I would stand by "Do not cuff a 70-year-old woman who failed to obey
    orders because she is deaf but did not resist arrest and was searched
    for weapons."
    
    
    Re .7836:
    
    > She was handcuffed, as required by department policy.
    
    Policy is no excuse for wrong-doing.  A person of good conscience
    should refuse unethical orders.
    
    > You can't blame the officer for doing his job and following policy in
    > the face of an uncooperative multiple offender, 75 years old or not.
    
    Yes, I can.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .7866:
    
    > What would you all have said had she hit someone or something whilst
    > driving to her home?
    
    I would have said she should be required to pay damages and defend her
    license.  I would not have said excessive force should be used on her.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>    Neither a deaf 75-year-old nor a deaf 25-year-old should be cuffed for
>    failing to obey a police officer's order.

According to what I've read here, she's hard of hearing, not deaf.  I haven't
read that she couldn't understand the policeman's orders.

    
    	And if she'd had her glasses on, as the restriction on her
    	license requires her to do while driving, it's my guess that
    	this incident could have been avoided almost entirely.
    

    This isn't quite as nasty as in Groton, where 4 of the 9 officers are
    suspended pending an investigation that they harassed a family
    repeatedly for a year after the family put in a complaint about one
    officer's dog. They were getting death threats, trumped-up tickets,
    pulled over daily, the works. I guess the first officer would work a
    day off for any officer who could nail them on something. 

    whaddya expect from hick kops?

    
    re .7902
    
    >whaddya expect from hick kops?

     I used to expect the same as any other professional. Now I expect the
    same as from big-city kops, lies, deceit, corruption and abuse of
    power. They will get no respect from me. None of them.
    
    ed

RE: EDP

>    Neither a deaf 75-year-old nor a deaf 25-year-old should be cuffed for
>    failing to obey a police officer's order.

	She was not deaf, and did carry on a conversation with the officers.
	She deliberately ignored their authority from the moment she
	refused to pull over to the point at which she was arrested.

	There is a short interview with her in the Globe. It indicated that
	she is pretty feable minded, accusing the officers of lying and
	generally not accepting reality for what it is instead of the way she
	would like it to be.

re: Shawn

>   	And if she'd had her glasses on, as the restriction on her
>    	license requires her to do while driving, it's my guess that
>    	this incident could have been avoided almost entirely.

	It wasn't the lack of glasses that was the problem, it was her attitude
	towards authority.

	Doug.  

    .7912> . . . deliberately ignored . . . pretty feable minded . . .

Where's your PGP key?

    
    Authority, authority.  Blurgh on authority.
    

When the cops come to check on the crazy lady with all the cats, they'd
better watch out.

    Those cops could have defused the whole thing. They didn't use their
    heads. If the woman was nuts, they should have handled her with care.

    Nuts should always be handled carefully.

    
    	RE: Doug
    
    	If she'd had her glasses on, she just might've noticed the blues
    	behind her.  Or the cruiser as it pulled up beside her, motion-
    	ing her to pull over.
    

    The Lowell Sun has a section called Backtalk, where you call a number
    and leave an anonymous message and they print it. Somebody left one
    about senior citizens being retested for their license, and the thing
    was flooded the next day by senior citizens saying they were the best
    because they were the most experienced, among other things. My issue
    was, if they were that great, why do they protest so heartily.

    
    	my father-in-law's had a pretty bad case of hick kops for the
    	past week!
    

    
    	It's a form of discrimination, and in a way I agree with that
    	opinion.  And the majority of accidents involve people within
    	the age range of 20-30 or so, which basically negates the idea
    	that the elderly are causing too many accidents.  Of course, I
    	have no idea what the %'s are and how they correlate [% of eld-
    	erly drivers that have had accidents to % of 20-30-year olds
    	that have had accidents], but I'd have to guess that the elderly
    	would come out looking safer.
    
    	But there comes a time where you have to admit that you're get-
    	ting old, and the senses deteriorate to a point where it could
    	get dangerous for you and everyone else around you ... and an
    	eye test every 4-5 years just doesn't cut it any more.
    

    .7918 agagagaga

    Well, the stats say it all. Older folks are not the major cause of
    accidents. And.. there's more of them so, if you expect things to
    change, you're dreaming.

  RE: Shawn

    >	If she'd had her glasses on, she just might've noticed the blues
    >	behind her.  Or the cruiser as it pulled up beside her, motion-
    >	ing her to pull over.
 
  She might have been  a nice old lady and cooperated with the officers,
  but she didn't, and she wasn't.

  Lets assume that you are right, and that she failed to yield because
  of poor vision. Fair enough. So, why did she refuse the officers request
  for license and registration, why did she make a scene, and why did
  she put the officers in the position of having to arrest her?

  Its hard to miss a siren with the cruiser right behind you, even with less
  than stellar hearing.

  Attitude explains it all. Glasses do not.

  Read the interview ...

  Doug.

    
    .7897 EDP
    
    Eric, who said they used excessive force?? Cuffing her and placing her
    in the back seat is not excessive force. Now, had they slapped her
    around, you would've had a point.

    
    	RE: Doug
    
    	Good point ... I guess I should read the article and maybe it
    	will fill in a few holes for me.
    

hey, those neo-nazi local polizei know how to beat the crap
outa somebody without leaving a mark.

everyone knows that.

    >>And the majority of accidents involve people within
    >>the age range of 20-30 or so, which basically negates the idea
    >>that the elderly are causing too many accidents.
    
    just because they (the elderly) weren't IN the accident doesn't mean
    they didn't CAUSE it.  

    <--- I concur!  Not only that, but I agree with you, too.  8^)

    Re .7926:
    
    > Cuffing her and placing her in the back seat is not excessive force.
    
    Cuffing a nonviolent, unarmed 75-year-old woman is excessive.
    
    Even if it were not, cuffing a 75-year-old woman so tightly that her
    skin turns color is.  Impeding a person's blood circulation is battery!
    
    The police should not use force to solve every problem.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .7914:
    
    a) My PGP key is at home, at MV, on my palmtop, at MIT and other
    keyservers, and on various peoples' disks.
    
    b) My key fingerprint is often appended to my signature.
    
    c) My signature is appended to messages written by me.
    
    d) 14.7913 merely quotes other material.  As it spoke for itself, I
    felt it unnecessary to write anything.  Since I did not write anything,
    there was nothing for me to sign.
    
    
    				-- edp
    

Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

I saw threee reports on the 75 year old woman last night. Now given the
history of media sensationalism I expected a large cry of police
brutality. While several witnesses said it was awful to see a 75 year old
woman getting handcuffed, none of them said anything about abuse. One 
individual stated the cop was 'nose to nose' with this woman.

There was a hearsay statement from the media (no witness accounts) that 
she was manhandled before being put in a jail cell for 3 hours. 

So, while I don't beleive the police were angelic in their dealings with 
this woman, I don't beleive they were overly agressive either.

re: EDP
 
>   Cuffing a nonviolent, unarmed 75-year-old woman is excessive.

	Agreed. But what of the policy. Should the woman have been
	arrested? Why or Why not? How should the police handle 
        exceptions to the policy and how will they be protected if
	making a judgement call not to follow policy and something goes
	wrong?
    
>    Even if it were not, cuffing a 75-year-old woman so tightly that her
>    skin turns color is.  Impeding a person's blood circulation is battery!
 
	I've heard no reports that the cuffs caused any damage or
	cut off circulation as you suggest. What I have heard is she was
	complaining about the cuffs being too tight (who wouldn't?).
   
 >   The police should not use force to solve every problem.

	True enough. 

    
    
    	upon seeing the woman's wrists last night on the news, they did not
    appear bruised or chafed (as one would expect from excessively tight
    handcuffs). 
                
    

    Re .7938:
    
    > But what of the policy.
    
    What of it?  Policy is not sacred.  If police are so brave and
    honorable, how come they don't have the courage to tell their bosses
    that policy stinks?
    
    > Should the woman have been arrested?
    
    If the police could clear up the confusion and get her to sign a
    ticket, no.  If not, then yes.
    
    > Why or Why not?
    
    It is proper to make an arrest in a traffic offense if a person will
    not sign a ticket because you need to establish legal proof of certain
    elements regarding identification and notification.  If she had signed
    a ticket, they could let her go as the judicial system has nonviolent
    means of dealing with her.
    
    > How should the police handle exceptions to the policy . . .
    
    The policy should not need exceptions.  The policy should be to
    restrain people who need to be restrained -- because they are violent,
    for example.  The policy should be not to restrain people who do not
    need to be restrained.
    
    > . . . and how will they be protected if making a judgement call not
    > to follow policy and something goes wrong?
    
    Protected from what?  If you mean protected from administrative action
    for violating policy, that's moot because I would have the policy be
    different.  If you mean protected from the person, then they protect
    themselves by restraining people who are dangerous.
    
    > 	I've heard no reports that the cuffs caused any damage or
    >	cut off circulation as you suggest.
    
    She reported her skin turned red.
    
    > What I have heard is she was complaining about the cuffs being
    > too tight (who wouldn't?).             
    
    Who wouldn't?  Somebody on whom the cuffs were not too tight. 
    Handcuffs need only be closed to be smaller than the hands.  They only
    need to touch the wrists, not pinch them.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    	edp, her wrists could have turned red due to excessive squirm-
    	ing on her part, causing the cuffs to continually rub against
    	her wrists ... regardless of how loose they were.
    

    
    	RE: .7930
    
    	I realize that someone can cause an accident without being in-
    	volved in same, but I'd figure it's a small percentage of the
    	time and very likely similar across all age ranges.
    

    I believe the police overreacted to some extent but the tragedy in 
    this story is not the plight of the woman.  This has turned into 
    political scapegoating and the livelihoods of several people are at 
    stake.  The Mayor has turned this into a soundbite opportunity.  Ain't
    it grand? 
    
    

    Regarding the 75-year old woman, I have a few thoughts on this.
    
    Generally, a person with hearing loss can hear sounds within a
    certain frequency band, but cannot hear sounds in other bands.
    It is very common for people to lose sensitivity to high-frequency
    sound. It is very likely this woman can hear speech (with some
    difficulty) but cannot hear a siren, as the siren generally
    oscillates from mid-high frequency. I have no problem believing that 
    this woman was oblivious to the presence of police behind her in 
    traffic, and I don't believe a person should be arrested for being inept.
    
    When police finally confronted this woman she was in her driveway.
    She probably had no clue why they were there, or that she had
    done anything wrong. With this in mind, why should she be required 
    to produce her license, or answer questions?
    
    You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that the elderly
    person you are speaking to has limited hearing and is not aware of
    the gravity of the situation. IMHO the cops grossly over-reacted. 
    There was absolutely no reason to arrest this person. She was not
    endangering anyone at that point and there was nothing to gain 
    except 1.teaching her a lesson and 2.Making an example of her.
    
    Police know that when they cuff a person, the cuffs can be closed
    in such a way to produce extreme discomfort. Usually this is done
    as a means of punishing the person for resisting arrest. There is
    no reason to keep cuffs tight when the person is already subdued and
    complaining of pain. Police do it to make the person suffer.
    
    Charles Laquedara (sp?) the DJ on WZLX called this woman on Monday
    morning and discussed the episode over the phone. Her limited hearing
    was evident during the call, as was her feable-mindedness. She seemed
    like a typical 75 year old woman that had been roughed-up for no good
    reason. She will need an attorney to defend her in court on the
    charges of failure to stop for an officer and resisting arrest.
    I don't think it will take much convincing to get her to agree to
    file a civil suit. IMHO she should sue the city of Saugus and the
    PD. 
    
    Due to Union rules, and civil service policies, there is a limit to
    what can happen to the officers. They will recieve a hearing and will
    most likely return to active duty with no sanctions against them.
    This is a shame, as they obviously need to learn a lot about being
    sensitivity.
    
    Mark
    

feeble

    
    	A civil suit??  You're serious, aren't you?
    
    	If it had been me in this situation, instead of her, and I was
    	hard of hearing and hard of seeing and not wearing glasses and
    	not wearing a hearing aid, would there be any sympathy for me,
    	or would I be "just another wise guy who thinks he's above the
    	law"?  Is she different because she's 75 and I'm not even 30?
    

    
|   This woman has lived 75 years without so much as a traffic ticket and
|   now she has a criminal record because she got between a cop and his
|   donuts!
    
    Let's see.  The first day of this workweek was Friday.  Yesterday
    was Friday.  Today is Friday.  Betcha tomorrow will be Friday too.
    
    
    Quiz time.  She has been cited for how many traffic accidents in
    the past few years?
    
    Quiz time.  Why were the police officers asking her to yield?
    
    								-mr. bill

>     <<< Note 14.7948 by MILKWY::JACQUES "Vintage taste, reissue budget" >>>

>    now she has a criminal record because she got between a 
>    cop and his donuts!

	Cripes, what an idiotic statement.

    
      The Saugus ossifers oughta be sent to LA for 6 mos training in
     modern baton techniques.
    
      bb

|   If police were responding to an emergency, then where did they find
|   the time to confront this woman in her driveway, make the arrest, 
|   etc. Did the emergency magically take care of itself?
    
    Actually, yes.  The emergency call was cancelled.
    
    								-mr. bill

> Did the emergency magically take care of itself?

This is the question which has been plaguing me since I first heard of
the incident. How did it suddenly become so much more important to
hassle this woman than it did to continue to respond to their original
mission? Wouldn't a more appropriate course of action have been to
call her plates and vehicle make in on the radio for another team
to get a warrant out on her?

    
|   This is the question which has been plaguing me since I first heard of
|   the incident.
    
    I see it bothered you so much that you sought out an answer to it.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    	Mark, I know what a handicap is and I would never suggest that
    	a deaf person shouldn't drive.  What I was suggesting was that
    	she was incapacitated [is that the right word?  Oh, who cares]
    	beyond what would be considered safe relative to driving.  Yes,
    	the fact that she's feeble-minded explains why she forgot her
    	glasses [or wasn't wearing them], but it doesn't make it right.
    
    	If a cruiser can pull up beside you, with lights/siren going,
    	and you don't realize it's a cruiser with officer[s] inside,
    	you definitely shouldn't be driving.
    

Ackshually, I hadn't an opportunity to listen to Howard nor see a news 
broadcast since early yesterday, William. Why not enlighten us with
the facts, why don't you?

    
    	not likely.
    
    

    
    THE EMERGENCY CALL WAS CANCELLED.
    
    								-mr. bill

>William. Why not enlighten us with the facts, why don't you?

Er ... They are already in the string ... several times

    So what do you think really happened, Mark? There was no emergency call
    and the cops just targeted the old woman to hassle her, or the cops let
    the emergency call go unheeded while they hassled this old woman?

>    THE EMERGENCY CALL WAS CANCELLED.

That's one of the facts, I'm sure.

Now, was it cancelled _before_ or _after_ they came up behind her with
the blues flashing?

Was it cancelled _before_ or _after_ they pursued her because she was 
apparently oblivious to their presence?

Was it cancelled _before_ or _after_ they accosted her in her driveway?

Was it cancelled _before_ or _after_ they'd cuffed her and put her in
the squad car?

Was it cancelled _before_ or _after_ she'd been detained at the stationhouse?

Timing is everything, sometimes, William.

_When_ was the emergency cancelled, exactly, relative to the above occurrences?

    
|   In my best Dana Carvey voice..........How Conveeeeenient!
    
    Oh, so I guess the business manager should have been courteous and
    waited for the police?  Much better to explain in person that the
    burglar alarm was accidently set off, huh?
    
    								-mr. bill

|Now, was it cancelled _before_ or _after_ they came up behind her with
|the blues flashing?
    
    After.
    
|Was it cancelled _before_ or _after_ they pursued her because she was 
|apparently oblivious to their presence?
    
    Before.
    
    								-mr. bill

    >                  -< What if it were your' mother!! >-
    
     My mother is on the ball enough to get out of the way of emergency
    vehicles.

    
    What if your mother was waiting for an emergency vehicle?
    
    								-mr. bill

re: EDP

 >   > But what of the policy.
 >   
 >   What of it?  Policy is not sacred.  If police are so brave and
 >   honorable, how come they don't have the courage to tell their bosses
 >   that policy stinks?
 
 Regardless, They have a job description and have been trained to follow
 the rules and policies of the department. Violation of the rules could
 potentialy result in disciplinary action against the employee (cop).

 >   If the police could clear up the confusion and get her to sign a
 >   ticket, no.  If not, then yes.
 
 She refused to produce her license and registration.

 >The policy should be not to restrain people who do not need to be restrained.
    
 OK. It becomes a judegment call, and if the cop makes the wrong call, he's
 screwed. The way the policy is now, his rear quarters are covered.

 >Protected from what?

 An unrestrained person then injures himself because he was not restrained.
 He then sues the cop, the department, any anyone else with money. Meanwhile
 the cop is up for disciplinary action.

 >    She reported her skin turned red.
 
  Consider the source. 

  Doug.

Eric, tell your position on cuffing violent people who need to be 
to the family of dead officers who thought the people that killed
them during normal traffic stops weren't violent.

  It's been my experience that handcuffs can hurt even if they're being
  put on gently.

    
    Maybe you should try the fur-lined ones.
    

re: 7945 MILKWY::JACQUES "Vintage taste, reissue budget"


 >   Regarding the 75-year old woman, I have a few thoughts on this.
 
 Hardly!  Find out why she was arrested, then go back read what you wrote 
 and tell us all why it isn't foolish.

 Free clues: She wasn't arrested for being inept.

 > why should she be required to produce her license, or answer questions?
 
 Because the law requrires it.

 >There was absolutely no reason to arrest this person

 Are you saying the charges are bogus and she complied with the law?
 If you are, you should re-consider ...

 > She will need an attorney to defend her in court on the
 >  charges of failure to stop for an officer and resisting arrest.
 
  What were the other two charges? Do know know?

 re: 7948

 > One other thought

  Ya right ...

 >Why was this woman detaned in a cell for 3 hours?

 Because she was under arrest and charged with multiple violation which had
 to be processed because she refused to cooperate. Get it yet!

 >The commanding officer on duty should have realized the blunder 
  
 The biggest blunder was the 75 year olds behaviour.

 
 > This woman has lived 75 years without so much as a traffic
 >   ticket and now she has a criminal record because she got between a 
 >   cop and his donuts!

 She's been in 5 accidents since 1983. She's been cited many times since then
 as well.
  
 >This is so typical. Law enforcement at all levels hates it when
 >   someone "interferes" with them. If someone "gets in their way"
 >   they get even!
  
  Tell me you don't vote, please!

  re: 7950

 >  There is absolutely no reason to arrest a person for failing to 
 >  sign a ticket

 She hasn't been charged with refusing to sign a ticket.

 re: .7953

 >  If police were responding to an emergency, then where did they find
 >   the time to confront this woman in her driveway, make the arrest, 
 >   etc. Did the emergency magically take care of itself?
 

 Is this an admission that you haven't a clue about what happened! Yet you
 feel perfectly capable of judging the situation! Unbelieveable ...


 

  .7973  ;>  I didn't mean that, you silly.  My father used to practice
	 police and EMT stuff on us.

>  It's been my experience that handcuffs can hurt even if they're being
>  put on gently.

 Can you ellaborate :-)

        
    >;>  I didn't mean that, you silly.  My father used to practice
    >police and EMT stuff on us.
    
    Mmm-hmm.  Sure.  <nodding sagely>
    
    

re: Lucky Jack

	An emergency call came in, and a cruiser responded. There were
	two cars on the road in front of the cruiser, one pulled over,
 	the other did not. The cruiser was forced to follow the unyielding
	car which was travelling slowly. The call was cancelled during 
	this time (False alarms are common) so the cops directed their 
	attention at the traffic violation.
	
	When room became available, they pulled to the side of the vehicle
	and motioned for the driver to pull over. She saw them and ignored 
	them, later stating she thought they were just a couple of kids 
        goofing off. (Perhaps if she had been wearing her glasses as required
	by her license restrictions ...) 

	When it was clear that she was not going to be pulled over, they 
	followed her until she stopped (in her driveway as it turns out). 

	When they confronted her with questions of her driving and requested
	license and registration, she refused to cooperate and made a scene
	in front of a crowd (You big bullies, why don't you leave a poor old
	lady alone!!!). They arrested her, put her in the cruiser, and
	brought her down town.

	In an interview, she stated she need not follow the rules of 
        wearing her glasses, or responding to police, and on and on, and
	accused the cops of lying (Why would these big bullies do this to a
	poor old lady ....)

	Doug.

    
    >People at that age are stubborn about admitting that they have 
    >limitations. Sometimes it takes an outside influence to make them 
    >realize that it is time for a change. This is probably the case 
    >with the 75 year old woman in this case. I believe that she should
    >stop driving. I do not believe that she should have been arrested,
    >cuffed, and tossed in a cell for 3 hours. I also do not believe she
    
    	Like you said, sometimes it takes an "outside influence" to
    	make people see things correctly.  3 hours in a jail cell would
    	certainly qualify, if you ask me.
    

    
    	BTW, Mr. Bill, you mention that it could be someone's mother
    	that phoned in an emergency and is now waiting for the police
    	to arrive, who are busy harassing this "poor old woman" in-
    	stead.
    
    	Well, similarly, this "poor old woman" is now obstructing an
    	emergency vehicle and possibly putting someone's mother in
    	danger.  THIS is the reason you're suppposed to yield to an
    	emergency vehicle.
    

   >I also do not believe she
   > should have to retain an attorney and go to court to answer to the
   > bogus charges. 

   Are you saying that ...

	She did not fail to yeild to an emergency vehicle (as required by law)
	She did not fail to produce a valid drivers license (as required by law)
	She did not fail to produce a valid registration (as required by law)
	She did not resist arrest?

   Or, are you saying that there is an age limit after which you no longer
   have to adhere to these laws?

   

    
    	Actually, there's no law that says she has to retain an attorney
    	anyways.  She can defend herself, and if all goes the way it
    	should, she'll lose.
    

|    	BTW, Mr. Bill, you mention that it could be someone's mother
|    	that phoned in an emergency and is now waiting for the police
|    	to arrive...
    
    You got that part right.
    
|    	...who are busy harassing this "poor old woman" instead.
    
    You got that part wrong.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    BTW, who's the designated "news briefs people, news briefs" person
    today?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    	But this IS a "news brief" discussion.
    
    	At least we're staying on topic.  8^)
    

    
    	RE: .7985
    
    	Well, after reading .7969 about 5 times, it's still very amb-
    	iguous as to which side you were defending.
    

    
    Shawn, it's a slow week for new 'news', apparently.
    

    
    	RE: .7989
    
    	Mark, you're a nice guy, really ... but there are so many
    	things in your reply that need to be refuted that I don't
    	know if there are enough hours in the day to do so.  But
    	maybe I'll try.
    

    News briefs, people!  News briefs!  Take the old lady vs. the fuzz to
    the Cops topic.  Sheesh.

    
    	Actually, I thought this was a "stupid driver" discussion.
    	Or maybe an "elderly" discussion.  Could turn into a "Lawsuit/
    	Litigation" discussion.
    
    	Then again, we could always move the discussion to the "News
    	Briefs" topic.  Oops, looks like we're already there.  Good
    	enough for me.
    

    
    	RE: Mark
    
>    If I walk out the door of my house one morning and a cruiser pulls
>    into my driveway and an officer demands that I produce a driver's
>    license and answer questions, am I required to comply. If I am
>    on my own property, and have not be operating a motor vehicle, 
>    why must I tolerate this treatment by police?

	Mark, in this situation you're leaving your house and are not
	forced to produce a driver's license ... that's quite obvious.
	Now, if the police are responding to a "suspected prowler call"
	at your house, phoned in by your neighbor, the officer might
	very well ask you for an ID if [s]he doesn't know you, but it
	doesn't have to be a driver's license.

	In her situation, she HAD BEEN operating a vehicle, and the
	officers were probably within a car-length of her car when
	she parked in her driveway, and were no doubt at her car be-
	fore she even had the key out of the ignition.

	Hopefully you see the difference between these 2 situations.

>    I believe the 75
>    year old woman in this case was coming from this same perspective.
>    She was *ON HER OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY* and in her mind, she had not
>    done anything wrong, so the police must have been mistaken. Did 
>    police *ask* to see her license or did they DEMAND it?

	Does it matter whether they asked or demanded?  She still ref-
	used to do it.

>    Did police
>    explain to her that if she did not produce a license, she would
>    be subject to arrest?

	Again, does it matter?  Shouldn't she know the rules of the road
	before operating a vehicle?

	Similarly, did they notify her that if she cocked her arm and
	gave an officer an uppercut that she'd be arrested for assault
	and battery?

>    These are all relevant questions and I do
>    not believe any of us have the answers.

	IMO, the preceding questions weren't incredibly relevant as far
	as a "determining her guilt" discussion goes.

>	I'm saying that the arrest of this person served absolutely
>    no purpose other than to demonstrate that police are ALWAYS 
>    right and that ANYONE that cares to challenge that will be dealt
>    with rather harshly.

	Sometimes it takes an outside influence to make someone change
	his/her ways, right?  Like being arrested for breaking a law
	so that next time you don't make the same mistake.

>    By the time police pulled into her driveway
>    a. the emergency had been called off and b. the woman was no longer
>    behind the wheel of her car. So there was nothing to be gained by
>    arresting her other than to satisfy the police officers desire to
>    punish her.

	See above.

>    There was no police policy that REQUIRED OFFICERS TO
>    ARREST her. This was done under their discretion.
     
	I believe that driving without a license is an arrestable of
	fense, yes?  And failure to produce a registration falls under
	"operating an unregistered/uninsured vehicle", yes?
    
>> >The commanding officer on duty should have realized the blunder 
>  
>	I predict that when all is said and done, the police will WISH
>    they had handled this differant. 

	If all goes as it should, the woman will wish she would have
	stopped for the police in the 1st place.
    
>	Let's see...5 accidents in 13 years. This may be above average
>    but it does not seem all that strange to me. How many accidents
>    have you been involved in during the last 13 years? 
    
	I've been in 0 accidents in the last 13 years.

    .7989
    
    
   > If I walk out the door of my house one morning and a cruiser pulls
   > into my driveway and an officer demands that I produce a driver's
   > license and answer questions, am I required to comply. If I am
   > on my own property, and have not be operating a motor vehicle, 
   > why must I tolerate this treatment by police? I believe the 75
   > year old woman in this case was coming from this same perspective.
                                                 ---------------------
    
    NO, she was not coming from her house. She was coming from her car.
    
    I agree that you do not have to produce ID if you are walking, but the
    law is different if you are operating a vehicle.
    
    ed

    Re .7970:
    
    > Regardless, They have a job description and have been trained to
    > follow the rules and policies of the department. Violation of the rules
    > could potentialy result in disciplinary action against the employee
    > (cop).
    
    They should have regard, not be regardless.  Obeying rules and policies
    is no excuse for unethical behavior.  If a person is going to act
    without regard for what is right, I do not want them to be a police
    officer.
    
    > She refused to produce her license and registration.
    
    And what is your point?  You asked whether or not she should be
    arrested.  I answered.  Nobody has contested that she should not have
    been arrested.  The issue is how she was treated.
    
    > It becomes a judegment call, and if the cop makes the wrong call,
    > he's screwed.
    
    What person is not responsible for exercising good judgement on the
    job, except the most menial?  If you exercise poor judgement on any job
    -- accountant, engineer, police officer -- then you should be subject
    to termination.  (In fact, one of the only jobs where poor judgement
    can't get you fired is judge.)
    
    > The way the policy is now, his rear quarters are covered.
    
    Policy is no excuse.  If a person cannot be intelligent enough to
    figure out a situation and rational enough to deal with it calmly, then
    I do not want them to be a police officer.  Their rear quarters SHOULD
    be ejected from the police force.
    
    > An unrestrained person then injures himself because he was not
    > restrained. He then sues the cop, the department, any anyone else with
    > money.
    
    Oh, baloney.  I'm not interested in unsupported hype about lawsuits. 
    If you think it is a problem, then pass one stinking law that prohibits
    anybody from collecting from others when they are mostly at fault.
  
    > Consider the source.
    
    The source is a citizen who has no more reason to lie than police
    officers.  
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .7971:
    
    > Eric, tell your position on cuffing violent people who need to be to
    > the family of dead officers who thought the people that killed them
    > during normal traffic stops weren't violent.
    
    Families of dead officers, my position on cuffing citizens is that
    police should not handcuff people they deem not to be violent.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    >Maybe you should try the fur-lined ones.
    
     Why don't you demonstrate? ;-)

    re:  producing ID if walking...seems to me there was a constitutional
    case upheld with regard to this.  can't remember the name, escadaro or
    something?  Down in Texas, having to do with vagrancy laws or some
    such?

 I thought that was in San Diego..

    
    	RE: 'tine
    
    	But not if you're on your own property ... what are they going
    	to do, wait until someone walks out the front door in a robe
    	to get the paper and arrest him/her for vagrancy?
    
    	I believe the vagrancy laws mention something about an ID and/
    	or a certain amount of money [to make a phone call?] being re-
    	quired.
    

    I dunno, guys, it's been mumble, mumble years since I've studied
    this stuff, so I am nowhere near remember the details, but I'd
    guess Shawn is probably correct with regard to being on one's own
    property.  However, if off the property and requested to produce
    id, I think you must, no?  Where are our SCOTUS experts when we
    actually WANT to hear from them? :-))))

    Re .8004:
    
    > However, if off the property and requested to produce id, I think you
    > must, no?
    
    No.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    EDP, could you perhaps share some more info?

    
    Can ve see your paperz, 
    
    I would believe that they would need some kind of cause for requesting
    papers. However, that doesn't mean they won't try.
    
    ed

    well, yes, ed, i agree, there would hopefully be cause for asking.
    I'm still wondering about this little tidbit I learned years ago
    and wondering how it fits in with all this.

	
re:  MILKWY::JACQUES

More free clues: 

	The police witnessed a crime OFF OF HER PRIVATE PROPERTY.
	Private property is not a sanctuary.
	
>		I'm saying that the arrest of this person served absolutely
>    no purpose other than to demonstrate that police are ALWAYS 
>    right and that ANYONE that cares to challenge that will be dealt
>    with rather harshly.

 	So, there is no reason why the police should try to identify a
	driver who displays an inability to follow the rules of the road.
	Since this woman would not identify herself, they should have just
	forgotten the whole thing and headed for the doughnut shop.

>    So there was nothing to be gained by
>    arresting her other than to satisfy the police officers desire to
>    punish her

	I guess this about says it all. 

>    What are you saying here? Is it not okay for me to comment in this
>    forum?

	I'm saying you entered your opinion about a situation of which you had
	not one fragment of information about, that you displayed an attitude
	about the cops that you can not substantiate in any way and that 
	you made no attempt to learn what really happened before putting 
	both feet in your mouth when the information readily available. And you 
	claimed your entry was based on thinking? I quite simply disagree. 

>>  Tell me you don't vote, please!
>
>	Like I said, please excuse me for having an opinion that differs
>    from yours'. 

	If you had an opinion that differed from mine, and it was based in
	fact instead of fantasy, you wouldn't need to be excused.

	
	Doug.

>    EDP, could you perhaps share some more info?


     Perhaps it would be wise to specify the subject about which you are
     requesting info, or I doubt there is enough disk space for the info
     that could be forthcoming from such a request.


   hth.




Jim

    
    	Mark, like I said, I'm pretty sure that driving without a
    	license and driving an unregistered/uninsured vehicle are
    	arrestable offenses.
    
    	So I ask again ... why shouldn't she be arrested?
    

    
      Prior to 1968, the police could only search/seize you with a
     warrant, which could be issued only by a judge upon presentation
     of "probable cause".
    
      In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the Supremes ruled stop-and-frisk
     constitutional.  The test is "reasonableness".  Both phrases
     derive from the Fourth Amendment.
    
      bb

    .152
    
    She was not driving without a license.  She had a valid license; she
    happened not to be complying with the restrictions on it.

    
    	I thought I remembered reading that she refused to comply with
    	the officer's "license and registration" request.
    

    That isn't the same as driving without a license.  That's obstructing a
    police officer in the performance of its duties.

  .156  "its"?  <expectant look of person anticipating treatise
	on pronoun usage>

    
    	Wasn't that horrible?
    
    	But I figured there must be some sort of a Latin precedent to
    	using "its" instead of the correct pronoun, so I let it go.
    

   .158  Et tu, Shawnus?

   from Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States,
 1992, Oxford University Press, "Probable Cause" David J. Bodenhamer :

   The *Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution stipulates that "no
 [search or arrest] warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."
 The amendment stemmed from colonial objections to the British abuse
 of general warrants and writs of assistance, legal documents that
 allowed officers to search and arrest individuals on mere suspicion
 of smuggling.  The framers did not define the meaning of this phrase,
 although they clearly intended it to prevent the central government
 from arbitrarily intruding upon personal *privacy.

   The Fourth Amendment has been among the most heavily litigated of all
 the *Bill of Rights, but the Supreme Court has considered the probable
 cause requirement in a relatively small number of cases.  The Court
 measures probable cause by the test of reasonableness, a necessarily
 subjective standard that falls between mere suspicion and certain
 knowledge.  Facts and circumstances leading to an arrest or seizure
 must be sufficient to persuade a reasonable person that an illegal act
 has been or is being committed.  Always the test involves the
 consideration of a particular suspicion and a specific set of facts.
 Hunches or generalized suspicions are not reasonable grounds for
 concluding that probable cause exists.  Judges, not law officers, must
 determine if probable cause exists, and thus if a warrant should be
 issued.

    In 1968 the Court modified this standard to allow police officers to
 *stop and frisk suspects in order to protect themselves, even without
 probable cause for arrest (*Terry v. Ohio).  More recently, the Court
 has accepted a law officer's experience, a suspect's reputation, and
 even anonymous tips, when buttressed by other facts, to weigh in the
 test of reasonableness when determining probable cause.  (See also
 SEARCH WARRANT RULE, EXCEPTIONS TO).

    .157
    
    The pronoun "it" is correct in reference to a person or animal whose
    sex is unknown or irrelevant.  It's an old usage with an honorable
    history, frequently seen in reference to children: "To see a devout
    child saying its prayers is to see God plain."

>      <<< Note 724.158 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Grandchildren of the Damned" >>>
    
>    	Wasn't that horrible?

	Yes.  But at least now we know it has an honorable history.
	I feel better - I don't know about you.

    i hate it when people refer to a child as "it".

    
    I dunno, sounds good to me 8^).
    

>    It must be nice being so far superior to other people that you
>    can hand out free clues and can render an opinion to be invalid!

   Generally, I hand out free clues to those who continue to spout
   false information when the correct information had already been
   provided. If I thought you were simply mistaken, I would have approached
   the responses differently. However, you clearly have staked out a position
   based on emotion and an absence of fact, which indicates to me that you
   need all the free clues you can get.

>    Excuse me Mr Know-it-all, but are you saying that there was no
>    other way that police could handle this situation except to 
>    arrest this woman?

   No, and if you had been paying attention, you'ld know this. However,
   I do disagree with anyone who puts the entire blame on the police without
   first making an attempt to understand what really happened, and why.

>   I'm sure in the next reply, you'll correct the last
>    few statements I just made.

    If you would stop entering such utter nonsense it wouldn't be necessary.

   Doug.

    I don't condone excesive force on a 75 year old granny. But... IF
    grandma is to wear glass's, and starts getting to be a wise guy.... And
    if she isn't wearing her hearing aid.. doesn't this consist of being un
    road worthy? Like in some states not wearing a seat belt, or being
    under the influence, or perhaps driving in a dangerour manner. What is
    granny going to say if she kills someone? Gee, I am sorry?
    
    Ever see some of these folks in accidents? Some have crashed into
    parked cars, walls, buildings and a school.:) 

    Ban assault grannies!

    And ban assult grandads!!

    Excessive snarf.

    That's redundant.

    From last nights news report -- this old woman is required to wear
    glasses for driving; she was not wearing them that day and admitted 
    to not wearing them while driving most of the time.  She was so out 
    of it that she didn't think anthing about the big cars behind her 
    with flashing lights as anything out of the ordinary, and that 
    she didn't notice the nice young man driving beside her was wearing 
    a cops uniform and trying to flag her down.  I am only suprised they
    didn't do a sobriety test on her.  
    
    If that woman had hit a child, or run into people on the sidewalk
    the tone of the news reports would be different.  The fact is if the
    emergency call had been real and someone was being attacked, they 
    could have died because this woman was in lala land.  She broke the 
    law and should be charged as such.

    I can appreciate the officers' frustration. I was an EMT for 3 months
    before I went back to school. People really do ignore sirens and
    lights. It's especially bad when you're going to a call, as these
    officers were, where you don't really know what to expect. I think the
    reports of abuse were exaggerated, but it wouldn't suprise me if they
    crossed that fine line.
    
    Did anybody see the footage with the guy that was taking his wife to
    the hospital and the cop flipping out on him? This guy's wife was in
    big trouble, it seems, and he was driving rapidly to get her to the
    hospital, weaving across the highway, not too safe but understandable.
    A cop(I'm not sure where, but I think he was a state trooper) was
    trying to pull him over, and the guy was ignoring him for obvious
    reasons. Finally he pulled over, and the cop was screaming at him, and
    every time the guy tried to explain the cop screamed a little more. All
    of this was caught on tape by a dashboard mounted camera in the cruiser
    and an audio mike on his lapel. Well, he held the guy up for some time
    and his wife died. This was fairly recent...

    Would this discussion be taking place if she would have been, say 20?
    
    Either way. From what I can glean from what is being said, I'd say both
    parties were in the wrong. The woman should've been wearing her glasses
    and it seems rediculous that the cops took the time to follow her home.
    
    However, I remember a situation that involved my late granddad. I don't
    remember how old he was at the time, but... he hit a car on his way
    home and didn't even realize he hit it. The cops chased him all the way
    home. He didn't get arrested, but he did lose his license and the rest
    of the family really had to fight with him to keep him from driving. My
    late grandmother swore that when she got that bad she would easily give
    up driving. The family had to fight her too. Needless to say, it's
    tough growing old.
    
    So... my take on this whole thing?
    
    The 75 year old woman shouldn't be driving.
    

i hate to bring up an old argument (well, not really), but the
way i interpret the law on search and seizure that was placed
in here a few notes back, it would seem these "routine" road-
blocks conducted to nab drunk drivers is very not right even 
more so to me now.

re: .160 

	Interesting note. It is, in my opinion, exactly this sort of
	abandonment of common sense that has resulted in many peoples
	disregard of the law.

> More recently, the Court has accepted a law officer's experience, a suspect's
> reputation, and even anonymous tips, when buttressed by other facts, to
> weigh in the test of reasonableness when determining probable cause.

	None of which are 'reasonable' as probable cause.

> The *Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution stipulates that "no
> [search or arrest] warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."
> The amendment stemmed from colonial objections to the British abuse
> of general warrants and writs of assistance, legal documents that
> allowed officers to search and arrest individuals on mere suspicion
> of smuggling.  The framers did not define the meaning of this phrase,


	Seems like the only thing that's changed is who the officers
	work for.


				Robert.

    Last summer I had popped my Achilies tendon. I had to wear a full
    lenght cast on my right leg. I was in a parking lot in Derry NH, some
    fish and chips restrant/takeout. An elderly woman started backing up
    her car, was not turned in her seat to see what was going on behind
    her, and I doubt she was looking in her rearview mirror. I am not hard
    to miss at 6feet 2inchs. I could not hobble fast enough to get out of
    her way. And just missed having both legs broken by her lazyness of not
    turning around.
    
    A former deccie was hit by an enderly person who had lost his license
    in Mass, and was driving under suspension in NH when he hit the deccie
    who was in his truck. The truck bounced over the railing on rt 93 and
    when it was court time, the elderly man shows up on a streacher, with
    the oxogen mask, on a gerney (sp). The mans attorney went into a plea
    to the fact that he was going to New Hamphshire for medication. And if
    he looses his license, he will not be able to get there. Then came the
    fact that he was driving with out a license, and had been doing so for
    some 5 plus years. He had many other accidents with his car, sometimes
    under the influnece of over medication and booz. 
    
    Beats me why anyone will defend this woman and say her civil liberties
    have been violated when there is a problem with the traffic levels
    growing, speeds on highways going up, and many of these people refusing
    to obeay the laws of the land.

    .176 - too many attorneys who cop this useless plea.   ATTORNEYS BITE
    
    

    1) I thought you can't get a license in MA 
       if you are deaf.  (But can get one with a hearing aid.)
       The idea is, if you can't hear, you shouldn't be driving.
    
    2) Cops:
       My friend's opinion on cops:  All the punks and trouble-
       makers in her high school (MA) are now cops in the same
       town.
    
    3) Jerry Seinfield has an opinion on elderly drivers.
       "They sit low and drive slow!"
       
       I can't get the picture out of my mind that this lady
       was sitting so low she couldn't see the flashing light,
       nor make out the vehicle to be a cruiser and the 
       occupants were wearing police uniforms.

   from Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States,
 1992, Oxford University Press, "Search Warrant Rule, Exception to."
 David J. Bodenhamer :

   The *Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, and the
 Supreme Court has concluded that warrantless searches, even if *probable
 cause is present, "are per se unreasonable" (*Katz v. United States, 1967).
 Exceptions occur when it is impractical to secure a warrant or when there
 is explicit or implied consent to the search.  Also, warrants may not be
 required when facts and circumstances preclude any reasonable expectation
 of *privacy.  Exceptions to the warrant rule include but are not limited
 to : searches inceident to a lawful arrest or required to insure safety,
 such as "stop and frisk" procedures; inspections by customs, border, and
 airport officials; searches made with the suspect's consent; searches
 made in compliance with lawful government actions, such as health
 inspections; searches of items in plain view; and searches of student
 belongings.  The same probable cause standard applies to all searches,
 under warrant or not (Brinegar v. United States, 1949).

   A long standing exception permits warrantless searches incident to a
 lawful arrest.  Circumstances may not permit an arresting officer to
 obtain a warrant.  But only the person under arrest and the immediately
 surrounding area are subject to search (*Chimel v. California, 1969),
 although a cursory visual inspection of adjacent hiding places may be
 conducted as a protective measure (*Maryland v. Buie, 1990).  Unusual
 circumstances may justify a warrantless search even though no arrest is
 made.  These exceptions rest on the need of law officers to protect
 themselves and others.  Courts will judge after the fact whether "exigent
 circumstances" justified the exception, including the officer's
 reasonable suspicions based on experience, the suspect's conduct and
 reputation, and other relevant factors (*Terry v. Ohio, 1968).  Not all
 police actions incident to an arrest are permitted.  For example, police
 may not conduct a warrantless search of a private home in order to make
 a felony arrest (*Payton v. New York, 1980), nor may they search without
 probable cause other parties who happen to be in a place also occupied by
 a suspect (Ybarra v. Illinois, 1979).  (See STOP AND FRISK RULE.)

   Prior to the 1960s, administrative inspections for violations of
 municipal codes and other government regulations fell outside the
 restrictions of the Fourth Amendment.  In Camera v. Municipal Court (1967),
 however, the Supreme Court extended warrant protection to a homeowner who
 refused to permit a warrantless code-enforcement inspection of his personal
 residence.  But in James v. Valtierra (1971), the Court held that home
 visitations for welfare programs did not require a warrant because, unlike
 code violation, refusal subjected a person to loss of governmental support
 only, not criminal prosecution.  The Court also has generally deferred to
 congressional determinations as to when a warrant is not required, such as
 in a warrantless search of a gun dealer's locked storeroom during business
 hours, an action explicitly authorized under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
 Heavily regulated industries, such as guns and liquor, have no reasonable
 expectation of privacy and thus are subject to warrantless searches.

   New technology often has persuaded the Court to carve exceptions from the
 search warrant rule.  In *Carroll v. United States (1925), the justices
 upheld a warrantless search of an automobile used by suspected bootleggers.
 Probable cause existed, and there was no time to secure a warrant because
 the car and its illegal cargo could escape.  The automobile exception still
 exists, with the Court generally giving police broad latitude in this
 area.  Evidence from these warrantless searches is acceptable so long as
 there was probable cause for stopping the car, even if the evidence is
 concealed from view (United States v. *Ross, 1982).  The interior of an
 automobile is not subject to the same expectation of privacy that exists
 in a home (New York v. Class, 1986).  (See AUTOMOBILE SEARCHES.)

   Another exception, no longer applicable, appeared with wiretapping.  In
 *Olmstead v. United States (1928), the Court concluded that this new
 technology was only an enhanced sense of hearing, not a warrantless
 invasion of one's premises.  The opinion brought a famous dissent from
 Justice Louis *Brandeis, who warned that the government was breaking the
 law by illegally invading a person's privacy, which was at the heart of the
 Fourth Amendment guarantee.  Congress in 1934 prohibited wiretap evidence
 in federal courts, but not until 1967, in Berger v. New York and Katz v.
 United States, did the Court extend Fourth Amendment requirements to
 electronic surveillance.

   Two other exceptions are worthy of note.  School officials, on reasonable
 suspicion, may search student belongings or lockers for proscribed articles,
 such as guns and drugs (New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985).  And aerial
 surveillance of a person's backyard does not constitute a search, even if
 it reveals illegal activity that leads to a warrant and arrest (California
 v. Ciraolo, 1986).

    Re .171:
    
    > She broke the law and should be charged as such.
    
    Well, duh.  Nobody has said she should not be charged.  Do try to keep
    up with the conversation.  The issue is not whether or why she was
    charged, but how she was treated.  The police used too much force, and,
    judging by the neighbors who said the police were in her face, they
    were not in control of their emotions.  Out-of-control police officers
    are a greater danger than a bad driver.
    
    
    Re .176:
    
    > Beats me why anyone will defend this woman and say her civil liberties
    > have been violated . . .
    
    And duh again.  Nobody is defending the woman.  Really, what would make
    you even suggest this?  Point out to me any sentence written by anybody
    in this topic that defends her actions.
    
    But violating her civil liberties is another thing.  Do you understand
    the difference between arresting somebody and hurting them?  Just
    because somebody screwed up and broke a few traffic laws and,
    admittedly, did pose a danger to others does not mean the police have
    license to hurt them.  The police have a license to use the amount of
    force necessary to control the situation and arrest the woman -- and
    that is it.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    The old bat should have been arrested. she may also lose her license,
    and she probably should.

    Re .145:
    
    There has been at least one Supreme Court decision that says police
    cannot arbitrarily stop a person.  According to .168, the police can
    frisk a person they have stopped for questioning.  But another Supreme
    Court decision says police cannot just stop you arbitrarily.  In the
    New Hampshire RSA, there is a statute that says the police can stop a
    person and question them about their destination, reason for being
    about, and so on.  An annotation says this is unconstitutional to the
    extent it permits detention without cause and refers to the Supreme
    Court decision.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    .180 Der to you to. And may one of them hold you up in traffic tonight
    on your way home.:)

    >1) I thought you can't get a license in MA 
    >   if you are deaf.  (But can get one with a hearing aid.)
    >   The idea is, if you can't hear, you shouldn't be driving.
    
     That is certainly not the case in NH. However, deaf drivers must have
    two side mirrors on their car, and there may be a more stringent
    eyesight requirement (can't remember.) There's certainly no reason a
    deaf person should be prohibited from driving. The ability to hear has
    minimal impact on one's ability to drive.
    
    

	I think a cell phone has more of an impact than not hearing when it
comes to not driving safely. 

    .185 Or and excessively loud radio/boom box system in the car.

    
    <---- what???????

    
      I hope the Oxford source explains why and how a car differs from
     a home.  Both require "probable cause" for search and seizure, but
     the house requires a warrant while the car does not.  The rationale
     is that cars run away and houses don't.
    
      As to "unreasonable", that, as they say is "inherently" subjective.
     It is deliberately so, right back to the 1st Congress and 3/4 of the
     states who ratified the Fourth Amendment.  The framers WANTED a
     subjective assessment of reasonableness by a third party, be it a
     judge or jury, NOT the assessment of the officer or the suspect.  It
     is the INTENT of the Constitution, not some modern liberal or
     conservative heresy.  True, the Court has given various guidelines
     to reasonableness, but the word is right there staring anybody in the
     face.  The Court was FORCED into cogitations over "unreasonable",
     by design.
    
      bb

    .187 I SAID ITS TOO LOUD CAUSE SOMEONE HAS THEIR BOOM BOX TURNED ON!:)
    

    
    	Deaf people CAN drive, legally, but the registry does frown on
    	giving licenses to blind people.
    

>    1) I thought you can't get a license in MA 
>       if you are deaf.  (But can get one with a hearing aid.)
>       The idea is, if you can't hear, you shouldn't be driving.

I believe deaf drivers have better than average safety statistics.
Disallowing the deaf to drive would be a pretty egregious violation
of the ADA.

    
    >>Disallowing the deaf to drive would be a pretty egregious violation
    >>of the ADA.
    
    the american dental association????
    
    
    
    

Americans with Disabilities Act, one of Bob Dole's proudest accomplisments.

    
    i was wondering what the denists had to do with the deaf...
    
    :>
    
    

    dentist have nothing to do with it execpt for the invention of dental
    floss bikini's.:) 

    Just scanned this topic....


    Re .71
    
>    	And the majority of accidents involve people within
>    	the age range of 20-30 or so, which basically negates the idea
>    	that the elderly are causing too many accidents.  

    Lies, damn lies, and statistics. While those under 20 cause more
    accidents per unit of calendar time, those over 65 are cause more
    accidents per unit of time behind the wheel. Those over 65 tend
    to drive far less than any other age group, so their total number
    of accidents is less than young drivers. However the most dangerous
    person *on the road* is one over 65.


    This old lady exhibited behavior consistent with that of a drunk driver.
    She has clearly demonstrated that she does not belong on the road.
    It is unfortunate that the police had to handcuff here, but if that
    is standard procedure, then the police did what they should have.
    (I agree, the procedure may need to be updated).

    						Ed

    

    .95 The Saugus police should be sent to LA to also learn new techniques
    on getting cought on tee-vee whist beating the crap out of illegal
    aliens either from far and distant planets or from New Hampshire.:)
    

    .100 Perhaps when the cruizer pulled up with light flashing and such.
    She was thinking she was about to get a ride with Elvis from
    outterspace.:) As in UFO abductions. :) Perhaps she had been given a
    ride already, was given a labotomy, and set free to roam and forage
    again.;)
    

    
    
	re .45 and several others
    
>    re: the handcuffs
    
 >   The reason for the police using handcuffs is twofold. It protects them
 >   against an attack by the arrestee, and it protects the arrestee from
 >   doing bodily harm to themselves. hth      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    So how does wearing handcuffs keep a person from harming themselves?
    
    John
    
    

If you're cuffed behind your back you can't throttle yourself.

Last time I had a Massachusetts driver's license study guide in my hand
it had a section that advised that deaf people were limited to driving
vehicles with mirrors on both left and right sides. I don't know if that
has changed since the manufacturers started shipping all vehicles that
way.

Art

    
    	But not all vehicles are shipped that way.
    

There used to be a small fleet of vans in SE Massachusetts that were
painted obnoxious yellow, and had garish diagonal black and white stripes
painted across the back doors. On the back doors there was also a painted
sign:

                CAUTION
           BLIND MAN DRIVING
           

...the vans were owned by the Interstate Venetian Blind Company

    
    well said LJ

    
    re. old driver accident rates ...
    
    A recent AAA magazine had some stats.  From memory I remember teenage
    drivers being by far the worst but that they quickly improve so by 20
    or so the accident rate remains flat until the the 60s and 70s when it
    starts going back up.   It's a bathtub    \______/   looking curve with
    the teenage end being the worst.  The teenagers can be looked at as a
    learning curve problem (and the article was specifically pointed at
    improving the problem).  The old drivers represent a loss of ability of
    some drivers.  Personally I'm all for tresting older drivers.  If it's
    unconstitutional to test older drivers then test all of them upon
    renewal IMO.
    
    Greg
    

    From the old people--drivers older than my 52 years--I have driven behind
    they cause more accidents than they are officially involved in.
    I shall never forget one elderly man who pulled around the line of cars
    waiting at a stop light, somehow managing to make his way through the 
    traffic crossing on the green light, then drove off down the road and 
    hung a sharp left across oncoming traffic into a florist parking lot.  
    The florist said he was just glad the man stopped at the front door and 
    hadn't thought the store was drive-through.  The driver was completely
    unaware that he had done anything wrong or had caused 4 minor
    accidents. If I hadn't taken the time to follow him and get the police
    called he would have gotten away with it.
                                                       

    
    
    Charles interviewed this woman on the radio last week. She was out of
    it, could barely hear what he was asking, she kept saying "Ah ah".
    And then she says that the Drs should be in jail. He kept asking her
    what Drs, do you mean the cops? She asked him, what Dr, then he told
    her what she said, she didn't know what was going on.
    
    Mary
    

   -1  Sounds like my mother, who was hallucinating small children in my
   house (we have none), swore there was an elevator in her bathroom going
   up to her bedroom on the second floor (the house is a single story ranch),
   and complained that the TV stations here in CO always changed around the
   time(s) that Jeopardy came on (they don't - 6 nights a week at 6:30pm).

   She just got a new car, and is the only one in her elderly housing unit
   that drives.

   Yes, we're all worried about her, we've extracted promises from her that
   she won't attempt to drive unless she's in tip-top shape that day, and
   we've regailed her with stories of little-old-folk running into groups of
   kids and driving off thinking they were just garbage cans.  It's tough
   for me to have any say in this situation from 2000 miles away, though...

   Be very careful (and very afraid) if you find yourself in Chatham, MA.

   -- Sam

    
    	Chatham??
    
    	Isn't that the town right between Rte. 89 and DOO?
    

    
    >8^I
    
    

   Given what little I know of Shawn's sense of humor (is *that* what you
   call it?  :-)), and given Deb's response, I don't know if .-2 was a
   "joke" or not (see my personal name...  :-)).

   Chatham is on Cape Cod, between Harwich and Orleans on route 6.  Spent
   many a summer there as a yoot.  My sister's been a year-round resident
   for 25 years or so.

   -- Sam

    
    	In another note [15?], Deb was looking for directions from
    	Rte. 89 to DOO.
    
    	So, yes, it was humor.  8^)
    

    
    Or at least what passes for humour in Shawn's world 8^).
    
    

    
    	RE: My world
    
    	It's a really nice place to visit, but I don't think you'd want
    	to live here.
    

    The meanies that arrested Granny have been cleared of any wrongdoing.
    A panel of 3 members cleared them. The panel was made up of the
    Police chief, The mayor, and a rep from the police union. The mayor
    voted to impose sanctions and the other 2 voted to clear them. 
    
    I'm shocked!
    
    

Gee, what a surprise! Happens every time... cop does some questionable thing,
people call for an investigation, cop gets investigated by the Police Dept,
who of course find nothing to get excited about. What's wrong with this
picture?

    
    	What's wrong with THIS picture?  Nothing at all.
    
    	What is potentially wrong with this SITUATION?  Possibly some-
    	thing to get worked up over.
    

  .216 If it was "questionable", that means maybe the cop did nothing
       improper, right?

    I'm with Shawn on this one; personally I think the old biddy should
    have been strip searched also (only kidding - old, wrinkled folks
    gross me out) ;-)
    
    My maternal grandfather (who turned 100 10-May-96); had enough
    sense to "hang up his keys" when he hit 70.  Mentally, he's as
    sharp as as tack, but he was the first to admit that his eyes and
    ears weren't as sharp as they could be and he had no business being
    on the road.
    
    I had a neighbor who was the picture of a "sweet old lady"; the
    Cobb County cops pulled her over on I75 driving under the influence
    of "her medicine", i.e. Valium, Elavil and Southern Comfort!!!
    She was cuffed and taken to the pokey; although I'm sure her
    daughter didn't tell her directly, the daughter told us she was
    relieved the cops had acted as they did.  All her efforts to get
    her mother to listen to reason had fallen on deaf ears (no pun
    intended).
    
    As Shawn said, if he had committed as many offenses as this woman,
    he'd still probably be in jail trying to make bail.
    
    

    	The reason this case was reviewed in the first place is because 
    the neighbors raised concern that "Granny" was treated harshly by
    arresting officers and that they used excessive force.
    
    	My only concern is that the "review" process was not objective.
    How could it be objective when the deck was stacked. There should
    have been at least one member of the community at large involved
    with the review process. Some towns have a community review board. 
    Allowing law enforcement to review their own actions means that they 
    are not accountable. If they had been cleared by a truly independant 
    review board, it would carry a lot more weight.
    
    	This review does not stop "Granny" from filing a civil suit. 
    If she does, the civil suit would most likely be presented to
    a jury. Jury's are not as quick to dismiss charges of wrongdoing
    as the Police Chief and Police Union Rep tend to be. 
    
    	In an interview "Granny" mentioned that she would be hiring
    an attorney to defend her in court. If her attorney believes she
    has a case, you just might see a civil suit being filed.
    
    	

    
    
    	Chances are she will file a civil suit.  Her lawyer will
    	think big money.
    
    	If I were on that jury however, based only on what I've
    	seen thus far, I wouldn't rule in her favor.  She shouldn't
    	have been driving.  Period.  She disobeyed the law, she was
    	arrested.
    

    and the jury's decision is to fine the plaintiff. Next!

    If this case were presented to the jury in the right light, they just
    might find for Granny. When the jury sees how *fair* (not) the review 
    process was, they just might want to send a message. 
    
    This reminds me of the State Police Accident Reconstruction case that
    was brought to light a year ago. It was found that in over 80 cases
    where state police officers were involved in accidents, not one was
    found to be at fault. Not One!  There was one case where a guy was
    changing a flat tire. A police officer came up from behind and rear-
    ended his car, crippling the motorist for life. The State Police 
    accident dudes estimated the officer's speed at 30 mph (just below
    the posted limit). An independant investigator found that there were
    over 100 feet of skid marks left by the cruiser. This does not 
    agree with the 30 mph claim.  This is yet another example of the
    fox guarding the chicken coop. If law enforcement officials cared
    about the truth and truly cared about public opinion, they would
    appoint an independant third party to review such cases. The 3rd
    party should have absolutely no affiliation with either side. In
    the Taunton case:
    
    	The Chief has a vested interest in clearing the individuals 
    otherwise there is the appearence of a problem within his dept. 
    If there is a problem, then there has to be corrective action taken.
    
    	The Union Rep is present at the review meetings to represent 
    the Union members, ie the Officers.
    
    	The Mayor is the only party present that can raise concern
    about the officer's actions. He may do so for purley political 
    reasons. 
    
	In my opinion, you had all of the wrong people involved with
    the review process. All 3 parties had agendas that prevented them
    from being objective. The outcome was predetermined by the mix.
    Whether you agree with the actions of the officers or not, you've
    got to admit the process was flawed. 
    
    	Mark

I'm with Mark.

Now, that doesn't mean I'm one of these "Oh, you have to let them keep
driving, how else will they get around?" types. I've long been for re-testing
for driver's licenses every 5 or so years for just this problem. My wife's 85
year-old grandfather smacked a tree head-on just last week. Cops played along
and said "brake failure", but the farmhand who also went through the
windshield tells another story... seems Grandpa lost control of his foot.
Both are ok considering.

The cops investigating cops issue is entirely different. Clearly, this is
prone to abuse. There must be an impartial third party for such things.

I can see the civil trial now ....

As the defense cross examines the little old lady, having to repeat their 
questions several times because she starts talking about how the doctors 
weren't very nice, and the defense can't get a coherent answer from her,

and then explaining to the jury that the officers had exactly the same
problem with the hearing and coherent impaired woman, so they raised
their voices so she would hear them, to no avail because she wouldn't 
understand them anyway, and so they took the only options left to them by 
the law ....

Doug.

    As much as I believe that a civil suit in this particular case would be
    meritless, I do agree that impartial third parties should have been
    doing the reviewing. There was indeed just the right recipe for a
    whitewash, had one been needed.