No Thank You on The Web site you so Kindly Provided, I will Use the Original O.R.C. That was Issued to me....
The one I pointed you to was current (updated) as of July 2009
Not saying that Your Web site Would be Misleading and Or Mistaken But I believe that the One I Have is the Original and would not Have any Misleading or Mistaken Information!!
Well, the one I pointed you to is put out by a company that also does the CaseWriter website (a resource for attorneys) - which was developed in conjunction with 27 or 28 state Bar Associations.
Im Going to Try and Get Home in the Next 3-4 Weeks and Hopefully I will be able to Find it Somewhere in One of the Many Boxes in My Attic!
By all means, have at it - but like I said: nothing in the ORC or any other state's law is going to set aside the 5th Amendment and the right of an individual not to incriminate himself.
A-Lot of People Rely on Different Web Sites for Many Things with about a 99% Exact Rating (My Estimate), But The Original Book is the Best to go back into as it is Not a Web Site Re-Print or a ReType!!
...... other than the fact it may not be current and up to date ......
And as far as The Informed Citizen goes, I Really Don't believe that Garbage Flies Either because There Isn't anything wrong with an Informed Citizen as Long as he gets His Information Correct and not by some Wanna be who Only "Thinks" That they Know it All!!
Well ..... I certainly don't "know it all" - not even close .....
but I do know what I know ...
Earlier a Statement was Made about a Donut Eating Cop with a 17 Year Old Female Right?
Correct.
I don't know all the Details or what this Donut Eating Cop was doing with Her!
He was trolling ..... like a guy I went to school with - he ended up becoming a local cop here where I live .... and roped in wives no. 2 and no. 3 ....
in the line of duty ...
while he was already married, of course .....
I can tell ya some of the things Officer Donut-eater did do though:
1. Failed to use the dashcam in his patrol car when arriving on the scene so that the accident scene was recorded.
2. Failed to use his handheld digital camera to take any photos of the accident scene. Oh - he did go back out there a couple of weeks later and take some pictures - but only after I met with and complained to a Lt. .... Of course, these were never used at trial - since they didn't support the prosecution's case.
3. Failed to use the audio recording device in his patrol car while myself and the other party were in his patrol car and he was completing the accident report and interviewing us.
In other words, he covered his tracks by failing to document anything with the audio/video tools at his disposal (because it didn't fit his agenda) - BTW,
that is obstruction of justice. (because he lied about much of it later, and it would have been exculpatory evidence)
Here's some other cute stuff he did:
4. Failed to indicate that I told him that I was not wearing a seat belt (which is a violation of Ohio law) on the accident report - a fact I raised when I met with the Lt. (I was prefectly willing to be cited for this -
since it was true)
5. Stated to me that under Ohio law it was not illegal
to drive completely left of center, into oncoming traffic, on a section of two-lane road which had
double yellow lines (... oh yeah ?
...... look that one up in the ORC ....)
This was what the other party was doing, just before she came over into my lane, cutting across it, while executing around a 135 degree turn to get to her driveway ...... just prior to the accident. (BTW - she failed to use her turn-signals too)
6. Donut
repeatedly perjured himself while under oath on the witness stand (I wouldn't plead - and took it to trial) My attorney did a fairly decent job of making Donut look like the moron that he, in fact, was - that alone was worth the price of admission (the fine and the points) - but my attorney didn't adequately prepare for the case, and was fairly unwilling to listen (..... talk about a know-it-all) ..... had he asked all the right questions (I had prepared several pages worth - which he promptly ignored), and pursued all avenues as vigorously as he should have, it would have likely been a slam-dunk (my attorney didn't want to upset the judge by raising any issues of police misconduct .....
great ......)
Couple of other interesting tidbits:
The other party was chatting on her cell phone at the time of the accident - a fact that she more or less admitted to on the stand (she claimed she had been on it
just prior ..... her open flip phone was still in her left hand when I got to her vehicle to check her condition, less than 7 seconds from the time of the impact .... she was in a state of shock and wasn't able to do anything for several minutes, other than sit there in her vehicle - not even able to talk. She had been so busy chatting on the phone that she was entirely unaware that I was following behind her - and had been, for better than 3 miles.)
Local prosecutor had to contact a neighboring community and bring a special prosecutor to try the case - because he also had a private practice (in addition to holding office as the Prosecutor of the City of Massillon) ..... and he
had been retained by the other party to represent them in a possible civil case (no conflict there
... retained by her father most likely - he was real piece of work - showed up for court in shorts and sandals with white socks .... looked really spiffy, along with that 12" grey ponytail)
Oh - I don't get you wrong at all - I understand it
completely:
you are trying to excuse unethical conduct on the part of one of the brethren (by minimizing it - comparing it to similar unethical conduct on the part of people in other professions - in order to make less of it) - it's something that many cops (and others) often do .... probably almost instinctively.
I Have Never and Will Never Condone anything that Involves a Juvenile, But It's People like you that for some Reason Forget About all of that and Try and Slam the Cop Every Chance they Get!
Well, the real problem with you boys is failure to police your own: I contacted the duty Sgt. that had been on duty during my accident - he admitted to me:
7. Officer Donut-eater had a been a problem child for some time (repeatedly failing to use A/V equipment, follow SOP, among other things) and had a disciplinary history - IOW, he was a total screwup. As a professional who really cared about his profession it pretty much made him (the Sgt.) sick to see guys like Dount-eater on the force. He seemed pretty sincere - and beings how he came clean with me about Officer Donut-eater's history, I took him at his word - but there wasn't anything he could do about it either (politics you know)
8. About a year or two before, Officer Donut-eater had been covered in one of the local papers after he had a little incident with a young man. The young man alleged that Donut-eater had violated his civil rights (beat him up unnecessarily, apparently) It was elevated to the point that Donut-eater was eventually investigated by the US Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division) and the FBI. (That don't happen if there's nothing there) Of course, they weren't able to get the goods on Donut-eater (he's good) and he skated. His ex-wife had talked to the paper and alleged that Donut had repeatedly terrorized his family (immediate and extended)
But the boys in blue were standin' behind him, all the way.
Donut-eater is still on the force ..... and has a little group at the local highschool where he gets together with young boys and girls (wonder if the parents know his history ?) and they go fishin' ..... it's police outreach thing. I'd imagine that Donut is right where he wants to be .... caring for the spiritual welfare of the local young ladies and all ....
I Don't believe that If Everything Ever Comes out about all the Crimes That Truck Drivers do That you would be too Happy About it at all!
Uhhhh ... why would I even care - beyond just being a citizen who is concerned about crime ?
Of course I wouldn't be happy about it - but only from the perspective of crime generally isn't a good thing and all that - I don't consider that it reflects on me personally in any way whatsoever.
But There are "Some" That Make it Look Bad On The Good One's and That Goes for Cops Too!! We are Not All The Same,
I'm quite sure that's true - but understand: you were part of a profession which has made it routine to condone immoral and unethical conduct (lying for one, protecting and overlooking the crimes of some real scumbags for two), in order to accomplish it's goals - and when ya lie down with a dog, you're probably gonna get fleas.
But It's People Like You That Keep the Stereotyping going for whatever Reason that fits whatever Agenda you Have Going!!
No real agenda here - I'm just a fan of freedom ..... and full well understand that there's a
reason that it's called
a police-state .....
