Sunday, May 16, 2010

Not Happy With These Two Incidents

I wonder if this sort of thing goes on up here?

An Alcoholic Beverage Control agent cites a guy for a city ordinance prohibiting alcoholic beverages in parks. The guy supposedly wasn't drinking alcohol. The fine is $100. He can contest the fine but only after paying a $200.00 fee.

Sounds bogus to me. Even the supposed fix they refer to sounds bogus: No fee if you win your appeal. Pay both fees if you lose. Both ways would tend to encourage a person to just accept guilt and pay the $100 fine to cut their losses.

As an aside, I wonder about the ABC agent supposedly saying his professionally trained nose told him the beverage was alcoholic. When I went through the police academy back in '84, we were taught that alcohol is odorless and that, when testifying in court, we were to testify we smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage (beer, wine, etc.).

I'd say if the agent can't say what kind of alcoholic beverage the guy supposedly was drinking, the guy should get off. Heck, since the agent refused to give him a test for alcohol the guy should get off.

Not sure I like this one, either. I know we're supposed to be happy when bad guys are captured but I'm not sure I like them saying they're going to give someone amnesty just so the guy or gal will show up so they can be arrested.

Don't have a problem with the way they used to do it, though, when they'd contact a fugitive and tell him he won something, then bust him when he shows up to pick up the prize.


At 9:04 PM, OpenID kymk said...


That last story is so ugly, I feel like I need to bathe. I appalled!

At 6:37 AM, Blogger Fred said...

It's too bad the Press- Democrat doesn't accept comments on their web site anymore. I'd be interested in seeing what sort of comments that story would generate. I suspect there would be at least a few supporting the deception.

At 8:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gee I feel so bad for these "parolees".

They accepted the parole to get out of prison early and then defalted on their agreement. Tuff Sh** for them.

Did you ever stop to think, or wonder, how many crimes these parole violaters have commited since they were released? Or are you stupid enough, or living in another universe, to believe that all of these convicted felons that violated their parole agreement became model citizens?

The government or parole can't use a ruse?

At 9:31 AM, Blogger Fred said...

I have no problem with them using ruses to catch fugitives, but not the way they did it this time. They basically promised amnesty when they had no such intent.

What they've done in the past- and I have no problem with- is contact fugitives in one way or another (mail or phone, etc) and tell them they won something. When the fugitive would show up to collect the prize, they get popped.

Nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned as it doesn't involve false legal promises that can destroy the integrity of parole and law enforcement officials.

At 10:18 AM, Blogger Dave said...

Those enforcment officials lied. Not tricked, but outright lied to lure people there.

What a great example - just lie in the name of the law. I'm sure our youth will look up to thses liars...NOT!


Post a Comment

<< Home