If you want to talk about extremes, consider a situation where there's NO
enforcement. Then, citizens will take matters into their own hands. Not a
good idea.

"Keith" wrote in message
...
Yep. The nose is in the door. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure I saw some
shoulders go by. It won't be long before the tail is past the door, and
the
pigs (Animal Farm Reference) have built the fence, a piece at a time.

"WaIIy" wrote in message

No, I don't want to hear about how much it's costing us in medical
bills, blah, blah, blah.

It's erosion of personal freedom, plain and simple.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:
Sometimes they have miles of water to play in, but they congregate
around
anchored boats whose owners simply want a little peace and quiet. They
may
not be breaking a law by doing that, but it's absolutely obnoxious.

Agreed. But encouraging a LEO to "hound them" simply becasue you don't
like what they do, is not legal.

Ya know, it's like pulling teeth with you. For anyone else, an implied
meaning is sufficient. For you, things need to be spelled out. Here we go -
add these pieces together and see what you come up with, Socrates:

1) Much of the time, a cop will pull someone over because they're driving
strangely. Sometimes, the driver is drunk, so the external observation was
correct.

2) If someone goes down a narrow residential street doing 75mph, he is
clearly a fool. Forget the speed limit. It's safe to say his judgement is
impaired in some way.

3) If someone repeatedly buzzes at high speed within 200 feet of a bunch of
boats which are anchored, when there's no other reason for him to be in that
place, external observation is all you need in order to decide that his
judgement is impaired.

4) Relative to #3, above, there is no harbor, no channel, no nothing. No
reason for the idiot to be doing what he's doing except that he's either
oblivious to he anchored boats or he's intentionally doing it to annoy
people with noise and wake. A cop has every reason in the world to stop that
boat and ask some questions.


There's
nothing wrong with a cop teaching them some manners, since their parents
obviously forgot.

It's not a cop's place to "teach manners". His place is to enforce
existing laws. If there is no law that prohibits a jetski from
frequenting the same are of a the water, the cop has no right to hassle
the PWC operator.

Sometimes, cops don't need laws. But in ALL cases, they have mandates. In
other words, there are things that citizens might WANT the cops to do, which
are not spelled out by laws. This happens all the time, Dave. Got a rash of
burglaries on your street? Got 50 houses on your street? Get a petition from
half the owners which says you want the cops to stop cars which seem to be
meandering aimlessly, just looking around. It's called a mandate. There's no
law against going to slow in a 30mph zone, but the cops will still show up
and make themselves a pain in the ass if you ask them to.


If the guy in the rowboat with the 5HP engine puts in in a large bay
like the Chesapeake, which is home to megayachts, commercial ships,
and
wind swept chop, then his judgement is impared.

If the guy in the small boat plants himself near a channel, he's made a
choice.

Right, a bad one.

Spelled out for you: He has no business complaining about wakes and noise if
he anchors in or near a busy channel.



If he plants himself miles from a channel and some asshole in a 50
ft boat chooses to come within 200 ft and throw an enormous wake, it's
obnoxious. Again, there's nothing wrong with a cop pulling him over for
a
little chat. You know this. Stop baiting the assembled audience.

Again, if you can cite the specific law that's been broken, that's one
thing. Otherwise, making judgement calls based on personal opinion, is
not within the purview of the LEO. Perhaps you favor the cops randomly
pulling over certain cars, which display certain behavioral traits which
*might* be offensive. Some people might call that profiling.

When citizens want that to happen, it's called a mandate. A few years back,
it was alleged that NYC police were taking known gang members into alleys
and giving them a little tune-up. Investigators couldn't find any good
citizens from the neighborhood to discuss it. It was a mandate they'd
requested.


Intoxicated operators is a no-brainer, but why the beef with
speedboats?
I, like many performance boaters, like things in the fast lane. There
are many myths proliferated relating to operation at speed. Most are a
bunch of hot air.

Like jetski operators, speedboats sometimes they have miles of water to
play
in, but they congregate around anchored boats whose owners simply want a
little peace and quiet.

Really? A guy who spends $100K on a flashy Fountain, is going to spend
his time running circles around a bunch of anchored boats? You must boat
in a really strange place. Usually, the only time larger boats run like
this is when they are pulling water toys. It just so happens that some
of the best coves for anchoring, are also the calmest coves for skiing.

On a good trout stream, some of the best places to fish are sometimes taken
by a couple of other guys. I move to another place. Sometimes the best place
to take my son tubing is occupied by someone pulling a skiier. I find
another place, rather than worry about a collision.


Maybe you should reconsider your choice of place to enjoy "peace and
quiet". Anchoring adjacent to a transient channel, and attempting to
complain when people pass by, is a bit ridiculous.

Who said anything about a transient channel?

Dave Hall wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

Clams Canino wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message

Intoxicated operators is a no-brainer, but why the beef with speedboats?
I, like many performance boaters, like things in the fast lane. There
are many myths proliferated relating to operation at speed. Most are a
bunch of hot air.

I dissagree. Alcohol slows reaction time. The faster the boat, the more that
reaction time comes into play. My boat is plenty fast, and you won't find
me out on a busy lake with any measurable B.A.C.

Like I said, BUI is a no-brainer. But why tie BUI operators with
speedboats? You are coming off like you're stereotyping the typical
performance boater. I find that somewhat offensive. I don't drink
alchohol AT ALL when I boat.


Wish you boated in my waters with your obnoxiously loud boat. I'd have
you cited every time you drove by...

As if you could.....

Dave



Ahh, but I could. In fact, I have. Down on the ICW, just north of St.
Augustine. Not you, of course, but others with annoyingly loud boats.
The watercops are more than willing to accept tips from boaters and
homeowners along the ICW who call in to report obnoxious boating
behavior. Driving a load boat at too high a speed and disturbing others
is a good way to get cited.

If you want to make a lot of noise with your boat, take it where no one
else is. Or perhsps you'll find a more neighborly penis substitute.

--
Email sent to is never read.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Wish you boated in my waters with your obnoxiously loud boat. I'd have
you cited every time you drove by...

As if you could.....

Dave

If any law enforcement service gets a half dozen calls about the same moron,
you can bet your ass they'll stop by. They have lots to lose by not doing
so.




Gosharoonie, I wish the Moron Known as Dave Hall boated near me...I'd
make sure he was cited every time he went out and disturbed the peace.

--
Email sent to is never read.

"swatcop" wrote in message news:9RMCb.12536
Thank you for your input. Seems the jetskis are a common topic, and will be
dealt with more severely.

I have been pretty impressed with what you have had to say, until now.
Hating jet skies as much as any other sane boater it is still my
opinion that if you go into this new assignment with that attitude,
and acting on that prejudice as you state you will, than you are just
another pain in the ass, bad cop.

As for the waterway, I'll be on the west coast in
the Gulf of Mexico. Thank you for the welcome and for the information, I
plan on making a POSITIVE change out there and not just becoming another
pain in the ass.

The way to make a positive change is to make your compadres see things
more from the user point of view and bring your practical experience
as a boater and a human to the job, not by going out with a "piggish"
attitude, looking for jetskiers and other (mostly law abiding) folks
who don't fall in line with your personal boating or even lifestyle,
preferences and treating them "more severely".

Scott Ingersoll, who has seen to many good cops fall into this trap...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Keith" wrote in message
...
Most traffic laws and enforcement are only revenue generation
techniques,
having little to do with safety. For instance, why do you see so many
cops
out with radar guns on highways, when most accidents occur at
intersections?
Easier to bring in the $$ that way.

I'd agree. Each year, before the high-traffic holidays, a NY State Police
spokesperson issues a little recording for radio stations who'd like to
use
it. It mentions the most dangerous things drivers can do. Frequently, they
mention tailgating at highway speeds as something which causes more
pileups
than anything else, and I'm sure that's true.

In 35 years of driving, I've never spoken to ANYONE who's gotten a ticket
for tailgating on a highway. Give me an unmarked car, and I could easily
write tickets all day long for that offense. But, it can't be measured
with
a radar or laser gun, so the cops never do it.

Never say never - I drive an unmarked Crown Vic, and I generally don't have
a radar unit in my car. Most of my citations are for "Failure to observe a
traffic control device," meaning that the person ran a stop sign, red light,
or whatever. I write speeding tickets as well, but usually only on special
traffic details that I get somehow assigned to.

I'd rather be pulling over the people who drive around town blatantly
violating a plethora of traffic laws than a speeder. You know the ones - dog
in their lap while talking on the cell phone and eating a Big Mac driving a
1970 station wagon that smells like a burnt oil refinery and could easily
replace the mosquito control vehicle. No turn signals, one working brake
light (if any), cracked windshield, broken antenna, with all of his hospital
paperwork strewn from one side of the dashboard to the other. Then you pull
them over and their license is suspended (which of course they had no idea
it was suspended). They root through the pile of empty Natural Ice cans to
get their expired registration out of the glove compartment. Of course when
he opens the glove compartment a bag of weed falls out onto the pile of beer
cans, but it isn't his - nope. His FRIEND must have left it in there. You
know, those type of people - THOSE are the ones that I like.
--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:53:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
I can see your point, but on the other hand (and there's always another
hand), the police *do* sometimes slow down traffic to peek in cars for
seat
belt compliance. There are occasional complaints about this, but mostly
it
goes by without much whining.

=================================================

I always wear my seat belt, as do my passengers. I think it's just
common sense, and don't really understand people who have a problem
with fastening their belts.

On the other hand (as you would say), I think the seat belt law is bad
legislation, and I think that police roadblocks to enforce it is
equally bad law enforcement.

I take a more severe view when it comes to automobiles, so my opinions
aren't very popular. If I won a really BIG lottery and had money to burn,
I'd actually hire someone to do a proper study to find out if one of my
theories is true: 90% of drivers are either drunk, completely distracted,
incompetent, legally blind or dead, too stupid to operate a spoon with
other
people around, or too frightened of driving to function safely. As a
result,
I have no problem with checkpoints. Driving's a privilege, not a right.
Free
travel is a right, but not automobile use.

On a more down to earth level, I know two cops, and both have described
what
it's like to arrive at an accident scene and try to figure out which arm
belongs to which child, when both are 50% pulverized against a windshield,
or worse, on the road. They say they actually nab people at the
checkpoints
whose kids are romping around the car unbelted. The parents often try the
"Hey....I didn't know" routine. Remember what I said in the previous
paragraph? Too stupid to operate a spoon?

I like the way you think.
--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:53:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
I can see your point, but on the other hand (and there's always another
hand), the police *do* sometimes slow down traffic to peek in cars for
seat
belt compliance. There are occasional complaints about this, but mostly
it
goes by without much whining.

=================================================

I always wear my seat belt, as do my passengers. I think it's just
common sense, and don't really understand people who have a problem
with fastening their belts.

I usually wear my belt too, but my wife finds it uncomfortable and
refuses to.


On the other hand (as you would say), I think the seat belt law is bad
legislation, and I think that police roadblocks to enforce it is
equally bad law enforcement.

Any law that's enacted for the sole purpose of protecting ourselves from
ourselves is intrusive and unnecessary. If someone does not wear their
seatbelt, and they are in an accident, then it's on them if they get
hurt worse. If someone's comfort is worth more to them, than the
potential for increased injury, it's a choice that should be made by the
individual. If someone wants to be on the fast track to a Darwin award,
who are we to stop them?

I would feel differently if the seatbelt law was designed to protect
other people from an individual's negligence (such as DUI), but that's
generally not the case.


Dave

Don't misinterpret this, but God forbid anything ever happen to your wife in
a crash and she wasn't wearing her seatbelt. Don't you think now would be a
good time to start bugging her to wear it? My wife use to give me the same
line of crap when I first met her. Guess what - if she didn't put it on, the
truck didn't leave the driveway. She'll get used to it after a while, it's
worth it. And think how bad you'd feel if you could have prevented it.
--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:46:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

The seatbelts are the only thing that keep you behind the wheel in such
instances. If you're on the median at 50+ mph and you're still driving,
you've probably avoided hitting other cars. You have a much better chance
of
finishing the episode alive if you're behind the wheel snugly so you can
drive. Only an idiot would want to be bouncing around the car.

Doug, these laws that take away personal choice are just that. Although
I agree with you on the child protection issues, I strongly disagree
with seatbelt and helmet laws for adults.

No, I don't want to hear about how much it's costing us in medical
bills, blah, blah, blah.

It's erosion of personal freedom, plain and simple.

I disagree - it saves lives, plain and simple. Driving is a priveledge, not
a constitutional right, therefore there are rules. Personal freedom purtains
to freedom of religion, etc., not risking other people's lives or your own.
--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
If you want to talk about extremes, consider a situation where there's NO
enforcement. Then, citizens will take matters into their own hands. Not a
good idea.

Better yet, how about life in other less civilized countries? You steal,
they cut off your hand. You hit someone with your car and kill them, they
shoot you right there on the spot. And these crybabies are complaining about
having to wear a seatbelt, and a seatbelt's only purpose or function in life
is to save lives. Unreal.

You know, the crime rate is a lot lower in those other countries. Maybe we
should adopt some of their methods.
--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."