User Profile: SgtSully

SgtSully

Member Since: March 22, 2012

Comments

  • June 2, 2014 at 7:21pm

    Title: Unstoppable global warming : every 1,500 years
    Author: S Fred Singer; Dennis T Avery

    Summary: proves Global warming i.e climate change is NATURAL, not man-made. Singer and Avery are scholars who use scholarship to a new idea based on FACTS. They compile hundreds of well respected experts throughout the Scientific community to disprove the HYSTERIA

  • May 14, 2014 at 10:03am

    Let’s start a Blood Mood Discussion.
    Monday September 28, 2015 is a Blood Moon.

  • February 5, 2014 at 10:36pm

    “I am sorry but your question is, well, stupid. „I have decided not to answer it as I believe you have very little common sense. Good luck Sargent.”

    It is Sergeant, actually.

  • February 5, 2014 at 10:34pm

    Yes,
    The Fire scene in the west has been and will be a “fire event” not a police event.
    The Fire commanders are in charge due to the large, geographical region of the fire and not the state *thankfully). Local police commanders would be vastly encumbered with multiple responsibilities thus necessitating an area command of the the ICS system.

    OFsuch, this discussion does not necessitate nor any discussion arise thereof.
    Clearly this is a common highway accident gone awry.

  • February 5, 2014 at 10:03pm

    Only when you cuff a smart-ass, imitating as a dumb ass.

  • February 5, 2014 at 9:57pm

    “Let’s hope that it is your son or daughter that dies next time when this nonsense comes up again”

    really? Try to think before you type.

  • February 5, 2014 at 9:08pm

    IC means the (Incident Command) “first ON scene” until properly relieved as in ‘Until acknowledgment” of authority.

    The ‘IC’ is the Incident Commander of the scene until properly relived. Hence the first on scene IS the… I.C.

    S/HE controls the incident until further authority. I.E. A bathroom cleaner observing a fire at the US park service bathrooms would the incident commander (until relived) while the fire apparatus would be the Operations Section Chief or Planning or Logistics OR whatever roles you desire.

    BTW: Smitty What is a LEO? Is that short of being a C.O.P? There IS a difference. I attest NO. LEO is NOT EVER a C.O.P.
    Different vernacular (meaning and response.) I am a COP; will always be, and will always be. It is a different meaning: which (as you may interpret) I hold quite different.
    Once a cop, ALWAYS a cop.

    Firefighter/EMT and with LE Training… Give me Break. (LoL)

  • February 5, 2014 at 8:32pm

    Keep traffic flowing. Yes. Except, where life is in danger (yours and mine). I agree site safety comes first. BUT, it must be distinct from any and all other situations; quite specific to THIS (any) situation.

    I have posed of a ‘first responder’ fatality in my previous discussion. I have always promoted the cessation of traffic on a highway, particular a high, volume highway; (preferably with an eighteen wheel tractor n trailer) across the roadway. However, as stated it must demonstrate the need for such. In HIS case, we did not abrupt traffic significantly to prohibit large vehicles (semi’s) from venturing onward. He died months later with complications to the many surgeries leaving a wife and child.

    The issue of safety upon a highway ventures a lot of different ‘roadways’. First is safety to all involved then mitigating the hazards of vehicles in the roadway. Removing vehicles from the road way is a positive aspect of any accident scene removing the possibility of further injury/damage.

    Responses (1) +
  • February 5, 2014 at 8:06pm

    HJ:
    What state are you speaking of? It would lead toward your reasoning pertaining to investigations of crime.
    In mine, Police are always in charge upon an investigation i.e. accident, murder, arson, terrorism, DWI etc.
    Sean
    Btw, I have no problem of ‘keeping traffic at a bay’. It makes my job {and life} a lot easier. Plus, having plenty of time to hang out (with no responsibilities) while crime is at bay…watching the asphalt dry… who would complain?
    Why not delegate the D.O.T (department of Transportation) to babysit ‘fire’ while real cops go to work.

  • February 5, 2014 at 7:33pm

    Just viewed the footage via San Diego TV. The accident is [contained within concrete 'jersey barriers" North bound/ South Bound] mitigating any loss of human life with a collision. The Fire Apparatus is placed on the immediate (interior) side of the barrier with the subject Fire Apparatus placed diagonal from the concrete barrier to the next lane (middle). Thus, blocking two lanes instead of one. {really…who believes a collision with the (60,000lbs) fire truck into a concrete jersey barrier will affect the responding cops/fireman}? The fire truck will not move.

    In my view (of not being present) the trooper acted appropriately, since no risk of injury was posed to either the victim, responders nor the vehicles. In fact, I propose the disturbance of the middle lane by the fire apparatus posed a greater threat of vehicular injury than not. Did they (Fire) announce the lane change 2,000 yards prior to the event? Have a safety car displaying an arrow of thru traffic? Three lanes to Two? No.

    A Fire Department spokesperson spoke of the (Incident Command System) ICS system being integrated and questioning the role of the police yet I pose the question to the reporter: Who was in charge of the California Highway? Police or Fire? We may appropriately conclude Police as I do not observe Fire vehicles pulling cars over for speeding. His (fire) comment was: the police failed to state such fact.
    Really?

    Responses (3) +
  • February 5, 2014 at 7:03pm

    Everyone’s a Jack *** aka chooch including the cop n fireman.

    I’ve been on scene at numerous accidents; knew a fellow cop die from a driver running the highway barricade and colliding with the scene. Also, have had the highway shut down for an accident which could have been dropped to a shoulder or pushed off the roadway.

    The key point is: I wasn’t there nor was anyone on this board. It comes down to ‘who is in charge’ and ‘listening to THAT authority’.

    The Highway Cop is the authority and upon an order…follow it; except in the immediate, life threatening {death} situation. If so, the cop will be along side to assist.
    All else, move the truck. I understand it takes a while to move those things, especially with the numerous safety concerns waking around etc.

    Everyone’s a critic yet knows nothing about the hazards of the roadway better than a ‘super trooper’ glorified, highway/ traffic cop. They have lived, breathed and experienced more on that roadway than any volunteer fireman ‘sticking to his training’ ever will. If he was a PAID fireman, it is even worse.

    PS the voly will get off crying the blues of being a ‘first responder’.

    Responses (5) +
  • January 20, 2014 at 10:56am

    He’s a Catholic, similar to Republicans. In name only. “Actions speak louder than words” Prior to his election he was a socialist, after pushing the ‘safe act’ He proves he is a Communist.

  • August 20, 2013 at 5:15pm

    She should view the following presentation: Ann Barnhardt on being a woman within Islam courtesy of Pat Dollard com. Horrendous. warning it is graphic.

    http://patdollard.com/2013/06/watch-must-see-for-all-americans-ann-barnhardt-islamic-sexuality-a-survey-of-evil/

    Responses (1) +
  • August 9, 2013 at 1:39pm

    Exceptions to a Search Warrant

    Search incident to lawful arrest
    plainview
    automobile exception
    consent
    emergency/exigent circumstances
    stop and frisk
    hot pursuit
    inventory

    IN this case (based on news accounts) the officers entered the apartment {2230hrs} in their view of ‘hot pursuit’ since the a five gallon bucket was beneath an open window and it was ‘probable’ {in their mind} the criminal entered the home. The officers were investigating an ‘earlier crime’ with one suspect under arrest. How earlier? The article does not stipulate.

    However, the exception to a search warrant with ‘hot pursuit” requires the officer be actively pursuing the suspect, observe (or be notified thereof in a quick fashion by a noise or third party) the criminal enter a private domain. Then and only then may the officer enter to apprehend the suspect.

    Since the initial crime occurred ‘earlier’ and the ‘hot pursuit’ occurred later in the evening; the officers {in my opinion} did not have an exception to the rule of law obtaining a search warrant.

    In the least disciplinary actions, these officers require training; in the most {probable}, they will be fired with civil litigation commencing.

    Since the officers lacked ‘intent’ to commit a crime, they should not be charged with burglary. Aggravated animal abuse is another story.

    What should have happened? The officers upon obtaining no answer at the door should have set up a perimeter and requested a

  • August 2, 2013 at 1:25pm

    Beside the fact Islamists are crucifying Christians; in another article today they ‘found’ the Garden of Eden, now Jesus’s cross…yeah right. As others have commented: good luck proving that.
    AD 660? Right at the time of the one who shall not be named…hymmm.

  • July 8, 2013 at 11:43am

    If the subject is (deemed) not compliant the officer has probable cause to arrest: arrest the subject, charge DWI/DUI and take to the court. A summons is in LIEU of Arrest. If the investigating officers deems the needs of justice will not be met with a summons (non-compliance, will not attend later court date), it is the right of the people to incarcerate the subject pending the courts (Judge) decision.

    Summons were developed to alleviate the high incidence of common traffic violations. In this case a summons of disobeying a police officer is warranted. The subject may have the ‘right’ not to answer questions, but the State has a right to verify the subject is indeed a VALID motor vehicle operator within the law. The State has the right to demonstrate (through evidence) the cause of the arrest (Video recording).

    Lastly the court is not on the street, it is not the time, nor place to challenge the law. If the subject believes he is unjustly accused; the process is CIVIL LITIGATION i.e. sue the state for unlawful behavior. Thus the reason we have so much ‘case law’ decisions.

    Upon discovery of the video tape (digital) recording device, the police should have voucher-ed for evidence. The court will return the device upon the conclusion of their investigation.

  • July 8, 2013 at 11:42am

    Location: active roadway
    Time of Day: Evening
    Date: 4th of July
    Environmental concerns: High probability of drunken drivers due to holiday; high incidence of accidents due to alcohol/drug abuse.

    Subject: Not compliant; refuses order to relocate vehicle to side of road; refuses submission of drivers license (he was observed operating vehicle);

    Search of vehicle: ALLOWED. Only in reachable area of Driver. Can not search trunk, back seat area etc. Must demonstrate officer safety.

    The courts have shown traffic stops are INHERENTLY dangerous for Police thus are allowed certain flexibility for officer safety. More police die/injured from traffic stops than any other incident. Two thousand pounds of metal traveling at the speed limit (25, 55, 65mph) will have devastating repercussions.

  • July 8, 2013 at 11:41am

    First, I was not there, nor was anyone on this blaze commentary. The video is clarly edited, so we do not possess the full information. It is a valid stop: DUI/DWI Checkpoint

    Subject indicated by his own admission via verbal and physical response of ‘possible’ driving under the influence behavioral ques:
    short answers to minimize smell of alcohol;
    window cracked again to minimize odor of alcohol;
    aggressively confrontation of officer in his questions.

    Subject was not compliant when directed to pull off road for further investigation. The subject then refused to exit vehicle. Subject refused to produce his license for driving upon the public roadway.

  • June 30, 2013 at 9:39pm

    @ sirhansirhan: Ah, thank you Brother, for your fortitude and resilience. As I am not well versed in the Gospels and Koran in exact scripture/text; I shall postpone until morning for a proper response. I shall research those pertinent facts and transcribe for your (our) review.
    Cheers,
    SgtSully

  • June 30, 2013 at 9:22pm

    @sirhansirhan: I am awaiting a response to my 20:19 reply to your comment on calebjim posting at 18:13. Is it you require more research on your subject? Understanding Mohamed’s fathers name is ‘abd to allah’ ( slave to allah) note i have not extenuated Allah due to his non-appearance prior to Mohammed.
    ‘Slave to allah’ was a caretaker within the ‘kaba’ containing hundreds of ‘moon gods {pagan deities comprised of “rocks” dedicated to the moon} of which ‘slave to allah’ was the King of all moon god’s. Mohamed’s Father care-took of only one, the most special, most beneficial rock: allah.
    Do I say in error? If so, may I humbly ask facts as I shall demonstrate mine.
    Cheers,
    SgtSully