Sunday August 30, 2015
Jump to content
This comes from ABC News. The minute I read it I was asking myself if this might be a perfect solution for crimes of profit. See what you think:
Sheriff's Office Asks Drug Dealers to Turn in Their Rivals
A Kentucky sheriff's office has posted a flyer on its Facebook page asking drug dealers to turn in their rivals.
Multiple media outlets report the Franklin County Sheriff's Office posted the flyer Monday afternoon. It features an image of a marijuana leaf and says, "Is your drug dealing competition costing you money? We offer a free service to help you eliminate your drug competition!"
Franklin County Sheriff Pat Melton says the post is funny, but the sheriff's department is not joking around.
At the bottom of the letter, people are asked to fill out information about the drug dealer they are reporting, including the dealer's name and vehicle.
Melton says he got the idea from the McIntosh County Sheriff's Office in Georgia.
As of Tuesday morning, the post had 394 online shares.
The Question Is....
Considering the fact that drug dealing is a crime of greed, is this the perfect way of fighting back at those folks: using their own greed against them?
As you know, I haven't watched TV now for just about ten years. It happened that we were making some adjustments on the one in the living room. We use it, of course, to run DVD's of musical comedies which Lolly loves to watch and listen to. It was more convenient to let it run in the TV mode to make the settings, so we had some station or other on, which one I do not know.
I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw some dopey looking character talking to an audience of people who looked about as scruffy as any group of people I had ever seen. What he was talking about I am not sure; nothing I'd ever heard of before. I asked the woman who comes in what the heck kind of program it was and she said something about an "opinion show." What I saw was some jackass talking through his hat while an audience of jackasses sat and listened. Then the station switch and I saw some people on some kind of little island running around for no reason I could understand. That, I was told, was some kind of reality survival show. And there were three or four other things that came and went that looked like a program from Mars.
Good Lord! Don't they have any real programs anymore? It all looked like audience participation stuff. Why in the world would anyone want to pay for an antenna to watch other people doing things? I don't get it.
I also wonder how often a few very vocal people affect town council decisions when most people. Also, if there is any controversy why doesn't the town council make an effort to find out what people — all the people — really want?
"...they will smother in the cotton or not being able to move around as they get older won't be able to walk."
I get your point: There is no way to be absolutely safe. I don't think anyone would argue with that.
Having said that, I wonder how all of you feel about laws that require things like helmets. In fact, let's take a big one: the seat belt law. It's purpose is, of course, to protect the person in the car. But who should make that decision? The person or the state? And if the purpose of the law is to do good things for people, how does it do anyone any good if you stop him, give him a ticket, and make him pay a fine?
You know something? I just can't get it through my head why anyone would dress up in bear costume and actually go into a group of grizzly bears. What could possibly be his reason for doing it? Surely he couldn't believe that he was fooling the bears. Or could he? And even if he did fool the bears, what would he expect to happen? I just can't get this one through my head.
Why? Why? Why?
How about it? Should the president be able to override it when Congress refuses to approve a treaty? Should any one man have that much power? Who represents the people of this nation? The president or the representatives and senators?
I read this headline in Reuters:
"Man in bear costume harasses grizzlies in Alaska."
Sounded interesting, but I thought I was about to find out that harassing grizzlies was not a good idea. Wouldn't that have been what you were thinking?
Well, read on......
A man in a full-body bear costume approached a female grizzly and her two cubs [near] the Chilkoot River in Alaska. [He] came within 10 feet of the bears.
Carl Koch, an assistant area biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game ... yelled at the animals to get them to move away.
The man in the bear costume got into a car and left without explaining his actions....
From what I gather, the biologist was more worried about the bears than the man.
Who would you have been worried about?
Here's the article from ABC News:
Fake Officer Tried to Pull Over off-Duty Ohio Cop
Authorities in northeast Ohio say a man pretending to be a police officer was caught and charged because the driver targeted by his bogus traffic stop was a real officer.
Police in North Kingsville say an off-duty Youngstown officer was stopped Sunday night by the alleged impersonator, who was driving a black sport utility vehicle with red and blue emergency-style lights. Village police Chief Hugh Flanigan tells The Star-Beacon .... in nearby Ashtabula (ash-tuh-BYOO'-luh) that the unarmed man in civilian clothes repeatedly tried to convince the Youngstown officer that he was a real lawman, but eventually drove away.
Flanigan says the officer contacted village police, who found the suspect within minutes. A prosecutor says the 42-year-old North Kingsville man faces a misdemeanor charge of impersonating an officer.
The Questions Are....
One: Is this what we call poetic justice?
Two: A more important question is: Reread this comment "in nearby Ashtabula (ash-tuh-BYOO'-luh)" and tell me this: Who was that pronunciation in there for? You and me, or the talking heads who were expected to run the story?
Wanta hear my guess? :-)
I often wonder about issues that are what people call NIMBY issues. This one looks like one of those. I just can't imagine what the problem is if all that;s going to happen is that "...refuse from garbage trucks to roll-off containers that will be loaded onto trucks and transferred to Camp Verde for recycling."
How is that a problem?
It surprises me that the president can override a congressional refusal to sign some treaty. I think that it one place where the Constitution should be changed. Don't you agree? That's just too much power for one man, especially considering the fact that his actions could be politically motivated.
Last login: yesterday