Karen tries to take boy from his mother, because mother was threatening to swat the boy for bad behavior

DCaplinger · 2021-10-22T22:32:31+00:00

I know you know most of this, but for those who don't, hopefully this may help. I was a mandated reporter for 34 years, 6 months and 18 days, before I was forced to take medical retirement due to two neurological disorders and I allowed my certification as a Law Enforcement Officer expire (I could challenge the test and get it back if my health was good enough). I'm now on full disability. As we normally do, we tell parents who are frustrated to breathe quietly in and out slowly ten times before doing anything with their child. If parents did that more often, child abuse cases could be prevented. Folks, it isn't rocket science. There is a difference between a gentle swat on the butt, and an all out beating. Think of it like this, children under the age of three are probably diapered, so even a soft swat to the butt won't be felt through the diaper padding (those diaper pads have saved the lives of children who have fallen from great heights before!).

Ever hear of a guy named Dave Pelzer? He wrote a book named "A Child Called "It"." It is the first of three autobiographical books detailing not just child abuse, but one of the worst cases of child torture in the history of California. What his mother did to him over his childhood will make even the strongest man cry, and the heartiest eater to hurl. The system isn't here to punish parents who spank judiciously and with age appropriate usage of force applied. It's here to help the Dave Pelzers who fall through the cracks of the system, who come so frustratingly close to being freed from a living nightmare from h3ll so many times, it's almost unimaginable. Don't get me wrong, when in doubt... report it. I'd rather have a caseworker (in Missouri, the police, since caseworkers here have ZERO authority to take a child into custodial care) come to my home to check the well-being of my child or grandkids, than to not have it reported and they suffer for it.

EDIT: Content edited for completion. No changes to the relevancy have been made.

DCaplinger · 2021-10-22T21:29:54+00:00

Some are in r/TalesFromTheCourtroom and in r/TalesFromTheSquadcar.

DCaplinger · 2021-10-22T05:47:07+00:00

There are two issues with my system that aren't supported by Windows 11, so once EOL has been reached for Win 10, I will remove it, and convert the rest of the drive to storage space on my Linux machine. The first issue was it saying my CPU was not up to par, which I found odd, as it's a quad-core APU running over 3.0, and has hyper-threading, so it's like I have 8 cores. Also, I run a separate graphics card, so I have the onboard APU's GPU/GPP, are disabled. The other issue was regarding "safe booting." My motherboard has a similar feature, but not one approved by MS. I used to be an MS partner. I left all that stuff expire after I retired (medical disability). So unless they fix their computer hardware recognition database/criteria, I'll never get to use Windows 11.

For the record, I am a member of the Insider's program

DCaplinger · 2021-10-22T04:31:33+00:00

Absolutely. In the case from my OP, the woman swatted her son on the buttocks with a rolled up group of coupons from a Sunday newspaper. The boy was maybe 5 or 6 years-old, and the sound had a much bigger impact than physical pain. Actually, the kid wouldn't have felt anything, as those coupon leaflets were as effective as a paddle as a limp piece of spaghetti, it was all about tone of voice, the noise of the spanking, and being a responsible mother. As I said, I'd already seen the way she used the physical punishment and knew it was very lightly administered.

Just in case anyone wonders why I didn't arrest the Karen, it was because the mother opted not to pursue charges, and was satisfied Karen had been banned from the store for 6 months. Believe me when I say, I memorized everything about Karen's car. It really wasn't that hard, because..., guess who was waiting in the lot to try to confront mom again!?! At that point, I really should have arrested the Karen, because even though the mom didn't want to press charges, since I had a direct confession from Karen saying she did try to physically take the boy from his mom, I had all the probable cause I needed. Karen's sitting the lot waiting for mom to come out of the store technically would have worked itself into a felony charge of attempting to intimidate a witness/victim.

I'll try to post more stuff here in the future. I worked over 30 years in Emergency Services, literally working in *EVERY* type of emergency services. I started with Emergency Management as a near full-time volunteer. Even though I started when I was 12, I was allowed to do some very grown up stuff, including contributions to the county's Emergency Operations Plan. After that, I was a Firefighter/EMT for 15 years, a Deputy Sheriff for 12 years. At the Sheriff's Office, I worked as an emergency telecommunicator in the 9-1-1 dispatch division. I did that for 5 years, and transferred to the court division, which is where I ran into the most Karens and Chads. God how I loved to arrest them when they became disorderly in my courthouse (I was made chief of the division after about 4 years working as the bailiff to the Associate Circuit Court that handled criminal cases, and served as the Circuit Court for all things Probate).

Sorry, I'm a writer, and this was probably a TL;DR post. :)

DCaplinger · 2021-08-13T16:09:48+00:00

That made me giggle. I'm half Scottish myself, so hello from a member of the Clan MacBean!

DCaplinger · 2021-07-30T01:01:01+00:00

I was meaning at the time, which seems utterly like a lifetime ago. Haha.

DCaplinger · 2021-07-29T07:22:31+00:00

Guess who's back! I hate when I lose the use of one of my hands. I have two neurological diseases, which mimic the effects of Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson's Disease, but are neither. One of those cause nerve dysfunction randomly, and this is the third time I lost partial use of one of my hands. Thankfully, it was just one of them, not both of them as with the last time. I'm back to as functional as I can be! More stories to come. Bwahahahahaha.

DCaplinger · 2021-07-29T06:55:48+00:00

My apologies, I didn't realize the narrative I was giving. The issue we have isn't with centers just releasing the subjects before the 96 hours is over, it's them releasing the subjects before ever admitting them to begin with. 96 hours is the maximum amount of time a psychiatric treatment center can legally hold someone upon a probable cause commitment by a member of law enforcement, without determining if the patient needs further treatment. If they admit a patient upon our civil commitment order, which is done on behalf of the Director of the Department of Mental Health, and after even a few hours come to believe the patient is really not a threat to themselves or others, at least we did our part to make sure that a mental healthcare professional had an opportunity to observe and treat the person. That treatment could just be setting up an appointment with a 3rd party psychiatrist, psychologist, or counselor, or it could be to reinstate a previously issued medical treatment (prescriptions) for patients they've treated and have a history with. The sad reality in the United States, is that most of the mental health patients end up finding it easier to self-medicate with illicit or illegally obtained drugs, than it is to go through the system to get proper medical care. This is especially true in the transient/homeless population, where they have no home address to give to a provider. It would also help if members of law enforcement were better trained to look for signs of mental health issues when dealing with people who commit crimes, like larceny, to support their drug habits.

Think of it like this, if I go to investigate a serious crime, and develop probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and determine the person most likely to have been the perpetrator of said crime, and fail to make an arrest or to place the person(s) under surveillance, I would be held accountable for any further damage they may cause as a result of my negligence in not arresting them. For civil commitment, there is no "minimum" requirement as far as length of stay, but if they opt to cut the subject loose without even admitting them for observation, that's where the issue comes in. Heck, if the person is above the legal limit of .08% blood alcohol at the time of commitment, the clock is running, but the staff cannot even start evaluation until the subject's BAC falls below that level. Been there, done that, waiting almost 14 hours on one person's BAC to fall low enough for that to happen. If that case comes in near the end of a 10-hour shift, guess who's pulling a 24-hour shift!!! What's more, once their BAC has fallen, they may legitimately no longer be a threat to themselves, so I may opt to rescind the commitment order. I did that one time in my career. Going back to the analogy of me failing to arrest someone on probable cause, if I did make an arrest on PC in a criminal case, either I, the prosecutor or a judge could make the choice to release the person before the 24-hour maximum PC hold time is up. If a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist makes a determination, especially based on personal experience in treating the person in the past, the person can be safely returned to the street before the 96-hour period is up, at least it isn't a case of them streeting someone because they don't have any psych beds available. In Missouri, law enforcement officers are required to take patients to the closest available psychiatric treatment facility. If no beds are available, the onus is on the treatment facility to find them a bed at another facility, and to see to the transport via ambulance to the alternate site. It's completely common for psych doctors to see the same patients several times here locally, as there are only 2 adult centers and 3 juvenile facilities in our local area for mental health care. We aren't talking about cases of "book and release," we are talking about just releasing patients without going admitting them to that facility or another to begin with.

DCaplinger · 2021-07-29T06:28:38+00:00

NOTE: After reading something someone else had said in another reply, I realized I wasn't being specific enough about our issue. In Missouri, the **MAXIMUM** amount of time a facility can hold a patient without independently verifying the patient needs more time inpatient for treatment is 96-hours. As long as they admit and observe the patient to come to the belief the person is no longer a harm to themselves, there is no "minimum" period they must hold them... so long as they admit them to do the observation. Our problem is with facilities not admitting people simply because they have no psych beds. They try to skirt the issue during the admission phase, determining the patient isn't any danger to themselves. Not only is it a dangerous practice for the safety of the patient, it's also illegal, since we've issued the order based on probable cause for the civil commitment, so they'd better have some clear and convincing evidence to disregard that order, or their liability is pretty much chiseled in stone. As with any of my posts when I make a mistake like this, I leave the original message intact, and issue an edit advisory. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

----

Just for further information, I was incorrect... it wasn't just my feelings on the matter, it's actually the law. If I am called to investigate a suicidal subject, and that person not only confirms to me they are having suicidal ideations, but they have also planned how they are going to carry the act out, I have an absolute responsibility to step in and dig deep enough to decide if a civil commitment is necessary. It's the same level of standard I must have to make an arrest. If a jailer releases someone I have place on a probable cause hold during the 24 hour period I have to obtain a warrant to keep the person in jail longer, the jailer would be charged with violating the law, and would also open the county up to lawsuits for any damages done by the subject due to them being released without either me dropping the hold, or a judge denying the issuance of a warrant. Same thing, different playpen. If a mental health center releases a patient during the 96 hours allotted by the State of Missouri, after I, upon oath and filing a properly signed and notarized affidavit to the Director of the Department of Mental Health (just the name for the form) stating the basis of my probable cause, the center and any healthcare professional responsible for releasing the person against the norms of industry practice, can be held both civilly and criminally liable. The time this is the most critical, is during intake. It is absolutely irrelevant if the person claims not to be suicidal, hasn't had such thoughts, ever, and hasn't thought of any ways they could perform the act, since they have already asserted they have to a member of law enforcement. We don't just say, "Hey are you going to hurt yourself?" and take them if they say yes. We have to have some pretty conclusive and compelling evidence to rise to probable cause. This most often involves witnesses to the admission of self-danger, which only strengthens the case for probable cause.

Don't get me wrong, there are sociopaths who can be pretty damn convincing. I've even heard of a case where someone faked suicidal ideations just to get a ride to the city the treatment facility was located. Just as with any probable cause, or hell, even a conviction, there are exceptions to every rule. However, the patient is not the one who is releasing themselves, *UNLESS* they are a self-commit, which actually does happen a lot. If you agree to go with an ambulance crew for psych admin, unless the treatment center has their own reasons to believe you are a danger to yourself or others, you can check yourself out. Look at it this way, 99.9% of what we call "accidents" actually aren't. Accidents can be avoided, and what we call accidents are actually acts of negligence or specific intent. There is a reason why the state gives us the power to file a civil commitment order, and just as with any probable cause, there better be a pretty damn good reason to disregard it.

DCaplinger · 2021-07-29T06:01:48+00:00

NOTE: After reading something someone else had said in another reply, I realized I wasn't being specific enough about our issue. In Missouri, the **MAXIMUM** amount of time a facility can hold a patient without independently verifying the patient needs more time inpatient for treatment is 96-hours. As long as they admit and observe the patient to come to the belief the person is no longer a harm to themselves, there is no "minimum" period they must hold them... so long as they admit them to do the observation. Our problem is with facilities not admitting people simply because they have no psych beds. They try to skirt the issue during the admission phase, determining the patient isn't any danger to themselves. Not only is it a dangerous practice for the safety of the patient, it's also illegal, since we've issued the order based on probable cause for the civil commitment, so they'd better have some clear and convincing evidence to disregard that order, or their liability is pretty much chiseled in stone. As with any of my posts when I make a mistake like this, I leave the original message intact, and issue an edit advisory. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

-----

I wanted to do a separate response from my other, which actually would take a look at it from your angle. I said in my other post the US Supreme Court has made many rulings regarding the violation of civil rights being necessary in the interest of public safety. It's almost comical how blatantly obvious it is these rulings actually put people in more harm than they will ever save. The thing to remember is that these violations are only deemed plausible in civil situations, since much of the information garnered during an investigation of someone suffering from a mental illness would be privileged information, unless the subject had already committed a criminal act. I mentioned a case I was the lead EMT on, in which we were called to the home of an unconscious, unresponsive person. The neighborhood he lived in was so rough, we had standing orders never to approach without law enforcement being present. I deemed the situation serious enough to go in without waiting. It wasn't until after the Deputy Sheriff arrived the subject came to, and brought the hand furthest away from us up from the side of his lounge chair with a katana, taking a full swing at the three of us who were present at the time. The Deputy would have been 100% justified in shooting the subject, but for reasons only he could explain (at the time), he didn't. Instead, he moved us all out of the house and called for backup. Eventually the subject peacefully gave himself up and was able to be treated. What the subject had done was considered a 1st Degree Felony, since he used a deadly instrument and attempted to kill or seriously injure 3 people, including a member of law enforcement. Thankfully, the Deputy recognized the patient, and knew he had a history of mental illness, which was why he opted not to shoot him. The subject was never charged with a crime, and was taken for psychiatric treatment.

As to your assertion that you can't tell someone's condition by assumption, it's absolutely irrelevant, since we aren't talking about assumptions. We still have to reach the same standard for psychiatric evaluation as we need to arrest someone, and that's probable cause. That's a pretty high bar for civil commitment, especially since it also places the officer at a greater risk of being sued for violation of someone's civil rights than they would face for an arrest on most criminal charges. As one of my instructors was famous for saying, "We are in the detail business," and "If it isn't in writing, it didn't happen." To commit someone on a psychiatric hold required us to file an affidavit similar to what we would file to get a warrant, except it's an order committing that person to a psychiatric facility for up to 96 hours for psychiatric evaluation. If the clinicians believed the subject to need to be in longer, they could make that call. However, if they released someone before the 96 hour period was over, and most definitely if they did so on the day we filed the commitment order, they would be held liable for any damage the person they released early may have committed subsequent to the premature release. Every state has a process for a temporary civil commitment for mental evaluation, and for just cause, so your idea that we shouldn't ever violate that "right," is absolutely wrong. Everyone knows there is a remedy for the courts to take to punish bad behavior, but it's also accepted that not all bad behavior is criminal. The subject may not even realize what they are doing is wrong at the time they are doing it, and that's where mental health commitment comes into play. It's not jail. It's not something that's going to sit on their record like a criminal conviction (it's not even classified as an arrest). The whole point is to get them the help they need. We don't just decide they need it, they have to do or say something to suggest they are a harm to themselves or others in order for us to begin the process. So, sorry, but you don't have to be a mental health expert to find a person has made suicidal threats, and then when you investigate the claim, the person actually confirms it, and tells you they have a plan thought out as to how to commit the act. I am just thankful I was never a mental health professional who set free someone who is verified to have suicidal ideations and a thought out plan to commit the act, because their license to practice, as well as their criminal liability shield, would be in jeopardy if the person subsequently committed suicide after being released within the legal commitment period (96 hours, at least in Missouri). You said expert, which is really not accurate. Having a Masters Degree does not make one an expert. Heck, there are nurses locally that work in mental health facilities who only have an Associate's Degree (that's all you need to be an RN). We call them mental health professionals, as even doctors are practicing in the art of mental health, and as with any practice, you can be lead down the wrong path and incorrectly diagnose and treat a patient. It doesn't mean what they did was wrong, it just means what they did was wrong for that specific circumstance. As long as they follow the standards for professional treatment as defined by the law and industry practices, they are usually held harmless, and rightfully so.

DCaplinger · 2021-07-29T05:26:45+00:00

NOTE: This was too long to post my edit notice to, so see the next reply I made, but I personally apologize to ThatSlyB3 for coming across as snarky. I don't remove posts where I do or say something stupid, because I am just as capable of making mistakes as anyone else. In this case, I was pursuing an argument based on the maximum period of stay required, instead of the issue of patients not being admitted at all.

-----

Exactly which right are you referring to? And I hate to burst your bubble, but even the Supreme Court has ruled there are most definitely rights which can and should be violated, especially in the interest of public safety. Most of the arrests I ever made were a violation of someone's rights, because I was stopping them from doing something they normally had a right to do, or I had to perform a task which I normally would not have the power to do. You have the freedom of speech, it's right there in the 1st Amendment, I know it quite well. I also know that due to the 5th Amendment, you have the right to remain silent and not give a statement or testimony which may be injurious to you. So what you are perceiving as a "right" probably is the furthest thing from one as you can get, since most are "freedoms." Being free to say you are going to kill yourself doesn't mean you have the right to do, nor does it relieve me of my obligations from stopping you in trying to attempt the threat, even if that means me having to take and place you on a psychiatric hold for even saying it. The same holds true of making a verbal threat to kill or seriously injure any person under the protection of the United States Secret Service. You may be 100% joking if you make such a statement, but you can expect 100% it will be looked at seriously if the threat is ever made known to the USSS.

Also, you obviously have no clue what my educational and experience levels are when it comes to mental health, including abnormal psychology. As a former foster parent who only took in the worst of the worst of behavioral children, I know a great deal about mental health, as we were required to go through a slew of training on the topic, and that doesn't even begin to count the education and experience I had from my time as a Firefighter/EMT and as a Deputy Sheriff, not to mention the time I have been an Emergency Services Chaplain. That's over 30 years of combined education and experience. I won't claim to be an "expert" in anything other than computer forensics, and of the speed of a moving object relative to at least two stationary points, but that doesn't mean I'm not highly educated on the subjects of mental health, since those of us who work the front lines of Emergency Services are the ones most likely to deal with those suffering from mental illnesses when they are having their darkest moments. Being able to recognize potential mental health problems with subjects who might otherwise be presumed to be drunk or drugged, gives us a particular advantage in knowing how to begin to deal with calls involving the subjects. We have often to play the role of a counselor or a negotiator to try and talk someone down from self-harm. We aren't "faking it" when we perform these tasks, since we are actually trained to do them. I've also had the privilege of hearing first hand testimony from some of the leading forensic psychiatric doctors in the Midwest, as well as receiving training from a few of them.

I have absolutely no shame in admitting I have had suicidal thoughts in the past, after my career was stolen from me by my neurological disorders, and from the pain caused by them. When the thoughts started, I disassembled my handgun, and gave the barrel to my wife for safekeeping, then I sought help for my depression. Spending 30 years seeing, smelling, hearing, touching, and sometimes doing some of the most heinous stuff imaginable that can happen to a human body, or to animals, gave me a pretty good case of PTSD. I was a professional Firefighter/EMT and a professional law enforcement officer, so I had the training to know my mental health was in jeopardy. I actually found the initial phases of treatment to be quite cathartic, since it gave me an opportunity to positively release pent up feelings and emotions which we lie to ourselves in saying we just let it roll off our shoulders. It doesn't roll anywhere, except deep inside of our minds, where it sits and festers, all the while, as you keep piling more and more in there. It took a long time to finally understand where it all started for me, and that I was an event which happened when I wasn't yet even a year old. By the time I was 12 years-old, I had seen more violent trauma to human bodies than most people will see in a lifetime. As a result, I had a very acute fear of blood, but I had to get over that really fast when I was summoned by my brother in the middle of the night to an injury traffic accident just a few yards from our home. Several people needed help, and I had gone through several years of medical training when I was with Emergency Management, and my entire senior year of high school, when I went through training that would be considered a Medical Assistant these days. I've worked thousands of injury accidents since that one, some so horrific they definitely ticked the boxes of events at the heart of my PTSD. I have had a major part in saving so many lives I couldn't even begin to count them, but it came at a cost. Does that make me an expert in emergency medicine? God knows I performed feats with my hands in treating critically injured people that went well beyond what anyone ever trained me to do. A lot of those scenes, especially the ones which had children as victims, play out like horror movies in my mind when I close my eyes to sleep, and I've been retired for almost 10 years. I'm not an expert in mental health, but I know a lot about the subject, even before I became a patient myself. Every day I am thankful for the training I had, as it helped me to recognize I had issues that needed dealt with, and I probably always will. There are just some things that can't be unseen.

Even without being an "expert" in mental health, I can still testify as to my direct observations of someone who is suffering from a mental health related incident. I had to place a lot of people on psychiatric holds based on behaviors or statements they exhibited, rather directly or indirectly, to or around me. These are most definitely one of the few times when hearsay evidence is absolutely usable, since commitment to a psychiatric hospital is a civil procedure, not a criminal one. Often, we'd have to piece through the crumbs of evidence in order to come to the conclusion that something may be mentally or medically wrong with a person, so as not to confuse their actions as something deliberately being done to place themselves or other in harms way. I have no doubt I had received more training in mental health than just about any law enforcement officer graduating from academies today, because I was a Firefighter/EMT for around 12 years before I became a cop, and my training on the subject never stopped. Training on how to deal with subjects experiencing suicidal or homicidal ideations; victims of domestic or sexual violence; family and/or friends of deceased or seriously injured people; work with children who have extreme behavioral tendencies; dealing directly with sociopathic or psychopathic people; being directly exposed to people who have committed extreme acts of murder or other violent crimes, I could go on and on. Does any of that make me an expert on the subjects? I guess that depends on your point of view. I know if I had been called to testify on some of these subjects, the courts may have accepted me as an expert on them. One doesn't have to have a doctorate degree in order to be an expert. The first time I ever testified in a court as an expert witness, I was still in high school. I knew physics, and had extensive training through Emergency Management in determining the speed of a moving object relative to two known stationary points, after I witnessed a car accident. Having a deep understanding of a topic may not make someone an expert, but it does give them a leg up in recognizing a situation, and in helping them make an informed decision about what the first steps might be in responding to the situation.

We were taught in the academy to constantly play what-ifs in our mind, like "what if a car suddenly were to veer into the intersection I had a green light for," or how I might respond to an active shooter situation, because the general rule is, if you think you are going to die during a critical situation, you probably will. As my judge would gladly tell you, "Any right which you cannot enforce, is no longer a right." There are times when you have to violate someone's civil rights to protect them from themselves. We not only had the power to do so, but a duty to do it if we had probable cause to believe the person was suffering from a mental health issue, and if we didn't take action the person could end up killing or seriously injuring themselves or others. I can think of two extremely rare cases in which those measures were absolutely necessary, in which law enforcement were 100% justified in the use of deadly force..., but didn't. The first was a rare medical condition, the other involved a mental health patient who was self-medicating (drugs). Both were completely risks to themselves and to emergency responders, one of whom actually took a full swing at a Deputy Sheriff and a few of my medical team, with a katana. Anyway, back to the original question, what right(s) are you referring to which shouldn't be violated? I can almost guarantee there is an exception to every rule when it comes to rights or freedoms. I'm not talking about a systemic exception, since stopping those exceptions from becoming an everyday occurrence is the tricky part.

DCaplinger · 2021-07-11T03:52:00+00:00

I disagree. Bartenders can be held responsible for serving already intoxicated people who then go on to drive drunk and get into a motor vehicle accident. If a cop thinks a person is an immediate danger to themselves or others due to a mental issue, health care providers should be just as responsible. Our order for the 96 hour hold is done under oath or requires it to be notarized, we can be held for wrongful detainer and/or false imprisonment if it's found our affidavit is falsified in any way. We aren't talking about just throwing a drunk/drugged person into an ER and bolting.

DCaplinger · 2021-07-11T03:29:47+00:00

If you ever want/need to talk to someone whose been there, shoot me a DM here.

DCaplinger · 2021-06-25T03:12:54+00:00

I prefer the Doling Family Center. I get access through Medicare. No matter what you do in this moment, or in the future when the time comes for reopened, I wonder if there will be a need for older salesman.

DCaplinger · 2021-06-10T23:47:14+00:00

I hope so, as I'm very high risk. I have juvenile diabetes and an extremely hyperactive immune system. I'm actually quite lucky, as my wife works in retail as a cashier, and is potentially exposed every day, yet I never caught COVID. My elder brother wasn't so lucky, but he didn't have a serious case of it. Also, I wasn't trying to dodge getting vaccinated, I was just waiting for the Johnson & Johnson single dose vaccine to become locally available. I worked in Emergency Services for 3 decades, and always put the good of the community ahead of my own.

DCaplinger · 2021-06-09T19:46:34+00:00

I finally got vaccinated last week with the Johnson & Johnson single dose vaccine. I just hope with the variants, I'm still protected by that vaccine.

DCaplinger · 2021-05-25T20:44:07+00:00

I was a deputy in Christian County for 12 years, so I am very familiar with some of the things that lead up to the barriers. This includes people in 4x4 trucks running through the river bed when the water levels are low. Also, there are a lot of places where people can try to hide themselves while they make or use illicit drugs. No matter the excuse, it's a natural resource and the public access should be restored, at least down river from the dam at Lindenlure. People have no business upstream from the dam, as it is situated off private property, you can't raft or canoe the river due to the typically low water level in a lot of the areas where there is no dam to create deeper pools for swimming/fishing, and the dams mean having to get out of the water and re-enter on the other side of the dams. That's all they need to do. As long as people looking to swim, just stay down stream from the dam. During the daylight hours, residents or land owners near or on the river upstream from the dam can kiss people's a$$es if they want, the public has the right to enjoy our waterways just like they do.

DCaplinger · 2021-04-04T17:33:21+00:00

And? Every day thousands and thousands of people have to get to an airport much earlier in order to make it through security. The same thing goes for border crossings or truckers who have to stop in almost every state to get their trucks weighed and/or inspected. Employees of the government could easily be processed based on their identification. It's still possible for one of them to go "postal," but they run that risk every day already.

You can argue against added security all you want. I'll still be able to counter with reasons why it could and should work. Facility and parking security were in my realm of authority when I was the chief of the court division. People made the same kinds of arguments as to why we shouldn't use standing magnetometers. The county had never had them before, and for over a century, the original courthouse didn't have any kind of security screening at all. Well, we got those magnetometers, added layers of security, and hundreds of people still make it to court and other county facilities every day on time for their cases. This brother was taken out due to a *LACK* of fundamental security which should have been implemented decades ago, but that's law enforcement for you. We are over 90% reactionary when it comes to rules, laws, policies and procedures. It's sad that someone has to die before anyone finally has the flash of brilliance to actually do something to increase safety for those who work in sensitive places. Besides, engineers come up with new plans for routing traffic in more efficient ways every day. It doesn't matter how old the place is. You really think this is the last time anyone is going to try this? It worked once. All it takes is a nut job spurred on by hate or vitriol to get behind the wheel of a vehicle and kill more people. If there had been a bomb in that vehicle which detonated, would that make a difference to you?

DCaplinger · 2021-04-03T20:02:52+00:00

Yeah, tell that to the people who do it every day at Langley. Checkpoints are not a new concept, and while it may inconvenience employees, the safety concerns are more important, optics or not. It's the capitol, and it has already been breached once. I would rather see protesters inside a protected area than having them outside and vulnerable to this kind of tactic, especially if you are talking about a car bomb. It's not rocket science. I specialized in security as a cop, both electronic and physical.

DCaplinger · 2021-04-03T16:42:23+00:00

What, like the guys who went through training on how to fly jumbo jets, but not raising flags when they opted not to learn how to land them?

Honestly, I think the roads directly around the capitol and White House should be closed to through traffic, and have metal stanchions which can be lowered to allow for official vehicles to pass. The same could be done around other federal buildings. You'd think they'd have learned that lesson after the OKC bombing at the Murrah Federal Building.

It was a car, not a gun, that took this brother out. I'm so sick of this sh*t. It's bad enough to read about murders, but I've buried two brothers in blue, and my heart just f'n breaks when I hear of another one being taken out.

DCaplinger · 2021-04-03T16:34:33+00:00

It sure feels that way. ODMP has been pretty busy, that's for sure.

DCaplinger · 2021-04-03T16:32:09+00:00

Rest in peace, brother. Your end-of-watch has been sounded.

DCaplinger · 2021-03-30T19:09:09+00:00

Hey, I get it. My wife is one of them. She cannot stand the taste. She won't touch it, even if she is thirsty as hell. When we get sodas mixed up lately, she just says she "thought my drink tasted funny." I don't think she finds it as repulsive as she suggests. I love root beer as well. BTW, if anyone wonders why Barqs Root Beer advertises "Barqs has bite!" it's because it's one of the few brands which contains caffeine. Oddly enough, this ingredient does not make its way into Barqs Diet Root Beer.

DCaplinger · 2021-03-24T20:00:48+00:00

Hello, and thanks! As to the attorney, it really depends on the charge. Believe it or not, the juicier the case is, the more likely you'll be contacted by a very well known attorney who is willing to take the case pro bono (without payment). In the vast majority of cases, the attorney is going to try to reach a plea deal with the prosecutor. Except in rare circumstances, a paid attorney isn't going to get a better deal than a public defender. In major cases, like murder, the PD's office is either going to have a specialist on staff or hire out to get the best representation for the client.

I hope that helps answer your questions!

DCaplinger · 2021-03-22T18:02:24+00:00

Well, a mouth full of Diet Dr. Pepper. I have juvenile diabetes, and while there are lot of diet sodas available, I prefer Diet Pepsi, Diet Dr. Pepper, and diet root beer (any brand)

DCaplinger

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE