If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy) Interesting Police superintendent whose force ran radar speed trap is outraged after judge enforces Pennsylvania law banning local police from using radar   (delcotimes.com) divider line 75
More: Interesting  
•       •       •

10893 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2011 at 4:14 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
sendtodave
2011-11-26 04:17:22 AM
Police exist to enforce the law; they shouldn't be subject to it.

They're not civilians!

It's why they get all those neat guns and stuff.
 
musashi1600
2011-11-26 04:20:31 AM
FTA: "To me, it's irresponsible and unacceptable, especially when you're dealing with public safety and potential injury that can be caused by speeding," (Police Superintendent Michael) Chitwood said. "It's ridiculous to throw 56 tickets out when speeding is a major, major problem."

Less QQ, more following the law, please.
 
erveek
2011-11-26 04:20:46 AM
sendtodave: Police exist to enforce the law; they shouldn't be subject to it.

They're not civilians!

It's why they get all those neat guns and stuff.

And it's why they get paid vacation for pepper spraying people.
 
Fett56
2011-11-26 04:21:04 AM
So wait, this cop is attempting to have a JUDGE removed from certain cases?

Seriously, the balls on these people. We really need to take them down a farking peg, I mean seriously, how can you not have any respect for a farking judge?
 
Jick Jackson
2011-11-26 04:22:37 AM
The article makes a lot more sense than the headline. Or it's me.
 
JPINFV
2011-11-26 04:27:02 AM
Is there any state that doesn't require both officers to appear when one officer writes the citation and the other officer witnesses the offense?
 
erveek
2011-11-26 04:31:12 AM
JPINFV: Is there any state that doesn't require both officers to appear when one officer writes the citation and the other officer witnesses the offense?

Texas, but only for capital offenses.
 
david1963
2011-11-26 04:31:27 AM
I'm impressed that this judge is a Republican. I'd doubted one of those ruling against cops was possible.

I think I know why he didn't run for re-election.
 
sendtodave
2011-11-26 04:31:34 AM
erveek: sendtodave: Police exist to enforce the law; they shouldn't be subject to it.

They're not civilians!

It's why they get all those neat guns and stuff.

And it's why they get paid vacation for pepper spraying people.

That's a little harsh. I mean, they'd get unpaid leave for killing an unarmed man coerced into racketeering.

An "excessively harsh punishment" if you ask me, them. A letter of reprimand would have been more than enough.
 
missiv
2011-11-26 04:34:55 AM
rumorsandrants.com
Jimmy Chitwood understands basketball.
 
Gordon Bennett
2011-11-26 04:34:56 AM
According to Cullen, there is a reason local police are not permitted to use radar.

"It requires a tremendous amount of training," Cullen said. "The Legislature didn't trust local authorities with the complexity of radar. If they brought in the state police I would have heard them."

Let's try that again.

According to Cullen, there is a reason local police are not permitted to use radar.

"The local police here are essentially meatheads," Cullen said. "They couldn't find their own arses with both hands and a map. Had they brought in someone who could communicate in actual words rather than a combination of primitive grunts and senseless violence I would have heard them."

Much better.
 
publikenemy
2011-11-26 04:35:00 AM
In before the "judge is a republican, so he's obviously a cigar chomping, rich, elitist, selfish, unsympathetic, kitten-killing, scumbag"...so he must be wrong
 
Fett56
2011-11-26 04:36:32 AM
david1963: I'm impressed that this judge is a Republican. I'd doubted one of those ruling against cops was possible.

I think I know why he didn't run for re-election.

Remember, the "separation" between the parties is largely for appearances. The important fact is that there are a lot of bad ones on both sides, and a few good ones on both.
 
erveek
2011-11-26 04:37:41 AM
Fett56: david1963: I'm impressed that this judge is a Republican. I'd doubted one of those ruling against cops was possible.

I think I know why he didn't run for re-election.

Remember, the "separation" between the parties is largely for appearances. The important fact is that there are a lot of bad ones on both sides, and a few good ones on both.

So vote Republican.
 
wraith95
2011-11-26 04:39:21 AM
Jick Jackson: The article makes a lot more sense than the headline. Or it's me.

You're right. The cases were thrown out because the state police, who's job it was to operate the radar, didn't show up. Sounds like the super should be pissed at the state police, not the judge. Also:

"According to Chitwood, Sgt. Don Clark, who regularly handles court cases for motor vehicle violations, calls offenders up before a judge (Upper Darby has five district judges) and offers motorists an opportunity to plead to a lesser charge and pay a $110 fine with no points on their license, a common procedure that didn't happen with these speeding incidents.

Actually, looks like he's pissed about losing some easy money. Sounds like a shakedown.
 
universebetween
2011-11-26 04:39:47 AM
I'm floored.
 
geekbikerskum
2011-11-26 04:47:54 AM
JPINFV: Is there any state that doesn't require both officers to appear when one officer writes the citation and the other officer witnesses the offense?

Massachusetts, where neither officer needs to appear at the magistrate's hearing. Usually there's just one representative of the police department there representing all the cases on the docket that day.
 
Charlie's Bad Place
2011-11-26 04:50:16 AM
The UDPD didn't use radar, the PA State Police did during the detail. PSP is the only authorized agency in PA that can use radar. The problem is that the UDPD did not coordinate with PSP on the hearing dates. Without the Trooper to testify to the use of the radar system the hearings could not go on. If the Trooper had been there to testify, those folks would have probably been found guilty. The District Justice was correct in his actions.

/I am a Police Officer
//Normally I like Chitwood but he is dead wrong on this one
 
JPINFV
2011-11-26 05:03:01 AM
geekbikerskum: JPINFV: Is there any state that doesn't require both officers to appear when one officer writes the citation and the other officer witnesses the offense?

Massachusetts, where neither officer needs to appear at the magistrate's hearing. Usually there's just one representative of the police department there representing all the cases on the docket that day.

Well, yes, but you can appeal that ruling. Too bad it's what, $100 for an actual court trial now?

/Beat a ticket in MA back when the magistrate's kangaroo court was free and the court trial was $40.
 
angrygrizzly
2011-11-26 05:03:23 AM
You can't testify as a expert witness if you don't even use the equipment. So the presence of a township police officer doesn't mean much.

The judge followed the law. It's not his fault the township PD doesn't have its shiat together. Stop whining, Mr. Superintendent Man, and do your job next time.
 
Doktr Gud Brayne
2011-11-26 05:17:25 AM
angrygrizzly: You can't testify as a expert witness if you don't even use the equipment. So the presence of a township police officer doesn't mean much.

The judge followed the law. It's not his fault the township PD doesn't have its shiat together. Stop whining, Mr. Superintendent Man, and do your job next time.

This is how I read it as well. If the Stupidintendent brings in the state trooper to the next round of ticket court appearances and nothing changes, I would of course reconsider.

It reminds me of someone who makes a mistake then gets mad at anyone who might possibly have seen in order to take their mind off the self-inflicted embarrassment.
 
sendtodave
2011-11-26 05:21:24 AM
Charlie's Bad Place: The UDPD didn't use radar, the PA State Police did during the detail. PSP is the only authorized agency in PA that can use radar. The problem is that the UDPD did not coordinate with PSP on the hearing dates. Without the Trooper to testify to the use of the radar system the hearings could not go on. If the Trooper had been there to testify, those folks would have probably been found guilty. The District Justice was correct in his actions.

/I am a Police Officer
//Normally I like Chitwood but he is dead wrong on this one

So, the judge is going by the book, covering his hiney, but the police superintendent wants him to hear the cases anyway? Why?

The law is the law, and should be followed, unless it interferes with those who enforce the law?
 
Emposter
2011-11-26 05:32:30 AM
Except that the prohibition against local cops using radar had nothing to do with the cases being thrown out. Oh, look, another subby that failed to read the article. By golly, this must be Fark!
 
MurphyMurphy
2011-11-26 05:49:14 AM
A cop with no respect for the law?

I am shocked. SHOCKED
 
SpeedyBB
2011-11-26 05:52:38 AM
Jick Jackson: The article makes a lot more sense than the headline. Or it's me.

No, it's not you.

The headline was truly garbled, profoundly betty-grabled. Whoever submitted it is not even close to being a friend of the English language.
 
zepillin
2011-11-26 05:55:47 AM
FTA "It's ridiculous to throw 56 tickets out when speeding is a major, major problem.

actually driver inattention, following too closely and accelerating then braking in what would other wise be a steady state traffic flow is a major, major problem.

the Jammers slow traffic flow by 20 to 30 per cent
it doesn't have to be everyone that drives the recommended following distance
just ten percent
and if most were going 45-50
then 45-50 was the safest speed

no I will not cite
easy google
liquid dynamics traffic flow
if you really care
 
zepillin
2011-11-26 06:04:15 AM
and if most were going 45-50
then 45-50 was the safest speed

and 55 if they spaced
was not out of line

f=ck their "laws"

the system sucks ..... money
 
hasty ambush
2011-11-26 06:24:52 AM
Charlie's Bad Place: The UDPD didn't use radar, the PA State Police did during the detail. PSP is the only authorized agency in PA that can use radar. The problem is that the UDPD did not coordinate with PSP on the hearing dates. Without the Trooper to testify to the use of the radar system the hearings could not go on. If the Trooper had been there to testify, those folks would have probably been found guilty. The District Justice was correct in his actions.

/I am a Police Officer
//Normally I like Chitwood but he is dead wrong on this one

1. Since when did radar become to complex for local police to learn how to use?

2. Don't most PDs use lasers now?
 
burghboy
2011-11-26 06:32:06 AM
PSP fights tooth and nail every legislative session to keep the local guys off their radar-writing turf. PSP neglects to send trooper to court, despite the trooper's name being clearly written in Box 51 of the traffic citation. PSP causes local department to waste a lot of man hours because they can't hold up their end of the deal. Somehow this is the local department's fault?

The only problem here is misdirected anger. UDPD should be pissed at the PSP, not the MDJ.
 
Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf
2011-11-26 06:51:34 AM
Fett56: So wait, this cop is attempting to have a JUDGE removed from certain cases?

Seriously, the balls on these people. We really need to take them down a farking peg, I mean seriously, how can you not have any respect for a farking judge?

Well, what do you expect them to do? Here you have a speeding problem so serious that PSP issues 228 tickets in 4 days while only ticketing people who are more than 15 over the limit and that damn judge throws 56 of them out over some picky technical bullshiat? WTF?
 
enik
2011-11-26 06:56:15 AM
Chitwood is a cock.

When he was chief of the Portland (Maine) PD he declared that anyone open carrying a firearm would be arrested on the spot -- despite open carry being completely legal in the state. So he's pretty much used to doing what he wants, when he wants. Like most cops.
 
zepillin
2011-11-26 06:57:16 AM
Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Here you have a speeding problem so serious that PSP issues 228 tickets in 4

sounds like a problem with the signage
a very serious problem
so serious everyone thinks it stupid
 
JackalRabbit
2011-11-26 07:02:46 AM
zepillin: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Here you have a speeding problem so serious that PSP issues 228 tickets in 4

sounds like a problem with the signage
a very serious problem
so serious everyone thinks it stupid

Tell that to poor little deaf Jimmy, that lives on that street. Tell him when his ball rolls in the street and he's going for it, and the semi hits him at 15 miles an hour faster.

/sniffles flowin now.....poor litte deaf Jimmy
 
clancifer [TotalFark]
2011-11-26 07:10:49 AM
Emposter: Except that the prohibition against local cops using radar had nothing to do with the cases being thrown out. Oh, look, another subby that failed to read the article. By golly, this must be Fark!

Is that your final answer?
 
rico567
2011-11-26 07:11:33 AM
The police superintendent's contention that speeding is a serious problem on this road is irrelevant to the judge's action. It either is or is not required that a representative of the agency clocking the speeders be present in the courtroom. I'm guessing that in PA it is, or the judge would not have acted as he did. Case closed.

The attempt to secure recusal of the judge is a spurious and bald-faced attempt to circumvent a situation that is the fault of the police / prosecution, or whoever's responsibility it is to see to it that their case is advanced in a manner in accordance with established legal procedure. Double case closed!
 
Emposter
2011-11-26 07:18:41 AM
clancifer: Emposter: Except that the prohibition against local cops using radar had nothing to do with the cases being thrown out. Oh, look, another subby that failed to read the article. By golly, this must be Fark!

Is that your final answer?

Yes.

No, wait, can I have two choices eliminated?

Ok...yes.
 
Alonjar
2011-11-26 07:39:36 AM
Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf:
Well, what do you expect them to do? Here you have a speeding problem so serious that PSP issues 228 tickets in 4 days while only ticketing people who are more than 15 over the limit and that damn judge throws 56 of them out over some picky technical bullshiat? WTF?

Picky technical bullshiat? Its called the right to face your accuser, and its a pretty important Constitutional Amendment.
 
Moonlightfox
2011-11-26 08:12:25 AM
Arresting over 200 people does not exclude any one of them from due process of law. If you take someone to court, you have to actually show up, even if you're the Highway Patrol. That's not a technicality.
 
Colin O'Scopy
2011-11-26 08:27:56 AM
All I hear from the judge is: "You didn't follow procedure. You LOSE! Good DAY, sir!"

All I hear from the cop is: "Waaaaaaaa!!"

Wait, I meant "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAHH!"
 
BronyMedic [TotalFark]
2011-11-26 08:28:21 AM
Moonlightfox: Arresting over 200 people does not exclude any one of them from due process of law. If you take someone to court, you have to actually show up, even if you're the Highway Patrol. That's not a technicality.

Pretty much this. The judge was in the right in this instance. The rules on this are pretty clear, and they weren't followed.

Sorry.zepillin: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Here you have a speeding problem so serious that PSP issues 228 tickets in 4

sounds like a problem with the signage
a very serious problem
so serious everyone thinks it stupid

Your personal feelings on the speed limit are irrelevant. The speed limit is the speed limit. Either lobby to have it changed, or don't biatch when you get pulled over because you left too late to make it to your destiation while doing the limit. You're knowingly breaking a traffic law. There's really no excuse, unless your truck/van is painted white and orange, and you have big flashy red lights and loud noises coming from it.

I can't drive 55 isn't an excuse.

Gordon Bennett: According to Cullen, there is a reason local police are not permitted to use radar.

"It requires a tremendous amount of training," Cullen said. "The Legislature didn't trust local authorities with the complexity of radar. If they brought in the state police I would have heard them."

Let's try that again.

According to Cullen, there is a reason local police are not permitted to use radar.

"The local police here are essentially meatheads," Cullen said. "They couldn't find their own arses with both hands and a map. Had they brought in someone who could communicate in actual words rather than a combination of primitive grunts and senseless violence I would have heard them."

Much better.

Isn't this one of the areas that primarily uses volunteer cops? I know when I was in Maryland, the local fire department doubled as the police.
 
citizenj
2011-11-26 08:37:09 AM
This article makes me want bacon and OJ for breakfast.
 
Colin O'Scopy
2011-11-26 08:41:14 AM
SpeedyBB: Jick Jackson: The article makes a lot more sense than the headline. Or it's me.

No, it's not you.

The headline was truly garbled, profoundly betty-grabled. Whoever submitted it is not even close to being a friend of the English language.

You're right. Its NOT him. Its BOTH OF YOU.

/reading comprehension fail. Go back to grade school, you two.
 
Fizpez
2011-11-26 09:03:32 AM
I like the police dudes suggestion that they just "continue" the cases till a later date because they didnt have a trooper there. People already probably had to take time off of work to show up, expecting to get ass raped but a rubber stamp "guilty" machine - then you're told - "Whoops, sorry, someone spilled lube all over the ass rape machine and we wouldnt want you to get off with anything less than a thorough job - so... hmmmm, come back next Tuesday mmmkay?"
 
BizarreMan
2011-11-26 09:04:17 AM
wraith95: "According to Chitwood, Sgt. Don Clark, who regularly handles court cases for motor vehicle violations, calls offenders up before a judge (Upper Darby has five district judges) and offers motorists an opportunity to plead to a lesser charge and pay a $110 fine with no points on their license, a common procedure that didn't happen with these speeding incidents.

Actually, looks like he's pissed about losing some easy money. Sounds like a shakedown.

This!
 
6655321
2011-11-26 09:35:29 AM
Chitwood was featured in the Thames television series Crime, Inc. as a tough Phila detective working organized crime events. Now he likes making press statements.
 
Reverend Monkeypants
2011-11-26 09:38:37 AM
I hate that everybody speeds.
Ticket everyone.
 
devildog123 [TotalFark]
2011-11-26 09:56:17 AM
If the cop doesn't show up, and you do, you don't get the ticket. It's that simple. And cops don't show up all the time.

CSB:
Once when I was in North Carolina, I got busted at a speed trap. The Staties set up right after the exit from I-95 to Camp LeJeune to bust Marines coming home off of a 96. You go from a 70mph road to a 55mph road, and they had 4 cars pulling guys over. I had to go to court, along with a bunch of other people, and I noticed that there was only one cop there, and he wasn't a State Trooper. The prosecutor was offering everyone in sight a reduced fine, and no points if they'd plead guilty and go to a class. I figured what the hell and took my chances. I got up before the judge, he asks for the trooper to testify, the prosecutor stands up and says he's not there, the the judge dismisses the case. Anyone who hadn't signed the plea agreement yet threw it out. I found out later that about half the time, the cops fail to show up.
/end CSB

Oh, and in PA, the state cops LOVE having a monopoly on radar guns, and fight to keep it that way. My BIL is a local cop, and he said that if they want to set up a radar enforced speed trap, the locals have to pay the State Police for the time
 
TiiiMMMaHHH
2011-11-26 10:21:23 AM
No Police needed in the courtroom in Maine anymore, used to be..

The judge actually tells you "radar is king, you can't prove it's wrong, and if you waste my time trying to say you're innocent, I'll double your fine. Would you like to plea now?" Once you're tagged, its a done deal. Only a relationship with a fellow officer can get you off that hook.

I FEAR the police. They have power AND immunity. I do everything in my power to avoid contact with them. Even doing the speed limit. Course, I'm always puffing headies too, so I could do without the $1000 civil fine for that, as well.

/FTP
 
MyRandomName
2011-11-26 10:21:28 AM
david1963: I'm impressed that this judge is a Republican. I'd doubted one of those ruling against cops was possible.

I think I know why he didn't run for re-election.

I love biased assholes.

I bet you would be utterly shocked to hear Scalia is one of the main protectors of the 6th amendment giving those on trial the most enhanced legal protections.

But no, your pre determined bias is more germane.
 
SharkTrager
2011-11-26 10:23:40 AM
devildog123: I found out later that about half the time, the cops fail to show up.

Maybe where you are but where I have lived showing up generally means overtime without having to sit in a cruiser or do paperwork, and cops love overtime.
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
From the Fark Shop:
More from the Fark Shop »