![]() |
![]() |
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Gallery | Webcams | Blogs | YouTube Channel | Classifieds | Register | FAQ | Members List | Donate | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8
Thanks: 1
Thanked 10 Times in 3 Posts
|
As a police officer in Massachusetts and a weekend warrior boater on Lake Winnipesaukee I feel compelled to respond to many of the posts in this thread. As you can see I have only posted one time before and enjoy reading the forum.
First let me start by saying that I have been a Massachusetts police officer for over 19 years. The way I see it this “routine” stop was doomed from the beginning. Let’s start with: “on goes his obnoxious spotlight right on me. I yell over to get that light off my face. Of course he doesn't. Even real police don't do that. Now I'm completely blind. Oh well. I later find out that I'd have an hour to get my night vision back anyway...” This was not the right foot to get this stop started on. The officers used his spotlight to insure his safety, to determine how many people were in the boat and to gain a tactical edge. This is what they are trained to do. Yes even “real” police officers do this. Why would you yell back at a police officer to “get the light off my face”? How do you think the encounter will progress? Respect is a two way street and you certainly didn’t do anything to earn it right out of the gate! That being said the officer deserved to be commended for maintaining his professionalism and conducting himself as he is trained to do. Next let me address the issue of speeding. Police officers are trained to do their job. In fact part of a standard radar certification course requires the officer to estimate the speed first, then confirm it with a speed measurement device or by clocking the speed. An officer can estimate your speed and in fact cite you based solely on his estimation of your speed. He is a police officer and his training and experience is reasonable suspicioun in and of itself. Next issue is the fact that you did not have your boating safety certificate or positive identification in your possession. In this case the officer took every reasonable means to positively determine your identity. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts your social security number is listed on your drivers license printout from the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Confirming the number you give him with the number on the printout is the easiest way to verify your identity. I am amazed at all the comments about someone listening to a police scanner and stealing your social security number. I am going to go out on a limb here, but I feel safe to say that no one has ever been accused, charged, or convicted of stealing a person’s ssn from a police scanner. I investigated identity crimes for many years. Identities are purchased in bulk on black markets that obtain them through breached security at banks and creditors…. Not by listening to police scanners! In closing, this officer was doing his job that night, trying to keep the Lake safe for everyone. Some advice to everyone… if you get stopped either on land or on the water, a little respect goes a long way. |
|
|
|
| The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to MassCamper For This Useful Post: | ||
Bubba (08-17-2009), JDeere (08-17-2009), Jonas Pilot (08-16-2009), Kamper (08-17-2009), kchace (08-18-2009), lakershaker (08-17-2009), nshore (08-16-2009), Winnigirl (08-17-2009) | ||
|
|
#2 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Quote:
Add to the fact that the NHMP has records to prove that Winnipesaukee grossly exagerated the amount of time he was stopped and that the NHMP did not reveal his SS # over the air, in my opinion, calls into question this poster's entire integrity regarding ths stop. |
|
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to Skip For This Useful Post: | ||
JDeere (08-17-2009) | ||
|
|
#3 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,947
Thanks: 545
Thanked 570 Times in 335 Posts
|
Quote:
I don't mean to come down too hard on you, but I see an attitude from many LEO's that anyone stopped is guilty until proven innocent and that we should be thankful for the privilege of being pulled over. Even if someone IS breaking a routine law (speeding, etc.) I think that many times they are honestly not aware of it or attempting to circumvent authority.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH
Posts: 5,669
Thanks: 3,282
Thanked 1,132 Times in 814 Posts
|
I am profound hard-of-hearing. I need to read lips to understand what a person is saying.
One night several years ago, I was driving Rte 3A North past the Hooksett toll booth. Blue lights were turned on and the high beams blinded my rear view mirror. I pulled over. I rolled down the window and put my hands on the steering wheel. My LEO friend told me to do that whenever I am pulled over. LEO's wants to see your hands and put them at ease. The spotlight on the car went on and I can't see out of the driver's outside rear view mirror. I find this a bit unusual. I can hear someone screaming at me. I'm not sure what he was saying. So I just stay in the car with my hands on the steering wheel. I can't see anything through my mirrors. All of a sudden two police officers with their guns drawn are on both side of the car, just to the rear of the front doors. I am **** scared and I am yelling. 'I'm hard of hearing and I need to read lips.' They keep yelling at me and waving their guns, as I keep repeating I am hard of hearing. It was getting tense. I can't see anything because of the spotlight and the high beams. It seems like eternity the shouting back and force. I wasn't aware but a state police officer pulled up and actually came to the door so I can read his lips. He told me to step out of the car with my hands where he can see them. I did so and I was quickly turned around with my hands on top of the car and searched. While the SPO was searching me he was cursing the two Hooksett officers for some reason. He ask me where I was coming from and where I was going. He told me that the vehicle I was driving fit the description of a vehicle involved in an armed robbery and they pulled me over for a check. After a license and registration check, the SPO apoligize for what had happen and he actually stated the Hooksett officers has over reacted. Well the two town officers cursed the SPO for saying that. I was told to leave. No apologies from the Hooksett officers. I never been so scared in my life. This shows that the training the NH state police get is far superior than local police? I was told they get the same training, but in this case someone has a level head. In my case a light blinding me makes communications worst and could end up in a tense moment such as this. When an officer is told the person is deaf or hard of hearing, they should have at least grant a little leeway.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
Plus, after reading the LT's response, it calls into question the integrity and truthfulness of Winnipesaukee original post, especially about the time issue!! How Winnipesaukee confused one hour for twenty minutes is beyond me... |
|
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin, Ma / Gilford
Posts: 1,936
Thanks: 452
Thanked 603 Times in 340 Posts
|
Well -- nearly a month has past since this original posting.
From the lack of others chiming in and sharing their stops "Stop's" for speeding I am left to draw the conclusion that "speeding stops" aka Radar traps is not really an issue this season .......... which would figure seeing as MP was opposed to the legislation in the first place --
__________________
A bad day on the Big Lake (although I've never had one) - Still beats a day at the office!! |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Why would the MP be stopping boats for speeding when they are almost all going under 45 (except a handful of scofflaws)? I was seeing this thread as proof that American's are predominantly law-abiding and that the SL is doing just what we had hoped...slowing boaters down without the need for a lot of enforcement effort by the MP. You see it differently? I guess it's true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. |
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,947
Thanks: 545
Thanked 570 Times in 335 Posts
|
Quote:
__________________
[insert witty phrase here] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Sorry Rattlesnake Guy,
I'm sure you learned some things sitting on a jury for four weeks. If all you learned from that experience is that the police are expected to lie to you and deceive you then you are just incorrect. Courts have upheld that Officers can lie to a suspect in an interrogation. However the courts look at extrinsic misrepresentations and intrinsic misrepresentations instead of truth v lie. The first of these implies coercion where as the other usually does not. Lying in an interrogation setting is a double edged sword because if the suspect calls your bluff, like in any good game of poker, your trust is lost and you are finished. I apologize for having just greased over years of Supreme Court decisions however my point is that Officers are not trained to lie to citizens Rattlesnake Guy, you are confusing separate issues. I have seen Officers fired for lying under oath and for lying in general. I thank Lt. Dunleavy's for his response and he should commend his Officer for his professionalism that night. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin, Ma / Gilford
Posts: 1,936
Thanks: 452
Thanked 603 Times in 340 Posts
|
Elchase -- Are YOU serious? With over 400 posts you think I'm trolling!! My point and question were straight forward -- I am/was curious how many actual stops (and more importantly-how MP were treating those stops i.e verbal warning, citation, etc) are being made. On one side one could think that given a new law in effect that MP could be going hog wild -- on the other hand they appear to be acting as I would expect -using extreme discretion and tagging only the blatantly obvious. Be careful in the future with your use of the word "trolling?"
__________________
A bad day on the Big Lake (although I've never had one) - Still beats a day at the office!! Last edited by Phantom; 08-19-2009 at 07:57 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 6,028
Thanks: 2,285
Thanked 789 Times in 564 Posts
|
We're missing "the third observer's opinion".
![]() But still, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard countless arguments on police powers over this ½-century: Through this winnowing process, the system has evolved to our present laws regarding the "police stop" in general. Those Supreme Court scrutinies now more-fully respect LEOs' reasonable right to self-protection during stops. Due to the increased rate of violence nationally, any alteration in Supreme Court scrutinies that increases the dangers to enforcement officers would have effects on public safety far more profound than one could imagine. IMHO. ![]() That's my opinion: do I hear an "Amen"?
Last edited by ApS; 08-30-2009 at 08:52 PM. Reason: Change "reduces" to "increases", making an unreadable post more readable. :( |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,075
Thanks: 215
Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts
|
Only if "you're" done with those almost "unreadable" posts!
![]()
__________________
SIKSUKR |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 | |||
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
|
Originally posted by Treerider
Quote:
The email from the LT is very well written and is a great CYA letter. As Lt Dunleavy states himself the truth of the matter usually lies somewhere in the middle, so taking the MPOs report on face value while discounting Winnipesaukee's is wrong. It's the first time we've heard the MPOs side and as I freely admitted it would be different from Winnipesaukee's version. No surprise there. As for the SSN argument. I am still left somewhat confused by what Lt Dunleavy wrote. Quote:
Quote:
Regardless, my hypothetical question that is still unanswered, that was directed to any legal mind that might be lurking, is what legal recourse against the MP and state could Winnipesaukee have IF his SSN number were broadcast and stolen? Last edited by Airwaves; 08-24-2009 at 01:53 PM. Reason: change of wording to last paragraph |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,457
Thanks: 759
Thanked 796 Times in 419 Posts
|
You MIGHT have some recourse IF you could prove beyond any doubt that the MP action was the cause of your identify theft. It is unlikely you could do this unless the thief confessed that the MP was the source of his receiving your ID.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|