On a recent posting, we noted that many Oro Valley police have the opportunity to take a police car home, regardless of whether they live within or outside of Oro Valley.
One of our bloggers first questioned us on this point, and subsequently backed off, but noted that police take better care of their assigned vehicle more so than if they were "pool cars."
That's well and good, except that's not applicable. You see, other than the Police Chief and the Command Staff, all the other vehicles that are taken home, are in fact, "pool cars.'' There goes another unworthy argument.
On another point, Terry Parish has recently contributed his expertise as an employee of The Pima County's Sheriff's Department. Terry recently commented that "cops don't have ticket quotas."
Does anyone care to guess how many citations our police have handed out in the last 6 years? (through Dec 2008)
The answer is more than 55,000. That relates to an average of 9172 citations per year, or 25 tickets every single day. It may not be a quota, but it sure is a lot of tickets. By the way, of that total, 18,000 were speeding violations.
So----Does Oro Valley have this reputation as a "speed trap" town because the town needs the revenue, the cops have quotas, or perhaps, the cops have too much time, with too little to do?
Of course, there will be those that believe, all thes tickets were "well deserved."
Our bloggers can chime in on this issue.
58 comments:
If a car is taken home by one employee then it is not a "pool car" it is a "take home car". Pool cars are those shared by employees that are not given take homes.
Please get it right next time and show me stats. You say that a majority of the cars are take home cars. How do I know this is true?
Also just because it equates to 25 tickets a day does not mean that there is a quota. I fail to see your argument here. Also how does the amount of citations issued compare to TPD, Marana, and Pima County?
I'm suprised its only 25 a day how many cops work every day in OV I think this represents probably about 1-2 tickets per day per cop hardly a scary statistic
25 tickets per day is a bit ridiculous. OVPD has a region-wide reputation for being revenue-mongers for good reason.
OV has one of the lowest crime rates in the state, not only because we have a well-equipped police force, but ALSO because the area is more affluent, boasts greater community activism and involvement, and property values are high.
Virtually any community with these last 3 factors alone would have a lower crime rate.
It's bothersome on first glance that nearly 1/3 of all tickets are speeding tickets, but that means nothing unless compared to other municipalities for context.
Look, the budget is tight, and OV can do with fewer police officers on the beat. The world will not end with fewer officers patrolling this great town we call home. I am confident the fewer officers remaining will be able to step up, have dignity, and continue doing the wonderful jobs they've been touting that they do.
Personally if 5,000 people a day are speeding in OV, I have no problem with the cops giving out 5,000 tickets
Well maybe the cops don't have a ticket quota but if they never write tickets then of course their supervisor and maybe the public will think they are not doing their job.
Face it, they can't win :))
I don't want to see anybody lose their job but if we do lose a few on the police force I think we will still be ok.
Just a little surprised at all the cop bashing on here.
I will say that I do hold law enforcment employees to a higher standard but I have not had any negative dealings with any officers in OV. Not saying it can't happen ,they are human just like most of us. I don't think the police dept caused our current budget crisis.
LBC99--- You sound like the person that says, "I made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts!"
Call the cars anything you want. The fact is, it's a perk that many of the OV cops receive.
You seem to have trouble believing anyone---me, and those that received tickets. Everyone is lying as far as you're concerned.
As to the tickets----call it what you want. The fact is OV police give out tickets at the rate of 25/day over the last 6 years. Do some research, and maybe you'll find this is a rather high number.
Or maybe, I made up the number just to deceive you!
MsCoyote you bring up a valid point when you say that the police department did not cause this budget crisis. Who did? The current management of the town needs to be called out.
Why would they council approve a pay increase to the manager that is "comparable to an AIG exec" (to quote another blogger), and do this when the economy was well into its downspin?
I think those that put the town in this position need to be held accountable.
Also why go straight to layoffs when they have not even seemed to talk about cut backs in other areas.
Why would the town lay off employees yet increase the pay to certain other employees?
This hardly seems fair.
I think Mr. Andrews and the council have some tough questions that need to be answered.
Artmarth
I do not doubt your numbers on the tickets. They are clearly posted on Oro Valley's website. I don't particularly see a problem with 25 tickets a day being issued with the high volume of traffic that flows through Oro Valley in a 24 hour period. I don't think 25 is enough. When you take into consideration the amount of traffic (tens of thousands of cars) coming through the town a day, to the amount of people cited, what percent receives a ticket? Not even a quarter of a percent.
This number should be higher. I doubt that only 25 people a day are violating a law while driving.
And yes my mind is pretty much made up here. We can do with out a janitor or landscaper here and there but I moved to Oro Valley for a few reasons. Safety and security are number one.
I appreciate the fact that my wife and I can go walking anytime and not worry about those we may come accross.
Now I understand the business aspect of it. If there is not enough money then we need to look at what we can cut to make up for the shortfall. If layoffs are the answer then so be it. But that should be the last resort.
I don't know for sure how much the town manager makes. But I do think that the salary should be commensurate with the duties and responsibilities of the position.
I don't blame the current admin or council but they are the ones who will have to deal with it.
For years the town operated like the construction fees/boom would never end.
Yes I do think that laying people off should be the last resort.
Yes I think the public will only accept this if they feel confident that every other option was tried first.
Just my thoughts
For those that may not have been here long enough, or familiar with the operation of the town, David Andrews has done an outstanding job in the estimation of many of us. David was an excellent Finance Director for many years, and subsequently appointed as Assistant Town Manager. Ultimately, in a wise decision, the council voted to have David as Town Manager after the departure of the then manager, Chuck Sweet.
David neither asked for, nor received any additional compensation in taking on more responsibilities.
Fortunately, the majority of the Council knew that David was such a valuable asset, and later saw fit to bring his compensation up to the standards of other communities in the area.
As far as I'm concerned, David's raise has nothing to do with our present economic issues, and I'd venture to say, his hard work and diligence is one of the reasons we, as a town are not worse off.
Perhaps we can all agree with "lbc09" and accept the fact that layoffs (across the board) may be inevitable, but should be a last resort.
It would also be nice if extraneous issues were not brought into the equation by some self-serving individuals.
Firstly, mscoyote, you state that you are surprised at the 'cop bashing' here. Who brought what upon whom? The OVPD and a few 'attachments' gang-banged a Town Council meeting with a lot of rhetoric and little substance when the issue of extending a utility tax that was due to be sunsetted this month and was agendized. The OVPD and a couple of 'attachments' gang-banged another meeting when they expressed their outrage at dissent and pleaded for 'understanding' at a subsequent meeting. I would say that ALL of us who have expressed discontent with the OVPD have done so not because of their OVERALL performance and/or skills but because of their crybaby demeanor
and lack of appreciation for what the Town does for them!
I have, in the past, been CLOSELY associated with Federal, California State, and other local law enforcement agencies elsewhere, many of my associations having been with the 'higher ups', many friends 'in the ranks', and also with one person who is currently a budget director for the sheriff's department in a major city in a major state. These persons with whom I had close relationships didn't swarm, didn't whine, and didn't threaten; they simply accepted the fact that it was THEIR CHOSEN PROFESSION and went about doing their jobs accordingly.
As in some other groups of people today, I find that the actions of the OVPD members seem to assert that we, the people, owe them some kind of special consideration and use pointedly ignorant depictions in order to bolster the importance of their 'brotherhood'. Whatever the Town Manager makes in salary, deferred income, benefits, etc. is most certainly no justification for their claims; his salery is, in fact, based on averages of persons who manage like cities and towns within the state. If they, the PD, wish to dismiss COMPARATIVE compensation as a rationale, perhaps we in Oro Valley can cite that our PD operates in an upscale community, that they have a relatively easy and compact area in which to navigate, that we have a citizenry that is composed of a lot of non-criminally oriented retirees, that we do have certain regulations in place, etc. This is not Detroit; this is not St. Louis; this is not Chicago - this is Oro Valley, a demographically peaceful place to live.
In addition, OVPD and 'partners', most of you have no clue whatsoever as to what economic reality is and, until you do understand this very important reality, please,toss out the crying towel!
Zev,
I simply said that I was surprised at all the cop bashing on here.
My God, now you are calling them gang bangers. Ok, regardless of their actions, they are not gang bangers.You are being very offensive and I am surprised and disappointed that you are attacking other posters ,including me.
We are all entitled to our opinions.
So is it 25 tickets per cop per day or a total of 25 tickets?
If it is a total of 25 tickets total considering all the traffic and people in and out and on Oracle rd, I say they are not writing enough tickets then
I see people I would love to see stopped every time I go to the store or driving locally.
I often wonder if the cops are told not to ticket the guys who are speeding in co trucks obviously in a hurry to get out of dodge.
mscoyote
per artmarth, the number of tickets is 25 tickets a day for the department.
I do not see where he thinks this is a rather high number. Like I said earlier and like you said, when you consider the amount of traffic flowing through the town, this is actually a rather low number.
Do we know how many officers work the street each day? I am assuming that the squads are made up of 6 or so officers for a 10 hour period. (This number is based off of the numbers that I have heard from the recent ads on the radio).
This would mean that there are 3 squads of 6 officers to cover a 24 hour period. That is 18 officers working the street in a 24 hour period.
25/18 = 1.38 Tickets per officer per day.
Each officer sees more than one car a day.
This number is too low.
Artmarth and AZcactus
I disagree with you both and do not see how you think this number could be "rediculous" or too low.
You bot seem to think that these tickets are a revenue generator.
Do the research and see just how little of that money goes to the town. You will be surprised.
mscoyote, I was NOT attacking you; all I did was respond to your being 'surprised' at the (your words) "cop bashing here". I do not know if you were at the council meeting when the issue of whether or not to continue
permanently the utility tax which was initiated originally as a temporary measure, but I was and had to stand outside along with many others because the meeting was FLOODED with police officers. Also, speaker after speaker went after those who might disagree that the additional funds be kept in order that their department benefit. As to my use of the term "gang-bang", consider it only that it was nothing more than similarly like your use of the term "bashing"; BOTH are euphemisms reflecting personal descriptives of 'overwhelming amounts'. Please accept my apology if I offended you as that was NOT my intent! I will, however, stand by my terminology as that reflects my 'poetic license'.
I'll concede that my opinion that 25 tickets per day is "ridiculous" is just that--my opinion.
I still don't want to continue living in a town where half the budget goes to the police dept, and the law enforcement packs town council meetings, guns and all, in an effort to intimidate or coerce.
TUSD just gave pink slips to 600 employees. The U.S. economy is in an unprecedented slump. OVPD needs to face the reality that, yes, OVPD too will have to experience similar reductions in force.
The streets of OV will not run with blood, the drug cartels will not relocate to OV en mass, and graffiti will not cover Pusch Ridge.
If eliminating a few officers leaves OV on the brink of such chaos, I suggest the remaining officers need to return to the academy and learn how to confront the realities of budget cuts and how to effectively cope with such in their daily job activities.
I would like to add to all that I have previously stated, in detail, why I feel the way I do and have repeatedly stated my wholehearted support for the OVPD as it benefits our Town; I simply do not approve of some of their organizational tactics and lack of sensitivity relative to the overall difficulties of our Town.
If those who participate in this stream cannot understand what and why I say what I do (if they have read fully my 'dialogue') then that is THEIR inability to grasp the full depth of this matter as I see it and that, is therefor, not MY problem.
Enough said, enough written - I shall most probably comment no further on this subject.
Pardon me, instead of using the word 'euphemism' as it might pertain to the use of 'bashing' or 'gang-bang', I should have used the term 'figure of speech'.
Zev,
As a female, that word is offensive to me. But you have the right to use it but just know that Gang bang or gang banger has different meanings.
Because some disagree with you or disagree with your choice of expression does not necessarily mean they don't understand the issue or complexity or whatever.
Bottom line is we don't get to make the decision on what jobs are eliminated
All of us are entitled to opine, even the cops!!!
Do I agree with their method of trying to convince the council, probably not. But they have the right to express themselves just like the rest of us.
Do I think OV will fall apart if we lose a few jobs in the Police force, no I don't.
Az cactus you say you don't want to live in a town where half the town budget goes to police.
I don't think many of us like the reality of what services cost. I don't. I don't like how our federal government spends our money. What choice do I have? ONly choice is to speak up and then vote accordingly.
To those who bring up the gun issue, well as far as I know we have the right to own and carry a gun in Arizona also for now we have that right under the 2nd amendment of the constituion of the United States of America.
Actually I am more concerned about how the town will meet future budgets then this one issue.
Why is is acceptable for other folks to promote their causes at town council and fill up seats, but the police can't have a voice. Seems to me this blog has often encouraged folks to "pack the place" if it is YOUR issue.
The cut in the police department is for a particular program - the C.A.T. squad. A specialized group, who just caught the bad guys that sold drugs to the recent young OD victim in our town. It might be difficult to conduct an undercover operation with uniformed officers in marked patrol cars. The OVPD does more than write traffic tickets. Some bloggers makes it appear the department only works on Oracle and Tangerine Roads.
mscoyote, I understand what you are saying; although I stated I 'most probably' wouldn't have further comment I just wanted to clarify myself a bit:
I did format the first paragraph in this stream in a way that was not originally intended; I did not mean to use the questionable terminology in redundancy.
I do believe that everyone does have the right to opine; I believe that the manner in which it was executed by the OVPD at Council was in itself, over-the-top, redundant, and often laced with acrimony towards the opposition message.
Addressing your sensitivity towards the terminology I used, I can understand that, however, one must realize that language and their applications do evolve over time and even in the usage that you infer, word definitions were twisted in order to fit (describe) a vulgarity. But, I do apologize to you and any others who might have been offended, realizing now that it could have been, because of a particular past utilization, insensitively inflammatory.
Enough of semantics.
No where could I find in my postings that I was attacking other posters. While other posters might have been a 'fit', without my intent or designation, within any of my commentary, I, personally, did not assign anyone into a specific. Yes, this was a discussion of certain facets, pro or con, relative to the OVPD, but I did not denigrate any of the bloggers here, including yourself; I regret that you interpreted my posting this way. I think you must know that I do care!
YourDictionary.com
gang-banger: slang
A member of a youth gang.
OnlineSlangDictionary
gang-banger: noun
Someone who is in a gang.
Merriam-WebsterOnlineDictionary
gang-banger
A member of a street gang.
Zev used the term to imply something similar to the above definitions...showing up as a gang because there is strength and intimidation in numbers.
Many years ago, gang-bang had a different definition, but it is common knowledge today that it currently means a member of a gang.
Many words and terms change in meaning throughout the years. "Gay" is a good example of a word that has changed in meaning in recent years.
I am sick of our society's insistence on political correctness. President Obama makes fun of HIS OWN bowling skills and the next thing you know he has to call the head of the Special Olympics and apologize.
Every day I listen to the talking heads insist that some person needs to apologize to some other person or an entire group of people for offending them when the comment they made was totally innocuous.
It's political correctness gone mad.
VC,
yup I know that.
But I wanted to point out to Zev and others that the term does have different meanings
Meriam Webster noun-gang banger-a member of a street gang.
Meriam Webster -verb-gang bang
l. Often vulgar-to participate in a gang bang.
2. To participate in especially violent gang activity
Then on Wikipedia it gets pretty graphic :))
My surprise was when the word "gang banged" was used!
Poor choice of words in my opinion just as a council member used Police State when dealing with this issue.
Of course you will disagree but I am entitled to my opinon!! :))
Zev,
forgot to tell you that Yes I know that you care!
According to the Pima County Association of Governments, the Oracle Road corridor up in that area has a daily average volume of 59,000 vehicles. Fifty. Nine. THOUSAND. If the OV officers are writing an average of 25 tickets a day, only one person in 2,360 vehicles gets a ticket.
Hardly a concern, IMHO. And OV has motorcycle unit dedicated to traffic control. Why don't you get the statistics from DPS and Tucson Police and the Sheriff's Office to see how many they write?
My concern isn't so much with how many tickets they write a day, it's whom they give those tickets to. Pull over the drivers who are a menace to society...ones going 20 mph or more over the speed limit...those who are tailgating...those who weave in and out of lanes at high speeds cutting everyone off and passing on the right...people talking on cell phones or texting while driving, etc. If that's what they did, I wouldn't care if they gave out 500 tickets a day.
But they need to leave the rest of us alone. We are not the enemy.
So its ok for you to speed? Its ok to go 19 over? In a 25 mile per hour zone, its ok to do 44 miles per hour and your not a "menace to society"?
I can't see where you are coming from on this one.
When the police pull you over, are they supposed to ask you who you are before citing you?
Thats integrity.
I like the fact that you also use the word enemy as in if you receive a ticket that the police consider you an enemy.
Are you considering them the enemy?
And when did talking on the phone become a violation?
Texting and talking on the cell phone isn't against the law here...yet anyway.
And if or when it is? I intent to comply and obey the law.
I don't enjoy getting tickets any more than the rest of you, but when I have? I've never tried to excuse myself or make up some silly defense. If I am speeding, I know I'm speeding and if I get caught? I deserve a ticket.
I also realize that the deputy is just doing his job and it isn't a grand conspiracy just to harass me.
* The government is making a profit from law enforcement. That is very dangerous to civil liberties. You can now be ticketed by photo radar for having a license plate frame that covers the word “Arizona” on your license plate. Safety? The state of Arizona will issue a photo speed ticket that does not go on your license or to your insurance company - a clear program to extort revenue by getting you to pay rather than risk those penalties by fighting.
* The speed limits are often too low, as measured by highway engineering standards and recent federal studies. They are set for revenue or political reasons, not safety.
* The photo radar does not take into account road conditions. It is a dumb robot, which issues tickets even for legal speeds (in Arizona, up to 20MPH above the posted speed limit), whether conditions are dangerous or the roads are empty and the weather good.
* This kind of speed enforcement causes drivers to use an artificial indicator - the speedometer - rather than their observations to determine a safe speed. It distracts drivers and goes against human nature. It makes us DRIVE ON INSTRUMENTS.
Some facts:
1. In Arizona, it is legal to drive up to 20mph over the speed limit if conditions permit (with some reasonable exceptions.
2. Traffic engineers have many studies showing that the correct way to set a speed limit, in most cases, is to measure how fast people drive without a limit, pick the 85th percentile speed, and round it up to the nearest 5 mphs. Speeds lower or higher than this are not optimal and often more dangerous
3. In city traffic, the difference in speeds between vehicles is more of a cause of accidents than the absolute speed. Thus when some people are constrained by artificially low speed limits while others are driving at the natural (85th percentile) speed, accidents are more likely.
4. In Arizona, a speed of less than 20 mph over the speed limits is not a criminal offense. Thus the courts do not start with a presumption of innocence. You are guilty until proven innocent.
Why do you need to go faster than the speed limit?
That’s like asking “why do you need a gun” or “why do you need a car?”
A better question is: why should an arbitrary speed limit be imposed on the populace?”
My driving was safe - I just made the mistake of not “driving on instruments.”
Excellent rendering Common Sense Thinker; if only the OVPD could 'get it'. Thanks for your presentation!
Common Sense Thinker----Welcome back. Your coherent, intelligent, common sense comments have been missed by me and many others.
By the way, there's a council election coming up next year. We sure could use some more common sense people sitting up there making decisions for the community.
Riddle me this: What is black and white and travels in pairs and can be found in the wash? While none ever than our own Oro Valley Police on Easter Sunday. That's right for over one hour I observed two Oro Valley Police cars parked side by side in the wash off La Canada just to the North near the large water tank. The two officers must have been in a heated debate with each other, maybe they were trying to solve their own police department budget shortfall, or maybe the world's problems as a whole. Obviously we may never know, but what I do know is this once again shows a blatant disregard for the good will instilled upon every officer by the citizen's of this Town. To hide for over one hour in a wash is rather embarrassing to say the least. Especially hearing all of their slam campaigns and how valuable every officer is to this Town. Lets put this situation into perspective, as while I have no issue with officers talking while on duty with each other from their vehicles; a little common sense might be in order. If you are going to converse, do it in a retail parking lot or some very visible location as to a least have the perception that all this community policing that is being crammed down the resident's throats has at least an appearance of merit. Next time I will be better prepared and will have my digital camera to snap the picture for all to see and judge. Maybe others will do the same and snap away each and every time they see violations of the public trust instilled in these officers. I am sure our Blog Administrator would be more than happy to publish a few of these for all to see, and be judged in a transparent nature. This observation took place on April 12, 2009 between the hours of 2:45 pm and 3:45 pm. Not sure how many were on shift this day, but I sure would not want to be the junior officer taking calls for these two on Easter Sunday. Remember Perception is Everything!
Suija,
Of course I know that talking on a cell phone or texting while driving is NOT against the law. I threw that in as an example of something that's ACTUALLY dangerous but IS legal. But heaven forbid we try to take away an American's right to do either of those things while driving. We have "rights" and this is a free country. Yup, and that's also why someone with a history of mental illness can buy a gun (or a whole arsenal of them) and then flip out on the general public because their "feelings" were hurt.
There's a whole lot of hypocrisy going on when "you can't do THAT because you're a danger to other motorists and pedestrians, but you CAN do THIS even though it makes you a danger to other motorists and pedestrians." I'd just like to see some consistency.
You said if talking on a cell phone or texting while driving DO become against the law, THEN you intend to comply with the law. That's nice. But what are you doing now? Are you talking on a cell phone or texting while driving now? Because if you are, the you have no right to accuse ME of not paying attention when I'm driving.
I've also never "tried to excuse myself or make up a silly defense" when I've been pulled over for speeding in the past. In the case I discussed, I don't think an invisible sign is a silly defense.
I was once on a freeway in Connecticut where the speed was 55. I was going 55. However, all the other cars were pulling up right behind me, damn near hitting me, then whizzing past me, then cutting me off to get around me. I thought, I'm going to get killed if I don't go with the flow of the traffic. So I began driving faster. Next thing I know, I'm going 90 mph in order to stay with the flow. Just as I thought, "This is ridiculous" and began slowing down again, I got pulled over for speeding along with dozens of other vehicles. It looked like a parking lot on the side of the highway, there were so many cars pulled over. I never complained or made silly excuses even though I felt that I was in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation (continue at 55 mph and risk getting hit, go with the flow and risk getting a ticket.) I decided that the ticket was the better option. So stop accusing me of "victim" behavior and making excuses. You don't know anything about me.
Common Sense Thinker,
Regarding your post that began with, "The government is making a profit from law enforcement..." THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
Of course, the thick-headed people wouldn't listen to MY facts, so they probably won't listen to YOURS either. But it will be interesting to watch them TRY to debate you. Or will they suddenly become mute?
You are correct. The speedometer is only ONE of the MANY "gauges" that should be used. Visual observation, road conditions, instincts and common sense are some of the other "gauges" that are necessary.
To those who disagree...If I spend all of my time watching my speedometer, well, then, I'm NOT watching the road in front of me, now am I?
Thanks again for your common sense contribution to this thread!
Commonsensethinker,
You say....
"1. In Arizona, it is legal to drive up to 20mph over the speed limit if conditions permit (with some reasonable exceptions."
This is false.
Fact-
"ARS 28-701 (a not included)
B. Except as provided in subsections C and D of this section or except if a special hazard requires a lesser speed, any speed in excess of the following speeds is prima facie evidence that the speed is too great and therefore unreasonable:
1. Fifteen miles per hour approaching a school crossing.
2. Twenty-five miles per hour in a business or residential district.
3. Sixty-five miles per hour in other locations.
C. The speed limits prescribed in this section may be altered as authorized in sections 28-702 and 28-703."
28-701.02 states
"A. A person shall not:
1. Exceed thirty-five miles per hour approaching a school crossing.
2. Exceed the posted speed limit in a business or residential district by more than twenty miles per hour, or if no speed limit is posted, exceed forty-five miles per hour.
3. Exceed eighty-five miles per hour in other locations.
B. A person who violates subsection A of this section is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.
C. A person charged with a violation of this section may not be issued a civil complaint for a violation of section 28-701 if the civil complaint alleges a violation arising out of the same circumstances.
28-702a states
"A. If the director determines on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that any maximum speed limit is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist on any part of a state highway, the director may determine and declare a reasonable and safe maximum speed limit or varying speed limits for the location."
I do not see where it says that up to 20 over is legal. Do tell.
Also
Being that it was Easter Sunday, They were probably sitting there giving the "victims" on the streets a break and not handing out tickets to speeders doing 2 over the limit, as some of you have claimed to have been, or knows those who have.
How do you know that they weren't writing a report from a large call together? Or a supervisor counseling, teaching or yelling at another officer for a screwup.
So for all you working people: you mean to tell me that you never made a personal phone call from work, never go to the bathroom, never take a 15 minute smoke break or check up with coworkers about them and their families?
"Those who live in glass houses should not thrown stones."
Need I say more.
Wow, the OVPD has it's own, personal stalker! WTG, CS!
VC, it will be against the law in AZ soon, I hope. I do talk on my cell phone on a rare occasion - that is why they invented bluetooth technology. However, I am not like that kid I saw driving with his KNEES, both hands off the wheel and texting shooting down Oracle Road at 60+ MPH the other day.
And who said I was referring specifically to you making up a silly defense? You really need to stop being so paranoid.
I have a question: If the sign was invisible, how did you see it? (Sarcasm again...just in case you miss it.)
Anyone here old enough to remember the old TV show, "To Tell The Truth?"
The object was for 3 contestants to try to get the celebrity panel to believe they were telling the truth with their answers. At the end, after they all chose the contestant they believed was telling the truth, the moderator would then say, "would the real "whomever" please stand up."
Why bring that up?
Well, I was thinking, "Would the real cops posting with a pseudonym, please stand up."
Yeah! I know, other than Terry, nobody here is in law enforcement!
Suija,
When you saw, "that kid I saw driving with his KNEES, both hands off the wheel and texting shooting down Oracle Road at 60+ MPH the other day" did you pick up your cell phone and call the police to report him? That would be an excellent reason to use a cell phone while driving.
As for your comment, "And who said I was referring specifically to you making up a silly defense? You really need to stop being so paranoid." Hmmm, who else on this site just spent the last week being ridiculed for fighting a speeding ticket? And being blamed for getting the ticket? And being accused of having a weak argument? Ummm, that would be me!
And then there's, "I have a question: If the sign was invisible, how did you see it?"
I DIDN'T see it and neither did anyone else...thus, invisible sign.
I have a question for you? If it wasn't set up as a speed trap can you explain to me why the 15 mph sign on the NORTHBOUND side of the road WAS visible and the cop NEVER sat on the northbound side of the road attempting to catch motorists on that side, where the sign was visible?
Can you explain why he always parked on the SOUTHBOUND side of the road, aiming his radar gun at southbound traffic only, where the sign was NOT visible? Do you think it might be because he KNEW he would catch more speeders on the southbound side?
And, oh brilliant one, can you explain why the town left the sign "as is" for 2 years before addressing it? Doesn't that indicate that maybe, just maybe, they were more interested in the revenue they could collect at that intersection than they were in protecting the school children?
There are town officials and police officers reading this site, yet not ONE of them has been able to answer the questions I have posed regarding the town's negligence in addressing that sign.
Maybe they didn't relocate it or place an orange flag on it because they couldn't find it because it was invisible.
Now THAT's sarcasm!
Suija,
I also left you another comment under, "Mary Reilly Opines..." where we can now engage in a debate over the difference between "mistreatment" vs. "police brutality."
I hope others will chime in on this one!
Vitoria Cowgirl, where is this speedtrap so we can all avoid it? Thanks
Sorry about that, Victorian Cowgirl
So when I post ACTUAL fact on this, you ASSume that I am with the police department? The fact to this is, I am a concerned citizen who uses COMMON SENSE and does my research before I make a statement. I do not just spout out comments to try to drudge up anti-police propoganda in an effort to push some twisted agenda.
Thanks for the compliment though. I am honored to be "accused" of being a cop.
Yes, VC, I concede...it was a grand conspiracy to get your chump change. Why, EVERYONE was in on it! The engineers, the council, the cops, the court, the judge...everyone! No, I stand by my original assessment. You are paranoid.
How long ago was this, now? No one saw it? At all?
Wow, you have an awful lot of time and resources on your hands to have quizzed the probable thousands of motorists that drove through that area on a daily basis.
Suija,
I didn't have to quiz thousands of motorists. I quizzed the town. That's when I learned that they had received NUMEROUS complaints about the lack of visibility of that sign. Complaints from motorists who were pulled over when they didn't see the sign. Complaints from parents of the children at the nearby school who also said that the sign was not visible and worried that it would result in one of their children being hit at the crosswalk. So it wasn't just people who were ticketed who complained about the sign, so there goes your argument that we're all playing the victim.
And until you can answer my question as to why the town left the sign "as is" even after learning that the sign was not visible, well, you really don't have much of an argument here. You deliberately gloss over that part of the argument because you don't have a smarty pants answer for it.
An OV Citizen,
You asked where the speed trap is so that we can all avoid it.
Me thinks that you really want to know where it is because you are an OV cop and you want some ammunition to use to argue this case since Suija isn't doing such a hot job of it.
I know who you are. Don't worry. I won't reveal your identity, but I do know who you are.
Nice try, though.
Victorian Cowgirl ...you know who I am, please spill the beans for all please. The fact is, you have no idea who I am. I’m not a police officer nor at town employee. You haven’t see me post pro or con on this entire issue. I have my personally feeling on all of this, both for the town and the PD since a possible 33 total town employees will be possibly affected by this outcome. I asked, sincerely where this was so I and my family can avoid it and you accuse me of being someone I am not, well thanks. Stop being so paranoid and never mind since obviously you can’t get past this injustice and everyone is out to get you…..look out for the flying saucers to while you are at it.
But like your other friends you've made on this site, thanks for thinking I'm a police officer; taking that as a compliment. Oh yea, "nice try"
OV Citizen,
You made a comment on this site about a month ago and then made the EXACT SAME COMMENT when you spoke at a council meeting that same week. THAT's how I know who you are. Of course you're going to deny it. Your comments won't appear to be objective if everyone knows that you're connected to the OVPD.
You were also quite nice to me when you were looking for information but now that I've refused to give it, you join in with Suija in calling me paranoid. You and Suija on the same side...I can connect those dots, too. And now you accuse me of looking for flying saucers. You were unable to manipulate me so now you attack me. And there you have it...your true persona being exposed. And that's precisely why I didn't give up the information.
If you were really sincere, you wouldn't be attacking me now. You would have simply said, "Oh, gee, Cowgirl, I'm sorry you think I'm with the OVPD. I'm really not, but I can understand your hesitancy in giving out the information since there ARE OVPD members reading this site."
But that's not what you did. And in taking the approach you HAVE taken, you have confirmed my belief.
First you want to know where the speed trap is located which means you believe the police HAVE set up a speed trap, which means you agree that they have a lack of integrity, then you claim that I have COMPLIMENTED you by claiming that you ARE the police.
Your comments have given you away, but you try to create a diversion by claiming that it's just Cowgirl being paranoid again.
Maybe it's just Cowgirl being astute!
Cowgirl, well I only attack when attacked, in the defensive. You have no idea who I am as I WAS NOT at that meeting you claim me to be at nor a police office or a town employee. Name my name please, because you'll be completely wrong and it'll show you who you are. Can it be, a police officer may have read my thread, thought I had a point, and might have used what I had said or is it not in your nature? I do hold up the PD for what they do thou I don't always agree and have had my share of tickets.
I don't know one person on this blog and can only comment on how I feel with "my opinion" I know you don't care what I think but before you lash out, don't ASSUme ok?
"Nice Try"
Can someone else please tell me where this speed trap is since Cowgirl obviously doesn’t want to share (if it really happened)
Victorian Cowgirl said... "I treat everyone with the same amount of respect or disrespect that they show me."
Since this was posted on another thread from Cowgirl, this obviously is not true in my case.
OV Citizen,
I stand by my comment. If someone on this site said they knew who I was and then said something like, "You were the third speaker at the call to audience at the April 1st meeting" and I was NOT that person, I wouldn't get angry at them for the mistaken identity. I find it suspicious that you got angry about it and resorted to using ridicule.
You make a good point, though, that I treated you with disrespect even before you treated me with it, but I did so because I was preparing for what I anticipated would happen next. Consider it a pre-emptive strike!
OK, here's the reason I haven't given out the location. Considerable road work has been done at the location over the past few months. I haven't driven by "the spot" in some time, so I don't know if the situation has changed since the road work has been done. So if I give out the location and it turns out that the sign is currently visible, I'll never hear the end of it. It won't matter that it wasn't visible on the day I was pulled over. Suija and others will only focus on how it's visible now and therefore it must have been visible on the day I was ticketed.
However, as soon as I do drive by the location at a time when the signs are posted and I can then ascertain the current situation, I will let everyone know where it is.
Will that suffice?
Sorry to be so evasive, but that's what happens when you get attacked for telling the truth. So blame Suija and LBC-09 for my refusal to cooperate any further on this.
Cowgirl....I apologize as well and thank you for your apology and acknowledgement. Again, its pure coincidence and nothing more as I am not PD, OV Employee, or at that meeting. I do watch however, on the website when I can thou obviously can’t see all the behind the seen action which other folks have commented who’ve attended.
In my opinion, think the budget should be fair to ALL town employees and if lay offs are inevitable, everything else should be looked at first which apparently after last night, most council members believe more can be done to save jobs instead of making it there first option.
PS Yes, if you feel comfortable if "the spot" is the same, plz sshare ;-)
OV Citizen,
I forgot to say, if you're not the person I assumed you to be, allow me to give you my best Arthur Fonzarelli apology....
I was wwwrrr...
I was so wwwrrrooo...
;-)
"And until you can answer my question as to why the town left the sign "as is" even after learning that the sign was not visible"
How should I know why the town left the sign "as is". Maybe the town didn't agree with you that the sign was invisible.
Additionally, if OV Citizen were a cop, wouldn't he already KNOW where the "speed trap" was?
You wouldn't be hesitant to reveal the location for him if you weren't cognizant that he just might turn around and call you a liar.
And anyway, it isn't like any of us would be able to judge - remember, it's an invisible sign!
"Nice try", Victim Cowgirl.
Hey, OV Citizen! Since we evidently work together at the OVPD, let's meet for lunch tomorrow!! I'll be the 6'01 guy with brown hair. (Crap, I got to figure out where to find a uniform now...)
"I do watch however, on the website when I can thou obviously can’t see all the behind the seen action which other folks have commented who’ve attended."
Ditto. I listened to part of the study session last night dealing with public works and the library. I've never been to a council meeting. I prefer either watching live online or listening to the archives.
Suija,
You said,
(1) "How should I know why the town left the sign "as is". Maybe the town didn't agree with you that the sign was invisible.
If you've been reading all the posts I've left on this issue, you would KNOW that the town DID agree with me on this issue. So my question was, why did they wait 2 years to address the problem? Simple question that not one town employee who reads this site has been able to answer.
(2) Additionally, if OV Citizen were a cop, wouldn't he already KNOW where the "speed trap" was?
He probably would, but if he offered an opinion on the intersection in question when I never mentioned its location, then he would be admitting that he was a cop, and if he IS an OV cop, he would want to keep that a secret, wouldn't he? Wouldn't his posts defending the OVPD carry more weight if no one knows that he's "one of them?" So if he is a cop, it would be in his best interest to hide that fact.
(3) "You wouldn't be hesitant to reveal the location for him if you weren't cognizant that he just might turn around and call you a liar."
I already addressed the reason why I haven't revealed the location. Can't you read? And it's precisely what you just said. If the sign is currently visible, Suija will call me a liar and completely disregard the fact that just because the sign is visible NOW, doesn't mean it was visible THEN. And you just proved with your "liar" comment that I was correct in my assumption of what you would do! Do you really think that's a strong argument...well, it's visible NOW so it must have been visible THEN. It's a portable sign. It's moved all the time.
(4) "And anyway, it isn't like any of us would be able to judge - remember, it's an invisible sign!"
As I said previously, that's probably why they never attached a bright orange flag to the sign. They couldn't find it!
(5) "Nice try", Victim Cowgirl.
And there you go again with your silly name-calling. Of course that's what people do when they're losing an argument.
VC,
You said,
(1) If you've been reading all the posts I've left on this issue, you would KNOW that the town DID agree with me on this issue. So my question was, why did they wait 2 years to address the problem? Simple question that not one town employee who reads this site has been able to answer.
It sounded to me like the JUDGE agreed. If it was such a problem, I have a hard time believing that it was ignored.
(2) He probably would, but if he offered an opinion on the intersection in question when I never mentioned its location, then he would be admitting that he was a cop, and if he IS an OV cop, he would want to keep that a secret, wouldn't he? Wouldn't his posts defending the OVPD carry more weight if no one knows that he's "one of them?" So if he is a cop, it would be in his best interest to hide that fact.
Why would he want to keep it secret if he were a cop? They have a right to their opinion just as much as we do.
(3) I already addressed the reason why I haven't revealed the location. Can't you read? And it's precisely what you just said. If the sign is currently visible, Suija will call me a liar and completely disregard the fact that just because the sign is visible NOW, doesn't mean it was visible THEN. And you just proved with your "liar" comment that I was correct in my assumption of what you would do! Do you really think that's a strong argument...well, it's visible NOW so it must have been visible THEN. It's a portable sign. It's moved all the time.
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. What is the harm in revealing the location - unless it doesn't really exist. You've already stated that the problem has been rectified so why would ANYONE call you a liar? Again, I challenge YOU to answer the question.
(4) As I said previously, that's probably why they never attached a bright orange flag to the sign. They couldn't find it!
I don't think a "bright orange flag" wouldn't be up to OV code.
(5) No argument on the internet is ever "lost" or "won" except in the estimation of those who poor souls who depend on the internet to make themselves feel powerful by "debating" with perfect strangers who really couldn't care less about them or their issues in real life.
Suija,
(1) "If it was such a problem, I have a hard time believing that it was ignored."
If it WASN'T a problem, why did they address it at all, albeit 2 years later? And why did they address it with a huge sign with yellow flashing lights? Wouldn't that indicate that it WAS a problem? Why are you so unable to grasp this simple concept? Is it because in your unbridled effort to prove that the OVPD is always right you simply overlook any facts to the contrary?
(2) "Again, I challenge YOU to answer the question."
I already did. The question was:
"Where is this speedtrap so we can all avoid it??
My answer began with: "OK. Here's the reason I haven't given out the location." And then I gave my reason. You know, Suija, you can't see WORDS that are right in front of you, but you argue that I should have seen the sign that was not right in front of me.
(3) "I don't think a "bright orange flag" wouldn't be up to OV code."
I assume you meant WOULD be up to OV code. So a bright orange flag attached to the sign to make it more visible (as they do in other parts of Tucson) would not be up to OV code, but leaving the sign in a spot where it is hidden from view IS up to OV code?
Suija, I'm done debating you. You're an amateur.
Post a Comment