Today in tone-deaf newspaper columns

3 things:

1. The column shouldn't have run. All it takes is a call or two to the Sheriff's office and it'd have become clear that Ol Clark had subjective memory.

2. Cops are not schoolteachers or law educators or parents. Citizens are not required to be "happy" about getting a summons. (Indeed, if you put "failure to signal" up for a vote, I doubt voters would consider it a stoppable offense.) Ol Clark needs to sign a summons, not be nice about it.

Further: This Graf:

In his column Ol' Clark sings the same tune we hear so often, in that these "trivial" traffic violations should not be a reason for law enforcement to stop a vehicle or write a summons. Here is a quick Political Science refresher: law enforcement is in the Executive Branch of government, which means they enforce the laws. The Legislative Branch is responsible for creating and writing the laws. If people have a problem with what is deemed "trivial" traffic laws, then our friends down at the Capitol are the ones they need to be complaining to or about. The job of a law enforcement officer is to enforce laws, no matter if they are deemed serious or trivial and I can assure you the deputies at the Boone County Sheriff's Department are going to enforce them all.

First, yes, stops like these are trivial.

Second, these laws almost never come off the books, and here's why: the cops would go down there and testify to how dangerous it'd be not to have it. The NHSTA has failure to signal as a potential sign of drunk driving.

Third, the cops said virtually nothing to each other during the stop. Of course they didn't. The recording is on.

 

I wonder how old this columnist is? Over 80? My comment is he does deserve a suspension and if he's really over 80, I'd suggest he hang it up. I am normally against the big bad newspaper companies replacing people for any reason, cause as you know, I despise the suits, but this guy made up a tale and may be showing signs of his age/memory loss.

In theory he could enrage the community with a column like this, against the police. Sometimes I think crimes like his deserve only a warning -- turn signal and stop sign violations, but he made a lot of shit up in that column. And the minority references? Somebody, an editor if there are any, had to tell somebody this column was a bad idea. The female cop wasn't mean at all. If Gatehouse runs this paper, this guy is history. They won't care that he's written columns for 50 years; they'll be telling the editor to take away his column and reassign him and certainly with his ego, he'll quit. Or just fire him. I mean, he basically made up a column and to compare his case to that of a minority being pulled over is ridiculous. You can't write stuff like that. The cops weren't even mean to him. He was grumbling and she told him, "There's nothing to argue about." Hate to say it, but he's an older grandpa type and threw a fit getting a ticket and yes he did lie in his column.

 

Failure to signal is a great way to get pain in the ass drivers. On the highway, the drivers who don't signal usually are the ones weaving in and out of traffic. If they ate taking a turn, you get stuck behind them when you could go around if you knew they were making a turn.

 

Story says he is 84.

 

His follow-up column is too defensive and far from apologetic. As an angry, tired old man, he's dug his heels in even though he lied and embellished everything. Time to let him put his boots up and rest them for a while. A long while. As a reader, I'm as offended by his follow-up as I was the first column. He admits he made a mistake but he hardly seems sorry about it.

 

My thoughts exactly. And the whole umpire blown call schtick was applied to HIS actions, but to me it seemed to be a thinly veiled comment that the police blew a call my pulling him over for just a failure to signal.

I couldn't find a comments section on his follow up piece. Maybe they deliberately turned the comments off on that one.

 

He lost his cool for getting a ticket for not signaling? When the cop was polite the entire time? After he appeared to be fleeing the stop at one point?
He acted like an asshole and deserves all the derision he's getting. And if he thinks he now knows what it's like to live in the hood and be a minority, he's sadly mistaken.

 

In a sense, it's revealing, though, that he does feel that way, that he acted that way, too.

People do not want to be stopped for this shit. They do not want to pay however many dollars for this shit. They do not want to be lectured for it. And if you gave voters the opportunity to line item veto certain traffic laws out of existence, this one would be kicked to the curb fast.

Police are on the front lines of BS like this all the time. But here's why: There are too many nickel and dime laws that exist precisely to fund the government and the police department.

 

Yeah, and it's always a hefty fine, even for a minor mistake. No harm, no foul should apply more often.

 

He was probably stopped for the turn signal as a secondary offense, with the cops checking for signs of impairment, etc.

Had he not been an ass by pulling away and acting badly, he probably would have gotten a warning only.

 

I don't mind cops stopping drivers for rolling stops or non-signaling - it's a good pre-tense to finding DUIs - it's writing them up for the tacky-tack stuff when they're sober. Most moving violations out this way (everything from not coming to a complete stop to 41 in a 35 will cost you between $175 and $250. The hit on the wallet wouldn't be so bad if it didn't also cost you come insurance renewal time.

 

I hear ya, and that's fine. But if a driver's not impaired but makes a harmless mistake, a warning will do. Police can issue a simple warning citation that can show up on future stops, right?

I'm not defending this guy, per se, but the fines are staggering, and traffic cops can be inhuman assholes playing God. Something as simple as momentary confusion in an unfamiliar part of town can sock you for $200.