Police Marine Units
 

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.

Police Marine Units
 

"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?

Police Marine Units
 

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.

Police Marine Units
 

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.

Police Marine Units
 

"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...

Police Marine Units
 

"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."

Police Marine Units
 

"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."

Police Marine Units
 

"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."

Police Marine Units
 

"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."

Police Marine Units
 

"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."

Police Marine Units
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
More often than you may realize, cops have to deal with situations which
involve no violation of the law. But, smart cops show up anyway because
they
know that if they don't, they'll have a REAL problem on their hands
otherwise.

You may want to ask a cop about this next thing, but I know you're not too
keen on getting involved with your local public servants.

Forget hostage situations. Forget armed robbers. Forget bomb scares. What
is
the most dangerous and unpredictable situation for which cops are called
regularly? Hint: 99% of the time, it initially involves no laws being
broken.

"Disturbance" calls.
--
-= swatcop =-

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

Police Marine Units
 

"Backyard Renegade" wrote in message
om...
"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...

I'm glad someone "pro-jetski" finally responded so I can get an even view of
the situation. As I stated in other replies, I am a fair guy. I won't
headhunt jetskis and hand out fistfulls of citations, but if all of the
boaters are complaining about the "water etiquette" usually displayed by
PWCs, then there's got to be a problem somewhere. I believe that I can get
the message out in my area that inconsiderate operation of PWCs will not be
acceptable without breaking out the ticket book. Once I warn someone,
though, I WILL issue a citation for subsequent offenses. That goes for PWCs,
boats, cars, skateboards, or whatever. Thanks for your input, yours will be
noted along with the rest of them.
--
-= swatcop =-

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

Police Marine Units
 

swatcop wrote:
"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.


We're getting closer and closer...

--
Email sent to is never read.

Police Marine Units
 

Actually, you're not. The jet skiers' I see aren't rude. I
accidentally ran across a nice little lake her in NC where most
all of the folks boating aren't complete morons. The topic
started with watching for 'wreckless jet skiers' but somehow got
perverted to watch out for 'all jet skiers'.

-JimL




WaIIy wrote:

Am I the only boater here with no bad jet ski stories to tell? The
ones I see are just having fun and not bothering anyone.

Police Marine Units
 

Up on lake Conroe, the fishermen found that treble hooks cast just right
will keep the jetskiers away. Or hook 'em.

"JimL" wrote in message
...
Actually, you're not. The jet skiers' I see aren't rude. I
accidentally ran across a nice little lake her in NC where most
all of the folks boating aren't complete morons. The topic
started with watching for 'wreckless jet skiers' but somehow got
perverted to watch out for 'all jet skiers'.

-JimL




WaIIy wrote:

Am I the only boater here with no bad jet ski stories to tell? The
ones I see are just having fun and not bothering anyone.

Police Marine Units
 

Good for you. You're the exception, that's for sure!

"swatcop" wrote in message
om...



"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."

Police Marine Units
 

Maybe it's time we re-examined this "it's a priviledge, not a right" line. I
guess when horses were the prevalent mode of transportation, driving an auto
was a "priviledge" of the rich, who could afford them. Nowadays, how would
one survive without a car, at least in most parts of the U.S.? You'd get
killed trying to ride a bike to work in a lot of big cities, run over by
those "Priviledged" auto drivers. Driver's licenses are still just another
revenue generation tool, since obviously there are plenty of accidents by
all those "trained and approved" drivers.

It reminds me of those parents who get their kid something like a bike or
horse, just to have something to take away to punish them later.

"swatcop" wrote in message
om...



"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."

Police Marine Units
 

"swatcop" wrote in message
om...

I like the way you think.
--

So do my cop friends. I'd never be able to function that job, though. I have
no patience for procedures and paperwork. :-)

Police Marine Units
 

"swatcop" wrote in message
om...

"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.

I've been reading a pretty scary book about what life is like in Colombia.
Scary stuff. Paramilitary (works for someone, but nobody's sure who - maybe
sugar plantation or factory owners) comes to a town and puts lists of names
in a town square. The list contains people who the pares believe are guilty
of crimes like theft or drug-running. Within a few days, everyone on the
list is gunned down in the street. Sometimes, they pith them, instead.
Remember pithing frogs in biology class? A needle through the base of the
skull? It apparently works with people as well.

Next the guerillas come to town and track down the paras they believe were
responsible for the executions, and administer their own justice. Sometimes,
the police, who are powerless, are blamed, so they are murdered. The
townspeople *know* the cops were innocent because nobody in town tipped them
off about which bad guys needed to be "handled". The cops are actually a
liability because they're prime targets of the guerillas. Innocent
bystanders are often hurt when guerillas drive by firing machine guns at a
group of cops. The locals get nervous when the police decide to build a new
police station right in the middle of town.

Very confusing. Very weird. Happening right now.

By the way, the cops aren't powerless for lack of weaponry. We send them
sophisticated stuff. They're powerless because the populace is afraid to
communicate with the cops. Too dangerous.

Police Marine Units
 

"Keith" wrote in message
...
Maybe it's time we re-examined this "it's a priviledge, not a right" line.
I
guess when horses were the prevalent mode of transportation, driving an
auto
was a "priviledge" of the rich, who could afford them. Nowadays, how would
one survive without a car, at least in most parts of the U.S.? You'd get
killed trying to ride a bike to work in a lot of big cities, run over by
those "Priviledged" auto drivers. Driver's licenses are still just another
revenue generation tool, since obviously there are plenty of accidents by
all those "trained and approved" drivers.


You have a right to travel anyplace you want in this country without some
goon asking to see "ze paperz, pleaze". How you travel is in no way
guaranteed, mentioned, suggested or alluded to in the bill of rights or the
constitution.

I'll tell ya what, though - if you'll do this, I'll forget the previous
paragraph and agree with you. Ready? Stand in a busy airport. Have yourself
chained to an immovable object. Distribute rotten fruit to the first 200
people who walk by. Distribute baseball size stones to perhaps 50 of those
people, and loaded pistols to perhaps a dozen people. Using a bullhorn,
announce that training and testing for airline pilots is a violation of some
imaginary rights and should be ended immediately. Continue making this
announcement until you lose consciousness.

Let me know which airport.

Police Marine Units
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


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.


I think you're onto something here, Harry. Unless my memory fails me, in the
1960s (when I first began reading my dad's boat magazines cover to cover),
boats like Cigarettes were only mentioned with regard to ocean racing. I
don't recall them being a common retail item. They were owned by real
sailors who competed in weather that would horrify your average Dave. Now,
anyone with the money can buy a boat in that category. Unfortunately, this
raises questions:

1) Why don't they take them out to the kind of water they were really
designed for, i.e.: slamming through 6 foot waves at 80mph?

2) Why do they insist on using them so close to boaters who crave quiet?
Could it be because some people have a childish need to be noticed?

Police Marine Units
 

"swatcop" wrote in message
om...



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
More often than you may realize, cops have to deal with situations which
involve no violation of the law. But, smart cops show up anyway because
they
know that if they don't, they'll have a REAL problem on their hands
otherwise.

You may want to ask a cop about this next thing, but I know you're not
too
keen on getting involved with your local public servants.

Forget hostage situations. Forget armed robbers. Forget bomb scares.
What
is
the most dangerous and unpredictable situation for which cops are called
regularly? Hint: 99% of the time, it initially involves no laws being
broken.

"Disturbance" calls.

Hey! You blew it! Dave Hall was supposed to guess this one. :-) Then, he was
supposed to explain to us why a cop should show up at someone's house just
because the neighbor heard yelling, something that's not illegal. Finally,
he was going to tell us why, if nothing illegal was going on, do these
situations turn ugly. Sort of like this one:
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/...IP5_news.shtml

Police Marine Units
 

"Backyard Renegade" wrote in message
om...


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

I'm not sure who you mean by "compadres", but if you mean the jetskiers
themselves, that'll be a tough nut to crack. First of all, around here
they're 90% teenagers. Ask 100 teenagers how often they need a quiet
afternoon. Let me know if you get positive answers from more than one or two
of them. It's up to their parents to explain to them that some boaters are
out on the water to get AWAY from lawnmowers and string trimmers and morons
who think "loud pipes save lives", and that it's their job to make sure that
nobody has to hear their jet skis at "normal lawnmower distances".

Failing this, there's nothing wrong with them being hunted down and
reoriented by the cops. What's are the other options? Put up with the noise?
The bad driving? The drunkenness? Or, chase them down ourselves?

Police Marine Units
 

I already made an argument a few weeks back on the same thing. The State
defining the SOP mode of transportation as a "priviledge" opens the door to
a whole lot of infringements to personal liberty. It probably looked
innocuous then, with very few cars being mostly a pain in the ass to horse
traffic. The true "slippery slope" effect again. hehe

That said, highway revenues need to be generated, preferably by those that
use the roads. I could easily see requiring cars to bear an annual "tax
paid" sticker, with the fine for the lack of said sticker being double the
tax.

Past that, there's nothing going on on the roads that the criminal code and
tort law was never equiped to handle. IMHO

-W

"Keith" wrote in message
...
Maybe it's time we re-examined this "it's a priviledge, not a right" line.
I
guess when horses were the prevalent mode of transportation, driving an
auto
was a "priviledge" of the rich, who could afford them. Nowadays, how would
one survive without a car, at least in most parts of the U.S.? You'd get
killed trying to ride a bike to work in a lot of big cities, run over by
those "Priviledged" auto drivers. Driver's licenses are still just another
revenue generation tool, since obviously there are plenty of accidents by
all those "trained and approved" drivers.

It reminds me of those parents who get their kid something like a bike or
horse, just to have something to take away to punish them later.

Police Marine Units
 

"Keith" wrote in message
...
Maybe it's time we re-examined this "it's a priviledge, not a right" line.
I
guess when horses were the prevalent mode of transportation, driving an
auto
was a "priviledge" of the rich, who could afford them. Nowadays, how would
one survive without a car, at least in most parts of the U.S.? You'd get
killed trying to ride a bike to work in a lot of big cities, run over by
those "Priviledged" auto drivers. Driver's licenses are still just another
revenue generation tool, since obviously there are plenty of accidents by
all those "trained and approved" drivers.

It reminds me of those parents who get their kid something like a bike or
horse, just to have something to take away to punish them later.

There are still statutes on file that pertain to how you ride your horse.
That's a privilege, too. I don't disagree with you about the
"money-making-machine" that has taken over the system, though.
--
-= swatcop =-

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

Police Marine Units
 

Oops, sorry..

--
-= swatcop =-

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

Police Marine Units
 

Um, let me re-word that - I do not agree with the wheelbarrows full of cash
that we hand the government every year for the privilege of being allowed to
operate a vehicle.

--
-= swatcop =-

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

"swatcop" wrote in message
m...



"Keith" wrote in message
...
Maybe it's time we re-examined this "it's a priviledge, not a right"
line.
I
guess when horses were the prevalent mode of transportation, driving an
auto
was a "priviledge" of the rich, who could afford them. Nowadays, how
would
one survive without a car, at least in most parts of the U.S.? You'd get
killed trying to ride a bike to work in a lot of big cities, run over by
those "Priviledged" auto drivers. Driver's licenses are still just
another
revenue generation tool, since obviously there are plenty of accidents
by
all those "trained and approved" drivers.

It reminds me of those parents who get their kid something like a bike
or
horse, just to have something to take away to punish them later.

There are still statutes on file that pertain to how you ride your horse.
That's a privilege, too. I don't disagree with you about the
"money-making-machine" that has taken over the system, though.
--
-= swatcop =-

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

Police Marine Units
 

Already have that in Texas. You pay a tax on the licence plates, and another
"fee" for the safety inspection. Oh, yea. Major taxes on fuel for things
that drive on the highway. They could just increase the license plate fee a
few $$ a year and be revenue neutral by discontinuing driver's license fees.
We could always replace that with a national ID card... oops, more
infringement. They really DO want to be able to stop you and say... "ze
paperz, pleaze".

Remember when they came up with that idea to permanently affix your SS
number on a permanent tooth when you get one? They keep coming up with the
ideas... good thing we have resisted such Hitler nonsense so far.

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
news:wr%Db.581659$Fm2.540702@attbi_s04...
I already made an argument a few weeks back on the same thing. The State
defining the SOP mode of transportation as a "priviledge" opens the door
to
a whole lot of infringements to personal liberty. It probably looked
innocuous then, with very few cars being mostly a pain in the ass to horse
traffic. The true "slippery slope" effect again. hehe

That said, highway revenues need to be generated, preferably by those that
use the roads. I could easily see requiring cars to bear an annual "tax
paid" sticker, with the fine for the lack of said sticker being double the
tax.

Past that, there's nothing going on on the roads that the criminal code
and
tort law was never equiped to handle. IMHO

-W

"Keith" wrote in message
...
Maybe it's time we re-examined this "it's a priviledge, not a right"
line.
I
guess when horses were the prevalent mode of transportation, driving an
auto
was a "priviledge" of the rich, who could afford them. Nowadays, how
would
one survive without a car, at least in most parts of the U.S.? You'd get
killed trying to ride a bike to work in a lot of big cities, run over by
those "Priviledged" auto drivers. Driver's licenses are still just
another
revenue generation tool, since obviously there are plenty of accidents
by
all those "trained and approved" drivers.

It reminds me of those parents who get their kid something like a bike
or
horse, just to have something to take away to punish them later.

Police Marine Units
 

I beat him to it! ;)

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"swatcop" wrote in message
om...



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
More often than you may realize, cops have to deal with situations
which
involve no violation of the law. But, smart cops show up anyway
because
they
know that if they don't, they'll have a REAL problem on their hands
otherwise.

You may want to ask a cop about this next thing, but I know you're not
too
keen on getting involved with your local public servants.

Forget hostage situations. Forget armed robbers. Forget bomb scares.
What
is
the most dangerous and unpredictable situation for which cops are
called
regularly? Hint: 99% of the time, it initially involves no laws being
broken.

"Disturbance" calls.

Hey! You blew it! Dave Hall was supposed to guess this one. :-) Then, he
was
supposed to explain to us why a cop should show up at someone's house just
because the neighbor heard yelling, something that's not illegal. Finally,
he was going to tell us why, if nothing illegal was going on, do these
situations turn ugly. Sort of like this one:
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/...IP5_news.shtml

Police Marine Units
 

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:41:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

What's are the other options? Put up with the noise?
The bad driving? The drunkenness? Or, chase them down ourselves?

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

Actually it gets worse than that. Annoyed people gang up to assert
their democratic right to get laws passed. Laws that then become
applicable to all boaters, not just the ones that caused the trouble
in the first place. Next thing you know you've got speed zones, no
wake zones and no-boating-of-any-kind-whatsoever zones. All because
of a bunch of half wits on a jetski asserting their right to act like
jerks. Same for the straight pipe exhaust crowd.

Police Marine Units
 

"swatcop" wrote in message . com...
"Backyard Renegade" wrote in message
om...
"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...

I'm glad someone "pro-jetski"

You did not read my post correctly, I am not pro jetski, I said:
" Hating jet skies as much as any other sane boater..."
Anyway, just wanted to clear that one up...
Scotty

finally responded so I can get an even view of
the situation. As I stated in other replies, I am a fair guy. I won't
headhunt jetskis and hand out fistfulls of citations, but if all of the
boaters are complaining about the "water etiquette" usually displayed by
PWCs, then there's got to be a problem somewhere. I believe that I can get
the message out in my area that inconsiderate operation of PWCs will not be
acceptable without breaking out the ticket book. Once I warn someone,
though, I WILL issue a citation for subsequent offenses. That goes for PWCs,
boats, cars, skateboards, or whatever. Thanks for your input, yours will be
noted along with the rest of them.

Police Marine Units
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ...
"Backyard Renegade" wrote in message
om...


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

I'm not sure who you mean by "compadres",

I meant his fellow Officers...


but if you mean the jetskiers
themselves, that'll be a tough nut to crack. First of all, around here
they're 90% teenagers. Ask 100 teenagers how often they need a quiet
afternoon. Let me know if you get positive answers from more than one or two
of them. It's up to their parents to explain to them that some boaters are
out on the water to get AWAY from lawnmowers and string trimmers and morons
who think "loud pipes save lives", and that it's their job to make sure that
nobody has to hear their jet skis at "normal lawnmower distances".

Then they are arrogant and stupid, if they want peace and quiet, they
should go somewhere where the noisy stuff is not legal. That is a big
problem when a few folks can ruin the fun for a lot of other folks...
the "few" I refer to are the ones screaming about those who have
different ideas about fun boating. Remember, noisy or fast does not
mean bad or illegal... or even obnoxious for that matter, it just
depends on your point of view... What is really bad, is the
intolerance of some for those with different opinions on how to enjoy
the public waters.



Failing this, there's nothing wrong with them being hunted down and
reoriented by the cops. What's are the other options? Put up with the noise?
The bad driving? The drunkenness? Or, chase them down ourselves?

By the way, the rudest and most dangerous boaters I have run into in
the past are almost exclusively on 20 to 30 foot boats, not go fasts'
or jetskies either, just drunken idiots in regular stock dealer boats
like Maxim or SeaSwirl. Around here the jetskis know they are targets
so they more or less are under control..

Scotty, I do my boating on the CT River.

Police Marine Units
 

"Backyard Renegade" wrote in message
om...

but if you mean the jetskiers
themselves, that'll be a tough nut to crack. First of all, around here
they're 90% teenagers. Ask 100 teenagers how often they need a quiet
afternoon. Let me know if you get positive answers from more than one or
two
of them. It's up to their parents to explain to them that some boaters
are
out on the water to get AWAY from lawnmowers and string trimmers and
morons
who think "loud pipes save lives", and that it's their job to make sure
that
nobody has to hear their jet skis at "normal lawnmower distances".

Then they are arrogant and stupid, if they want peace and quiet, they
should go somewhere where the noisy stuff is not legal.

As you know, there are boaters and jetskiers who not only need to go fast,
but at the same time need to be seen. I've been on vast expanses of water,
like Tupper Lake in the Adirondacks, anchored near a shore which was state
forest land, with no specific destinations (marinas, homes, channels, etc)
and had jetskiers buzz around my boat for extended periods of time. The same
thing happens regularly in Irondequoit Bay, in Rochester. There's no excuse
for choosing to do such things near a group of anchored boats when you have
10,000 acres of water to choose from.


That is a big
problem when a few folks can ruin the fun for a lot of other folks...
the "few" I refer to are the ones screaming about those who have
different ideas about fun boating. Remember, noisy or fast does not
mean bad or illegal... or even obnoxious for that matter, it just
depends on your point of view... What is really bad, is the
intolerance of some for those with different opinions on how to enjoy
the public waters.

If you'd just made some sort of repair to your engine and needed to max out
the boat to see if you'd done the job right, would you do so within a couple
of hundred feet of an anchorage, or would you put a lot more distance
between you and the anchored boats?


Failing this, there's nothing wrong with them being hunted down and
reoriented by the cops. What's are the other options? Put up with the
noise?
The bad driving? The drunkenness? Or, chase them down ourselves?

By the way, the rudest and most dangerous boaters I have run into in
the past are almost exclusively on 20 to 30 foot boats, not go fasts'
or jetskies either, just drunken idiots in regular stock dealer boats
like Maxim or SeaSwirl. Around here the jetskis know they are targets
so they more or less are under control..

Scotty, I do my boating on the CT River.

Police Marine Units
 

Ah-ha! Someone who agrees with me! I usually work the road after dark, and
my biggest pet-peeve is business checks and residential checks. I take it
personally if my sector has a burglary when I'm working because I'm very
thorough. The crime rate in my sector dropped 10% last year, which I'm very
proud of and attribute to high visibility patrol after dark. I plan on doing
the same thing with the Marine Unit by patrolling the channels and such.
Thanks.

Marina fairways?

Also visit and get to know the marina operators and liveaboards. In
areas where liveaboards aren't strictly legal, you'll find there are
still people who "spend significant amounts of time on their boats."
Think of them as built-in neighborhood watch. Sailboats with wind
generators and solar panels are highly likely to be home to someone who
keeps their eyes peeled. Worth getting to know the locals and welcoming
the transients.

Good luck and be safe.

dave