Telling The Truth Is Hazardous Business

| | Comments (48) | TrackBacks (0)

[My opinion: Heh. To the extent anyone pays attention to this story, it is ultimately going to work to Greg Ahlemann's favor. Dismissing tickets is a widespread practice, and Mr. Ahlemann inadvertantly, by simply telling the truth, caused his opponents for the sheriff's seat to take untenable knee-jerk public positions which anyone familiar with the workings of law enforcement will immediately recognize as BS. Mr. Ahlemann apparently did a fine job making his case more clearly on all of the local television news outlets this afternoon. This is the type of story that is only effective if it does not have the opportunity to percolate in public consciousness. Once people begin to think about it, they realize the guy telling the truth is on the much more solid ground. The Post sprang it a week too early.]

[Mr. Ahlemann also stated today: "Any voters who don't want to hear their Sheriff telling the truth shouldn't vote for me."]

Yesterday's attempted October surprise on Loudoun County Sheriff Candidate Greg Ahlemann by reporter Bill Brubaker of the local "we try harder" publication has, unsurprisingly, turned into another signature boomerang piece by the Washington Post.

Discerning readers might have gathered from the original story that the contention of supposedly "experienced" Loudoun sheriff candidates Mike George and Steve Simpson that they never dropped tickets or asked for them to be dismissed does not quite ring true. As two officers interviewed in the story stated, it is a common practice. How could Mr. Simpson and Mr. George, with such long service records, have avoided the practice?

Former Loudoun County sheriff's deputy Dave Price (2001-2006) has an explanation: "Total hogwash."

"Dropping tickets" is, according to Mr. Price, "very commonplace."

Regarding the Washington Post reports of the statements by both candidates Mr. Simpson and Mr. George, Mr. Price said any law enforcement officers "read that, they know he's either straighter than any straight arrow they've ever known - or else he's lying."

Mr. Price said his father, a police officer for over three decades, confirmed he "did not know of any that haven't taken a call" to drop tickets.

Mr. Price recalled an incident in which he ticketed a teenage girl for speeding. Soon afterwards, a Fairfax County Police Department lieutenant asked Mr. Price to dismiss the ticket because the girl was on the local softball team. Mr. Price complied - which he said is the practice nearly all the time.

Another incident precipitated Mr. Price's resignation from the Sheriff's Office, about three weeks before he left.

On that day in 2006, Mr. Price was manning radar on River Creek Parkway in Landsdowne, where residents had been complaining of frequent speeders in the 35 mile an hour zone. He clocked a vehicle traveling at 55-60 miles per hour, and proceeded to pull it over. The driver became "belligerent with me, cursing me up and down," Mr. Price relates.

"He would not calm down. Finally his friend in the passenger seat told him to 'shut up, let's just go to court.'"

After writing the ticket, as he drove away, Mr. Price got a message from Sheriff Steve Simpson asking him to call Mr. Simpson's personal cell phone number. According to Mr. Price, Mr. Simpson asked him to drop the ticket, saying "The guy is some building contractor the county is trying to schmooze to get some building built. He said you were very professional with him. He has had lots of tickets and is worried that his insurance will go up. Would you mind getting rid of the ticket?"

Mr. Price agreed to drop the ticket and reports this is when he begain looking for another job.

The Post's Mr. Brubaker elected to just now release a story that would have been breaking news in January of this year.

At that time, former deputy and candidate for sheriff Greg Ahlemann issued a press release detailing an incident that took place in September, 2006, when Lt. Colonel Randy Badura pressured a deputy to agree to drop charges against Bruce Zurschmeide, who the deputy had charged with the triple misdemeanors of DUI, refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test and attempting to elude police. The deputy was asked to agree to the charges, which might have resulted in a sentence of year in prison, being dropped to a petty "drunk in public" which only carries a $50 fine.

Sheriff Simpson reportedly backed Mr. Badura in seeking the reduced charges.

Mr. Ahlemann took an interest in the incident as symptomatic of corruption which was hurting morale within the Sheriff's Office. He proceeded to investigate the details, some of which were divulged in the press release.

He was interviewed by Mr. Brubaker months before he won the nomination.

The Post reporter elected to sit on the story until this past Friday, October 26, when he called Mr. Ahlemann with some follow up questions.

Today, Mr. Ahlemann released to the media some background data which adds a layer of important information to the story. First is an audio recording of Mr. Ahlemann's interview with an internal affairs investigator.

The interview is worth listening to a couple times through, because it demonstrates the IA investigator is not investigating at all, but is in fact attempting to fix the story of what happened to match what would be in Mr. Badura's and Mr. Simpson's best interests. The investigator attempts to ascertain from Mr. Ahlemann that Mr. Ahlemann has not let out any information that would be damaging to the department.

Another interesting note is that the Zurschmeide family now appears to be actively promoting the false idea that the arrest of Bruce Zurschmeide was invalid (the IA interview above affirms the "arrests were good," putting the lie to the Zurschmeides' contention). A recent e-mail circulated from a member of the family argued:


Last Fall my brother was erroneously arrested on his own property by the current Sheriff's department for a DUI. After investigation, the Commonwealth Attorney reduced the charge to a misdemeanor.

In an effort to support his platform, Mr. Ahlemann claims and recently reported in the October 28th issue of the Washington Post that my brother received special treatment "by a high-ranking sheriff's official". The truth is that the arrest took place on private property and after an unsolicited investigation, the Commonwealth Attorney decided to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. My brother does not have a relationship with any high-ranking official from the Sheriff’s office, nor has he ever met Sheriff Steve Simpson. At no time did Ahlemann bother to speak to the arresting officer or to my brother about the facts of the arrest. Instead he chooses to falsely cite this incident as a platform for change.

The data - in particular the IA interview - accompanying this post, clearly shows the Zurschmeide family should have let this story die.

Regular, non-connected residents of Loudoun County know that for similar behavior they would be behind bars.

So while the Post's front page story attempted to paint Mr. Ahlemann as engaging in unusual practices, the truth of the matter strongly appears to be that Mr. Ahlemann is the only one telling the truth. Mr. Simpson - by advocating for lessening charges that would have any normal citizen facing extended time in detention - has some explaining to do in the case of Mr. Zurschmeide.

As the former deputy Mr. Price noted about Mr. Ahlemann, this entire story should "put Greg up higher because he's actually being honest about it. What's the point of lying about it?"

Supporting the original press release from Mr. Ahlemann, below the fold are copies of the original complaints in the Zurschmeide case filed by the arresting officers.


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Telling The Truth Is Hazardous Business.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1439

48 Comments

Cathymac said:

Joe - Thanks so much for posting this. I am sending it out to all the LEO's I know in Loudoun and Fairfax. The timing of the Post's article is indeed suspicious and I think Greg A is doing a good job turning this around.

Excellent information.

Jonathan said:

Joe,

I know that this is all so interesting and important to you personally/politically and you or your "staff" has obviously put a great deal of research time into this post, however people who attended the HSL forum featuring Starletta and Rich have been patiently waiting for your report. I don't understand why you have allowed rumors, letters and newspaper articles to distract you from your more pressing blogging obligations. Care to explain?

Also, you seem to be excusing the leak of personal information by your choice for the next Sheriff. Do you believe that it is acceptable to do so in cases where the leak serves greater political purposes? You had named that behavior. What was that again?

This information was given to all the local media over the past 2 days, and if you pay attention to some of the local papers I think you will note it is the Zurschmeide family which chose to go public with the story - very inadvisedly, considering the facts of the case, IMO.

I personally think this is far more important in an election week than writing a review of an event for people, unlike us, who did not attend. But believe me, Starletta is on my long list of Nov 7 projects. Thank you for your patience.

MARJORIE said:

HEY JOE,

IF I'M READING THIS ARTICLE AND OTHERS CORRECTLY THEN I HAVE TO ASSUME THAT, MIKE GEORGE AND SHERIFF SIMPSON ARE BEING TOTALLY DISHONEST FOLLOWED WITH EVASIVENESS ON THE SUBJECT MATTER, FIXED TICKETS.

AFTER HEARING THE AUDIO PORTION OF THIS ARTICLE, FROM WHAT I HEAR IS THE IA DEPARTMENT TELLING DEPUTY ALLHEMANN THAT THE ARRESTS WERE GOOD AND YET AT THE SAME TIME TRYING TO TRIP DEPTY ALHEMANN INTO SAYING SOMETHING ELSE, TALK ABOUT INTIMIDATION.

IF SHERIFF SIMPSON HAS RUN THE DEPARTMENT IN THIS MANNER DURING HIS TENURE AS SHERIFF OF LOUDOUN COUNTY THAN I'D SAY IT'S MORE THAN TIME FOR A CHANGE.

G. Stone said:

This issue is crystal clear.

Greg Ahlemann is the only one of these three candidates willing to tell the truth. For those who want to try to take this candidate to task for being truthful, knock yourself out. To borrow a line from a movie- You can't handle the truth.

It appears Ahlemanns detractors are pissed that a perfectly timed media hit piece failed yet again.

How would you like to be on the side of opposing a political candidate for being truthful with voters.

Simpson's response is I don't remember which is BS.
Mike George is even worse. His position is simply unbelievable. He is either blind or can't find the truth with both hands.

ACTivist said:

How can you ever get the word out to the people? EVERY law enforcement agency has done "ticket fixing" for MINOR offences! Fairfax does it all the time. In Fairfax you must poly as requirement to become a police officer. I think it is a very sound practice so as to know who is covering your back (unlike in D.C. were corruption festers). If put to the test, do you think that Mike George would submit to a poly to confirm his statement of no ticketing fixing? I seriously doubt that! As for Simpson; well, the proof is in the pudding.

Billy said:

Hey, this is a great story. I think anyone who had any doubt in his/her mind would be convinced that Steve Simpson lied.

On the other hand, I don't think we are at the point where we have any reason to call Mike George a liar. He has shared that his son once got a ticket, and his son did not try to get out of the ticket. Mr. George found out about the ticket, and could have tried to use his connections to fix it, but he did not.

Assuming that all cops are involved in ticket fixing is like assuming that all major league ball players are steroid users. Let's be fair here, please. I challenge any of you that accuse Mike George of being a liar to give me any proof beyond the fact that he has been a cop ___ years, therefore he must have done it.

ACTivist said:

Billy,
I question Mike George's statement. He may be one of the few but I need to KNOW for the position he is running for. If in doubt, prove it out!
As far as his son getting a ticket and him finding out about it later; if I let my dad know I got a ticket I might get a whoopin. If he found out about it later, he might let it stand as a lesson OR have it dismissed thru the commonwealth's office (once it is in it needs to go the process). So do you know what the rest of the story is with his son's ticket? I don't. He didn't elaborate. Doesn't take guts to give full disclosure like Greg did. Just integrity.

Jonathan said:

Joe,

At the HLS forum, you announced that HSL had formed a PAC, and Rich Kelsey provided attendees with a line a questioning for all candidates. There were Greg Ahlemann and Bob Marshall campaign signs out front, and campaign material on the table inside. Mick Staton made a campaign appearance. The forum *was* presented as voter education. It's a bit difficult to believe that the event was intended for Nov 7.

David said:

This is all very interesting about Simpson, and kudos to Greg for being forthright about his ticket fixing, but what does any of it have to do with Mike George?

I notice an awful lot of instances here of mentioning Simpson and George in the same clause, apparently hoping that the reader will think of them as the same entity. (Readers should pay attention to things like that.)

In fact, I spent some time with Mike George right before this story broke because we were doing an interview. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the oh-so-sophisticated cynicism displayed here, in which the rule seems to be that nobody could possibly understand the difference between right and wrong and hold themselves to a standard of behavior that they can be proud of, but it does make me sad. Believe it or not, there are honest people in the world. Not every cop is corrupt.

While I appreciate Greg's honesty about what he and other deputies have done, I'm troubled by the justification of it, that being that it's just "discretion" on the part of officers, and "everybody does it." Everybody might be aware of it, but everybody does not do it. There is a very important and clear distinction between genuine discretion, the use of judgment in choosing not to issue a ticket, and "fixing" a ticket after the fact, as a favor. I'm concerned that Greg doesn't understand how different those two things are.

It doesn't matter how widespread the latter practice is, it's still wrong. There are people who draw that line, and when you talk to one of them you know it. If you talked to Mike George, you would understand that.

David said:

Activist,

George didn't "find out about the ticket later," and I don't know where you got that idea. I think he was pretty clear about the arc of that incident, the point being that he wouldn't fix a ticket for his own son, and his son wouldn't have asked him to, or even allowed it. Values matter.

p.s. I would hope that you, as an adult, wouldn't be subject to a "whooping" from your father under any circumstances.

BlackOut said:

Joe,

Excellent report and backup. This is damning evidence, and will hurt Simpson's chances.

It will not go far in helping Ahlemann. Two wrongs don't make a right. Ahlemann is still going to have to live with his deathblow comment. That is what the general voter will rememeber.

I repeat, if Greg really wants to make a difference it is time for him to throw all his support towards George. Get his job back, get more experience and take up a run for Sheriff down the road where he'll not have to deal with the experience issue or the "raw" ticket issue.

George is going to win anyway, Greg and Simpson are carrying to much "ticket" baggage into the voting both for either of them to win.

Jonathan, I mean I am too busy between my job and the various little political commitments between now and election day. I am sure you have the same types of commitments.

"Nov 7" represents freedom and all sorts of wonderful things.

Aleksanderavich said:

A point that needs to be made is that, according to Ahlemann, the Washington Post interview took place months before he even received the Republican nomination.

It is unbelievable that the Washington Post would then release the article on their front page as breaking news after the amount of time that elapsed, calling it a “recent interview”.

This article proves one thing, only Ahlemann has honesty and integrity. Not Simpson, not George, and not the Washington Post. It was a despicable attempt by Ahlemann's opponents to launch an "October Surprise".

David said:

Readers should note my observation in the second paragraph of the comment at 11:54, and compare to Alek's comment, a perfect specimen.

As I told Alek at TC, "Your statement above regarding George is unsubstantiated, and seems gratuitous. Maybe you were just being sloppy when you threw that laundry list together. Please explain how this article about ticket fixing within the LCSO demonstrates anything negative about Mike George, especially in light of his comment at #52. I’m not seeing it."

Again, what does any of this have to do with Mike George? He doesn't work for the Post.

Linda B said:

I fully support Greg and appreciate his forthrightness in this matter. But I was glad to see Billy and David's comments re: Mike George. I was intending to comment on that earlier but have been busy at work today.

But, briefly ... I read George's comment on the Too Conservative blog and have no reason to disbelieve him. He did make a distinction between "dismissing tickets" and "fixing" them ... and so I'm sure there is some gray area there.

But unless someone has knowledge otherwise, I do not think George should be called a liar. Apparently there are some who have firsthand knowledge of Simpson's misdeeds, but I have not heard of anyone with such info re: George. I will give him the benefit of the doubt on this.

Mind you, I would not want George as LoCo Sheriff for a number of reasons, but I do respect him as a person and a former law enforcement officer.

Common Idiot said:

I asked it on TC and I'll ask it here: is any candidate willing to end the practice of fixing tickets once written?

At this point, it's a dare to all three of them.

arwillow said:

Joe -

So, how do we get this information to appear as a new posting on the tooconservative site? I think this would get some bites on that site also....

There is a lot of chatter on this subject at TC already but you've now added some more good stuff to mull over.

Laura V said:

"Regular, non-connected residents of Loudoun County know that for similar behavior they would be behind bars."

I completely agree with that statement Joe. My husband was involved in an incident for which he certainly did not recieve any special treatment and had to serve out the terms and pay all the fines that the law determined.

I also realize a DWI is more serious than speeding for example. But where I am losing you is in your seeming defense of the practice of "dismissing" tickets. Alhemann did not limit this to tickets written at the scene, but instead specifically said that he asked co-workers to tear up tickets already written.
Regular non connected residents of Loudoun County know that they are fully responsible for paying those fines, which can add up to a lot of money.
Aside from Alhemann doing the right thing by not lying, do you not disagree with this practice and hope that Alhemann would discourage it should he become sheriff?

Squirrel said:

Funny thing, first time I met George was at the 4th of July event in Sterling. He was wearing a"George for Sheriff" T-shirt. The guy had alcohol on his breath. I'm not against knocking back a couple cold ones, but before you campaign? Besides RU OK and Cyber Stations, he does provide much vision. I think I may write in John Isom, the guys a good Dem and he has 12 years experience as Sheriff of Loudoun. They btoh dropped out of Law enforcement around the same time as well. Since all George talks about is his "experience", I'll write in the non-alcohol while campaining John Isom. Join me any one?

The real truth said:

With regards to the Zurschmeide case, Ahlemann broke the law. The last I checked, one's social security number is NOT a matter of public record. That is why it is no longer used on driver's licenses!! He was WRONG to give that very personal information to the public. He should be brought up on charges.

MARJORIE said:

MY OPINION OF MR. ZURSCHMEIDE TIRADE ON GREG ALHEMANN IS BOGUS.
BRUCE, YOU CEASE TO HAVE PRIVACY RIGHTS ONCE YOU ARE ARRESTED.
SO THINK OF IT THIS WAY,…ARREST=GOVERNMENT=PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

AS FOR HAVING HIS PRIVACY RIGHTS ENDANGERED, WELL BRUCE MAYBE YOU SHOULD LAY OFF THE SAUCE AND START BEING ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS. BTW: WHAT PART OF THE ARREST WAS DONE "ERRONEOUSLY"


Ahlemann doesn't have the facts right
Printer-Friendly Email this Letter Post a Comment (1)

Submitted By: Bruce Zurschmeide
MONDAY, OCTOBER 29 2007 (LTMIRROR)

Last fall, I was erroneously arrested on my own property by the current Sheriff's department for a DUI. After investigation, the Commonwealth Attorney reduced the charge to a misdemeanor.

In an effort to support his platform, Republican candidate for Loudoun Sheriff Greg Ahlemann claims and reported in the Oct. 28 issue of The Washington Post [“Sheriff Hopeful in Va. Says He Dismissed Tickets”] that I received special treatment “by a high-ranking sheriff’s official”. The truth is that the arrest took place on my private property and after an unsolicited investigation, the Commonwealth Attorney decided to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. I do not have a relationship with any high-ranking official from the Sheriff’s office, nor have I ever met Sheriff Steve Simpson. At no time did Ahlemann bother to speak to the arresting officer or to me about the facts of the arrest. Instead, he chooses to falsely cite this incident as a platform for change.

Additionally at a public Republican Party meeting in September, Ahlemann passed out information related to the above incident, which included my social security number, date of birth and place of residence – all of which are the necessary ingredients for identity theft. As a former Loudoun County deputy, Ahlemann is well aware of the dangers of identity theft and has been trained not to expose and/or distribute personal information. He willfully did so, which endangered me and my family's personal and financial well being. As a result, I had to contact the national credit agencies to block all hits on my credit report to hopefully avoid identify theft! I have also recently been contacted by the FBI who informed me that they are investigating Mr. Ahlemann’s distribution of the aforesaid information as part of the Privacy Act.

Someone running for an appointed position should not be deliberately endangering the well being of the very people he supposedly wants to protect. In the Washington Post article, Ahlemann promises to “restore integrity” to the Sheriff’s office. What Mr. Ahlemann has done clearly lacks integrity – the very essence of what he claims he will bring to the county as Sheriff. How can we vote anyone into a publicly appointed office when they, through acts of their own, lack the integrity that the position requires? Mr. Ahlemann lacked integrity by not becoming well informed of the incident before making it part of his platform, and most importantly he lacks integrity when he freely distributed my personal information to the public at the risk of endangering my privacy rights! He violates the oath of the office that he seeks to obtain at the expense of the citizens that he vows to protect.

Bruce Zurschmeide

Bluemont

Billy said:

Two items:

1. Does anybody know why former Deputy Price's allegation has not gotten any media coverage?

2. For Bruce Zurschmeide. I found it interesting that you have made a public statement about the incident, but have did not apologize for your conduct. Are you truly shameless with regard to your actions on the night of your arrest?

Billy said:

Two items:

1. Does anybody know why former deputy Price's allegation has not gotten any media coverage?

2. For Bruce Zurschmeide. I found it interesting that you have made a public statement about the incident, which lacks any form of apology for your conduct. Are you truly shameless with regard to your actions on the night of your arrest? Do you have a substance abuse problem, and are you currently being treated?

arwillow said:

Questions for Bruce Zurschmeide:

Read your letter on Loudoun Times Mirror...Against the backdrop of all the other damning evidence against your, as you describe it, "erroneous" arrest (the multiple court documentation showing original charges of DUI, eluding police, the arresting officers' criminal complaint against you), how is it that you would then attempt to turn this around into something about Ahlemann?

How many times have we heard criminals claim "it wasn't me, I didn't do it" - we've heard that line from law-breakers before ALOT. Unfortunately, residents of Loudoun County are smarter than you are giving them credit for.

You take umbrance with the fact that your personal information has been disclosed. Yet, it is common knowledge that criminal charges against someone are a matter of public record.

Finally, my last question: Mr. Zurschmeide, are you gunning for Stephen Simpson to be re-elected? It almost begs the question, I assume you are. And, if you are, that is sad commentary on your choice for a Sheriff's candidate.

Simpson has thrown his own rank-and-file officer under the bus by trying to suggest that the deputies didn't make a good arrest, when the actual court documentation bears out that it was a SOLID, GOOD ARREST. Or, was the court magistrate acting "erroneously" in supporting those charges against you also?

Simpson's administration brokered a back-door deal to reduce your serious, criminal charges to a petty $50.00 fine. That is preferential treatment that no other citizen would get, nor should they when they break the law.

In good conscience, an administration like Simpson's that does such corrput dealings should get noone's vote!

ACTivist said:

David,
" I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the oh-so-sophisticated cynicism displayed here, in which the rule seems to be that nobody could possibly understand the difference between right and wrong and hold themselves to a standard of behavior that they can be proud of,"

Aren't you projecting?

The part about the whoopin was a concern under my father's dominion when I was a child. That was in the times that "corporal punishment" meant something to children that just didn't understand. It worked then. I only wish that it had been used as a guidance tool (when necessary) on others. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we.

Heather said:

"billy" had the correct question above when he asked, twice: "Does anybody know why former deputy Price's allegation has not gotten any media coverage?"

as a matter of fact, i emailed mr. bill brubaker (the wash post author of the suspiciously-timed article) and he said the purpose of his article was to inform readers and let them decide about the candidates. he also admitted to knowing about dep. Price's statements, but said he decided not to print them because simspon said they were not true.

if your purpose is to inform readers, why wouldn't you present all information on the subject and let the readers decide who is telling the truth and who is worthy of their vote next tuesday!?!

Billy said:

Very interesting, Heather. Since Simpson's agency requires polygraphs of new hires, would Simpson take a polygraph administered by a neutral party regarding this issue? Interesting how many people Simpson has accused of lying, especially in light of the fact that he publicly violated his pledge to the Republican party.

David said:

Activist,

Isn't that what you're saying? That it's impossible to believe that anyone in law enforcement can honestly say that they refrain from fixing tickets because they know it's wrong?

Please explain the "projecting" question.

David said:

Re: my comment at 303 - Sorry, it wasn't Activist who said that specifically, s/he only "questioned" George's statement. "You" referred to the several other commenters who find it unbelievable.

givemeabreak said:

Do we really want to live in a cut and dry community or one that is able to reevaluate the circumstances.Zurschmeide's case was reduced after the commonwealths attorney looked at it and saw how ridiculous it was. Let's ticket the real criminals not someone who was drinking on their own property. Why was the cop at the residence anyways, was he called out because something illegal was going on, or because the party was a little too noisy?

10 Ft Tall and Bulletproof said:

How does one "erroneously elude police"??
Inquiring minds want to know.

arwillow said:

To givemeabreak -

Well, by your reasoning if something happens on private property then the law can't intervene or respond. Give me a break.

So, tell me how many domestic violence calls, assault and battery incidents, rapes or any number of other crimes would go unaddressed by the police then? After all, if it's occuring in the home or on someone's private property then by your rationale then it's not an issue for law enforcement to address or respond to. C'mon.

That argument you're giving would never hold up. Besides, according to Simpson himself in an interview on tv earlier this week on this very incident with Zurschmeide, Simpson acknowledged that there are general orders allowing for DUIs on private property to be considered a criminal offense. Never mind the fact that Zurschmeide is reported to have fled the scene and had to be chased by the deputies with lights and siren.

ACTivist said:

givemeabreak,

Better close the blinds in your house while you partake of that beer or glass of wine. If you are seen by anyone passing by you may be arrested for drinking in public. It's the law, dumb as it is.

p.s. when you cough up that hairball and spit it out on the street or sidewalk, you can be arrested for that also.

ACTivist said:

David,

"I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the oh-so-sophisticated cynicism displayed here, in which the rule seems to be that nobody could possibly understand the difference between right and wrong and hold themselves to a standard of behavior that they can be proud of"

Projecting is the act of relaying a fault or blame on others that is inherent to yourself. Before you cast aspirsions, look in the mirror!

Jack said:

"[When] you cough up that hairball and spit it out on the street or sidewalk, you can be arrested for that also."

Carry a handkerchief, and stop licking your fur.

givemeabreak said:

ARWillow Not at all what I said. The cops should respond to all calls,but tickets written for stupid reasons should have a chance to be reduced. The argument does hold up every day, every day attorneys are out there trying to get the commonwealths attorney to reduce charges, and they get reduced every day. Who are we to judge whether or not he was fleeing a scene. Were we there? Do we know all that was going on? The scene was his house, don't think he was trying to hide. I think a coomon reaction to seeing police with a beer in your hand would be to turn around and go the other way.Does anyone know why the cops were called there in the first place? Was it because something criminal was going on ,somebody was endangered,somebody was being too loud? Big difference between criminal or having to tell someone to quiet down. Last night while we were out trick or treating, I saw a lot of people in front yards with beers in their hand.If the cops had been out walking the neighborhoods,and walked towards one of those houses and someone immediately turned around to go put their beer back inside, are they fleeing? Do they all need a ticket too?

ACTivist said:

" Last night while we were out trick or treating, I saw a lot of people in front yards with beers in their hand.If the cops had been out walking the neighborhoods,and walked towards one of those houses and someone immediately turned around to go put their beer back inside, are they fleeing? Do they all need a ticket too?"

Hmmm. Turning around to go put their beer back inside would constitute knowledge of wrong-doing. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime! Cops never harassed us on all too many occasions of drinking in a driveway with friends. Must be a "latitude" thing. I guess we are minor infractions compared to that not-coming-to-a-complete-stop or not-using-a-turn-signal crowd of criminals that deserve no latitude. After all, equal enforcement of the law! Police state-here we come. Gulags for everyone (I mean re-indoctrination camps).

David said:

Activist,

I know what "projection" means, and your use of it here doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say?

givemeabreak said:

activist
sounds like harrassment to me to expect a turn signal for a turn around at the end of your driveway out in the middle of nowhere. Also sounds like you don't expect to get arrested when you're at home just drinking some beers. Point being, a DUI in your driveway is a bit much and the commonwealths attorney, after reviewing all the detail, which none of us have, he agreed!

arwillow said:

Givemeabreak-

You say "the commonwealth's attorney, after reviewing all the detail, which none of us have"...

Simply scroll up on this very page, you'll see all the information and the details of the case. It was a good arrest, the court magistrate deemed it an offense that could have at the very least sent that man to ASAP or restricted his license or even jailtime. But, good ol' Plowman stepped in agreed to the back-door deal that Simpson and Badura brokered and presented and now the rest of us citizens get to drive our cars and walk about our neighborhoods knowing that someone like Zurschmeide can get behind the wheel of his car again totally wasted, elude police and maybe next time, he'll injure or kill somebody. Makes me feel better about how that case was dispositioned to a $50.00 fine drunk in public.

MARJORIE said:

A REMINDER TO ALL: CAST YOUR VOTE FOR YOUR CHOICES IN THIS YEARS ELECTION. YOUR VOTE DOES MATTER, IT'S YOUR VOICE SPEAKING OUT...LET IT BE HEARD,

MAKE IT A PRIORTY IN YOUR BUSY DAY TO TAKE TIME OUT AND VOTE,

REMEMBER THE MOTTO:

IF YOUR DON'T VOTE: YOU CAN'T GRIPE AFTERWARDS.

ACTivist said:

David,

Not TRYING to say anything. I said it already.....twice!

David said:

"I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the oh-so-sophisticated cynicism displayed here, in which the rule seems to be that nobody could possibly understand the difference between right and wrong and hold themselves to a standard of behavior that they can be proud of."

In what sense is this projecting? If I were projecting, wouldn't that mean that I myself am cynical, and disbelieve that anyone in law enforcement can understand the difference between right and wrong, and act accordingly? I thought I was very clear that this cynicism is what I am criticizing. What would lead you to believe otherwise?

I initially thought that you chose the wrong word, but then you provided a definition. Again, please clarify what it is you are trying to say.

ACTivist said:

David,
"I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the oh-so-sophisticated cynicism displayed here, in which the rule seems to be that nobody could possibly understand the difference between right and wrong and hold themselves to a standard of behavior that they can be proud of."

This is your original statement of Oct. 30 11:54.

"In what sense is this projecting? If I were projecting, wouldn't that mean that I myself am cynical, and disbelieve that anyone in law enforcement can understand the difference between right and wrong, and act accordingly? I thought I was very clear that this cynicism is what I am criticizing. What would lead you to believe otherwise?"

This is your post of Nov. 2 9:24.

The line "and disbelieve that anyone in law enforcement" does not appear in your first response. You made a general statement with NO ties to law enforcement saying that WE don't know the difference between right and wrong. That was a blanket statement hence the response of projecting. Other threads have shown how you spin things around and are VERY cynical towards others.

Now if you want to be SPECIFIC and tell us that we show that we don't know the difference between right and wrong as it pertains to LAW ENFORCEMENT, well, bring it on. Show proof. I will show you post after post about issues that are THE LAW that law enforcement are turning a "blind eye" towards and using every avenue to justify why they aren't enforcing. One right off is illegal aliens. Don't try to tell me that we are powerless at the local level and that it is a compassion issue. It is the law and we do have enforcement rights. I have examples in my neighborhood that have been eyewitnessed by others where we just shake our heads at the outcome.
Then there is the national level. No illegal aliens. Then there is the documentation that illegal aliens get. General services that were made for CITIZENS. These are ALL againest the law yet the law enforcement groups do nothing. One issue. Illegal aliens. It is WRONG and we know it. Right is regular immigration and we know it.

Original comment stands. That is 3 times. Don't be cute and don't play the dense game. We already have a blogger that does that with profficiency!

David said:

"The line 'and disbelieve that anyone in law enforcement' does not appear in your first response."

Are you kidding me? Is that not the topic of this post? The entire comment from which you extracted one sentence appears at October 30, 2007 11:54 AM. You're the one playing dense. Enough.

ACTivist said:

David,
It appears that you play "goose and gander". That is to say what is good for the goose ISN'T good for the gander. I remember you badgered Joe on an issue in another thread. We'll do it your way.

David, did you not make a blanket statement where you said that "the oh-so-sophisticated cynicism displayed here, in which the rule seems to be that nobody could possibly understand the difference between right and wrong". Yes or no?

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM