Dallas Police Officer Writes Ticket For "Not Speaking English"

[Paul-w]

This is awesome!
He deserves a promotion!!! :)

Source (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6682734.html)
DALLAS — A rookie Dallas police officer still under supervised training ticketed a woman for being a "non-English speaking driver."

WFAA-TV in Dallas and Fort Worth reports that police officials admit the ticket was a mistake. No law prohibits people who don't speak English from driving a private vehicle.

The woman had been driving her daughter to school on Oct. 2 when Officer Gary Bromley stopped her. He cited her for making an illegal U-trun, failing to carry her drivers license and being a "non-English speaking driver."

Ernestina Mondragon said she had forgetten her license while darting out the door that morning. A court dismissed the charge after she presented her license. The "non-English" ticket also was dismissed.

Dallas police plan to discuss the matter later on Friday.

[slick_trip]

do you not respect the first amendment?

there is no requirement in this country regarding which language must be spoken. this is not a moment to applaud, this is a moment to be ashamed of. nothing about this issue has anything to do with the woman's choice of language.

i would hope this would present a significant setback for this young, naive officer.

[Paul-w]

do you not respect the first amendment?

there is no requirement in this country regarding which language must be spoken. this is not a moment to applaud, this is a moment to be ashamed of. nothing about this issue has anything to do with the woman's choice of language.

i would hope this would present a significant setback for this young, naive officer.

Sorry, as a Texas resident, I am sick of the invasion of ignorant jack asses who refuse to adapt to their surroundings. If you want to be here, you should have to know how to communicate. Plain and simple!

[JenyEliza]

For once---finally! A cop thread I can applaud!

Well done, Officer! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: *






* Of course, this ticket won't stand, but that doesn't stop me from appreciating what the Officer did! :D

[slick_trip]

Sorry, as a Texas resident, I am sick of the invasion of ignorant jack asses who refuse to adapt to their surroundings. If you want to be here, you should have to know how to communicate. Plain and simple!

i'm basing my responses off the belief that this woman is here legally and appropriately. given that: she has every right to speak whatever language she wants, protected, just like you, under the first amendment.

that you support the violation of her constitutional rights is quite telling.

[JenyEliza]

That you naievely believe that woman is in Texas or the US legally tells me several things:

1) You're a Sean Penn liberal
2) You've never spent a day in Texas
3) You believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

That woman is about as legal as Cesar Chavez would be should he pop up in broad daylight in downtown Houston. Geez. :rolleyes:

[slick_trip]

That you naievely believe that woman is in Texas or the US legally tells me several things:

1) You're a Sean Penn liberal
2) You've never spent a day in Texas
3) You believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

That woman is about as legal as Cesar Chavez would be should he pop up in broad daylight in downtown Houston. Geez. :rolleyes:

naive? hardly. i have no reason to believe otherwise. had she been here illegally, i'd expect that point to be present in the original arrest. it wasnt'. based on that, the assumption from those not involved, ie you and me....is that she's here appropriately.

that you would immediately assume otherwise based only on her choice of language is quite telling.

can you provide any support that she's her illegally?

[slick_trip]

That you naievely believe that woman is in Texas or the US legally tells me several things:

1) You're a Sean Penn liberal
2) You've never spent a day in Texas
3) You believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

That woman is about as legal as Cesar Chavez would be should he pop up in broad daylight in downtown Houston. Geez. :rolleyes:

you may have also missed the part of the article that points out she provided a valid drivers license. what other conclusion would an outside perspective draw from that besides her being here appropriately?

[JenyEliza]

you may have also missed the part of the article that points out she provided a valid drivers license.

Which she likely obtained with FALSE documentation. AND....which was NOT ON HER PERSON at the time she was pulled over (as is required by law in order to operate a motor vehicle in the USA). But of course, you're too willing to overlook that, right?


what other conclusion would an outside perspective draw from that besides her being here appropriately?

One with an outside perspective ought to read up and educate themselves before berating those with an inside perspective.

Capiche?

[alexz2317]

Sorry, as a Texas resident, I am sick of the invasion of ignorant jack asses who refuse to adapt to their surroundings. If you want to be here, you should have to know how to communicate. Plain and simple!
Amen brother!

[alexz2317]

you may have also missed the part of the article that points out she provided a valid drivers license. what other conclusion would an outside perspective draw from that besides her being here appropriately?
So the driver had a "valid" license yet she couldn't speak a lick of English or read it? Totally false documentation.

[JenyEliza]

naive? hardly. i have no reason to believe otherwise. had she been here illegally, i'd expect that point to be present in the original arrest. it wasnt'. based on that, the assumption from those not involved, ie you and me....is that she's here appropriately.

that you would immediately assume otherwise based only on her choice of language is quite telling.

can you provide any support that she's her illegally?

Have you *ever* been to Texas? I have. Spent a lot of time there too. It's a beautiful part of the UNITED STATES. One day I hope to retire there. (note my Avatar is of the TEXAS flag)

I have family in Texas currently, matter of fact.

My guess is that maybe 99 out of 100 Mexicans you meet in Texas are illegals---and they are quite open about it. They believe Texas is part of Mexico. Openly.

Go visit there sometime. Then get back to me.

[JenyEliza]

So the driver had a "valid" license yet she couldn't speak a lick of English or read it? Totally false documentation.

No **** Sherlock! :D

But try telling that to the Sean Penn bleeding ****ing heart libbies of the world. :rolleyes:

[slick_trip]

Which she likely obtained with FALSE documentation. AND....which was NOT ON HER PERSON at the time she was pulled over (as is required by law in order to operate a motor vehicle in the USA). But of course, you're too willing to overlook that, right?

you have to assume she obtained it illegally - again, very telling about you. given that she had to provide documentation in court, i'll go by how the courts handled this - and they clearly accepted her license as valid.

i'm a legal resident, born and raised here in america. i've driven without my license - knowingly and unknowingly. it happens. she was appropriately ticketed and...as is usually the case...the ticket was dropped upon showing proof.

none of that is evidence she's here illegally. you are choosing to assign that to her based only on her language of choice.

One with an outside perspective ought to read up and educate themselves before berating those with an inside perspective.

Capiche?

you've not stated otherwise, so i've got no reason to believe you were involved with this stop. given that, i've read as much as you have - you are as outside of this as i am - you weren't there at the stop, weren't present during the court case.

care to provide info showing why you have more details about this case than i do - i'd be happy to take those into account. otherwise, you have only as much detail as i do - and are choosing to assign he status here as illegal based only on her choice to not speak english. again....so incredibly telling.

[LouC]

This is awesome!
He deserves a promotion!!! :)

Source (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6682734.html)

No, he does not deserve a promotion, he may need being taken off the street and run back through cadet training.

[alexz2317]

No, he does not deserve a promotion, he may need being taken off the street and run back through cadet training.
Punish the cop because he couldn't conduct his job properly due to an illegal he couldn't communicate with. Sounds liberal to me...

[slick_trip]

So the driver had a "valid" license yet she couldn't speak a lick of English or read it? Totally false documentation.

assumed, and completely invalidated based on the court's response.

[slick_trip]

Have you *ever* been to Texas? I have. Spent a lot of time there too. It's a beautiful part of the UNITED STATES. One day I hope to retire there. (note my Avatar is of the TEXAS flag)

I have family in Texas currently, matter of fact.

My guess is that maybe 99 out of 100 Mexicans you meet in Texas are illegals---and they are quite open about it. They believe Texas is part of Mexico. Openly.

Go visit there sometime. Then get back to me.

i have visited texas. so briefly as to say very little about it. but, i've been there.

even if your made up statistic is correct, this woman could be the 1 out of 100. that you assume otherwise speaks to you, not her.

since the court was content with the documentation presented, the current ruling is that she's here legally. i'm open to any information you have on this case to support otherwise.

[LouC]

The veteran officer with the rookie perhaps also needs some refresher training.

[slick_trip]

Punish the cop because he couldn't conduct his job properly due to an illegal he couldn't communicate with. Sounds liberal to me...

you have to assume illegal and in doing so, put aside the constitution. do you hate the constitution?

there is no law requiring the use of english. many non-english speaking people live, legally, in the usa. some, speak languages other than spanish (which i am assuming is the language she used). language of choice and lack of speaking english only supports a belief someone may not be here legally - it's not proof.

[LouC]

...My guess is that maybe 99 out of 100 Mexicans you meet in Texas are illegals---and they are quite open about it. They believe Texas is part of Mexico. Openly....

I lived there for 13 years, until 2004, and have been back since then and I call that guess extremely way off wrong.

[BillBrown]

you have to assume illegal and in doing so, put aside the constitution. do you hate the constitution?

there is no law requiring the use of english. many non-english speaking people live, legally, in the usa. some, speak languages other than spanish (which i am assuming is the language she used). language of choice and lack of speaking english only supports a belief someone may not be here legally - it's not proof.

Baloney.
Where in the constitution is an illegal alien defined?
What does any of this have to do with the constitution?

How do you know there is no law requiring the speaking of English to obtained a driver's license?
Those are state laws. Have you checked the laws in all 50 states?

[slick_trip]

Baloney.
Where in the constitution is an illegal alien defined?
What does any of this have to do with the constitution?

How do you know there is no law requiring the speaking of English to obtained a driver's license?
Those are state laws. Have you checked the laws in all 50 states?

freedom of speech allows for any language to be spoken - there is no requirement for the use of english. her right to speak in the language she wants is protected under the first.

that the ticket was dropped supports the point there is no law, in the jurisdiction in question, requiring the use of english.

i'm am also unware, admittedly uneducated as well, regarding any local laws that require the use of english. i would suspect any such laws would face fierce legal opposition and would struggle to be considered constitutional.

[JenyEliza]

I lived there for 13 years, until 2004, and have been back since then and I call that guess extremely way off wrong.

You must have lived in the Piney Woods and nowhere near Houston then.

[zsingerb]

The problem with not having a language requirement is that you cannot be sure that the person who has the license can understand police instructions, such as when they pull you over for a sobriety checkpoint, or any emergency instructions from any other law enforcement. How can we be sure anyone understands the traffic signs if they take the test in another language? You should understand the local language before you are put in control of 2 tons of metal moving at 65 MPH.

[Paul-w]

freedom of speech allows for any language to be spoken - there is no requirement for the use of english. her right to speak in the language she wants is protected under the first.


You're obscuring the constitution to fit your arguement.

The only thing you're right on, is there's no law requiring anyone to speak English. The first amendment does not protect the right to speak another language and is no where near what was intended in its meaning.

The fact of the matter is; Texas, California, and Florida are prime examples of states that are literally being invaded by a foreign group of people. The fact that they outright REFUSE many times to learn English or to adapt to our country/abide by our laws is very telling. Whether you like it or not, to be a part of this country you have to have an understanding of the English language to reside/pass a citizenship test. That is a fact. Apparantly this woman did not have that ability not has she been trying if she couldn't understand simple communication with the officer. It's sad and it's wrong.

[BillBrown]

freedom of speech allows for any language to be spoken - there is no requirement for the use of english. her right to speak in the language she wants is protected under the first.

that the ticket was dropped supports the point there is no law, in the jurisdiction in question, requiring the use of english.

i'm am also unware, admittedly uneducated as well, regarding any local laws that require the use of english. i would suspect any such laws would face fierce legal opposition and would struggle to be considered constitutional.

There can be government mandated requirements for the use of English.
Freedom of speech does not guarantee they won't be.
A non-English speaker cannot get a government job that requires English, for example. How could Obama's press secretary speak only Swahili?
How could an air traffic controller, at O'Hare, speak only Mongolian?

A state can require a degree of English proficiency to operate a motor vehicle. How can someone who does not read English, read street signs and traffic signs? How can they read traffic advisory signs?
If they do not speak English, how can they effect the necessary communication with an officer who might stop them?

[slick_trip]

You're obscuring the constitution to fit your arguement.

not at all. freedom of speech provides for the freedom of language.

The only thing you're right on, is there's no law requiring anyone to speak English. The first amendment does not protect the right to speak another language and is no where near what was intended in its meaning.

it absolutely does protect the right to speak any language one chooses. freedom of speech includes the words spoken and the language used. as an american citizen i can choose to speak any language i want - even choosing to teach my children a language other than english.

how can you support your point that freedom of speech is limited to the choice of words only and does not include the language of said words?

The fact of the matter is; Texas, California, and Florida are prime examples of states that are literally being invaded by a foreign group of people. The fact that they outright REFUSE many times to learn English or to adapt to our country/abide by our laws is very telling. Whether you like it or not, to be a part of this country you have to have an understanding of the English language to reside/pass a citizenship test. That is a fact. Apparantly this woman did not have that ability not has she been trying if she couldn't understand simple communication with the officer. It's sad and it's wrong.

she had a valid drivers license - she passed something. we can speak to her choice to limit her capacity to live comfortably here by choosing to not speak and/or understand english. we are a country of free choice, though, and this is her prerogative.

[Mimiheart]

Um... U-trun?

[slick_trip]

There can be government mandated requirements for the use of English.
Freedom of speech does not guarantee they won't be.

i'd love to see your examples of gov't mandated use of english - especially examples directed at the general population. my guess is that the first amendment would be used to successfully strike down any potential future mandates of this kind.

A non-English speaker cannot get a government job that requires English, for example. How could Obama's press secretary speak only Swahili?
How could an air traffic controller, at O'Hare, speak only Mongolian?

not qualifying of a job, and being forced by law are two very different concepts. her choice to limit her job opportunities is her choice. there is no law that requires she speak english.

A state can require a degree of English proficiency to operate a motor vehicle. How can someone who does not read English, read street signs and traffic signs? How can they read traffic advisory signs?
If they do not speak English, how can they effect the necessary communication with an officer who might stop them?

i disagree with your comment about a state being able to require a degree of proficiency - and am certainly open to examples you may have to support this. without examples, it's just your opinion.

valid points regarding driving and traffic stops. still conflicts with our base concept of personal freedom of choice and the protected right to speak the language one wants.

[LouC]

You must have lived in the Piney Woods and nowhere near Houston then.

I lived in and around Dallas and north up in McKinney, worked in Dallas and Fort Worth and surrounding areas, worked some in Austin, have relatives in Plano north of Dallas and the Houston area (Tom Ball), and had relatives I visited in down in Del Rio.

I have been out to the Piney woods area.

I have traveled all over central and north Texas.

I have worked in public housing in Dallas and Fort Worth and all the wonderful little burgs in the area.

I worked at a manufacturing facility in South Dallas.

I worked for a building services company where I could be working for people living in little better than a hovel in the morning to living in one of the finer houses in Highland Park in the afternoon.

I worked at North Park Mall and met people from all walks of life.

I lived in diverse neighborhoods, both in ethnicity and financially ones.

The places I have been and the people I have met or worked with I would definitely say do not fit your guess.

[slick_trip]

I lived in and around Dallas and north up in McKinney, worked in Dallas and Fort Worth and surrounding areas, worked some in Austin, have relatives in Plano north of Dallas and the Houston area (Tom Ball), and had relatives I visited in down in Del Rio.

I have been out to the Piney woods area.

I have traveled all over central and north Texas.

I have worked in public housing in Dallas and Fort Worth and all the wonderful little burgs in the area.

I worked at a manufacturing facility in South Dallas.

I worked for a building services company where I could be working for people living in little better than a hovel in the morning to living in one of the finer houses in Highland Park in the afternoon.

I worked at North Park Mall and met people from all walks of life.

I lived in diverse neighborhoods, both in ethnicity and financially ones.

The places I have been and the people I have met or worked with I would definitely say do not fit your guess.

well...so much for trying to paint you in a corner simply because you see this woman's prerogative to speak the language she wants as something the state can't dictate.

[LouC]

For those who are upset the lady is not fluent in English and still received a Texas License it should be stated that Texas law allows testing in Spanish.

The Texas Transportation Code, Section 521.162, requires the Department to administer driver examinations in Spanish to applicants who are unable to take the regular examination in English.

[Paul-w]

not qualifying of a job, and being forced by law are two very different concepts. her choice to limit her job opportunities is her choice. there is no law that requires she speak english.





Ah, but the context you put this in, makes it sound as if it's discrimination and a violation for a company to require you to speak English to work for them. A company can't knowingly/forcefully deny your constitutional rights, so how can you make the arguement that they are two different things?

[slick_trip]

Ah, but the context you put this in, makes it sound as if it's discrimination and a violation for a company to require you to speak English to work for them. A company can't knowingly/forcefully deny your constitutional rights, so how can you make the arguement that they are two different things?

they are two different things. my company can restrict my right to carry a firearm onto their premises without violating the second, for example.

companies require certain qualifications all the time - from years of experience to education attainment. being able to competently communicate would certainly be on par with these examples.

the state, however, can not require it's citizens to speak a specific language.

[BillBrown]

i'd love to see your examples of gov't mandated use of english - especially examples directed at the general population. my guess is that the first amendment would be used to successfully strike down any potential future mandates of this kind.



not qualifying of a job, and being forced by law are two very different concepts. her choice to limit her job opportunities is her choice. there is no law that requires she speak english.

That is not true. You do not understand the 1st amendment.

A government agency cannot refuse to hire someone because they are a Mormon or a Muslim or any other religion.
Why?
Because that violates the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment.


A government agency can refuse to hire someone who does not speak English.
Why?
Because such a refusal does not violate the free speech clause of the 1st amendment.




i disagree with your comment about a state being able to require a degree of proficiency - and am certainly open to examples you may have to support this. without examples, it's just your opinion.

valid points regarding driving and traffic stops. still conflicts with our base concept of personal freedom of choice and the protected right to speak the language one wants.

Here is one example.
By Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration guidelines, a state cannot issue a commercial operators license to a non-English speaker:


§ 391.11 General qualifications of drivers.
...
(b)(2) Can read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records;
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/Spanish/regs/391.11.htm

If speaking only a non-English language is a guaranteed 1st amendment right, this would not be possible. This guideline would violate the 1st amendment right of free speech.

[slick_trip]

That is not true. You do not understand the 1st amendment.

A government agency cannot refuse to hire someone because they are a Mormon or a Muslim or any other religion.
Why?
Because that violates the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment.

oh, i do understand the first amendment - we just disagree on it's application.

hiring practices are not law. the state cannot require it's citizens to be proficient in a specific language for general purposes. if i were capable of speaking both english and spanish and chose to not speak english to an officer that could be considered obstruction or willful disregard...something along those lines. if i only speak spanish, the state can not require i learn english.

A government agency can refuse to hire someone who does not speak English.
Why?
Because such a refusal does not violate the free speech clause of the 1st amendment.

hiring practices are not civil law. two different analogies.

Here is one example.
By Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration guidelines, a state cannot issue a commercial operators license to a non-English speaker:

nothing about a standard passenger license. that said, driving is a privilege, not a right. i would take this moment to refine my comments. i would support regulations around language proficiency for the attainment of a license - without derailing this thread on any particulars.

If speaking only a non-English language is a guaranteed 1st amendment right, this would not be possible. This guideline would violate the 1st amendment right of free speech.

not at all. there are appropriate expectations when accepting a privilege. even a naturalized citizen has to take a test to earn the right to drive.

no test to vote, though.

for an officer to expect this woman to speak english, without any proper legal context, could very easily be argued as a violation of her constitutional rights.

[DLaw911]

Sorry, as a Texas resident, I am sick of the invasion of ignorant jack asses who refuse to adapt to their surroundings. If you want to be here, you should have to know how to communicate. Plain and simple!Does that apply to visitors as well? You said "be" here!

[Kazsirk]

The U.S. Dollar is in the toilet and the illegals are swarming the border anyway.
I think we should just engulf mexico and make the territory new states in the union.

With that done, the law and order of the states would be imposed, in a few years government corruption and police on the take would be stopped and the drug cartels would be hunted down and the people taxed and cared for and the industry and resources and tropical coastal regions would be a gold mine.

I like mexican people and spanish is a fine language and fairly easy to learn.
so is english for the latinos for that matter.

the frustration is about the law not about the people. If you where born in mexico and the best opportunity was across the line on the map into Texas you would be crossing over asap just like I would... we where fortunate enough to be born on this side of the Rio Grand...and that is the truth.
KAZSIRK

[RickRhetoric]

No doubt officer Bromley will be fired. Hopefully he'll be able to find another job someplace.

[DLaw911]

For once---finally! A cop thread I can applaud!

Well done, Officer! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: *

* Of course, this ticket won't stand, but that doesn't stop me from appreciating what the Officer did! :DPersons driving COMMERCIAL vehicles are subject to federal law which DOES require English speaking ability: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/391-11-general-qualifications-drivers-19947538

That being said the level of competency required is so minimal that the law is practically unenforceable. Speaking for myself I have driven cars and motorcycles in many foreign countries where I did not speak the language and never had a problem obeying the traffic laws and finding my way. I think it's blatently stupid to require persons driving private vehicles in the US to be fluent in English.

But for the illegal u-turn charge and no license in possession (she was legally licensed!), had she been cited for not being able to speak English I would expect civil rights groups to demand the officer's termination. I suppose you would support arresting a person who cannot speak English who goes to a police station to report a crime, or who calls 911.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Sorry, as a Texas resident, I am sick of the invasion of ignorant jack asses who refuse to adapt to their surroundings. If you want to be here, you should have to know how to communicate. Plain and simple!

Hooray! Police harassing people for something that perfectly legal! Go DPD!

[slick_trip]

the frustration is about the law not about the people. If you where born in mexico and the best opportunity was across the line on the map into Texas you would be crossing over asap just like I would... we where fortunate enough to be born on this side of the Rio Grand...and that is the truth.
KAZSIRK

well said.

[Getty Girl]

Punish the cop because he couldn't conduct his job properly due to an illegal he couldn't communicate with. Sounds liberal to me...
:clap::mrgreen:

[BrittleBullet]

I'm tired of all these Puerto Ricans who can't speak English...

[BillBrown]

oh, i do understand the first amendment - we just disagree on it's application.

hiring practices are not law. the state cannot require it's citizens to be proficient in a specific language for general purposes. if i were capable of speaking both english and spanish and chose to not speak english to an officer that could be considered obstruction or willful disregard...something along those lines. if i only speak spanish, the state can not require i learn english.



hiring practices are not civil law. two different analogies.



nothing about a standard passenger license. that said, driving is a privilege, not a right. i would take this moment to refine my comments. i would support regulations around language proficiency for the attainment of a license - without derailing this thread on any particulars.



not at all. there are appropriate expectations when accepting a privilege. even a naturalized citizen has to take a test to earn the right to drive.

no test to vote, though.

for an officer to expect this woman to speak english, without any proper legal context, could very easily be argued as a violation of her constitutional rights.

Hiring, and firing, practices of governmental agencies are subject to the 1st amendment.
SCOTUS, beginning with Keyishian v. Board of Regents, (1967), has reaffirmed this in a number of cases.

As I have shown you, government regulations prohibit issuing commercial driver's licenses to non-English speakers. States issue these licenses.

If there was a "freedom of speech" barrier to this, this would be impossible.

Georgia requires a certain proficiency in English to obtain any driver's license. Parts of Georgia's test are only given in English.

Part 3 - The Road Rules Test
The road rules test consists of a set of questions about driver responsibility, knowledge of laws and safe driving practices, applicable to the class of license applied for. To pass the test, the applicants must answer at least 15 out of 20 questions correctly. The road rules tests are available in some non-English languages, but all drivers must show ability to read and understand simple English such as is used in highway traffic and directional signs. Road signs and actual driving test must be taken in English.

http://www.valdosta.edu/iss/new/licence_ga.shtml

You have claimed throughout this thread that this was impossible because it violates freedom of speech. It doesn't.

You started out claiming that the Dallas case was a constitutional issue.
You claimed that "freedom of speech" allows a person to speak any language they want to, any time they want to.
You were wrong.
A governmental refusal to hire a person, or a governmental refusal to issue a driver's license to a person who refuses to or is not able to speak English, is a sanction.
If it was protected by freedom of speech, these things could not be done.

Imagine a state refusing to issue a DL or a governmental agency refusing to hire a Hindu.
It can't happen because free exercise of religion IS protected by the 1st amendment.

Texas has no English only law for drivers. For that reason, the policeman was wrong in issuing the citation.
It has nothing to do with the constitution. It has only to do with statute law.

[slick_trip]

Hiring, and firing, practices of governmental agencies are subject to the 1st amendment.
SCOTUS, beginning with Keyishian v. Board of Regents, (1967), has reaffirmed this in a number of cases.

As I have shown you, government regulations prohibit issuing commercial driver's licenses to non-English speakers. States issue these licenses.

If there was a "freedom of speech" barrier to this, this would be impossible.

Georgia requires a certain proficiency in English to obtain any driver's license. Parts of Georgia's test are only given in English.


http://www.valdosta.edu/iss/new/licence_ga.shtml

You have claimed throughout this thread that this was impossible because it violates freedom of speech. It doesn't.

You started out claiming that the Dallas case was a constitutional issue.
You claimed that "freedom of speech" allows a person to speak any language they want to, any time they want to.
You were wrong.
A governmental refusal to hire a person, or a governmental refusal to issue a driver's license to a person who refuses to or is not able to speak English, is a sanction.
If it was protected by freedom of speech, these things could not be done.

Imagine a state refusing to issue a DL or a governmental agency refusing to hire a Hindu.
It can't happen because free exercise of religion IS protected by the 1st amendment.

Texas has no English only law for drivers. For that reason, the policeman was wrong in issuing the citation.
It has nothing to do with the constitution. It has only to do with statute law.

freedom of speech has more restrictions than freedom of religion - just because they are part of the same amendment does not make them parallel points. screaming bible passages through a bullhorn on a public street will get you a ticket for screaming into a bullhorn, but not for the bible passages....

expecting someone to have a minimal understanding of the language to pass a test does not extend to the conversation with the police officer.

expecting she speak in english and ticketing her are actions that could very well be seen as violating her rights. none of what you cite could be used to defend the officer ticketing her for not conversing in english.

[slick_trip]

Punish the cop because he couldn't conduct his job properly due to an illegal he couldn't communicate with. Sounds liberal to me...

he pulled her over for a traffic infraction, was able to determine she didn't have her license with her and ticketed her for both infractions...just where was he unable to do his job properly?

[Clintville]

My guess is that maybe 99 out of 100 Mexicans you meet in Texas are illegals---and they are quite open about it. They believe Texas is part of Mexico. Openly.

And you are basing this on what?

[LouC]

Punish the cop because he couldn't conduct his job properly due to an illegal he couldn't communicate with. Sounds liberal to me...

She was not, and has not been, identified as an illegal.

She had a valid Texas drivers license, just not on her person at the time of the stop.

The officer incorrectly cited her for an infraction that does not exist for that class license.

Perhaps sending him back for some additional training seems a "harsh" punishment to some, putting an officer on the street when they may not be ready for that move is a greater punishment to them and to the public in my opinion.

We don't need officers writing bogus tickets no matter the ethnicity of the driver.

The supervising officer that he was assigned to must also answer for his failure to properly supervise and direct the rookie to avoid this.

[Clintville]

Punish the cop because he couldn't conduct his job properly due to an illegal he couldn't communicate with. Sounds liberal to me...
Actually it is common sense. He charged her with an imaginary crime.

[BrittleBullet]

And you are basing this on what?

I could think of at least 5 Mexicans who lived in Texas who weren't illegal.

Myself, my two brothers, my mother and father....

[Lego-Man]

naive? hardly. i have no reason to believe otherwise. had she been here illegally, i'd expect that point to be present in the original arrest. it wasnt'. based on that, the assumption from those not involved, ie you and me....is that she's here appropriately.

that you would immediately assume otherwise based only on her choice of language is quite telling.

can you provide any support that she's her illegally?

I am saying that the answer to my first question below is - I have no idea. Now, do you by any chance know how many languages there are in the world? So, for there to be proper communication between officers and the public, should a police officer (or at least the Highway patrol of each state) learn every language? In fact, why should those who have been here all of their lives have to adjust to anyone who moves into their sphere of ingluance. it's only recently that we haven't REQUIRED an immigrant to learn English. Yes, it was a REQUIREMENT by LAW. Not only that, an immigrant had to go to school and graduate from an American school. So, it's quite telling that you yourself like the fact that others are moving into this country and slowly are taking over silently, while you and yours look the other way.

For the record, most of my ancestors entered thru Ellis Island on my mother's side of the family, and my father was conceived in another country, even if he was born here.

The lady stated she was on her way to drive her daughter to school. She drove reckless enough to draw attention to herself

The answer to the next question is yes. Are you aware that some states require that licensed drivers speak English? Is Texas one of them? I don't know. Should it be? Hell, yes!!

[Lego-Man]

not at all. freedom of speech provides for the freedom of language.

Wrong. Freedom of speech provides for the freedom to criticize the government and openly express your ideas and thoughts without fear of the Federal government arresting and detaining you ... PERIOD.

[Lego-Man]

i'd love to see your examples of gov't mandated use of english - especially examples directed at the general population. my guess is that the first amendment would be used to successfully strike down any potential future mandates of this kind.


My driver's license has a FEDERAL requirement on it that I must speak, read and fully understand ENGLISH!!. I have seen Mexican born citizens who ignore this requirement who have the same license. It has nothing to do with job requirements, it has to do with the law as written.

[Lego-Man]

Here is one example.
By Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration guidelines, a state cannot issue a commercial operators license to a non-English speaker:



http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/Spanish/regs/391.11.htm

If speaking only a non-English language is a guaranteed 1st amendment right, this would not be possible. This guideline would violate the 1st amendment right of free speech.

Thank you. I was getting to look for my copy of the fmcsr (yes, I have one) so I could cite the regulation.

[slick_trip]

Wrong. Freedom of speech provides for the freedom to criticize the government and openly express your ideas and thoughts without fear of the Federal government arresting and detaining you ... PERIOD.

through your language of choice. there is no requirement to converse in english.

[BillBrown]

freedom of speech has more restrictions than freedom of religion - just because they are part of the same amendment does not make them parallel points. screaming bible passages through a bullhorn on a public street will get you a ticket for screaming into a bullhorn, but not for the bible passages....

expecting someone to have a minimal understanding of the language to pass a test does not extend to the conversation with the police officer.

expecting she speak in english and ticketing her are actions that could very well be seen as violating her rights. none of what you cite could be used to defend the officer ticketing her for not conversing in english.


Here's a quote of yours:

i'm basing my responses off the belief that this woman is here legally and appropriately. given that: she has every right to speak whatever language she wants, protected, just like you, under the first amendment.

that you support the violation of her constitutional rights is quite telling.

Please explain it.
Which of her constitutional rights were violated?

It has already been shown that a person does not have the constitutional right to "speak whatever language one wants".
If that were true, government jobs and driver's licenses could not be denied for exercising that "right".

The woman was ticketed for violating a law that did not exist, in Texas.
The charge was immediately dropped and she was not prosecuted.
How were her 1st amendment rights violated?

[Lego-Man]

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=62944291&postcount=53
How about dealing with this post instead of ignoring it?

through your language of choice. there is no requirement to converse in english.

Neste caso a menos que você me fale no português, você não precisa de ot oposto comigo como posso pelo direito da liberdade do discurso necessitam que você me fale na língua que escolho de agora em diante.

[Lego-Man]

Вы знаете какой? Я думаю, что было бы лучше, если бы я общался на русском языке в течение следующих нескольких минут.

[AeroEngineer]

This is awesome!
He deserves a promotion!!! :)

Source (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6682734.html)

Sounds like an *******.

[FidelisAdMortem]

What code did he write for the no speaking english ticket?

[DonnaB60]

Theodore Roosevelt on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
----
I think she should be ticketed, if she cant speak, or read English... she shouldnt be driving a car.. Now because she said she was stressed I am sure she will find a good ol American lawyer, and sue..
Welcome to America, please speak English. If I go to a different country, I will speak their language.

[Lego-Man]

through your language of choice. there is no requirement to converse in english.

OK, I choose English for this post, but that might not hold.

i mentioned this thread on another board, and i got an interesting response:

Ask that person you're debating with what they would think if they signed up for a college course and on the first day of class found the professor didn't speak a word of English, and taught the entire class in Urdu. Would they have any grounds to complain? What if this was the last class needed to get their degree? According to their logic, they have no grounds to complain at all.
However, I am going to add to the classroom scenario: What if that professor was the only one in the state qualified to teach that course?

This other person goes on to say:
As for highway rules, speaking English is not about "freedom of speech", it's about SAFETY!!! If someone is driving down the road, and they don't understand what "Stop", "Wrong way", or "Do not enter", signs are even saying, they are a physical threat to other drivers!!

[JeffM]

Which she likely obtained with FALSE documentation. AND....which was NOT ON HER PERSON at the time she was pulled over (as is required by law in order to operate a motor vehicle in the USA). But of course, you're too willing to overlook that, right?





One with an outside perspective ought to read up and educate themselves before berating those with an inside perspective.

Capiche?

I can appreciate you trying to argue your point to this person, but are you aware of the saying; Don't argue with a fool?


If they've been brainwashed from a public school, they won't know how to "educate" themselves.

[Lego-Man]

I can appreciate you trying to argue your point to this person, but are you aware of the saying; Don't argue with a fool?


If they've been brainwashed from a public school, they won't know how to "educate" themselves.

I think he's at the DU getting his next series of arguments.

[PeterGriffin]

No doubt officer Bromley will be fired. Hopefully he'll be able to find another job someplace.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/18/box.office/art.mall.cop.sony.jpg

[gb2004]

No, he does not deserve a promotion, he may need being taken off the street and run back through cadet training.

I agree.

[JediMindTrick]

For once---finally! A cop thread I can applaud!

Well done, Officer! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: *






* Of course, this ticket won't stand, but that doesn't stop me from appreciating what the Officer did! :D

You criticize cops who do the right thing (like the ones who arrested the off duty drunk NYPD cop) but you applaud ones who do something wrong by making up laws. :rolleyes: Very illuminating about you.

[JediMindTrick]

So the driver had a "valid" license yet she couldn't speak a lick of English or read it? Totally false documentation.

For you and everyone else who has idiotically assumed her license was invalid because she doesn't speak english let me tell you a small little fact: they give the tests in Spanish for those who don't speak english (look it up, I just did to make sure Texas did this the same way my state does and they do). You can argue all you want about whether they should do it or not but you come off as a blathering fool when you stupidly say it must be invalid because she's a spanish speaker.

[Antrel]

What a ridiculous abuse of authority to cite somebody for not speaking their language. Obviously he was able to obtain her Driver's License, which is all he needed from her in order to write the ticket. I know plenty of people born in the US, or who are legal citizens, who don't speak English. That's their own busienss. They know their options are limited if they decide to venture out from their core community, but that's their choice. If companies choose to adopt standards to appeal to their language, that's just a product of a free market. If you don't like not understanding Spanish, then learn it. I'd tell that to any Spanish speaker complaining about English speakers just as well.

[JediMindTrick]

The rookie cop in this case should be seriously considered for termination because if he's making up laws right now based on his own personal prejudices its scary to think what he might do in the future. His training officer should be seriously looked into to find out how he allowed this to happen.

[Abe]

The answer to the next question is yes. Are you aware that some states require that licensed drivers speak English? Is Texas one of them? I don't know. Should it be? Hell, yes!!

Texas does not require knowledge of English. Many official state forms are available in Spanish.

[Lego-Man]

Texas does not require knowledge of English. Many official state forms are available in Spanish.

You'll notice I preanswered your post in my quote there. I stayed out of the "Was her license valid or not" part of this discussion.

[Abe]

You'll notice I preanswered your post in my quote there. I stayed out of the "Was her license valid or not" part of this discussion.

True, you did. Doesn't change the fact.

[Lego-Man]

True, you did. Doesn't change the fact.

I wasn't arguing that. If you read my post history, when this subject is brought up, you will probably notice I advocate a national language. I also think that if you move to this country, you should be able to make yourself understood, even if you have to hire someone to interpret for you.

I don't hold this for tourists, as I realize that they most likely are here in this country for a limited time. However, I'm not sure they should be behind the wheel either during that time, but that's a different story - As I am not sure the US participates in the Universal Driver's license program.

As I stated earlier in this thread, this not learning the local language (English, in this case) was unacceptable, and it should still be.

By the way, I speak a second language (not fluently, but enough that I can read traffic signs, warning signs and order lunch as well as get directions to a bathroom should I go to a country that employs that language. I also have no intentions of going to another country. I just don't think it's too much to ask others to learn the local language instead of forcing me to learn theirs.

By the way, it's been my experience that almost half of the Mexicans, Hondurans and Cubans I met not only speak English fluently, but think it's funny to act like they don't. So excuse me for thinking that since my Polish grandparents (no, that's not my second language) learned English, others should as well.

[Drawz]

I wasn't arguing that. If you read my post history, when this subject is brought up, you will probably notice I advocate a national language. I also think that if you move to this country, you should be able to make yourself understood, even if you have to hire someone to interpret for you.

I don't hold this for tourists, as I realize that they most likely are here in this country for a limited time. However, I'm not sure they should be behind the wheel either during that time, but that's a different story - As I am not sure the US participates in the Universal Driver's license program.

As I stated earlier in this thread, this not learning the local language (English, in this case) was unacceptable, and it should still be.

By the way, I speak a second language (not fluently, but enough that I can read traffic signs, warning signs and order lunch as well as get directions to a bathroom should I go to a country that employs that language. I also have no intentions of going to another country. I just don't think it's too much to ask others to learn the local language instead of forcing me to learn theirs.

By the way, it's been my experience that almost half of the Mexicans, Hondurans and Cubans I met not only speak English fluently, but think it's funny to act like they don't. So excuse me for thinking that since my Polish grandparents (no, that's not my second language) learned English, others should as well.

My Polish great grandparents never learned English, they didn't need to.

[Lego-Man]

My Polish great grandparents never learned English, they didn't need to.

Mine didn't move to a Polish neighborhood after they cleared Ellis Island. In fact, they quit using Polish. My father speaks no Polish, nor did his brother. My uncle was Polish born, by the way.

[Drawz]

Mine didn't move to a Polish neighborhood after they cleared Ellis Island. In fact, they quit using Polish. My father speaks no Polish, nor did his brother. My uncle was Polish born, by the way.

Yeah mine headed straight to Chicago. My grandparents speak both but stopped using it when they left they old neighborhood so my father who studied it in college speaks it better then they do. I know how to say "good morning" and "cold beer" (there are still bars in Chicago with Old Style signs carrying that phrase).

[JediMindTrick]

By the way, it's been my experience that almost half of the Mexicans, Hondurans and Cubans I met not only speak English fluently, but think it's funny to act like they don't.

Very true. Its a very common tactic for hispanics to play the no habla game with police during an investigation. Some truly don't speak english but a lot suddenly get much more fluent when the spanish speaking officer shows up and the game no longer works. Whats even funnier is that on my department most of the spanish speaking officers are very very white and they will often just stand there quietly listening to the hispanics talk to each other saying things like "my name tonight is Jose Rodriguez and you are Juan Resindez." Its always funny seeing the "oh ****" look in their face when after a few minutes of this the spanish speaking officer decides to finally enter the conversation.

[JenyEliza]

Very true. Its a very common tactic for hispanics to play the no habla game with police during an investigation. Some truly don't speak english but a lot suddenly get much more fluent when the spanish speaking officer shows up and the game no longer works. Whats even funnier is that on my department most of the spanish speaking officers are very very white and they will often just stand there quietly listening to the hispanics talk to each other saying things like "my name tonight is Jose Rodriguez and you are Juan Resindez." Its always funny seeing the "oh ****" look in their face when after a few minutes of this the spanish speaking officer decides to finally enter the conversation.

I've played that game a time or two at Wal-Mart or other places out in public. Several years of high school espanol pays off.

Never fails to shock the **** out of the hispanic ******* standing in line badmouthing the "stupid gringo" standing right next to them, or the "stupid gringo" running the check out line or whatever. They think we don't understand them because we're white. They also don't know that many of us learn espanol in school here. Priceless look on their face when we speak up in thier language and call them on their ********. Kinda like deer in the headlights. :dance:

Good fun! :mrgreen:

[FidelisAdMortem]

Its pretty simple. If someone doesn't have ID and doesn't speak english, they go to jail for the offense in which I stopped them for. No benefit of the doubt, no discretion applied. Thats the way it goes.

[JenyEliza]

Its pretty simple. If someone doesn't have ID and doesn't speak english, they go to jail for the offense in which I stopped them for. No benefit of the doubt, no discretion applied. Thats the way it goes.

That's as it should be for everyone.

I *never* get into my car to go anywhere without making sure I hve my license, regisration and car insurance papers with me. I always check to make sure I have them before I start my car. Not having those three things in my state will get you a free trip to county jail--English speaker or not.

I have no desire to go to jail.

[gdoane]

The rookie cop in this case should be seriously considered for termination because if he's making up laws right now based on his own personal prejudices its scary to think what he might do in the future. His training officer should be seriously looked into to find out how he allowed this to happen.

It seems to me that failure to produce a license and failure to speak English during a traffic stop is at least obstruction of justice in a legitimate police investigation. The police are investigating a moving violation and the driver has stymied them.

Drivers HAVE to be able to speak English. Not only to be able to read the road signs and obey directions from cops directing traffic, but also to render aid and call for help if involved in a traffic accident.

Driving is serious business, throwing two tons of steel and rubber down the highway ain't a joke and "No Hablo Ingles" is not a punch line.

I think there should be physical fitness tests for driver's licenses (if you can't run a mile in 6 minutes you shouldn't be driving) and a literacy test too (if you can't read and write at the 8th grade level you shouldn't be driving either.)

A driver being stopped for a moving violation is likely to cause a traffic accident. Most traffic accidents are caused by traffic violations. My last accident was caused by some old granny lady 86 years old blowing through a stop sign. I T-boned her Chevy Cavalier with a 3/4 Ton pickup. My winch was in her car radio. Fortunately, I could speak English, had a cell phone (two, actually) and got fire and ambulance to roll.

It's a reasonable expectation that drivers are capable of assisting, obeying and understanding traffic signals, road conditions and emergencies. No Hablo Ingles doesn't cut the mustard. No English speaking drivers make the roads more dangerous than they need to be.

[JenyEliza]

It seems to me that failure to produce a license and failure to speak English during a traffic stop is at least obstruction of justice in a legitimate police investigation. The police are investigating a moving violation and the driver has stymied them.

Drivers HAVE to be able to speak English. Not only to be able to read the road signs and obey directions from cops directing traffic, but also to render aid and call for help if involved in a traffic accident.

Driving is serious business, throwing two tons of steel and rubber down the highway ain't a joke and "No Hablo Ingles" is not a punch line.

I think there should be physical fitness tests for driver's licenses (if you can't run a mile in 6 minutes you shouldn't be driving) and a literacy test too (if you can't read and write at the 8th grade level you shouldn't be driving either.)

A driver being stopped for a moving violation is likely to cause a traffic accident. Most traffic accidents are caused by traffic violations. My last accident was caused by some old granny lady 86 years old blowing through a stop sign. I T-boned her Chevy Cavalier with a 3/4 Ton pickup. My winch was in her car radio. Fortunately, I could speak English, had a cell phone (two, actually) and got fire and ambulance to roll.

It's a reasonable expectation that drivers are capable of assisting, obeying and understanding traffic signals, road conditions and emergencies. No Hablo Ingles doesn't cut the mustard. No English speaking drivers make the roads more dangerous than they need to be.

Well stated!!! :clap:

[Mimiheart]

Well stated!!! :clap:
You can run a mile in six minutes? I can do a mile in eight or so, and when I've been going to the gym regularly maybe seven... maybe on an adrenaline rush I could do a mile in six.

[Paul-w]

Well, looks like she's filing a lawsuit........

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa091023_wz_ticketfolo.247c67333.html

DALLAS — Ernestina Mondragon, a shy 49-year-old mother, has now hired a lawyer to sue Dallas police for charging her with violating a law that doesn’t exist.

"I have a feeling we may be scratching the surface," said attorney Domingo Garcia. "There may be a lot more."

A rookie Dallas police officer ticketed Mondragon for being a non-English speaking driver.

Federal law does require commercial drivers to know the language so they can communicate what kind of load they are hauling.

Dallas municipal courts even lists the charge of "Non-English Speaking Driver" on its Web site, showing a fine of $204.

But no such law exists for people like Ernestina Mondragon who are driving their own cars.

"I was surprised and stunned," said Dallas police Chief David Kunkle.

Kunkle made a public apology on Friday afternoon, ordering officers not to repeat the mistake. He also revealed something else.

"We believe that there are 38 additional citations in the last three years," Kunkle said suggesting that Mondragon's ticket is not an isolated case.

The chief promised investigations into the six officers who wrote those tickets.

Domingo Garcia, however, doesn't think Dallas is alone.

"There's a possibility that other law enforcement agencies may have misapplied the law also, and may have officers who have not been trained correctly," Mondragon's lawyer said. "We are continuing to expand that search."

Chief Kunkle said the city would dismiss charges against the other 37 and refund any fines paid.

The six officers who wrote the "non-English" tickets — both white and black — are under investigation as well.

The police chief said they could face dereliction of duty if it's discovered the citations they issued were anything more than a mistake.

[LouC]

I am sorry there is talk about a lawsuit.

But that will get the attention of the Dallas PD and hopefully force them to correct the problems of officers writing bogus tickets.

After looking into this more it seems there is some top down management and training issues in the department.

Management needs to answer for and address the issue of the patrol car computers with commercial license infraction codes appearing on the officers screens that was hinted as possibly contributing to these bad tickets.

Perhaps a little less high tech dependency is in order.

Management needs to answer why they are sending Sergeants who approve bad ticket writing into the field to train and supervise rookies.

We already know the supervising Sergeant especially, and the rookie officer are both getting investigated for their actions.

The woman should learn the lesson of not driving without ID and her drivers license.

She should also realize the serious need to continue to learn to speak English.

[DRS]

So the driver had a "valid" license yet she couldn't speak a lick of English or read it? Totally false documentation.

Driver testing not done in Spanish? or maybe her English is such he can handle some situations?

So you do not think the courts would verify her liscience by checking a computer database?

Do illegals show up in court on a regular basis?

[FidelisAdMortem]

If that was the only charge, I can see a lawsuit, however she violated other traffic infractions, so goodluck on her getting damages for one charge that was accompanied by properly enforced others.

[DRS]

It seems to me that failure to produce a license and failure to speak English during a traffic stop is at least obstruction of justice in a legitimate police investigation. The police are investigating a moving violation and the driver has stymied them.

Drivers HAVE to be able to speak English. Not only to be able to read the road signs and obey directions from cops directing traffic, but also to render aid and call for help if involved in a traffic accident.

Driving is serious business, throwing two tons of steel and rubber down the highway ain't a joke and "No Hablo Ingles" is not a punch line.

I think there should be physical fitness tests for driver's licenses (if you can't run a mile in 6 minutes you shouldn't be driving) and a literacy test too (if you can't read and write at the 8th grade level you shouldn't be driving either.)

A driver being stopped for a moving violation is likely to cause a traffic accident. Most traffic accidents are caused by traffic violations. My last accident was caused by some old granny lady 86 years old blowing through a stop sign. I T-boned her Chevy Cavalier with a 3/4 Ton pickup. My winch was in her car radio. Fortunately, I could speak English, had a cell phone (two, actually) and got fire and ambulance to roll.

It's a reasonable expectation that drivers are capable of assisting, obeying and understanding traffic signals, road conditions and emergencies. No Hablo Ingles doesn't cut the mustard. No English speaking drivers make the roads more dangerous than they need to be.

Put the shoe on the other foot, french is the official language of the province next to mine, my french is enough that I can drive in Quebec and speak some but I do not like my chances in an accident or if a cop pulled me over I doubt I would remember much of my french.

[FidelisAdMortem]

Do illegals show up in court on a regular basis?

In my experience no they do not.

[DRS]

In my experience no they do not.

That is what I was thinking, if I was illegal I would not go to court.

[FidelisAdMortem]

That is what I was thinking, if I was illegal I would not go to court.

Yep, most of my return on warrant arrests, if they are hispanic, they are here illegally, however nothing occurs, the courts still let them out. Its fustrating from a law enforcement standpoint, but to be honest I've been desentized to it and just accept it as the way things happen here. What can ya do.............

[merickson]

This is awesome!
He deserves a promotion!!! :)

Source (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6682734.html)
For making up new laws?????

Is your hatred for illegal aliens so great that you want rookie cops to have the authority to make up and enforce new laws?

Is the Reconquista so scary that you want to give up rule of law and replace it with whim of cop?

[LouC]

Driver testing not done in Spanish? or maybe her English is such he can handle some situations?

I blew alexz's premise away yesterday in post 33 of this thread.

The Texas Transportation Code, Section 521.162, requires the Department to administer driver examinations in Spanish to applicants who are unable to take the regular examination in English. LINK (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/driver_licensing_control/documents/EngSpanExam.pdf)

So you do not think the courts would verify her liscience by checking a computer database?

From experience, I know TXDOT computer files will reveal your DL info by name when an officer calls it in.

Do illegals show up in court on a regular basis?

Not in Texas.

[LouC]

Yep, most of my return on warrant arrests, if they are hispanic, they are here illegally, however nothing occurs, the courts still let them out. Its fustrating from a law enforcement standpoint, but to be honest I've been desentized to it and just accept it as the way things happen here. What can ya do.............

Another reason I admire and salute good officers, they do so many things I know I could not do, watching the courts let loose people that officers have diligently brought before them is not something I could get used to, at least it strikes me as such.

[FidelisAdMortem]

Another reason I admire and salute good officers, they do so many things I know I could not do, watching the courts let loose people that officers have diligently brought before them is not something I could get used to, at least it strikes me as such.

Well thats why for better or worse, officers simply look at this arrests as a way to make overtime money. We call it collars for dollars. Make it work for us. I can only control my part, what the courts do is out of my hands. And it doesn't seem the public are going to march on the courts and demand a change anytime soon, so if they dont care, really, why should I?

[gdoane]

I am sorry there is talk about a lawsuit.

But that will get the attention of the Dallas PD and hopefully force them to correct the problems of officers writing bogus tickets.

There's nothing wrong with officers writing tickets. Tickets are not judgments and are not convictions nor are they admissions of guilt.

If you want cops to be lawyers too you're going to have to pay them a heck of a lot more than the starting wage of $21,000 per year they get here in Phoenix.

After looking into this more it seems there is some top down management and training issues in the department.

I don't think so. I think the officer handled the situation with professionalism and restraint. A real racist would have beaten the crap out of an illegal alien driver for acting like a damned maniac all over the road.

Management needs to answer for and address the issue of the patrol car computers with commercial license infraction codes appearing on the officers screens that was hinted as possibly contributing to these bad tickets.

According to my brother who holds a commercial license, the commercial infractions apply while driving private vehicles as well. That is to say, if the CDL (Commercial Driver's License) DUI limit is .04 then it really doesn't matter whether the CDL holder is driving an 18-wheeler or the family sedan, THAT is the limit for THAT license.

So the infraction codes need to be available no matter what the circumstance may be.

Perhaps a little less high tech dependency is in order.

Management needs to answer why they are sending Sergeants who approve bad ticket writing into the field to train and supervise rookies.

So this bimbo gets off with not even having the education required to speak a little dab of English but the officer is supposed to be a highly trained legal beagle knowing all aspects of the law?

What else would you like this $21,000 per year cop to be? Bilingual? Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound maybe? How about psychic?

The only thing writing a ticket is about is an officer making a complaint to a court. Officers are allowed to complain to a court, because that's kind of their JOB. They are not Judge, they are not Jury, and they are not Executioner. They fall under the Executive Branch of government, and any student of government knows that the Executive Branch of government is the one meant to act first and leave the lawmaking and convictions up to the deliberative bodies of government like the Legislative and Judicial Branches.

We already know the supervising Sergeant especially, and the rookie officer are both getting investigated for their actions.

They didn't TAKE any actions. They wrote a TICKET. Big fat hairy deal. No harm, no foul. The ticket was taken care of under the system of DUE PROCESS.

I've gotten a bad ticket before myself. I bought a car and the temporary paper tag fell off so I was pulled over for no tag. The cop thought I should have an insurance card and I didn't, because I had just bought the policy and the card hadn't come in the mail yet. So I got a ticket for "no insurance". I took the policy to the Judge, gave the man my insurance agent's phone number, showed the bill of sale from the dealer and all the legal beagle dotted "I" and crossed "T" paperwork and the ticket was dismissed.

Cops aren't in the arguing your case biz. That ain't what they do and they sure as heck ain't paid enough to do that anyway. Like the old saying goes, "take it to the judge".

The woman should learn the lesson of not driving without ID and her drivers license.

She should also realize the serious need to continue to learn to speak English.

She was obviously driving like crap to get pulled over in the first place. Likely to cause or be involved in a traffic accident, and what was she supposed to do about that? No ID? No English? What the Hell are paramedics going to do when she's checked in as "Jane Doe"? Notify the next of kin through the want ads personals column?

The complaint was legit, and discouraging cops from making complaints is not going to help the situation any. Handcuffs belong on crooks, not on cops.

[notluzn]

I like this Officer

[gdoane]

Put the shoe on the other foot, french is the official language of the province next to mine, my french is enough that I can drive in Quebec and speak some but I do not like my chances in an accident or if a cop pulled me over I doubt I would remember much of my french.

I'd at least try to remember some French and be carrying an English-French dictionary in the car. Actually, heck with that, I'd hit Babelfish on my smartphone.

We've got a really nice freeway billboard system here around the Phoenix Metro Area, run by ADOT (Arizona Dept Of Transportation) and they're used for things like AMBER ALERTS, lane blockages due to accidents, closure advisories for construction activities and cleaning, event traffic (Super Bowls, MLB Playoffs, Concerts) and such and those are all in English.

The programmable signs are huge, but they're only three lines high and 20 characters wide so if you can't say it in 12 words then you can't say it. That doesn't leave a whole lot of room for multiple languages.

I actually like foreign languages, I took 6 years of Spanish and 3 years of French in school and etymolygy (the origins of words) is a hobby of mine. The Latin based Romantic languages are beautiful and practically made for poetry while the Germanic based languages like English are just mutts.

I wouldn't go to any foreign land without at least a PLAN to deal with the language barrier. You've got to know the barrier is going to be there and who's got the responsibility for dealing with that? The local constabulary? Not hardly.

[LouC]

I like this Officer

You like officer Bromley the bimbo bogus infraction writing rookie officer?

Sad...

[toeknee]

This is awesome!
He deserves a promotion!!! :)

Source (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6682734.html)

they should make us hire an interpreter for every cop in every language and they can all drive around in BIG buses with each cop, talk about new jobs to boost the economy! :))

[LouC]

There's nothing wrong with officers writing tickets. Tickets are not judgments and are not convictions nor are they admissions of guilt.

No there is not one thing wrong with officers writing legitimate tickets.

Officers writing tickets to passenger car drivers for infractions specific to commercial carrier drivers is wrong and is bogus.

If you want cops to be lawyers too you're going to have to pay them a heck of a lot more than the starting wage of $21,000 per year they get here in Phoenix.

That is a meaningless comment and not relevant to this case.

But a segue FYI, in 2006 the base starting pay for Dallas police recruits was $38,640.

And I do know for a fact part of their training does involve the legal system and codes.

I don't think so. I think the officer handled the situation with professionalism and restraint.

Too bad he didn’t handle the situation without writing a bogus infraction citation.

<comment removed, not worth addressing>

According to my brother...

Bully for the useless anecdote from your brother.

So the infraction codes need to be available no matter what the circumstance may be.

Then as I said management needs to address the problem that the Chief hinted at of those computer codes being misinterpreted by officers that have resulted in at least nearly 38 bogus citations in the last three years.

So this bimbo gets off with not even having the education required to speak a little dab of English but the officer is supposed to be a highly trained legal beagle knowing all aspects of the law?

The woman does know some English.

His knowing that he is not supposed to cite her for an infraction specific to Class A & B licenses when she is a Class C license holder does not constitute him being “a highly trained legal beagle knowing all aspects of the law”.

His Sergeant supervisor trainer failed to catch his mistake as well, which speaks ill for him.

What else would you like this $21,000 per year cop to be? Bilingual? Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound maybe? How about psychic?

Actually the Dallas Police department has been avidly recruiting bilingual officers and has been for many years.

After an incident in 2001 in which an innocent person was accidentally shot officers have had department training in some basic bilingual commands to reduce the number of incidents of a lack of communication, with the end goal of enhanced safety for officers and the public.

I think the program they are using is called Command Spanish.

They didn't TAKE any actions. They wrote a TICKET. Big fat hairy deal. No harm, no foul. The ticket was taken care of under the system of DUE PROCESS.

actions
–noun
1. the process or state of acting or of being active: The machine is not in action now.
2. something done or performed; act; deed.

The rookie wrote a bogus citation and his attending supervisor signed off on the mistake and passed it up the chain, those are actions, they were things they did.

She was obviously driving like crap to get pulled over in the first place.

She made an illegal u-turn.

That is a crappy driving move, and a dangerous one.

Likely to cause or be involved in a traffic accident, and what was she supposed to do about that?

Probably pretty much the same thing she would do in any other accident scenario.

No ID? No English? What the Hell are paramedics going to do when she's checked in as "Jane Doe"? Notify the next of kin through the want ads personals column?

She is able to speak some English.

As to the rest I guess the same thing would happen as does to all those people in an unconscious state without ID that are admitted through ER’s all across the country every day.

The Police can run plates and vin numbers in an accident scenario and begin there.

If she has her registration in the vehicle as is required by Texas law that is also an indication where they begin to look for next of kin.

Lots of people who are born in Texas fail to keep their registration papers in their vehicles, or insurance proof on them.

The complaint was legit, and discouraging cops from making complaints is not going to help the situation any. Handcuffs belong on crooks, not on cops.

The legitimate citations were legitimate.

No one is discouraging officers from making legitimate complaints.

No one has handcuffed these officers.

[DRS]

I'd at least try to remember some French and be carrying an English-French dictionary in the car. Actually, heck with that, I'd hit Babelfish on my smartphone.

We've got a really nice freeway billboard system here around the Phoenix Metro Area, run by ADOT (Arizona Dept Of Transportation) and they're used for things like AMBER ALERTS, lane blockages due to accidents, closure advisories for construction activities and cleaning, event traffic (Super Bowls, MLB Playoffs, Concerts) and such and those are all in English.

The programmable signs are huge, but they're only three lines high and 20 characters wide so if you can't say it in 12 words then you can't say it. That doesn't leave a whole lot of room for multiple languages.

I actually like foreign languages, I took 6 years of Spanish and 3 years of French in school and etymolygy (the origins of words) is a hobby of mine. The Latin based Romantic languages are beautiful and practically made for poetry while the Germanic based languages like English are just mutts.

I wouldn't go to any foreign land without at least a PLAN to deal with the language barrier. You've got to know the barrier is going to be there and who's got the responsibility for dealing with that? The local constabulary? Not hardly.

The signs are in french and english

[Antrel]

I wasn't arguing that. If you read my post history, when this subject is brought up, you will probably notice I advocate a national language. I also think that if you move to this country, you should be able to make yourself understood, even if you have to hire someone to interpret for you.

I don't hold this for tourists, as I realize that they most likely are here in this country for a limited time. However, I'm not sure they should be behind the wheel either during that time, but that's a different story - As I am not sure the US participates in the Universal Driver's license program.

As I stated earlier in this thread, this not learning the local language (English, in this case) was unacceptable, and it should still be.

By the way, I speak a second language (not fluently, but enough that I can read traffic signs, warning signs and order lunch as well as get directions to a bathroom should I go to a country that employs that language. I also have no intentions of going to another country. I just don't think it's too much to ask others to learn the local language instead of forcing me to learn theirs.

By the way, it's been my experience that almost half of the Mexicans, Hondurans and Cubans I met not only speak English fluently, but think it's funny to act like they don't. So excuse me for thinking that since my Polish grandparents (no, that's not my second language) learned English, others should as well.I oppose a national language for any reason, but judging by your approval of citing this woman for not being able to speak English, you seem to want it to be illegal to not know English, which is preposterous. Just because you believe its "unacceptable" doesn't mean legal action should be taken to combat it. If you don't want to talk to someone who doesn't speak the local language, then don't.

This driving situation would have been remedied whether or not she spoke English, so it's quite irrelevant. It's just unecessary force.

[DLaw911]

..............I think she should be ticketed, if she cant speak, or read English... she shouldnt be driving a car.. Now because she said she was stressed I am sure she will find a good ol American lawyer, and sue..
Welcome to America, please speak English. If I go to a different country, I will speak their language. How long would it take for you to learn Farsi, or Mandarin, or Thai, or Hindi? Give me a break. If you go to another country you're not going to learn it's language. Some countries, like the Philippines, have 8 major dialects. Some people are physically unable to pronounce the words from other nations. Some can't roll "rrr's", other words are so phonetic one has to switch from talking to near singing.

What you want to do is yank out the welcome mat for all non English speakers, as if English was a special language. Funny, though, since the only people who speak English well are British. Americans have butchered English. No other country uses possessives an clichés and similar sounding words as to English speakers --- probably designed to confuse persons who speak all other languages. There, their, they're, but, butt, wear, where, we're, on and on.

[FidelisAdMortem]

How long would it take for you to learn Farsi, or Mandarin, or Thai, or Hindi? Give me a break. If you go to another country you're not going to learn it's language. Some countries, like the Philippines, have 8 major dialects. Some people are physically unable to pronounce the words from other nations. Some can't roll "rrr's", other words are so phonetic one has to switch from talking to near singing.

What you want to do is yank out the welcome mat for all non English speakers, as if English was a special language. Funny, though, since the only people who speak English well are British. Americans have butchered English. No other country uses possessives an clichés and similar sounding words as to English speakers --- probably designed to confuse persons who speak all other languages. There, their, they're, but, butt, wear, where, we're, on and on.

Yet a police officer should have to know countless languages?

Or does it make more sense for one person to learn the commonly used language in this country?

Im just saying..........

[gdoane]

You like officer Bromley the bimbo bogus infraction writing rookie officer?

Sad...

Do you know what would be sadder?

Cops scared to Hell of losing their jobs to anybody who responded "No Ingles" and yelling at each other "Let 'm go! Let 'm go!"

[DLaw911]

Yet a police officer should have to know countless languages?

Or does it make more sense for one person to learn the commonly used language in this country?

Im just saying..........First, I agree with you when you said if a person has no valid ID and breaks the law they are going to jail.

The problem is that anyone can come to the US with an international driver's license, or as a legal resident, and take years to learn conversational English. Of course it's a problem when they NEED to be understood. And there are solutions, not always the best, for these situations. For example, obtaining translation services via cell phone (in Los Angeles County there are contract translators on call to all police agencies in virtually every language who can assist by telephone). Translation services are vital when someone calls 911 and no operators can speak their language. They can conference in a translator pretty fast with usually the only delay trying to figure out the language.

Let's say you stop someone for jaywalking (I know, you don't, but let's pretend). What if the person jaywalked from his hotel room to go to a deli for a sandwich and forgot his ID or didn't think he needed just to go across the street. And he only speaks a language of which you cannot understand a single word, and he does not understand a single word of English. I'm not sure what you should do and is it right to arrest a person for jaywalking? I don't know the answer.

[LouC]

...Cops scared to Hell of losing their jobs to anybody who responded "No Ingles"...

Yeah, that could arguably be sadder.

However it has nothing to do with the bogus citation bumbling officer Gary Bromley issued to Ernestina Mondragon.

[King Cantona]

For once---finally! A cop thread I can applaud!

Well done, Officer! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: *






* Of course, this ticket won't stand, but that doesn't stop me from appreciating what the Officer did! :D

Well done officer??

All charges were RIGHTLY dismissed, this officer (who you apparently applauded) will if he carries on writing ludicrous tickets be dismissed himself...

Will you applaud that........:cool:.........

[King Cantona]

Which she likely obtained with FALSE documentation. AND....which was NOT ON HER PERSON at the time she was pulled over (as is required by law in order to operate a motor vehicle in the USA). But of course, you're too willing to overlook that, right?




One with an outside perspective ought to read up and educate themselves before berating those with an inside perspective.

Capiche?

Interesting version of jurisprudence you believe in there, GUILTY until proven innocent, you claim an 'inside perspective'?...How so?...

Anyway I see that every immigrant is illegal unless they can go to the trouble of proving otherwise....

And of course President Obama was born in Kenya, you righties are always good for a laugh.....

[DLaw911]

......Or does it make more sense for one person to learn the commonly used language in this country?I think it would be nice if they could learn basic proficiency but the older they are the harder it is.

Now with China about to own the US children are being taught Mandarin in school. When I was in high school we has a choice of French or Spanish. There must have been a reason why foreign languages were taught and it was not jsut for the fun of it. I believe it is a recognition of the fact we are a multicultural nation comprised of people who may only speak one language, not always English, and some who DO speak English but are so hard to understand they prefer to speak their own language. I have that problem with my client's all the time. Many are very pround that they have "mastered" English but, frankly, I cannot understand anything they are saying. And when they go to court and can speak and understand English, the judge STILL calls in an interpreter so make sure the person truly understands what is being said.

[LouC]

Yet a police officer should have to know countless languages?

Or does it make more sense for one person to learn the commonly used language in this country?

Im just saying..........

Texas State Code has addressed language which has also helped shape Dallas PD recruiting policy, and why they are so heavily recruiting bilingual officers from all over the country and beyond, and why they are having Command Spanish language training for existing officers that are not bilingual.

The push for an all bilingual Dallas PD was under way when I lived there.

Like it or not.

The Texas Transportation Code, Section 521.162, requires the Department to administer driver examinations in Spanish to applicants who are unable to take the regular examination in English. A multitude of other languages and translation interpretations create difficulties for the Department to evaluate an individual’s knowledge of traffic laws and ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. It is also difficult to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the examination process when the examination is provided in numerous languages. Department personnel are not qualified to translate examinations into multiple foreign languages; therefore, the Department has relied upon the use of interpreters in conjunction with oral examinations. The use of interpreters affects the integrity of the examinations as there is no control to ensure the veracity and precision of the translation. Accordingly, limiting the driver examinations to English and Spanish will not only enhance highway safety but also maintain the integrity of the driver license examination process
Due to the highway safety concerns with multiple language driver examinations, effective July 21, 2008, the Department will administer driver license examinations only in English and Spanish in accordance with statute.

LINK (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/driver_licensing_control/documents/EngSpanExam.pdf)


521.162. Alternate Examination in Spanish

(a) The department shall design and administer in each county of this state an alternate examination for Spanish-speaking applicants who are unable to take the regular examination in English.

(b) The alternate examination must be identical to the examination administered to other applicants under Section 521.161 except that all directions and written material, other than the text of highway signs, must be in Spanish. The text of highway signs must be in English.

LINK (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/txcodes/tr052100.html)

[Talk2Bill]

I hope the cops get fired. Sorry, but they are idiots. the code used was mostly for commercial drivers to have enough proficiency in English to be able to read signs.

It is used so drivers could not say they did not understand the signs if they got a ticket. (like using a cell phone in a school zone. You could not use that as a defense)

[LouC]

...you righties are always good for a laugh.....

Hey now :naughty:

[LouC]

I hope the cops get fired. Sorry, but they are idiots. the code used was mostly for commercial drivers to have enough proficiency in English to be able to read signs.

It is used so drivers could not say they did not understand the signs if they got a ticket. (like using a cell phone in a school zone. You could not use that as a defense)

Firing them without due process would be silly.

There is no evidence they are idiots.

Rookie officer Bromley made a rookie bumbling mistake, and his Sergeant supervisor trainer failed to catch the mistake on the ticket before approving it and sending it up the chain.

Some scrutiny of their actions is in order to determine the failure point.

With a determination for corrective action.

[King Cantona]

Hey now :naughty:

I was painting with too broad a brush, sorry not all of you but some certainly do amuse me..

[FidelisAdMortem]

First, I agree with you when you said if a person has no valid ID and breaks the law they are going to jail.

The problem is that anyone can come to the US with an international driver's license, or as a legal resident, and take years to learn conversational English. Of course it's a problem when they NEED to be understood. And there are solutions, not always the best, for these situations. For example, obtaining translation services via cell phone (in Los Angeles County there are contract translators on call to all police agencies in virtually every language who can assist by telephone). Translation services are vital when someone calls 911 and no operators can speak their language. They can conference in a translator pretty fast with usually the only delay trying to figure out the language.

Let's say you stop someone for jaywalking (I know, you don't, but let's pretend). What if the person jaywalked from his hotel room to go to a deli for a sandwich and forgot his ID or didn't think he needed just to go across the street. And he only speaks a language of which you cannot understand a single word, and he does not understand a single word of English. I'm not sure what you should do and is it right to arrest a person for jaywalking? I don't know the answer.

Same here in NY. We call our "operations" section and they will dispatch via landline/or in person a translator for the language we need depending on the situation and what its for.

Which is fine for larger departments, but your average department doesn't have the resources/capability for that luxury.

Which in the end does more of a disservice to the individual than the police department.

Something to think about for the stubborn in life..............

[LouC]

Well done officer??

All charges were RIGHTLY dismissed, this officer (who you apparently applauded) will if he carries on writing ludicrous tickets be dismissed himself...

Will you applaud that........:cool:.........

I don't believe that two of the charges were necessarily "rightfully" dismissed.

The bogus language citation definitely needed to go.

The driving without having her license with her is dependent on whether there is a grace period to present a valid license to the department?

I believe there was a grace period when I lived there, I know there was one for producing proof of insurance if you got stopped and couldn't find your insurance card if asked for it.

The u-turn infraction they dropped for PR purposes, not worth the bad press it would have produced for pursuing it after the bogus language citation nonsense leaked out.

[Lego-Man]

I think it would be nice if they could learn basic proficiency but the older they are the harder it is.

Now with China about to own the US children are being taught Mandarin in school. When I was in high school we has a choice of French or Spanish. There must have been a reason why foreign languages were taught and it was not jsut for the fun of it. I believe it is a recognition of the fact we are a multicultural nation comprised of people who may only speak one language, not always English, and some who DO speak English but are so hard to understand they prefer to speak their own language. I have that problem with my client's all the time. Many are very pround that they have "mastered" English but, frankly, I cannot understand anything they are saying. And when they go to court and can speak and understand English, the judge STILL calls in an interpreter so make sure the person truly understands what is being said.

That would only make sense in that we are all entitled to a fair trial, and that includes all. To make sure a trial is fair, it makes sense to make sure that those who use ESL know as much as possible about what is going on.

Now, as I admit to being an advocate to a national language, I don't think those who don't speak English should be treated wrongly because of this. I only think they should learn the language to assimilate to the situation they (more than likely) chose to be in by moving to this country.

[Lego-Man]

You like officer Bromley the bimbo bogus infraction writing rookie officer?

Whoa. Alliteration.

[Lego-Man]

The woman does know some English.


From what I am getting, she didn't use it, and it looks like she used the "No Ingles" excuse. Which, if she does speak it, means she lied to the officer, and if I am not mistaken, it is a crime to lie to a law-enforcement officer when he is on duty.

Therefore, it could be argued that the citation could be legitimate in that sense.

[Lego-Man]

I oppose a national language for any reason, but judging by your approval of citing this woman for not being able to speak English, you seem to want it to be illegal to not know English, which is preposterous.


Nice deflection - I think she should learn English before she is given privileges in this country. Driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. However, read my previous post.

[gdoane]

No there is not one thing wrong with officers writing legitimate tickets.

Officers writing tickets to passenger car drivers for infractions specific to commercial carrier drivers is wrong and is bogus.

Tickets do not have to be "legitimate". The expectation for a ticket to be "legitimate" places the officer in the roles of Judge, Jury and Executioner where they do not belong. A ticket is just a slip of paper to take to a Judge, no more.

Would I be upset and dismayed by getting a slip of paper telling me to go to court? Of course I would. Happened to me two weeks ago telling me to go to the Superior Court of Maricopa County for Jury Duty. Same thing as a ticket. I have to report to court and take oaths, answer questions and for nothing I've done wrong.

There is nothing wrong with sending a person to court in a nation of laws. The post office sends just as many orders to appear as the police office does.

That is a meaningless comment and not relevant to this case.

But a segue FYI, in 2006 the base starting pay for Dallas police recruits was $38,640.

That's pretty pathetic and below the per capita GDP in the USA (2008) of $45,800 per year. I know I sure as heck wouldn't do a job that involves me wearing a bulletproof vest and dealing with idiots every day for a crummy $40,000 per year. That's less than $20 per hour for pity's sake. I've got a secretary who makes more than that.

And I do know for a fact part of their training does involve the legal system and codes.

Yeah, and have you ever LOOKED at those codes? Go to a court house sometime and look at the Legal Library. It's a serious LIBRARY. It's not a book or two, it's like THOUSANDS of books that there's no way any one person could read in a single lifetime.

You could probably build a house out of the printout of the U.S. Tax Code alone.

Too bad he didn’t handle the situation without writing a bogus infraction citation.

What else was he supposed to do? Say "Thank you Ma'am for driving like crap, endangering other vehicles on my roadway, producing no license and not even explaining yourself to an officer"??

It ain't like the cop pulled her over for brown skin. She was stopped for cause.

Bully for the useless anecdote from your brother.

Just sayin' that officers need to know the laws in all cases because they can't predict what they'll come in contact with.


Then as I said management needs to address the problem that the Chief hinted at of those computer codes being misinterpreted by officers that have resulted in at least nearly 38 bogus citations in the last three years.

36 months and 38 bad citations? ONE BAD CITATION PER MONTH? People are complaining about THAT? What kind of failure rate do you think that is, 0.01% at most? One out of 10,000 ain't bad. For the crummy money they pay, that's outstanding really.


The woman does know some English.

Yeah, apparently it consists of "You A Racist" and "I Want Lawyer".


His knowing that he is not supposed to cite her for an infraction specific to Class A & B licenses when she is a Class C license holder does not constitute him being “a highly trained legal beagle knowing all aspects of the law”.

He doesn't even HAVE to know the law. He works for the Legislative Branch of Government. He's not even part of the lawmaking deliberative bodies of government.

His Sergeant supervisor trainer failed to catch his mistake as well, which speaks ill for him.

It wasn't a mistake at all. It was just another complaint and the dumb crazy driving no English speaking bimbo would have had to go to court anyway to answer for her damned near killing everybody else on the road with her crazed maniacal disregard of any and all traffic laws.

Actually the Dallas Police department has been avidly recruiting bilingual officers and has been for many years.

Avid recruiting at less than $40,000 per year ain't very avid. Paying for a babysitter and expecting to get a cop is ridiculous.

After an incident in 2001 in which an innocent person was accidentally shot officers have had department training in some basic bilingual commands to reduce the number of incidents of a lack of communication, with the end goal of enhanced safety for officers and the public.

That makes things worse because the criminals can fake no speak english to throw the cops on the defensive. It empowers the bad guys.

I think the program they are using is called Command Spanish.

Yeah, and it's stupid because if Spanish-only speakers could understand the damned rules we wouldn't have any illegal aliens.



actions
–noun
1. the process or state of acting or of being active: The machine is not in action now.
2. something done or performed; act; deed.

The rookie wrote a bogus citation and his attending supervisor signed off on the mistake and passed it up the chain, those are actions, they were things they did.

A ticket is a pending action, a complaint, not an action.



She made an illegal u-turn.

That is a crappy driving move, and a dangerous one.

Probably because the idiot couldn't read the street signs, which, by the way, are in ENGLISH. It's pretty difficult to get from 'Point A' to 'Point B' if you don't know what the words 'Point A' mean.

Probably pretty much the same thing she would do in any other accident scenario.

Which is what? Stand by like an idiot biting her nails and saying "Aye, Dios Mio?" while she's looking over her carnage?

A driver with no ability to render aid is just as criminally useless as a hit and run driver. They do not belong on the road and they should not be driving. Only people who are physically fit, hold a CPR/First Aid certification and SPEAK ENGLISH should be driving.

She is able to speak some English.

Really? What can she say? "Can You Help Me Push My Car?" or "Where Is The Nearest Home Depot?"

As to the rest I guess the same thing would happen as does to all those people in an unconscious state without ID that are admitted through ER’s all across the country every day.

Do you mean they get pushed into the No-Can-Pay line that nobody talks about?

Last time I was in an ER was for a head wound from a chainsaw accident and the ER hadn't even mopped up the blood gushing from my head in the lobby before they asked if I had insurance. I threw two VISA cards, a Mastercard and an American Express down, $40,000 worth of credit and they didn't even want to see those, but that CIGNA card sure got some service right away.

Yeah, it's totally illegal for ER's to process patients based on their ability to pay. But they do it. I was dressed like crap, I was cutting up trees with a chainsaw and not wearing my Sunday best clothes, to say the least. Torn and worn jeans, crummy threadbare t-shirt, I looked like a bum and got treated like one until I could prove an ability to pay and then they were all lovey-dovey. Well, except for the staples in the head with no anaesthetic. That wasn't very nice.

The Police can run plates and vin numbers in an accident scenario and begin there.

Cars change hands every day, they're practically a liquid asset. All the police can get are records and those are going to be a week old if they're a day.

If she has her registration in the vehicle as is required by Texas law that is also an indication where they begin to look for next of kin.

She's obviously thrown Texas Law out the door by driving without a license and violating basic traffic laws. Why would anybody assume she's got valid registration with her when she doesn't even carry a drivers license or a lick of basic English?

Lots of people who are born in Texas fail to keep their registration papers in their vehicles, or insurance proof on them.

Oh, okay. So there are lots of criminally negligent people which means criminal negligence isn't really a problem. <SARCASM>

The legitimate citations were legitimate.

No one is discouraging officers from making legitimate complaints.

No one has handcuffed these officers.

So let's get this straight:

This woman should have gone to court, correct? She did commit a traffic violation, she was driving without a license on her person. So the officer was 100% in the right to issue citations, we agree on this point. The woman goes to court.

So what are we disagreeing on here?

You say she shouldn't have gotten a ticket for no English. Okay, fine, the Judge agreed with you and dismissed the ticket for that.

So what's the harm done? The lady had to go to court and face a Judge? That would have been the outcome regardless had she spoken English or not. She could speak English like Edgar Allen Poe, Shakespeare and Mark Twain combined and her illegal U-turn and no license would still mean going to see the Judge on a court date.

The woman was going to court anyway and it wasn't for no just cause. No harm, no foul there.

[Lego-Man]

What you want to do is yank out the welcome mat for all non English speakers, as if English was a special language. Funny, though, since the only people who speak English well are British. Americans have butchered English. No other country uses possessives an clichés and similar sounding words as to English speakers --- probably designed to confuse persons who speak all other languages. There, their, they're, but, butt, wear, where, we're, on and on. Emphasis added

Wrong. I have personally met native Japanese who speak it better than some Brits I have met and have no accent. I have also met Asian Indians who also speak it fluently. English is considered to be a "universal" language (as is French, Spanish and - I think - Japanese), and in some countries it is needed to graduate high school or college.

So to say that only the British speak English well, is incorrect, and looks like an attempt at a deflection.

[Lego-Man]

It wasn't a mistake at all. It was just another complaint and the dumb crazy driving no English speaking bimbo would have had to go to court anyway to answer for her damned near killing everybody else on the road with her crazed maniacal disregard of any and all traffic laws.

Gene, I am about 95% in agreeance with you in this debate, but when you keep referring to the woman as "a bimbo", you are taking away from your argument in this.

[Antrel]

Nice deflection - I think she should learn English before she is given privileges in this country. Driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. However, read my previous post.Based on what? The woman would have been given a ticket just as easily if the LEO simply not cited her lack of English comprehension. Her lack of an English vocabulary did nothing to contribute to the offense leading to the legal actions. Thousands of fluent English speakers commit traffic violations every day.

At the end of the day, you just don't like it. It's simple xenophobic tradition. Don't speak my language? Then get the hell out of your car.

[JediMindTrick]

The Texas Transportation Code, Section 521.162, requires the Department to administer driver examinations in Spanish to applicants who are unable to take the regular examination in English. LINK (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/driver_licensing_control/documents/EngSpanExam.pdf)



From experience, I know TXDOT computer files will reveal your DL info by name when an officer calls it in.


Right on both counts. The only thing an officer needs to run a license out of ANY state is the name exactly as it appears on the license and a birthday. That doesn't guarantee the person isn't giving you their sister or other friends info but if you get a match you must consider that this could be the person you have.

Furthermore its a colossal waste of everyone's time to write a ticket for not carrying a license on a person. In my state the code says that the ticket will automatically be dismissed if the person comes to court and shows their license. It annoys the court when you force a person to do this though because your wasting their time and the officer who does this will get a counseling session from their supervisor who in turn just got chewed out by a judge.

[gdoane]

Gene, I am about 95% in agreeance with you in this debate, but when you keep referring to the woman as "a bimbo", you are taking away from your argument in this.

A "Bimbo" is a vacuous woman. Unthinking. Vapid.

I can't even imagine me driving without insurance, driver's license and registration in the vehicle. Driving is not a casual activity. Not to me.

I've taken my Ford F-150 to the dump more than a few times and seen it weigh in on the scales at 5,600 pounds empty. Two tons and change, and driving something like that is a serious business. It ain't a joke. On the highway, a charging bull elephant has nothing on a couple of tons of Detroit Steel.

If you're going to throw 200+ horsepower and 2 tons of steel around, then I think it's a reasonable expectation to take that seriously. That means you don't forget your license, you don't forget your English and you follow the rules of the road.

So if I call the broad a bimbo, it's because she's an ignorant woman who didn't take the task of driving seriously.

You wouldn't believe the kind of driving I do for work. 1,000 foot cliffs and dirt roads up to mountain top radio sites in some of the most remote locations anywhere and I take that driving seriously. I have to because I really don't want to die rolling down a mountain in an SUV. There are better ways to die, like of old age in my sleep maybe.

When drivers don't take their actions seriously, that's when they get killed. Or kill other people. Ignorance has no room on the road.

[LouC]

From what I am getting, she didn't use it, and it looks like she used the "No Ingles" excuse.

I have not seen that anywhere, except in assumptions being made.

Which, if she does speak it, means she lied to the officer, and if I am not mistaken, it is a crime to lie to a law-enforcement officer when he is on duty.

Not being fluent in English is not evidence of any lies.

Not only that the Dallas Police department has said officers are not trained to issue non English citations, so that means the bumbling Bromley was overstepping his authority in determining her "fluency" in order to issue a non English speaking citation.

Therefore, it could be argued that the citation could be legitimate in that sense.

No it couldn't.

Not having her license on her is a legitimate citation.

Making an illegal u-turn is a legitimate citation.

Citing her for not being fluent in English is not a legitimate citation in this case.

[Lego-Man]

I have not seen that anywhere, except in assumptions being made.



Not being fluent in English is not evidence of any lies.I didn't say that. It has been shown that she does speak English, but either said she didn't or acted as if she didn't - that is a lie, and it illegal to lie to a LEO when he is on duty.

Not only that the Dallas Police department has said officers are not trained to issue non English citations, so that means the bumbling Bromley was overstepping his authority in determining her "fluency" in order to issue a non English speaking citation.



No it couldn't.If she is feigning ignorance, then yes it could.

Not having her license on her is a legitimate citation. I never entered this part of the debate.

Making an illegal u-turn is a legitimate citation.Same here. I never questioned or disputed this.

Citing her for not being fluent in English is not a legitimate citation in this case.lieing about not speaking English is lying to the officer, and that is illegal.

[FidelisAdMortem]

This is lazy police work. Ive been guilty of it as a rookie years ago. However, as I've matured I realized cutting corners to avoid arresting someone will do more harm than good. If someone doesn't have their ID and you dont feel you can positively confirm ones identity, you arrest them on the charges you were going to write them for.

[Lego-Man]

A "Bimbo" is a vacuous woman. Unthinking. Vapid.

I can't even imagine me driving without insurance, driver's license and registration in the vehicle. Driving is not a casual activity. Not to me.

I've taken my Ford F-150 to the dump more than a few times and seen it weigh in on the scales at 5,600 pounds empty. Two tons and change, and driving something like that is a serious business. It ain't a joke. On the highway, a charging bull elephant has nothing on a couple of tons of Detroit Steel.

If you're going to throw 200+ horsepower and 2 tons of steel around, then I think it's a reasonable expectation to take that seriously. That means you don't forget your license, you don't forget your English and you follow the rules of the road.

So if I call the broad a bimbo, it's because she's an ignorant woman who didn't take the task of driving seriously.

You wouldn't believe the kind of driving I do for work. 1,000 foot cliffs and dirt roads up to mountain top radio sites in some of the most remote locations anywhere and I take that driving seriously. I have to because I really don't want to die rolling down a mountain in an SUV. There are better ways to die, like of old age in my sleep maybe.

When drivers don't take their actions seriously, that's when they get killed. Or kill other people. Ignorance has no room on the road.

As I say, I am about 95% in agreement with you. I am aware of the definition of "Bimbo". However if you go to dictionary.com, the word conjures up images of the third definition given there of the word, and as that is how most think of the word, it takes from your argument.

As for driving, remember, I was a truck driver for 10 years - and never got a ticket (other than being 1,500 pounds overweight on an axle once), so I take driving issues very seriously.

[gdoane]

Right on both counts. The only thing an officer needs to run a license out of ANY state is the name exactly as it appears on the license and a birthday. That doesn't guarantee the person isn't giving you their sister or other friends info but if you get a match you must consider that this could be the person you have.

Furthermore its a colossal waste of everyone's time to write a ticket for not carrying a license on a person. In my state the code says that the ticket will automatically be dismissed if the person comes to court and shows their license. It annoys the court when you force a person to do this though because your wasting their time and the officer who does this will get a counseling session from their supervisor who in turn just got chewed out by a judge.

The licenses are WAAAAY out of date in State databases. I got pulled over in Pinal County by a DPS officer and he ran my license. No big deal, he was just wondering what I was doing off-road and it was legit, I was working on comms, but when he ran my license it showed that I was still active duty military.

One thing about Arizona driver's licenses is that they never expire for active duty military. That's a State Law. I triggered that State Law when I joined the Navy and apparently, there's no "untrigger". I've tried twice and apparently the Department of Motor Vehicles will consider me a database sailor forever.

The cop was funny about it, ran my license and asked what a sailor was doing in the desert. I didn't get a ticket or anything.

The database that tagged me as active duty military was at least 15 years out of date. The license databases run by the government are disgustingly inept and unreliable.

[Lego-Man]

The cop was funny about it, ran my license and asked what a sailor was doing in the desert. I didn't get a ticket or anything.


You should have told him that you were looking for new port sites when California fell into the Pacific after the next big one.

[JediMindTrick]

The licenses are WAAAAY out of date in State databases. I got pulled over in Pinal County by a DPS officer and he ran my license. No big deal, he was just wondering what I was doing off-road and it was legit, I was working on comms, but when he ran my license it showed that I was still active duty military.

One thing about Arizona driver's licenses is that they never expire for active duty military. That's a State Law. I triggered that State Law when I joined the Navy and apparently, there's no "untrigger". I've tried twice and apparently the Department of Motor Vehicles will consider me a database sailor forever.

The cop was funny about it, ran my license and asked what a sailor was doing in the desert. I didn't get a ticket or anything.

The database that tagged me as active duty military was at least 15 years out of date. The license databases run by the government are disgustingly inept and unreliable.

AZ is screwy though because they are the only state I know of that issues licenses for up to 40 years at a time. But I'd imagine that AZ has similar laws to my state in that the driver is required to notify the state DMV of changes to their status like their address.

BTW, in 13 years of police work and literally tens of thousands of licenses I've ran I've never had one that told me if someone was active duty military. From running a license I'll know if they have a concealed weapons permit or if they are wanted but nothing about their military status.

[gdoane]

AZ is screwy though because they are the only state I know of that issues licenses for up to 40 years at a time. But I'd imagine that AZ has similar laws to my state in that the driver is required to notify the state DMV of changes to their status like their address.

AZ did send me a letter last year telling me that I needed a new drivers license picture because my last one was over ten years old and I was probably uglier than ever. They put it in nicer terms but still, you don't actually keep the same license and photo for 40 years in AZ.

BTW, in 13 years of police work and literally tens of thousands of licenses I've ran I've never had one that told me if someone was active duty military. From running a license I'll know if they have a concealed weapons permit or if they are wanted but nothing about their military status.

I know mine comes up for concealed carry weapons permit and the motorcycle endorsement, but there's also a whole lot of info on the mag strip on the back of the license too.

Local retailers don't just "card" customers in Arizona, they swipe driver's licenses for verification. Arizona is a tough fake ID for the college kids. Another thing AZ does for licenses is under 21 gets a "vertical format" AZ drivers license as opposed to the horizontal format license people over 21 have. It makes faked ID's a bit harder for kids to pull off.

[gdoane]

You should have told him that you were looking for new port sites when California fell into the Pacific after the next big one.


I don't want California to fall into the ocean because I know exactly where all those Berkeley Liberals would move. The illegal aliens aren't a problem because they don't vote but displaced Californians would elect Nancy Pelosi for Congress from Arizona and this State couldn't take that kind of embarrassment.

[JediMindTrick]

AZ did send me a letter last year telling me that I needed a new drivers license picture because my last one was over ten years old and I was probably uglier than ever. They put it in nicer terms but still, you don't actually keep the same license and photo for 40 years in AZ.




Thats good to know then. I always thought it was dumb that a license could have the same picture for 40 years. The first time I ever saw an AZ license and noticed that it expired in 2043, this was about eight years or so ago, I thought for sure it was a fake. It happened to be a hispanic, which made me further think fake ID. I was completely shocked when it came back as valid through DMV with that expiration date.

[gdoane]

Thats good to know then. I always thought it was dumb that a license could have the same picture for 40 years. The first time I ever saw an AZ license and noticed that it expired in 2043, this was about eight years or so ago, I thought for sure it was a fake. It happened to be a hispanic, which made me further think fake ID. I was completely shocked when it came back as valid through DMV with that expiration date.

The thing to check for on an AZ driver's license to see if it's a fake is the expiration date will always be the driver's 65th Birthday (unless the driver is over 65 years old, of course). Arizona goes back to a more traditional system of issuing licenses once a driver is in their "golden years" to give vision tests and such for license renewals.

I've always thought Arizona was far too lenient on drivers. If you come to Arizona and you have a valid driver's license from any State not named "Mexico" you get a rubber-stamp Arizona driver's license without no test either written or practical. If Arkansas says you can drive, that's good enough for AZ.

Another thing AZ does that I don't agree with is vehicle safety inspections for licenses. This is the Sonoran Desert, cars don't rust here and last forever and then some. There are some nasty vehicles on the road that I wouldn't put in a Demolition Derby.

All of this plus the proximity to Mexico (I could literally be in Mexico from my driveway inside of three hours) makes Arizona probably the worst State to drive in. The cars are 20 years old, the drivers probably haven't taken a drivers exam in over a decade, half the drivers don't even speak English anyway and our traffic enforcement consists of cameras taking pictures and sending the tickets in the mail.

Driving in this town is EL NUTSO. I will NOT drive a car in Phoenix. Give me a Truck or better yet an Armored Personnel Carrier because of the stupidity of traffic enforcement in Arizona.

1. No Ingles? No Problemo! Si Se Puede! Aqui esta su licensia mi Amigo!

2. No tests for drivers from the age of 16 to 65 and I swear most couldn't pass one.

3. No vehicle safety equipment inspections in a State where cars last upwards of 40 years.

4. No traffic enforcement, just stupid cameras "catching" red light runners and speeders. You can literally get a ticket in the mail and send a check in the mail right back, no muss no fuss. I suggested a pre-pay option. The speeding ticket is gonna be $120 so why not just pay it now for a little discount, say I pay $100 for the speeding I'm gonna do and when the ticket comes in the mail I just check the "prepaid violation" checkbox and send it back to our wonderful enforcement team who opens letters and licks stamps?


5. Lousy freeway design with disappearing lanes, and HOV lanes that get idiots in their Priuses in the far left lane suddenly needing to make a far right lane exit across 6 lanes of rush hour traffic. BRILLIANT.

6. Variable speed limits on the State Freeways. Is it 55, 65, or 75 MPH? You never know because it's ALWAYS a surprise question on Arizona highways.

7. Constant road construction due to bad planning. Like I-10 under construction AGAIN even though everybody knows Interstate 10 runs clean from Santa Monica California through Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and all the way across to Jacksonville, Florida. Gosh, you'd THINK the idiots who plan the freeways in Arizona might have made the I-10 bigger than two lanes to start with!

8. Those new animated billboards are distracting as Hell. Looks like a cutscene out of Bladerunner. Works for the movies but I'd really rather have drivers watching the road.

9. Stupid road signs. I'm not making this up, either. To go North in Phoenix, you want to be on the I-10 West. To go West in Phoenix, you want to be on the I-17 North. Some idiot actually thought that made sense. And don't even get me started on the "Loop 101" that ain't a loop.

10. Snowbirds. That's what we locals call our migratory population and it's very true that we have a nice mild winter in Phoenix. It's 76° outside my door right now and nice weather, but we have drivers from all over the place with different laws and possibly even sketchier licensing requirements than Arizona has (hard to imagine but could be) running around on our badly planned roadways and dealing with our bizarre traffic infrastructure (some cities have left turn before green, some have left turn after red) and they get into snarls, even cause some.

I really, really, really hate the stupid DPS cameras on the freeways. And no, I've never been "caught" by one or gotten a ticket from Redflex (the Australian company which owns and manages the AZ DPS freeway camera "enforcement" system) because there's no human component at all. NONE. A camera flashes and you get a ticket in the mail if you've gone over 11 MPH above the posted limit. You can mail it back with a check and it's like nothing ever happened, you don't even get a point on your license.

I think there's merit in a cop talking to a driver at the time of an infraction. Did he run a red light? WHY? Was he drunk? Was he texting on his cell phone? A photograph in the mail a week later isn't going to do anything but get him to sign a check.

Everybody wants compliance with the law. Except for criminals and screw them.

To gain compliance with the law, communication and appeal to common freaking sense is required. Drivers who can't communicate should not be driving. And cameras which can't communicate should not be enforcing.

Driving does require communication. My crummy Ford F-150 has a horn (a loud one) and turn signals and brake lights and a flashy flash for the high beam headlights too. All for communicating with other drivers. In fact, if the vehicle ain't capable of communicating with other drivers, that's a ticket too.

[DLaw911]

I hope the cops get fired. Sorry, but they are idiots. the code used was mostly for commercial drivers to have enough proficiency in English to be able to read signs.

It is used so drivers could not say they did not understand the signs if they got a ticket. (like using a cell phone in a school zone. You could not use that as a defense)He made a rookie mistake. It's no big deal. The citation was (apparently) valid except for the English speaking part. If he was wrong he should be counselled and told what to do in the future.

BTW a little secret. Not everyone who gets a ticket deserves one, and many people who deserve tickets get warnings. As far as I am concerned this is a NO BIG DEAL and only hit the press because the idiot driver decided to get a lawyer and make a federal case out of it. So what are her damages -- 50 cents? I guess she and her lawyer can each walk away with a quarter.

[DLaw911]

I don't want California to fall into the ocean because I know exactly where all those Berkeley Liberals would move. The illegal aliens aren't a problem because they don't vote but displaced Californians would elect Nancy Pelosi for Congress from Arizona and this State couldn't take that kind of embarrassment.As you know Congress is not a statewide race but a district race. I don't get to vote for or against Nancy. I don't like her and never did.

[DLaw911]

Emphasis added

Wrong. I have personally met native Japanese who speak it better than some Brits I have met and have no accent. I have also met Asian Indians who also speak it fluently. English is considered to be a "universal" language (as is French, Spanish and - I think - Japanese), and in some countries it is needed to graduate high school or college.

So to say that only the British speak English well, is incorrect, and looks like an attempt at a deflection.What's this "wrong" stuff. You're giving an opinion based on some people you met??

You forget that SOME nations, like China and Japan, and Vietnam, and the Philippines, and many other countries, TEACH English as a mandatory school subject. And I am not joking about the Brits speaking better English than Americans. It's embarrasing to hear a lot of American's speak and, unfortunately, the ones that usually get the most attention (like athletes) are often times the ones who can't string together a sentence, have to say "ummm" and "aah" between every word, use "ain't" and a host of other words not gramatically correct, and should I mention ebonics? No, Americans have all but BUTCHERED English.

[gdoane]

As you know Congress is not a statewide race but a district race. I don't get to vote for or against Nancy. I don't like her and never did.

You know that and I know that, but the problem is the people who don't know that.

Nancy Pelosi is seated as the Speaker of the House of Representatives because 126,073 voters from California's district 8 voted for her. That's San Fransisco, a town with a population of 746,976 people. (I pull my numbers from The World Almanac And Book Of Facts for statistics unless otherwise attributed)

Winning an election isn't about being the best or most qualified, it's about being the most popular. If Miley Cyrus were ten years older she could probably be President too.

Leadership is not about making people happy.

I swear I don't know how I keep winding up in leadership roles in my life but I suspect it's probably because I don't want to be a leader and not wanting the job is a primary qualification for the duty.

The best guys I knew in the military didn't want the job. The guys who did want to go and kill-kill-kill scared the crap out of me. And they scare the crap out of the guys in charge too. So they don't get the trust or the power and like the bible says, the meek shall inherit the Earth.

I learned a lot of things about leadership in the Navy. The weirdest thing about leadership is that the guys who want it shouldn't have it. It's a total paradox but totally true. The nerd in the corner who doesn't want to give orders, he's going to be the best leader because of his reluctancy.

[DLaw911]

You know that and I know that, but the problem is the people who don't know that.

Nancy Pelosi is seated as the Speaker of the House of Representatives because 126,073 voters from California's district 8 voted for her. That's San Fransisco, a town with a population of 746,976 people. (I pull my numbers from The World Almanac And Book Of Facts for statistics unless otherwise attributed)And I bet, like me, you have never missed voting in an election since the day you became eligible. But it's a sad commentary on the right to vote that only 10% show up for local measures, and maybe 50-60% for general elections. What does that say? And I wonder how many of these lazy NON voters are the very ones bitching right now about the people in office.
Winning an election isn't about being the best or most qualified, it's about being the most popular. If Miley Cyrus were ten years older she could probably be President too.I'd vote for Hanna Montana over Miley!
Leadership is not about making people happy.Truer words were never spoken!!
I swear I don't know how I keep winding up in leadership roles in my life but I suspect it's probably because I don't want to be a leader and not wanting the job is a primary qualification for the duty.Your job as a hannity.com MOD has qualified you for so many jobs they are beating down your door. :)
The best guys I knew in the military didn't want the job. The guys who did want to go and kill-kill-kill scared the crap out of me. And they scare the crap out of the guys in charge too. So they don't get the trust or the power and like the bible says, the meek shall inherit the Earth. Gene, 99.999999% of politicians are crooks. They don't care about the community or the taxpayers. They care about enriching themselves and having power. Why do so many of them give up lucritive careers for low paying elected positions? They're not fooling me. Republicans, Democrats, almost all of them total crooks. Yes, Obama -- bought and paid for. The only one I do not put in the crooked list was considered a failure as president (Jimmy Carter), but he did broker the Israel/Egypt peace talks and that was a major accomplishment.

[Fitz]

He made a rookie mistake. It's no big deal. The citation was (apparently) valid except for the English speaking part. If he was wrong he should be counselled and told what to do in the future.

A police officer making a law up on the spot is a pretty big deal to me.

I didn't realize that was a big thing amongst rookies

[gdoane]

What's this "wrong" stuff. You're giving an opinion based on some people you met??

You forget that SOME nations, like China and Japan, and Vietnam, and the Philippines, and many other countries, TEACH English as a mandatory school subject. And I am not joking about the Brits speaking better English than Americans. It's embarrasing to hear a lot of American's speak and, unfortunately, the ones that usually get the most attention (like athletes) are often times the ones who can't string together a sentence, have to say "ummm" and "aah" between every word, use "ain't" and a host of other words not gramatically correct, and should I mention ebonics? No, Americans have all but BUTCHERED English.

English is a butchery of German anyway.
It's a Germanic language, a mutt, a mongrel borne of the Latin languages of Rome and the Germanic languages of what is now Eastern Europe.

There's really no way to understand English without studying the languages it originated from.

For example, the word "MILE". Do you know where that comes from?

"MIL" is the latin word for One Thousand.

A "MILE" is a thousand paces. The Roman soldiers, in training, would be taken on marches consisting of a thousand paces. A pace is two footsteps and for an average human is their pace is about equal to their height, so a mile is 5,280 feet because the Romans who defined the mile were about 5'3" tall.

Etymology is a really fun hobby. Knowing the forensics of your language can only make you more effective in communicating.

[Lego-Man]

What's this "wrong" stuff. You're giving an opinion based on some people you met??Yes, I do as I am speaking from experience.

You forget that SOME nations, like China and Japan, and Vietnam, and the Philippines, and many other countries, TEACH English as a mandatory school subject.Umm, no - I most certainly have not. Where on Earth did you get that idea? Check back and you will see I said this exact same thing in this thread sometime in the last 48 to 72 hours or so.

And I am not joking about the Brits speaking better English than Americans.You did NOT say that. Below are your exact words, which is what prompted my comment about having met those who learned English as a 2nd or even third language who, in fact, speak it better than Brits.

Funny, though, since the only people who speak English well are British. You didn't qualify the statement as Brits versus Americans. You made a blanket statement.



It's embarrasing to hear a lot of American's speak and, unfortunately, the ones that usually get the most attention (like athletes) are often times the ones who can't string together a sentence, have to say "ummm" and "aah" between every word, use "ain't" and a host of other words not gramatically correct, and should I mention ebonics? No, Americans have all but BUTCHERED English.Since languages evolve, I put this to you - we call it English, but we don't speak English in this country any more than we speak the language that originated English. English and Anglish (American English) are similar, but are not the exact same language. I don't refer to just words, but punctuation as well.

As for the word "ain't". I would suggest you do a little research on the word. "Ain't" not only used to be a proper word, but it was considered proper upper-class English at one point in history. Now, having said that, I must offer this observation: I find it mildly ludicrous that someone who is talking about the butchering of the language can not take the time to make sure his words are correctly spelled.

[gdoane]

.

Gene, 99.999999% of politicians are crooks.

If they were just simple crooks, I'd be okay with that. But they aren't, they're complicated crooks. A simple crook demands your money, what you're carrying today. A Congress crook demands your past income, your future income and all the money you've made or expect to make.

I paid $20,000+ in income taxes last year and to me, that's a lot of money. The only thing I own worth more than I paid the IRS is my house and that lost $150,000 in value last year.

Good thing (for the IRS) that incomes are taxed and not net worth huh? Yet income taxes are supposedly targetted for "the rich".

They don't care about the community or the taxpayers. They care about enriching themselves and having power. Why do so many of them give up lucritive careers for low paying elected positions? They're not fooling me. Republicans, Democrats, almost all of them total crooks. Yes, Obama -- bought and paid for. The only one I do not put in the crooked list was considered a failure as president (Jimmy Carter), but he did broker the Israel/Egypt peace talks and that was a major accomplishment.

Israel and Egypt are not at peace. On paper they may be, but Egypt still has military equipment poised on the Israeli border. I've been there and seen it. Tanks and Armored Personnel Carriers ready to go. Egypt is not a nation of peace. They've been warriors in the past and they'll be warriors in the future.

[King Cantona]

From what I am getting, she didn't use it, and it looks like she used the "No Ingles" excuse. Which, if she does speak it, means she lied to the officer, and if I am not mistaken, it is a crime to lie to a law-enforcement officer when he is on duty.

Therefore, it could be argued that the citation could be legitimate in that sense.

Well I speak 'some French', it might get me by in a restaurant or bar in Paris but I wouldn't be much good if picked up by a gendarme...

[sgtmac_46]

do you not respect the first amendment?

there is no requirement in this country regarding which language must be spoken. this is not a moment to applaud, this is a moment to be ashamed of. nothing about this issue has anything to do with the woman's choice of language.

i would hope this would present a significant setback for this young, naive officer.

There is nothing in the 1st Amendment that would prevent a law restricting driving to those who speak English.......inserting the Constitution in every discussion doesn't make every discussion about the Constitution.

Why he wrote a ticket when there currently is no such law is beyond me.....but such a law is not inherently Unconstitutional.

[DLaw911]

Funny, though, since the only people who speak English well are British.
.......You did NOT say that. Below are your exact words, which is what prompted my comment about having met those who learned English as a 2nd or even third language who, in fact, speak it better than Brits.

You didn't qualify the statement as Brits versus Americans.
And I am not joking about the Brits speaking better English than Americans. You made a blanket statement.Yes that's true and I retract my watered down version. When it comes to grammar I believe Americans have perverted the English language and the Brits have preserved it.
As for the word "ain't". I would suggest you do a little research on the word. "Ain't" not only used to be a proper word, but it was considered proper upper-class English at one point in history.Yes, perverted language!
Now, having said that, I must offer this observation: I find it mildly ludicrous that someone who is talking about the butchering of the language can not take the time to make sure his words are correctly spelled.True, but that's just being lazy, versus uneducated.

[notluzn]

You like officer Bromley the bimbo bogus infraction writing rookie officer?

Sad...

I don't see you out there doing what cops do. Sad

[gdoane]

There is nothing in the 1st Amendment that would prevent a law restricting driving to those who speak English.......inserting the Constitution in every discussion doesn't make every discussion about the Constitution.

Why he wrote a ticket when there currently is no such law is beyond me.....but such a law is not inherently Unconstitutional.

I'm not sure how other states work but in Arizona the cop has to write down book, chapter and verse of the law the ticket was for. For example, a speeding ticket would list ARS 28-701 (ARS=Arizona Revised Statute) as the law being violated. If there's a ticket, the law has to be listed.

[sgtmac_46]

I'm not sure how other states work but in Arizona the cop has to write down book, chapter and verse of the law the ticket was for. For example, a speeding ticket would list ARS 28-701 (ARS=Arizona Revised Statute) as the law being violated. If there's a ticket, the law has to be listed.

It's similar in most states........either the State Statute number or the local Ordinance violation number is put in the ticket.

How 'Failure to Speak English' was written I have no idea.

[LouC]

Tickets do not have to be "legitimate".

Of course they do to be admissible at court.

The expectation for a ticket to be "legitimate" places the officer in the roles of Judge, Jury and Executioner where they do not belong.

There is absolutely no expectation for the officer to be the judicator, jurist, or executioner of sentence the infractions for which they issue citations.

A ticket is just a slip of paper to take to a Judge, no more.

No more worthwhile than a blank piece of paper if the citation is bogus.

Would I be upset and dismayed by getting a slip of paper telling me to go to court?

Most normal people would.

Of course I would.

Score one for you.

Happened to me two weeks ago telling me to go to the Superior Court of Maricopa County for Jury Duty. Same thing as a ticket.

She responded to the ticket by appearing at court.

There is nothing wrong with sending a person to court in a nation of laws.

For legitimate infractions, not at all, I can agree on that.

Yeah, and have you ever LOOKED at those codes?

Yes some.

Go to a court house sometime and look at the Legal Library. It's a serious LIBRARY. It's not a book or two, it's like THOUSANDS of books that there's no way any one person could read in a single lifetime.

Wow… Serial?

What else was he supposed to do?

Not write a Class C licensed driver a citation specific to Class A & B interstate licenses.

It ain't like the cop pulled her over for brown skin. She was stopped for cause.

No not for brown skin, nor for her lack of English fluency.

Just sayin' that officers need to know the laws in all cases because they can't predict what they'll come in contact with.

That certainly contradicts your earlier argument that it is impossible for anyone to know all the codes?

36 months and 38 bad citations? ONE BAD CITATION PER MONTH?

I would imagine Police Chief David Kunkle would feel that any bogus citations are unacceptable, expected yes, acceptable no, especially those of a nature that they may lead to Civil Rights lawsuit issues.

People are complaining about THAT?

Yes, especially when one officer alone accounts for five of those tickets, it indicates a red flag pattern that must be addressed.

What kind of failure rate do you think that is, 0.01% at most? One out of 10,000 ain't bad. For the crummy money they pay, that's outstanding really.

To you it may mean nothing.

To the Dallas Police Department and the City of Dallas it means quite a bit.

For one small thing it means processing and issuing $204.00 refunds each to the 38 people that were issued those bogus tickets, a total of $7752.00.

Then there are driving records that were affected for 38 people, and possible damage to their insurance rates, all of which may lead to the incalculable costs from individual lawsuits or potential class action lawsuits.

Yeah, apparently it consists of "You A Racist" and "I Want Lawyer".

That is speculation on your part, not supported by any facts.

He doesn't even HAVE to know the law.

Oh?

Just sayin' that officers need to know the laws in all cases because they can't predict what they'll come in contact with.

Which is it?

It wasn't a mistake at all.

Huh?

The Dallas Police Department said it was embarrassed by what it calls a mistake by rookie Officer Gary Bromley after he stopped Ernestina Mondragon for making an illegal U-turn.

That makes things worse because the criminals can fake no speak english to throw the cops on the defensive.

Criminals have already done that long before the language training started.

The Spanish speakers can’t hide behind that ruse if officers are themselves conversant in Spanish.

It empowers the bad guys.

The bad guys are empowered by an indifference to all laws.

That it is somehow empowering bad guys by learning to become even mildly conversant in a second language is just silly.

A ticket is a pending action, a complaint, not an action.

Stopping her and writing that bogus ticket citation is an action.

Probably because the idiot couldn't read the street signs, which, by the way, are in ENGLISH.

On the driving test she took to get her Texas drivers license the signs she was tested on were in English.

To get a Texas drivers license requires, at the least, to be able to read road signs in English.

Officer Bromley, maybe “he no speak a da Ingles?” since the officer appears incapable of reading the legal codes printed on the computer screen in his patrol car.

It's pretty difficult to get from 'Point A' to 'Point B' if you don't know what the words 'Point A' mean.

She knew where her house was (Point A), she knew where he daughters school was (Point B).

She, in her rushed state, ignored or plain missed the u-turn traffic sign and was ticketed for violating that signage, not for being incapable of reading the sign.

She's obviously thrown Texas Law out the door by driving without a license and violating basic traffic laws.

She is obviously human and made human mistakes.

She was not driving without a license, she was cited for driving without her license on her.

She presented her valid Texas Drivers license at court and that citation was dismissed.

Why would anybody assume she's got valid registration with her when she doesn't even carry a drivers license or a lick of basic English?

It has been reported repeatedly that she does speak some English and responded that she did speak some and understood more when confronted by officer Bromley.

There is no evidence that she did not have valid registration papers in the vehicle.

The officer did not cite her for lack of registration, so either she had vehicle registration with her or the officer was derelict for not citing her for not having her registration..

If she did not have a valid unwarranted license on record with TXDOT when he called in the stop the officer should not have let her go.

The officer did not cite her for lack of minimum mandatory Texas liability insurance.

So he either verified she had valid insurance or he was derelict in his duties by not citing her.

The officer did not cite her for failure to use her seat belt.

So either she was using her seat belt as Texas law prescribes or the officer was derelict for not citing her for that infraction.

So it would appear she is not a total scofflaw, or that officer Bromley is a bigger bumbling blithering boob of a Rookie than it first appeared he was.

Oh, okay. So there are lots of criminally negligent people which means criminal negligence isn't really a problem. <SARCASM>

Glad that is sarcasm, it would have made no sense otherwise, because criminal negligence not being a problem was never tendered as an argument.

So let's get this straight: This woman should have gone to court, correct?

She did go to court.

She did commit a traffic violation, she was driving without a license on her person. So the officer was 100% in the right to issue citations, we agree on this point.

The citation for the illegal u-turn and the citation for the license not on her person were both valid but she went to court for them and for the bogus citation as well.

There is a grace period to produce a valid license in Texas if you are stopped and did not have it on you, she produced her valid license at court and that citation was dismissed.

So what are we disagreeing on here?

The fact that the bumbling rookie officer wrote a bogus citation for an infraction that did not exist for her class of license.

You say she shouldn't have gotten a ticket for no English.

She should not have received a citation for being (according to what Bromley wrote) a “non-English speaking driver.”

Okay, fine, the Judge agreed with you and dismissed the ticket for that.

That was dismissed at court.

So what's the harm done?

It is demeaning to be incorrectly accused, even if it is in a bogus citation that does rightfully get tossed on review.

It wrongfully put her in the public spotlight and has people saying the most vile and nasty things about her in the public arena.

She does not deserve that public attention just because of a rookie and a veteran officer’s collective ineptitude.

It has cost the Dallas police department in the public relations area big time.

Like it or not this is a problem for the City of Dallas and the Dallas PD.

The lady had to go to court and face a Judge? That would have been the outcome regardless had she spoken English or not.

No one outside those directly involved would ever have known her name or been involved in her life or be having her as the topic of conversation had it not been for the bogus citation.

The woman was going to court anyway and it wasn't for no just cause.

Yes that is well established.

No harm, no foul there.

She just got lucky, as opposed to the others, that someone was on the ball at court and figured out she was issued a bogus citation before it went against her license and possibly against her insurance and before it cost her $204 bucks.

She still has to suffer the humiliation of having received that improper citation, and the associated unexpected notoriety.

Considering what I have seen happen before I would not be surprised if she has already received racist hate mail & death threats.

[toeknee]

Since Christopher Columbus was Italian shouldn't we all be speaking Italian anyway?

Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) was an Italian explorer who sailed across the Atlantic Ocean in 1492, hoping to find a route to India (in order to trade for spices).

Columbus sailed for King Ferdinand II and Queen Isabella of Spain.

Or Spanish the language of the people he worked for :))

[LouC]

I don't see you out there doing what cops do. Sad

That really is a pathetically stupid counter.

:clap: For pointless posting.

[LouC]

Since Christopher Columbus was Italian shouldn't we all be speaking Italian anyway?

No.

That is really silly thinking.

[BrittleBullet]

I've played that game a time or two at Wal-Mart or other places out in public. Several years of high school espanol pays off.

Never fails to shock the **** out of the hispanic ******* standing in line badmouthing the "stupid gringo" standing right next to them, or the "stupid gringo" running the check out line or whatever. They think we don't understand them because we're white. They also don't know that many of us learn espanol in school here. Priceless look on their face when we speak up in thier language and call them on their ********. Kinda like deer in the headlights. :dance:

Good fun! :mrgreen:

Only gringos call gringos gringos. Mexicans call gringos "gabachos".

[toeknee]

No.

That is really silly thinking.

maybe YOU are not thinking and doing only what you are told????:))

[LouC]

maybe YOU are not thinking and doing only what you are told????:))

There is never any telling, what I am doing, or so I am told.

[toeknee]

There is never any telling, what I am doing, or so I am told.

thats SCARY, I think Im gonig to be you for Halloween :)) Boo!

[LouC]

thats SCARY, I think Im gonig to be you for Halloween :)) Boo!

:twisted:






:))

[Paul-w]

UPDATE......

See, she still hasn't learned her lesson and is still speaking Spanish.... Give her better self-esteem is she'd learn the damn common language around the area to communicate better!!! :))

Source (http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa091025_wz_englishticketfolo.250d4650b.html)


DALLAS — The woman who exposed a Dallas police practice of issuing tickets for failing to speak English is now speaking out for herself.

Dallas police Chief David Kunkle apologized Friday for the ticket that was issued to Ernestina Mondragon. Kunkle admitted that 38 similar tickets had been issued in the past three years.

Now, Mondragon and Hispanic leaders are demanding change.

At a news conference on Sunday, Mondragon said she attempted to communicate with the officer who had stopped her for making an illegal U-turn. She said she asked the officer — in English — if her daughter could get out of the car and go to school.

"My daughter can go to school because its late for her? He said, 'Yes, okay.'"

Mondragon, who is a legal U.S. resident, calls it discrimination.

"It's very humilating," she told reporters,speaking in Spanish. "My self-esteem hit the floor. I felt bad. I felt like I was being discriminated against."

Now that she knows dozens of others have been cited for the same rason, she wants the Dallas Police Department to give its officers and supervisors more training.

"I wouldn't want this to happen to my kids, my grandchildren, because it's so humiliating," Mondragon said. "It has marked me for the rest of my life."

On Friday, Chief Kunkle promised that the six officers who wrote the 39 tickets and their suspervisors will be investigated.

Kunkle said the officers might have been confused by an option on the citation menu on the computer inside patrol cars, but that option applies only to commercial drivers.

Mondragon's attorney, Domingo Garcia, wants Dallas Police to investigate how many "no-English" tickets have been handed out in the last ten years.

"We are concerned that tickets are being given out ... for driving while not being able to speak English to U.S. residents, U.S. citizens, people with drivers' licenses who might have a language barrier," Garcia said.

Garcia plans to file a complaint with the Dallas Police Review Board this week.

[Paul-w]

OMG..... :)):)):))

She better not get a dime for being this damn stupid....

Source (http://cbs11tv.com/local/dallas.police.non.2.1269890.html)

But after she got home, Brenda Mondragon says her mother broke down. "She was worried, that now every time she drives if she gets pulled over and get another ticket for not speaking English?"

Mondragon says she was so stressed and worried about paying for the tickets she had to be hospitalized and ran up a bill of nearly $5,000. Her Attorney, Domingo Garcia, wants Mondragon reimbursed for all her expenses, and he wants an apology from the city.

"We believe what happened to her is a travesty of justice."

[LouC]

The bumbling officers Gary Bromley and Sgt. David Burroughs should not be writing and then approving bogus citations to American citizens.

Two officers at the least should have not been that collectively stupid.

But they were.

[gdoane]

UPDATE......

See, she still hasn't learned her lesson and is still speaking Spanish.... Give her better self-esteem is she'd learn the damn common language around the area to communicate better!!! :))

Source (http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa091025_wz_englishticketfolo.250d4650b.html)

If speaking Spanish is so darned humiliating for the ignorant woman then why is she out holding press conferences in Spanish?

It seems to me that she's just looking to gin up a lawsuit to try and get some cash out of this tempest in a teapot.

Hope they pay her in Peso's.

[GuitarCrazyo]

Are they insinuating that the fire department, or someone at it, is filing these complaints because theyre bitter over budget cuts?

[LouC]

Are they insinuating that the fire department, or someone at it, is filing these complaints because theyre bitter over budget cuts?

Fire department?

What are you talking about?

[Apatriot]

This is awesome!
He deserves a promotion!!! :)

Source (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6682734.html)

I disagree. He should be reprimanded for making up a charge

[Apatriot]

Sorry, as a Texas resident, I am sick of the invasion of ignorant jack asses who refuse to adapt to their surroundings. If you want to be here, you should have to know how to communicate. Plain and simple!
That doesn't excuse a police officer abusing his powers. If she's an illegal, deport her. If not, she can stay (there is no English language requirement to get a green card or be a citizen (yes to naturalize, but native born citizens don't have to know English).

[Apatriot]

Punish the cop because he couldn't conduct his job properly due to an illegal he couldn't communicate with. Sounds liberal to me...

No, it's punish the cop because he charged someone wrongly. According to the article, drivers of private vehicles cannot be charged with not speaking English. That is an option for commercial vehicle drivers who can be charged with not speaking English.

The cop made a mistake.

Also, believe it or not, it is legal to be an immigrant and not speak English (it's unwise, IMHO, but it's legal).

[Apatriot]

Ah, but the context you put this in, makes it sound as if it's discrimination and a violation for a company to require you to speak English to work for them. A company can't knowingly/forcefully deny your constitutional rights, so how can you make the arguement that they are two different things?

A company does not have to honor your constitutional rights. The Constitution only limits the government.

[FidelisAdMortem]

I hope every police officer in Texas forgets what discretion is.

This is a two way street, remember that.

[DLaw911]

UPDATE......

See, she still hasn't learned her lesson and is still speaking Spanish.... Give her better self-esteem is she'd learn the damn common language around the area to communicate better!!! :)) Source (http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa091025_wz_englishticketfolo.250d4650b.html)Rea lly --- who cares!?!

[DLaw911]

If speaking Spanish is so darned humiliating for the ignorant woman then why is she out holding press conferences in Spanish?

It seems to me that she's just looking to gin up a lawsuit to try and get some cash out of this tempest in a teapot.

Hope they pay her in Peso's.Gene, isn't it possible she jusst wants to be understood. I deal with this ALL the time. A person is interviewed by the police in English, but his or her preferred language is not English. And then they end up using a word they THINK is correct, the officer quotes the person and then criminal charges are filed. It's really hard to go to court and have the client tell a jury, "That's not what I meant."

[LouC]

If speaking Spanish is so darned humiliating for the ignorant woman then why is she out holding press conferences in Spanish?

It seems to me that she's just looking to gin up a lawsuit to try and get some cash out of this tempest in a teapot.

Hope they pay her in Peso's.

Speaking Spanish wasn't and isn't humiliating for the American citizen Ernestina Mondragon.

The humiliating part was being incorrectly cited by a ignorant unprofessional rookie officer for being a Spanish speaking American citizen.

Seems to me there is dire need for officer Gary Bromley to reconsider a different career before he gins up any more potential lawsuits against the Dallas police department for writing bogus citations.

Perhaps Sgt. David Burroughs needs to have his pay docked to help pay the City back for any settlement amount if a suit goes so far, for his total failure to properly supervise the bumbling rookie.

Paying Ernestina Mondragon in Peso's would not be a problem for her, not in Dallas, Peso's are easy to convert to dollars or to spend directly since an ever increasing number of businesses there take either dollars or Peso's.

[gdoane]

Gene, isn't it possible she jusst wants to be understood.

How about the cop wanting to be understood?

He just witnessed a driver in a car with a schoolgirl in the passenger seat pull an illegal u-turn. Can you say T-Bone? A maneuver like that is illegal because it can put your passenger in the engine compartment.

Good police work requires communication. Trust me on this, I work on police communications systems and cops love to talk. People joke about cops and donut shops but it's not about the donuts, the cops just love to talk.

This woman could have probably gotten off with a warning and a little lecture about why the u-turn is illegal and dangerous but she denied the cop that opportunity. You can't talk yourself out of a ticket: the cop has to talk himself out of a ticket and that won't happen if you don't understand what the cop is telling you.



I deal with this ALL the time. A person is interviewed by the police in English, but his or her preferred language is not English.

That happens in English too. English is a mutt language, largely Germanic in structure but borrowing heavily from Latin. Etymology is very interesting to study if you have an interest in the art of communications.

And then they end up using a word they THINK is correct, the officer quotes the person and then criminal charges are filed. It's really hard to go to court and have the client tell a jury, "That's not what I meant."

I've talked to upwards of a hundred cops a day and not one tried to arrest me. I don't think cops like to arrest people. They have to keep track of handcuffs abd do paperwork and stuff.

If talking works as the least aggressive force employed to obtain compliance then that will be the preferred method. The least muss, the least fuss, and the most customer satisfaction for all involved parties.

Throw in a language barrier, and force necessarily escalates because the lesser forcce option of talking ain't available. It's not racist, it's just a reduction of available tools making the job ruder and cruder.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

Is there a law against not speaking English in Texas?

[Lego-Man]

Based on what? The woman would have been given a ticket just as easily if the LEO simply not cited her lack of English comprehension. Her lack of an English vocabulary did nothing to contribute to the offense leading to the legal actions. Thousands of fluent English speakers commit traffic violations every day.

At the end of the day, you just don't like it. It's simple xenophobic tradition. Don't speak my language? Then get the hell out of your car.

Xenophobia has nothing to do with it. Si esto tuviera, yo nunca me habría molestado en aprender otra lengua en primer lugar. Having said that, I will say that I would not move to another country unless and until I have a basic comprehension of the local language. If I didn't, there's no telling what laws I could be breaking.

[Lego-Man]

The Spanish speakers can’t hide behind that ruse if officers are themselves conversant in Spanish.


Again, they should have to learn the languages of all who may or may not move into the district?

I asked (rhetorically) how many languages there were in the world. Surprisingly, no one tried to answer it as some would have.

Maybe we should require law enforcement to learn EACH and EVERY language there is to avoid having to make someone who moves here learn our language. In my city, there is a Thai restaurant owned and run by Thai natives. Maybe Thai should be a requirement for our LEOs as there might be interaction someday.

How about the Mongolians that just moved into the area as well?

[Lego-Man]

Since Christopher Columbus was Italian shouldn't we all be speaking Italian anyway?

Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) was an Italian explorer who sailed across the Atlantic Ocean in 1492, hoping to find a route to India (in order to trade for spices).

Columbus sailed for King Ferdinand II and Queen Isabella of Spain.

Or Spanish the language of the people he worked for :))

If you're going there, I think you have the wrong language. I seem to recall (and freely admit I could be wrong here) that the ships flew the Portuguese colors.

[Lego-Man]

Well I speak 'some French', it might get me by in a restaurant or bar in Paris but I wouldn't be much good if picked up by a gendarme...

Are you planning to move there on a permanent basis, or just go for a week to see the sights? If you plan to move there, I would put it that you need to learn more of the langue locale. However, as a tourist, that is something different - and I addressed that earlier in this thread.

[Lego-Man]

If speaking Spanish is so darned humiliating for the ignorant woman then why is she out holding press conferences in Spanish?

It seems to me that she's just looking to gin up a lawsuit to try and get some cash out of this tempest in a teapot.

Hope they pay her in Peso's.

I wonder if it was her idea or if the lawyer contacted her.

[LouC]

Is there a law against not speaking English in Texas?

No.

There is Federal regulation regarding interstate commercially licensed drivers and language skill.

[LouC]

Again, they should have to learn the languages of all who may or may not move into the district?

No.

I asked (rhetorically) how many languages there were in the world. Surprisingly, no one tried to answer it as some would have.

I missed that.

Sorry.

Maybe we should require law enforcement to learn EACH and EVERY language there is to avoid having to make someone who moves here learn our language.

There is reason though for officers in the Dallas PD district to have some Spanish speaking ability, according to the leaders of the city, and I agree.

In my city, there is a Thai restaurant owned and run by Thai natives. Maybe Thai should be a requirement for our LEOs as there might be interaction someday.

If you want to go for that it in your city feel free.

How about the Mongolians that just moved into the area as well?

Again if you want to go for that it in your city feel free to do so.

TXDOT addressed languages and established that written DL testing for the state would be in English and Spanish.

They also addressed other languages, I posted the statement.

The city of Dallas, like it or not or agree with it or not, has for considerable time (years) been trying to get a more bilingual police force, they focus the bilingual on English - Spanish but do not discourage other multi language sets.

It is stupid to think you need all officers to speak some remote Filipino dialect such as Hiligaynon but not at all out of bounds to have officers able to make some basic commands or questions in the language that is or once was the primary language of 44% of your districts population.

That is not unreasonable.

[LouC]

I wonder if it was her idea or if the lawyer contacted her.

I would be willing to bet it was her older daughter's doing contacting the lawyer.

I recognize that lawyer from when I lived in Dallas.

[FREE DON]

Sorry, as a Texas resident, I am sick of the invasion of ignorant jack asses who refuse to adapt to their surroundings. If you want to be here, you should have to know how to communicate. Plain and simple!
Simple answer YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! go go go !!!

[DLaw911]

Is there a law against not speaking English in Texas?There is a law against not having a Texan drawl.

[DLaw911]

How about the cop wanting to be understood?

He just witnessed a driver in a car with a schoolgirl in the passenger seat pull an illegal u-turn. Can you say T-Bone? A maneuver like that is illegal because it can put your passenger in the engine compartment.But that sort of begs the question I asked earlier. What about tourists to the US who don't speak English. Should they be banned from driving? They rent cars all the time?

And of course an illegal u-turn could present a serious traffic hazard. The officer is not there to be a teacher or to give a lecture. Maybe you're right --- that she would have received a warning if she could have communicated. But that did not happen so the ofificer could have arrested her or given her a citation. She showed up in court so I guess the citation was a viable choice.
Good police work requires communication. Trust me on this, I work on police communications systems and cops love to talk. People joke about cops and donut shops but it's not about the donuts, the cops just love to talk. I don't disagree at all, but the luxury of communication is not always there. A suspect might be high on drugs, might be mentally challenged, or not speak English. What if the person being interviewed is not a suspect but a witness or a victim. They don't always speak English, especially when they are tourists in the US (who are ferquently victimized).

[Lego-Man]

But that sort of begs the question I asked earlier. What about tourists to the US who don't speak English. Should they be banned from driving? If they are unable to read the signs, they are unable to comprehend what they are doing, so the answer would be "Yes". I am sure there are services available to make sure they can get around.

They rent cars all the time?Doesn't mean they know how to drive in the US.

And of course an illegal u-turn could present a serious traffic hazard. The officer is not there to be a teacher or to give a lecture. Maybe you're right --- that she would have received a warning if she could have communicated. But that did not happen so the ofificer could have arrested her or given her a citation. She showed up in court so I guess the citation was a viable choice.So what's the argument about the citation about the U-turn?
I don't disagree at all, but the luxury of communication is not always there. A suspect might be high on drugs, might be mentally challenged, or not speak English.
Taken in order: They shouldn't be behind the wheel if they are impaired by a substance. If they are that mentally challenged, is it really a good idea to have them behind the wheel anyway? If they live here, they should be able to communicate.

What if the person being interviewed is not a suspect but a witness or a victim. They don't always speak English, especially when they are tourists in the US (who are ferquently victimized).Tourists are not here permanently, so should fall under a different set of rules. However, if they don't read the language, then they may be a hazard, and don't need to be behind the wheel. There's a difference between those who move here and intend to stay and expect us to assimilate to them and those here for a few weeks taking in the sights.

As an aside, those who would take advantage of those here for a few weeks to just have a nice vacation are a special kind of slime.

[DLaw911]

If they are unable to read the signs, they are unable to comprehend what they are doing, so the answer would be "Yes". I am sure there are services available to make sure they can get around.Waht do you mean they cannot read signs. I've driven in a dozen foreign countries where signs are not in English and I got around just fine. I'm much more worried about a driver on a cell phone than a driver who cannot CONVERSE in English. REMEMBER there is a difference between conversational English and ability to read a road sign.
So what's the argument about the citation about the U-turn?[/quotre]I'm not making any argument. If it was illegal a ticket for the offense was proper.
[quote]Taken in order: They shouldn't be behind the wheel if they are impaired by a substance. If they are that mentally challenged, is it really a good idea to have them behind the wheel anyway? If they live here, they should be able to communicate.What if they're mute? Or deaf? The law still allows them to get licenses. The lady in this was WAS able to communicate. She passed a test to get a license. She signed the ticket. She appeared in court. What more can you ask?
Tourists are not here permanently, so should fall under a different set of rules. However, if they don't read the language, then they may be a hazard, and don't need to be behind the wheel. There's a difference between those who move here and intend to stay and expect us to assimilate to them and those here for a few weeks taking in the sights.Again, signs are pretty universal. Adn the ability to understand what a sign says, and the ability to converse in English, are two different things.
As an aside, those who would take advantage of those here for a few weeks to just have a nice vacation are a special kind of slime.Yes we had a rash of German tourists being killed and robbed in nearby Santa Mionica.

[King Cantona]

Are you planning to move there on a permanent basis, or just go for a week to see the sights? If you plan to move there, I would put it that you need to learn more of the langue locale. However, as a tourist, that is something different - and I addressed that earlier in this thread.

I keep meaning to become fluent in French but as yet I haven't, they're our nearest foreign neighbour and I haven't even visited very often...

And no, I have no plans on living there but if I did I certainly would become fluent first...

[Lego-Man]

What do you mean they cannot read signs? I've driven in a dozen foreign countries where signs are not in English and I got around just fine.You aren't everyone. However, it still goes back to the same thing - you weren't moving there on a permanent basis either.

I'm much more worried about a driver on a cell phone than a driver who cannot CONVERSE in English.Different argument, and we are on the same page here.

REMEMBER there is a difference between conversational English and ability to read a road sign.Road signs are not the only signs. Most general information signs are written on a white rectangular sign - anything could be on them, from speed limits, to "intersection ahead" to no "passing lane" Knowing what the shape of a sign is not the same as knowing what is written on them. Then there are those emergency information signs - in some cases are bad in and of themselves - where there is very limited information on them usually typed in which take a cycle to see what is fully on them. It's the unknown that make those who don't have even a basic proficiency with the local language a hazard in and of themselves just from their basic ignorance of what's in front of them.
I'm not making any argument. If it was illegal a ticket for the offense was proper.Then we don't have an issue with anything except the language issue.
What if they're mute? Or deaf? The law still allows them to get licenses.They still are most likely able to read and write the language, so the language barrier doesn't exist. Different story.
The lady in this was WAS able to communicate. She passed a test to get a license. She signed the ticket. She appeared in court. What more can you ask?If you have to ask, you fail to understand my basic argument - she is here in this country, and from what I gather wasn't born in this country, yet she fails to learn the local language and use it in public, therefore, we have to spend more in resources to assimilate to her when she should assimilate to the majority of the local population.
Again, signs are pretty universal. And the ability to understand what a sign says, and the ability to converse in English, are two different things.Let's deal with "yield" signs. As far as I know the US is the only country that uses triangular yellow signs for "yield", maybe Canada, but I don't know (and no, I wouldn't drive there until I looked up the rules either). Also, other than Canada and the US, no English country uses "Merge" - they use "Give Way" signs or paint the phrase on the roadway.

So, signs are not as universal as you would think.

Yes we had a rash of German tourists being killed and robbed in nearby Santa Monica.I agree that is wrong, and those who assaulted the Germans should be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent of the law.

[Lego-Man]

I keep meaning to become fluent in French but as yet I haven't, they're our nearest foreign neighbour and I haven't even visited very often...

And no, I have no plans on living there but if I did I certainly would become fluent first...

That is what I have been advocating. That and a national language for the US. I know I am incorrect here, but I don't know of any country other than the US that doesn't have a national language.

[gdoane]

But that sort of begs the question I asked earlier. What about tourists to the US who don't speak English. Should they be banned from driving? They rent cars all the time?

You, like me, hold pretty hardcore certifications. You're board certified and I'm FCC licensed for about anything the FCC can licence.

Can you argue that a non-English speaker should get a license from the FCC, FAA, Medical or Legal professions?

I'll tell you exactly where I'm going with this...

I'm going to ask you, poiint blank, if you think a driver's license is less serious than orher licenses.

Do ya?

Simple question. Yes or no. Would you support a law license for someone who speaks no English?

And of course an illegal u-turn could present a serious traffic hazard. The officer is not there to be a teacher or to give a lecture. Maybe you're right --- that she would have received a warning if she could have communicated. But that did not happen so the ofificer could have arrested her or given her a citation. She showed up in court so I guess the citation was a viable choice.

The options were limited by the lack of English. That is the fault of the driver and no one else.


I don't disagree at all, but the luxury of communication is not always there. A suspect might be high on drugs, might be mentally challenged, or not speak English. What if the person being interviewed is not a suspect but a witness or a victim. They don't always speak English, especially when they are tourists in the US (who are ferquently victimized).

Luxury?

Communicating while driving is no luxury. It the same as a busted tail light in spirit of the law.

[DLaw911]

You, like me, hold pretty hardcore certifications. You're board certified and I'm FCC licensed for about anything the FCC can licence.

Can you argue that a non-English speaker should get a license from the FCC, FAA, Medical or Legal professions?

I'll tell you exactly where I'm going with this...

I'm going to ask you, poiint blank, if you think a driver's license is less serious than other licenses.

Do ya?

Simple question. Yes or no. Would you support a law license for someone who speaks no English?Yes (but you asked me a trick question). There are deaf and mute lawyers who employ people to translate sign language for them. I know one lawyer who cannot speak a word. Now ask me if I would RECOMMEND a non-English speaking lawyer and I woud say probably not. There are blind lawyers. I know a blind Deputy DA. And NO I don't know any lawyers who are not able to communicate in English.

And you asked me two questions. Do I think a driver's license is less serious than other licenses and that question is unfair. But I will try to answer it anyway. My answer is YES, it is less "serious" because other licenses require background checks, lack of criminal record (i.e. good moral character). Morality plays no part in whether or not a person can get a driver's license. The license is only evidence that a person has passed the required tests and is permitted to drive certain classes of vehicels. To pass the test the driver must prove knowledge of rules of the road and, in most states, pass a behind the wheel test. Compare and contrast that to other licenses, e.g. lawyer, accountant, real estate agent, where only a written test is conducted but proficiency on the job is not. I know that an FCC license requires the passing of a written test (and possibly Morse code -- not sure if that requirement still exists). But once you get that license does the FCC stand over yyour shoulder and watch you work? So if you think about it a driver's license requires you to demonstrate physical and mental ability before you get the card.

I know you're going to say I ducked the question but I really did t he best job I could at responding to you.
The options were limited by the lack of English. That is the fault of the driver and no one else.But "fault" assumes wrongdoing. Some people just cannot learn a foreign language enough to speak more than a few words.

[DLaw911]

You aren't everyone. However, it still goes back to the same thing - you weren't moving there on a permanent basis either.

Different argument, and we are on the same page here.

Road signs are not the only signs. Most general information signs are written on a white rectangular sign - anything could be on them, from speed limits, to "intersection ahead" to no "passing lane" Knowing what the shape of a sign is not the same as knowing what is written on them. Then there are those emergency information signs - in some cases are bad in and of themselves - where there is very limited information on them usually typed in which take a cycle to see what is fully on them. It's the unknown that make those who don't have even a basic proficiency with the local language a hazard in and of themselves just from their basic ignorance of what's in front of them.
Then we don't have an issue with anything except the language issue.
They still are most likely able to read and write the language, so the language barrier doesn't exist. Different story.
If you have to ask, you fail to understand my basic argument - she is here in this country, and from what I gather wasn't born in this country, yet she fails to learn the local language and use it in public, therefore, we have to spend more in resources to assimilate to her when she should assimilate to the majority of the local population.
Let's deal with "yield" signs. As far as I know the US is the only country that uses triangular yellow signs for "yield", maybe Canada, but I don't know (and no, I wouldn't drive there until I looked up the rules either). Also, other than Canada and the US, no English country uses "Merge" - they use "Give Way" signs or paint the phrase on the roadway.

So, signs are not as universal as you would think.

I agree that is wrong, and those who assaulted the Germans should be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent of the law.You make some good points. But I would be curious if statistics show a higher percentage of non-English speaking drivers get tickets. And one point I made gets lost in the shuffle: there is a difference between being able to read road signs and being able to converse. Remember the driver in this case HAD PASSED a test to get her license. So she had to be able to read road signs.

[FidelisAdMortem]

You make some good points. But I would be curious if statistics show a higher percentage of non-English speaking drivers get tickets. And one point I made gets lost in the shuffle: there is a difference between being able to read road signs and being able to converse. Remember the driver in this case HAD PASSED a test to get her license. So she had to be able to read road signs.

Yea b/c we all know how hard it is to pass a DMV roadtest and obtain a license, LOL.

[Gabby]

When I lived in Europe I drove in Italy, Austria, and Germany. I speak Italian. I do not speak German. I did take the international driving test for my license. Signs have specific images and shapes so that they can be understood even by those who do not speak the local language.

I heard on the radio today that there is a federal law that truck drivers (semi's) are required to be able to speak English per federal law. The local police chief think that the officers who issued the tickets for not speaking English confused the law. No one will be prosecuted.

[Wayne Keel]

I can't imagine someone getting a license without speaking English. Was she an illegal alien with a Texas driver license? That wouldn't surprise me.

[JediMindTrick]

I can't imagine someone getting a license without speaking English. Was she an illegal alien with a Texas driver license? That wouldn't surprise me.

As has been repeated many times in this thread, you can take the tests in Spanish. As also has been repeated, she is apparently an American citizen.

[JediMindTrick]

You make some good points. But I would be curious if statistics show a higher percentage of non-English speaking drivers get tickets. And one point I made gets lost in the shuffle: there is a difference between being able to read road signs and being able to converse. Remember the driver in this case HAD PASSED a test to get her license. So she had to be able to read road signs.

Yep. I can't converse in Spanish beyond a few basic questions as it goes much too fast for my limited skill and I usually don't understand much of whats said in reply to those. Yet I can actually read quite a bit of Spanish. It would actually be quite easy for a driver to learn the signs and the few basic words that appear on traffic signs. Odds are that most who live here are much like me with spanish, they can read a lot of it but can't converse because they simply can't keep up. In fact they are probably much better than I am since they are exposed to english much more than I am to spanish.

[JediMindTrick]

I heard on the radio today that there is a federal law that truck drivers (semi's) are required to be able to speak English per federal law. The local police chief think that the officers who issued the tickets for not speaking English confused the law. No one will be prosecuted.

Local and state police cannot enforce any federal laws and as such I find it unlikely that many cops, especially rookies, would even know of this law. If Texas has a similar state law then this might be a semi valid excuse, though the training officer should have caught it.

[LouC]

I can't imagine someone getting a license without speaking English. Was she an illegal alien with a Texas driver license? That wouldn't surprise me.

Welcome aboard Wayne.

Ernestina Mondragon is an American citizen, she can speak some English, Texas gives written driving tests in English and Spanish, all signage on the written tests is in English.

Whether she took her driving test in English or Spanish two years ago when she moved to Dallas from California has not been revealed.

There is some question whether officer Gary Bromley is proficient in reading English since he issued a Class C license holder a citation that his patrol car computer screen displays as an infraction only designated for Class A & B interstate DL's.

[Buffalo]

Wow, his thread really happened.

[gdoane]

Yes (but you asked me a trick question). There are deaf and mute lawyers who employ people to translate sign language for them. I know one lawyer who cannot speak a word. Now ask me if I would RECOMMEND a non-English speaking lawyer and I woud say probably not. There are blind lawyers. I know a blind Deputy DA. And NO I don't know any lawyers who are not able to communicate in English.

Well, there are all kinds of lawyers of course. I couldn't imagine a defense lawyer being unable to communicate with his client as being anything short of a pretty good reason for a mistrial.

I don't think it's a trick question. I happen to think a driver's license is serious business and a very big deal. You're talking about potentially five tons on the road with a regular license. My F-150 tow rating is 10,000 pounds and the truck weighs in at about 4,800 by itself. Seven tons on the road at freeway speeds is no joke.

And you asked me two questions. Do I think a driver's license is less serious than other licenses and that question is unfair. But I will try to answer it anyway. My answer is YES, it is less "serious" because other licenses require background checks, lack of criminal record (i.e. good moral character). Morality plays no part in whether or not a person can get a driver's license.

A driver can lose a license for bad behavior (hit and run, reckless driving, felony speed, DUI) and in many cases lose it for life. Arizona is especially strict on DUI's because of the ignition interlock restricted license. A prior DUI caught driving a vehicle without a breathalizer ignition interlock gets an aggravated DUI offense if he uses a regular vehicle and his license is gone for good after that one.

The license is only evidence that a person has passed the required tests and is permitted to drive certain classes of vehicels. To pass the test the driver must prove knowledge of rules of the road and, in most states, pass a behind the wheel test. Compare and contrast that to other licenses, e.g. lawyer, accountant, real estate agent, where only a written test is conducted but proficiency on the job is not. I know that an FCC license requires the passing of a written test (and possibly Morse code -- not sure if that requirement still exists).

The driver's license is also evidence that somebody, somewhere eyeballed the license holder's birth certificate, tested vision (corrected or uncorrected is noted on the license) and tested other endorsements (my license has a motorcycle endorsement, for examply). It's not only a license, it's also identification. If somebody asks to see your ID, the driver's license is usually what they're after.


But once you get that license does the FCC stand over yyour shoulder and watch you work? So if you think about it a driver's license requires you to demonstrate physical and mental ability before you get the card.

Oh, it's worse than that. Other licensed technicians inspect your radio sites. Most mountaintop radio sites are self-policed by the user associations and nobody gets to inspect their own site. This is because bad or sloppy installations can cause massive RF spectrum pollution (intermod, spurious transmissions, frequency errors, licensing violations) and FCC licensed techs and engineers do inspect for that sort of thing. If there's a transmitter, there'd better be a license for it.


I know you're going to say I ducked the question but I really did t he best job I could at responding to you.

That's fine. I didn't expect that answer from you because I seemed to remember you're the guy who opposes cell phone use while driving so I thought you'd have a more critical view on who does and doesn't get licensed.

But "fault" assumes wrongdoing. Some people just cannot learn a foreign language enough to speak more than a few words.

That's a cop-out. If I can learn Spanish, French, Morse Code and typing then anybody can learn if they apply themselves. People who live in America and don't learn English are lazy.

That's why the woman in this story feels humiliated. Not because she speaks Spanish, but because she comes across as dumb and lazy for not learning English is my take on it. I wouldn't be embarassed speaking Spanish. There's nothing embarassing about speaking Spanish. It's the laziness of not learning English that causes the distress.

[LouC]

Wow, his thread really happened.

His thread?







Yes this thread really did. :)

[NascarGirl2448]

Which she likely obtained with FALSE documentation. AND....which was NOT ON HER PERSON at the time she was pulled over (as is required by law in order to operate a motor vehicle in the USA). But of course, you're too willing to overlook that, right?

That happens sometimes. A lady my dad used to work with had it happen to her once, and she's as American as you or I. She got caught in a "license check" and didn't realize she had forgotten her license, and the cop wrote her a ticket. She took it to court, proved her license was valid, and the ticket was dismissed. People can have such things happen in a moment of absent mindedness.

[pdmike]

The police officer in this case appears to be a biggoted jerk.

[gdoane]

That happens sometimes. A lady my dad used to work with had it happen to her once, and she's as American as you or I. She got caught in a "license check" and didn't realize she had forgotten her license, and the cop wrote her a ticket. She took it to court, proved her license was valid, and the ticket was dismissed. People can have such things happen in a moment of absent mindedness.

That I have to disagree with. There's a law (at least in Arizona) that says you have to carry your license with you when you drive. It doesn't matter if you have one hanging on your wall at home, it needs to be on you, in the car, at the time you are driving.

Here's my major malfunction: WROTE HER A TICKET? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? A sworn police officer, on duty, let a suspected unlicensed driver get back behind the wheel and drive away? Do you see my problem with this? If the officer suspected the driver is unlicensed, then in NO WAY should he be doing anything but calling a tow truck and impounding the car until a licensed driver can show up to claim it.

I always thought that if a cop stopped a car and found that it had no licensed driver, or no insurance, or no registration that the car moves not another inch until such deficiencies are remedied. It's not like your busted taillight or cracked windshield that isn't really all that bad, driving without a license, insurance or registration is REALLY REALLY BAD. Bad enough that the car should NOT be allowed back on the road again.

I know impounding a vehicle sucks because I see the sign in Scottsdale Police Department advising the impound fee of $150 to get a towed car out of the car jail.
$150 is a chunk of change by any man's standard but compared to what a car accident costs, it's really not that much.

That's exactly what should happen to unlicensed drivers. If you don't got the license, you don't be driving and your car don't leave the scene of the crime unless you can cough up a licensed driver on the spot. Impounded. Pay the man. Your mistake, your crime, your dime.

[Lego-Man]

That I have to disagree with. There's a law (at least in Arizona) that says you have to carry your license with you when you drive. It doesn't matter if you have one hanging on your wall at home, it needs to be on you, in the car, at the time you are driving.

Here's my major malfunction: WROTE HER A TICKET? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? A sworn police officer, on duty, let a suspected unlicensed driver get back behind the wheel and drive away? Do you see my problem with this? If the officer suspected the driver is unlicensed, then in NO WAY should he be doing anything but calling a tow truck and impounding the car until a licensed driver can show up to claim it.

I think you are the first to catch and comment on this.

[LouC]

I think you are the first to catch and comment on this.

I addressed it in this thread already, repeatedly, and especially as it pertains to the Ernestina Mondragon traffic stop.

[Lego-Man]

I addressed it in this thread already, repeatedly, and especially as it pertains to the Ernestina Mondragon traffic stop.

OK, I missed it and apologize. I have been active in this thread as well, but I was dealing more about the language debate rather than the traffic violation, and that's most likely why.

[NascarGirl2448]

That I have to disagree with. There's a law (at least in Arizona) that says you have to carry your license with you when you drive. It doesn't matter if you have one hanging on your wall at home, it needs to be on you, in the car, at the time you are driving.

Here's my major malfunction: WROTE HER A TICKET? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? A sworn police officer, on duty, let a suspected unlicensed driver get back behind the wheel and drive away? Do you see my problem with this? If the officer suspected the driver is unlicensed, then in NO WAY should he be doing anything but calling a tow truck and impounding the car until a licensed driver can show up to claim it.

I always thought that if a cop stopped a car and found that it had no licensed driver, or no insurance, or no registration that the car moves not another inch until such deficiencies are remedied. It's not like your busted taillight or cracked windshield that isn't really all that bad, driving without a license, insurance or registration is REALLY REALLY BAD. Bad enough that the car should NOT be allowed back on the road again.

I know impounding a vehicle sucks because I see the sign in Scottsdale Police Department advising the impound fee of $150 to get a towed car out of the car jail.
$150 is a chunk of change by any man's standard but compared to what a car accident costs, it's really not that much.

That's exactly what should happen to unlicensed drivers. If you don't got the license, you don't be driving and your car don't leave the scene of the crime unless you can cough up a licensed driver on the spot. Impounded. Pay the man. Your mistake, your crime, your dime.

I guess North Carolina has a little more tolerance than Arizona then, because we don't throw the book at people for doing something that can easily happen to anyone in a moment of absent mindedness. Shoot I once forgot my car was due for an inspection until about 3 weeks into the next month, when I got caught in a "license check" and the deputy noticed it. I had been busy and stressed out about some family stuff and had just had it slip my mind. Luckily I didn't get a ticket but just got it done the next day. If I had gotten a ticket, all I would have had to do was take the paper to court, prove it was done, and that would have been the end of it. The ticket would have been dismissed.

[LouC]

The police officer in this case appears to be a biggoted jerk.

There is no evidence yet that that is the case.

[LouC]

I guess North Carolina has a little more tolerance than Arizona then, because we don't throw the book at people for doing something that can easily happen to anyone in a moment of absent mindedness. Shoot I once forgot my car was due for an inspection until about 3 weeks into the next month, when I got caught in a "license check" and the deputy noticed it. I had been busy and stressed out about some family stuff and had just had it slip my mind. Luckily I didn't get a ticket but just got it done the next day. If I had gotten a ticket, all I would have had to do was take the paper to court, prove it was done, and that would have been the end of it. The ticket would have been dismissed.

Actually Arizona is much like other states such as Texas.

It is highly doubtful that the Police will impound and tow a vehicle simply because of the driver forgetting to carry their license with them.

If the driver gives ID information, their name address etc. so that the officer can run a check for a license that matches the driver they will be cited and allowed to proceed.

Arizona Code

28-3169. Possession and display of driver license; defense

A. A licensee shall have a legible driver license in the licensee's immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle. On demand of a justice of the peace, a police officer or a field deputy or inspector of the department, a licensee shall display the license.

B. A person who is served a complaint for violating this section is not responsible if the person produces in court or the office of the police officer or field deputy or inspector of the department a legible driver license or an authorized duplicate of the license issued to the person that was valid at the time of the alleged violation of this section.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/03169.htm

[Voxpopuli]

That you naievely believe that woman is in Texas or the US legally tells me several things:

1) You're a Sean Penn liberal
2) You've never spent a day in Texas
3) You believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

That woman is about as legal as Cesar Chavez would be should he pop up in broad daylight in downtown Houston. Geez. :rolleyes:

I lived in Texas my entire life and am not a fan of Sean Penn nor a liberal and I don't believe in Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.

It is not uncommon for legal residents to have a valid drivers license and be on the road in Texas.

.My guess is that maybe 99 out of 100 Mexicans you meet in Texas are illegals---and they are quite open about it. They believe Texas is part of Mexico

This is absurd. You should actually live in Texas before you make comments like this.

[NascarGirl2448]

Actually Arizona is much like other states such as Texas.

It is highly doubtful that the Police will impound and tow a vehicle simply because of the driver forgetting to carry their license with them.

If the driver gives ID information, their name address etc. so that the officer can run a check for a license that matches the driver they will be cited and allowed to proceed.

Ok so not really all that different. I mean really if you show your license is valid in court then I don't see why they would not dismiss a ticket, especially if you have a clean record otherwise. It happens, people get absent minded and forget their wallets (especially if they are in a hurry) and should not be dragged over the coals for it.

[JediMindTrick]

I think you are the first to catch and comment on this.

Actually I pointed out much earlier in the thread that failure to carry your license on your person is essentially a dumb charge to enforce. Cops can easily verify a license from just name and DOB. The only question then becomes is it really the person you have stopped but generally if the vehicle paperwork matches that name you can be pretty sure it is the person you've stopped. In that case the officer is best served not writing the ticket as it will be dropped as soon as she shows her license in court and thus all you've done is waste your own time, waste the courts time, and waste the woman's time.

[gdoane]

I guess North Carolina has a little more tolerance than Arizona then, because we don't throw the book at people for doing something that can easily happen to anyone in a moment of absent mindedness.

Methinks you're overstating the case. Writing a ticket is hardly "throwing the book" and towing a vehicle is a reasonable response should said vehicle lack the basics, like a licensed driver.

I don't get you, you're apparently a NASCAR fan and NASCAR has some of the most rigid rules of the road of any of the motorsports. I know NASCAR will take a car off the road for violating the rules, I've seen 'em do it.

Shoot I once forgot my car was due for an inspection until about 3 weeks into the next month, when I got caught in a "license check" and the deputy noticed it.

We don't actually have vehicle inspections in Arizona. I know what they are because I lived in Virginia for a few years and I actually agree with the premise. Seriously, probably a third of the vehicles on the roads in Phoenix today would probably fail, biggest violation being tread wear.

Do you know what we have in Phoenix that I never saw in a State with vehicle safety inspections?

"Llantas Usadas". USED TIRES. It freaks me out that used tires are allowed to be sold at prices as cheap as $10 apiece. Maybe I'm paranoid but tires really are where the rubber meets the road and they're more than a little bit important in vehicle safety.

If we had safety inspections here, I don't think we'd see crazy stuff like that. People selling used tires and putting them on the road after another driver has rejected them is nuts.

I had been busy and stressed out about some family stuff and had just had it slip my mind. Luckily I didn't get a ticket but just got it done the next day. If I had gotten a ticket, all I would have had to do was take the paper to court, prove it was done, and that would have been the end of it. The ticket would have been dismissed.

No excuses while driving. Maybe cops buy excuses, maybe judges buy excuses but the Newtonian Laws of Physics do not. If you screw up driving, there are some really unforgiving laws that kill and maim people and they don't listen to excuses. Ever.

[gdoane]

Actually I pointed out much earlier in the thread that failure to carry your license on your person is essentially a dumb charge to enforce. Cops can easily verify a license from just name and DOB.

I've got three brothers and I know their names and DOB like my own. What keeps people from lying to the cop? Surely you know that people lie to cops. It's in the job description right next to carrying a badge. Carry a badge, meet crooks and liars and cheats and thieves and other entertaining fellows.

The only question then becomes is it really the person you have stopped but generally if the vehicle paperwork matches that name you can be pretty sure it is the person you've stopped.

I have the keys to my brother's house too. I could drive his truck. Heck, it used to be my truck until I gave it to him because I didn't have room in the driveway for it anymore.

In that case the officer is best served not writing the ticket as it will be dropped as soon as she shows her license in court and thus all you've done is waste your own time, waste the courts time, and waste the woman's time.

I totally don't agree and here's the reason why not:

Cops don't just up and stop drivers. Every time I've been stopped has been for cause. Last time for me was rolling downhill out of Yarnell on a steep grade and Ford Expeditions ride really nice so I didn't notice the thing was doing 80 MPH but DPS sure as heck did. I didn't realize I'd screwed up until I saw the gumball machine light up behind me and then I'm like "Oh Hell. Busted. My bad."

The cops always ask the same thing too. "Do You Know Why I Stopped You?"
Of course the driver knows, because traffic stops aren't done so the cop can say "trick or treat". There's a reason and all the question "DYKWISY" amounts to is "Are you dumb enough to try and lie to me?"

I learned a long time ago that lying doesn't work for me. I don't have the face for it, and cannot for the life of me keep a straight face when I tell a fib. Some might call it a weakness but I consider it a strength actually because honesty is well respected by most people.

However, not everyone is honest and lots of people do lie to cops so I think a trusting cop might be a bit too naive and shouldn't take things at face value so much.

[Lego-Man]

Do you know what we have in Phoenix that I never saw in a State with vehicle safety inspections?

"Llantas Usadas". USED TIRES. It freaks me out that used tires are allowed to be sold at prices as cheap as $10 apiece. Maybe I'm paranoid but tires really are where the rubber meets the road and they're more than a little bit important in vehicle safety.


They have them here in NC. Mostly they are used for spares or just to get by when you can't get a new one. Some of these used tires come from lease returns where the contract requires new tires at the end of the lease period, and the used tires are quite good. Massachusetts has quite a few, and I once got a set that was practically brand new when I lived there.

If a vehicle is totaled in a wreck, you can't sell anything that is parted off as new, and that includes the tires. The tires I mentioned from Mass came from a crash, and had less than 150 miles on them.

Other used tires may be made available if someone gets a deal on 4 new tires. The tread may still be quite good. The last one I bought a couple months ago was.

[Lego-Man]

The cops always ask the same thing too. "Do You Know Why I Stopped You?"
Of course the driver knows, because traffic stops aren't done so the cop can say "trick or treat". There's a reason and all the question "DYKWISY" amounts to is "Are you dumb enough to try and lie to me?"


It can also be an entrapment question. If you know why and admit it, then you are guilty of knowingly violating the law. If you deny it, then you are guilty of lying to the officer. There is no correct answer to this question.

I always say, I think so, but I'm not sure.

[gdoane]

They have them here in NC. Mostly they are used for spares or just to get by when you can't get a new one. Some of these used tires come from lease returns where the contract requires new tires at the end of the lease period, and the used tires are quite good. Massachusetts has quite a few, and I once got a set that was practically brand new when I lived there.

That actually surprises me because I'd figure the Northeast would have snow tires and summer tires and the people there would be changing their sets of tires twice a year at minimum.

The reason crazy cheap freaks go forever without new tires here in Phoenix is because there's no snow and no rain so there's no slippery driving to give these drivers a "come to Jesus" moment when they suddenly turn from driver to passenger as traction becomes a sudden fond memory of the way things used to be.

If a vehicle is totaled in a wreck, you can't sell anything that is parted off as new, and that includes the tires. The tires I mentioned from Mass came from a crash, and had less than 150 miles on them.

That would bother me too for the plain and simple reason that most people in a crash slam on the brakes, don't they? So why wouldn't the tires be flat-spotted?

I know some vehicles have anti-lock brakes (my F-150 has it on all 4 wheels) but those kinds of vehicles are less likely to get into accidents, I mean that's kind of the point of such a system.

Other used tires may be made available if someone gets a deal on 4 new tires. The tread may still be quite good. The last one I bought a couple months ago was.

There are some things I won't skimp on. Things that might save my ass are numero uno on things I won't skimp on. I like saving money as much as the next guy, but I like saving my ass even more.

[Lego-Man]

That actually surprises me because I'd figure the Northeast would have snow tires and summer tires and the people there would be changing their sets of tires twice a year at minimum. I can't comment on that as I just use all weather tires other than to make an assumption that some of these people probably keep a set in the garage.

The reason crazy cheap freaks go forever without new tires here in Phoenix is because there's no snow and no rain so there's no slippery driving to give these drivers a "come to Jesus" moment when they suddenly turn from driver to passenger as traction becomes a sudden fond memory of the way things used to be.Again, No basis for comment for me. We get copius amounts of rain at times.


That would bother me too for the plain and simple reason that most people in a crash slam on the brakes, don't they? So why wouldn't the tires be flat-spotted? The car was t-boned and there wasn't a chance to lock them, but they were still as near to new as they could be.

I know some vehicles have anti-lock brakes (my F-150 has it on all 4 wheels) but those kinds of vehicles are less likely to get into accidents, I mean that's kind of the point of such a system. They don't work when you have no warning, so have no chance to hit the brakes.

There are some things I won't skimp on. Things that might save my ass are numero uno on things I won't skimp on. I like saving money as much as the next guy, but I like saving my ass even more.I don't normally recommend buying four old tires, but when you need one until payday so you can afford a new one ...

Anyway, not all used tires are ready to be junked is what I am trying to say.

[LouC]

...Do you know what we have in Phoenix that I never saw in a State with vehicle safety inspections?

"Llantas Usadas". USED TIRES. It freaks me out that used tires are allowed to be sold at prices as cheap as $10 apiece. Maybe I'm paranoid but tires really are where the rubber meets the road and they're more than a little bit important in vehicle safety.

If we had safety inspections here, I don't think we'd see crazy stuff like that. People selling used tires and putting them on the road after another driver has rejected them is nuts...

Texas has vehicle safety inspections.

They also allow the sale of used tires.

[gdoane]

Texas has vehicle safety inspections.

They also allow the sale of used tires.

Texas' shining moment in history was the Alamo, not exactly a red letter day for citizen safety.

[pdmike]

The cops always ask the same thing too. "Do You Know Why I Stopped You?"

Ever wonder why they do that?

The offending driver has been pulled over. He is definitely not free to go - he is being detained. The cop knows damn well why he pulled the driver over, so he is not seeking information.

What is he seeking? Answer: A confession.

Which brings us to Miranda. Question for the class: Does anyone see a Miranda violation here? (Hint: The correct answer is yes.)

[LouC]

Texas' shining moment in history was the Alamo, not exactly a red letter day for citizen safety.

Dang are you channeling the Segue Queen? :))

[DLaw911]

Ever wonder why they do that?

The offending driver has been pulled over. He is definitely not free to go - he is being detained. The cop knows damn well why he pulled the driver over, so he is not seeking information.

What is he seeking? Answer: A confession.

Which brings us to Miranda. Question for the class: Does anyone see a Miranda violation here? (Hint: The correct answer is yes.)BUT - http://supreme.justia.com/us/468/420/case.html

[gdoane]

Ever wonder why they do that?

Breaking the ice is probably the wrong answer. However, it's part of it. Cops do like to talk.

The offending driver has been pulled over. He is definitely not free to go - he is being detained. The cop knows damn well why he pulled the driver over, so he is not seeking information.

That's an oversimplification. They are seeking information. They only know the what, not the who, or the why.

Remember, Timothy McVeigh was a straight traffic stop for no plates. The cop who stopped him had no clue he had just collared the worst domestic terrorist in American history.

McVeigh had a loaded weapon in the vehicle and was obviously wanting to escape. Had the cop screwed up that stop and let McVeigh go with a warning, his name would be Mudd.

What is he seeking? Answer: A confession.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Guilty people should confess. Ticks me off that people who are fully aware of their own guilt think it's okay to make a jury sit through a trial for days to reach a conclusion they already knew.


Which brings us to Miranda. Question for the class: Does anyone see a Miranda violation here? (Hint: The correct answer is yes.)
Miranda is bad law. I know about Ernesto Arturo Miranda, the trial happened to concern Arizona after all and do you know the rest of the story? Sure, SCOTUS reversed and remanded but Ernie Miranda was retried and reconvicted anyway. He died in a bar fight he started back in 1976 in Arizona a couple of years after his sentence was served, a civil rights icon who was a jackass to the very end.

Miranda is a bad law named after a very bad man.

[JediMindTrick]

Ever wonder why they do that?

The offending driver has been pulled over. He is definitely not free to go - he is being detained. The cop knows damn well why he pulled the driver over, so he is not seeking information.

What is he seeking? Answer: A confession.

Which brings us to Miranda. Question for the class: Does anyone see a Miranda violation here? (Hint: The correct answer is yes.)

Spoken like a true defense lawyer. :))

But your wrong. Its not a miranda violation though I have no doubt you'll try to argue that it is. A lengthy list of court cases disagrees with you.

Here is a link about a case right of Texas where the courts ruled based on numerous other court rulings that a traffic stop does not require a miranda warning.

http://www.tjpc.state.tx.us/publications/reviews/05/05-3-13.htm

[NascarGirl2448]

Methinks you're overstating the case. Writing a ticket is hardly "throwing the book" and towing a vehicle is a reasonable response should said vehicle lack the basics, like a licensed driver.

You've never had an absentminded moment in your life? People can have them all the time. Shoot I had one just today. Took my hunt seat saddle home to clean it, and didn't realize I had forgotten to put it in my car until I'm almost at the barn. Therefore I had to ride my saddleseat saddle on my Appaloosa, who I use the hunt seat saddle on because I do dressage and jumping with him and therefore have to use a different style saddle.

I don't get you, you're apparently a NASCAR fan and NASCAR has some of the most rigid rules of the road of any of the motorsports. I know NASCAR will take a car off the road for violating the rules, I've seen 'em do it.

This ain't the racetrack, this is roads where people are not driving 175 mph. Therefore analogies to motorsports are irrelevant.

We don't actually have vehicle inspections in Arizona. I know what they are because I lived in Virginia for a few years and I actually agree with the premise. Seriously, probably a third of the vehicles on the roads in Phoenix today would probably fail, biggest violation being tread wear.

Tires are expensive. I just had to get brand new tires for my car not long ago, because I ran over something in my driveway (I have a gravel driveway) and whatever it was darn near tore my wheel up.

Do you know what we have in Phoenix that I never saw in a State with vehicle safety inspections?

"Llantas Usadas". USED TIRES. It freaks me out that used tires are allowed to be sold at prices as cheap as $10 apiece. Maybe I'm paranoid but tires really are where the rubber meets the road and they're more than a little bit important in vehicle safety.

Used tires for that cheap?

If we had safety inspections here, I don't think we'd see crazy stuff like that. People selling used tires and putting them on the road after another driver has rejected them is nuts.

Depends on how old they are. If they come off a leased car that's been turned in, chances are they aren't very old. If they come off a junker that someone is selling parts from, that's a whole other story.

No excuses while driving. Maybe cops buy excuses, maybe judges buy excuses but the Newtonian Laws of Physics do not. If you screw up driving, there are some really unforgiving laws that kill and maim people and they don't listen to excuses. Ever.

I guess human beings are smart enough to understand that people can be absentminded once in a while and things like forgetting your wallet with your license inside can happen. Now if you're in a wreck, even if its not your fault, things can always go haywire. No one denies that.

But we're not talking about someone seeing what would happen if they drove like a moron and wrecked. We're talking about people having a moment of being absentminded and making what really amounts to a mistake that doesn't require more than a simple reminder.

[gdoane]

You've never had an absentminded moment in your life? People can have them all the time. Shoot I had one just today. Took my hunt seat saddle home to clean it, and didn't realize I had forgotten to put it in my car until I'm almost at the barn. Therefore I had to ride my saddleseat saddle on my Appaloosa, who I use the hunt seat saddle on because I do dressage and jumping with him and therefore have to use a different style saddle.

Physics are a very unforgiving thing. Horses are extremely dangerous creatures, mankillers. It was a horse that killed Christopher Reeve doing dressage and jumping. One absentminded moment can easily get you killed, and there's no appeals, no mercy, nothing but the icy hand of the Grim Reaper.

This ain't the racetrack, this is roads where people are not driving 175 mph. Therefore analogies to motorsports are irrelevant.

About 50,000 people die per year in the USA in motor vehicle accidents. Bad driving kills more Americans than Al Qaeda's wildest dreams and the reason why is because people don't take driving seriously.

No, people aren't driving at 175 MPH but they are driving 75 MPH and when you do a face plant in the windshield the extra hundred MPH doesn't really matter a hill of beans because you're hitting at the speed of death anyway.

Tires are expensive. I just had to get brand new tires for my car not long ago, because I ran over something in my driveway (I have a gravel driveway) and whatever it was darn near tore my wheel up.

Tires really aren't that expensive if you do a rundown on the costs of vehicle maintenance. My truck would cost about $200 per month if I had a car payment (I don't, but most new vehicle owners do) and $100 per month in insurance payments plus $50 per month in fuel. We're talking about $350 per month for responsible vehicle ownership month to month and tires don't seem all so expensive when the costs are all considered.

Used tires for that cheap?

As cheap as life. I wouldn't buy tires that cheap but what bothers me is the guy in the car behind me would. I drive a 2008 Ford F-150, five star rated in collisions front and back and I'm going to win the crash test with anything this side of heavy construction equipment.

People who buy cheap shoes wonder why they have foot problems. People who buy cheap tires wonder why they have lousy car performance. When the rubber meets the road, that's when you find out that you get what you pay for. Sometimes, it's a very expensive lesson from the school of hard knocks.

Depends on how old they are. If they come off a leased car that's been turned in, chances are they aren't very old. If they come off a junker that someone is selling parts from, that's a whole other story.

Jeff Foxworthy has a comedy bit on leased cars. "Would you like the insurance?" Oh heck yeah, I'm gonna drive this thing like Dukes of Hazzard County, yee-haw!

You have to consider the dealer too. No way in heck would I be going to a "llantas usadas" joint for tires. Where the heck do they get their tires from, and are they honest people? Even if they are, you're talking third-party honesty because the original owner could be a liar.

I guess human beings are smart enough to understand that people can be absentminded once in a while and things like forgetting your wallet with your license inside can happen. Now if you're in a wreck, even if its not your fault, things can always go haywire. No one denies that.

You'll have plenty of time to be absentminded when you're dead. That's a great time to be scatterbrained. Until then, you need to be focused on your personal safety and that of others. If you cannot focus on safety then you have no biz being on the road.

But we're not talking about someone seeing what would happen if they drove like a moron and wrecked. We're talking about people having a moment of being absentminded and making what really amounts to a mistake that doesn't require more than a simple reminder.

No, we're talking about an illegal U-turn with a passenger in the car, a young girl.
HELLO T-BONE.

I've been in a T-BONE accident, an 80-year-old lady didn't see the stop sign and I put a 2000 Chevy 3/4 truck halfway through her Chevy Cavalier. It wasn't even high speed, I was doing 35 MPH and my winch was in her radio. If she'd have had a passenger he'd be dead of radiator asphyxiation.

It's not a little mistake. It's not a whoopsie. I felt bad for the old lady even though it was totally not my fault and pleaded with her to go to the hospital because her pupils weren't dilating right, indicating possible brain damage. The accident was bad, her car looked like a taco and got slammed not just by me but by another car in the lane next to me.

If you don't take driving stone cold seriously at any speed then you do not belong on the road.

[NascarGirl2448]

Physics are a very unforgiving thing. Horses are extremely dangerous creatures, mankillers. It was a horse that killed Christopher Reeve doing dressage and jumping. One absentminded moment can easily get you killed, and there's no appeals, no mercy, nothing but the icy hand of the Grim Reaper.

Actually it wasn't the horse that killed Christopher Reeve, it was the fact that he fell over the horse's neck and landed pretty much on his head.

About 50,000 people die per year in the USA in motor vehicle accidents. Bad driving kills more Americans than Al Qaeda's wildest dreams and the reason why is because people don't take driving seriously.

And how many people die from other causes each year? More than that. If you want to live in a bubble, go right ahead.

No, people aren't driving at 175 MPH but they are driving 75 MPH and when you do a face plant in the windshield the extra hundred MPH doesn't really matter a hill of beans because you're hitting at the speed of death anyway.

That's why they are always testing cars to make things safer. Shoot my mom's Volvo is pretty much an army tank on wheels. Then again Volvos have always been ahead of their time safety wise.

Tires really aren't that expensive if you do a rundown on the costs of vehicle maintenance. My truck would cost about $200 per month if I had a car payment (I don't, but most new vehicle owners do) and $100 per month in insurance payments plus $50 per month in fuel. We're talking about $350 per month for responsible vehicle ownership month to month and tires don't seem all so expensive when the costs are all considered.

Well considering my Jetta is completely paid off, I don't have to worry about having a car payment either. Still, in this economy when you don't have as much money as you used to and life ain't getting any cheaper, people are gonna look to save money somehow.

As cheap as life. I wouldn't buy tires that cheap but what bothers me is the guy in the car behind me would. I drive a 2008 Ford F-150, five star rated in collisions front and back and I'm going to win the crash test with anything this side of heavy construction equipment.

In a pickup truck, you most likely would, especially from the back. Then again, our 2004 Volvo XC90 would give any Ford a run for their money in the safety department.

People who buy cheap shoes wonder why they have foot problems. People who buy cheap tires wonder why they have lousy car performance. When the rubber meets the road, that's when you find out that you get what you pay for. Sometimes, it's a very expensive lesson from the school of hard knocks.

Cheap shoes? I have yet to see such a thing.

Jeff Foxworthy has a comedy bit on leased cars. "Would you like the insurance?" Oh heck yeah, I'm gonna drive this thing like Dukes of Hazzard County, yee-haw!

That guy is hysterical. I love listening to him.

You have to consider the dealer too. No way in heck would I be going to a "llantas usadas" joint for tires. Where the heck do they get their tires from, and are they honest people? Even if they are, you're talking third-party honesty because the original owner could be a liar.

I've never seen an used tire dealer, that I know about. Then again, if Sam's Club is an used tire dealer, then we're in trouble.

You'll have plenty of time to be absentminded when you're dead. That's a great time to be scatterbrained. Until then, you need to be focused on your personal safety and that of others. If you cannot focus on safety then you have no biz being on the road.

Dude have you seen most people on the road today?? Talk about being completely out to lunch!!!

No, we're talking about an illegal U-turn with a passenger in the car, a young girl.
HELLO T-BONE.

I thought this whole argument was about someone absentmindedly forgetting their driver's license? That's something that could happen to anyone. Although people make illegal turns and don't even realize it sometimes. Happened to my uncle one night. We still laugh about how he managed to get out of getting a ticket.

I've been in a T-BONE accident, an 80-year-old lady didn't see the stop sign and I put a 2000 Chevy 3/4 truck halfway through her Chevy Cavalier. It wasn't even high speed, I was doing 35 MPH and my winch was in her radio. If she'd have had a passenger he'd be dead of radiator asphyxiation.

Truck vs car, truck is gonna win. That wasn't even a fair fight.

It's not a little mistake. It's not a whoopsie. I felt bad for the old lady even though it was totally not my fault and pleaded with her to go to the hospital because her pupils weren't dilating right, indicating possible brain damage. The accident was bad, her car looked like a taco and got slammed not just by me but by another car in the lane next to me.

Forgetting your wallet (which is what this whole thing was about!) IS a minor mistake that can indeed happen to anyone.

If you don't take driving stone cold seriously at any speed then you do not belong on the road.

If only more people realized that!!

[gdoane]

Actually it wasn't the horse that killed Christopher Reeve, it was the fact that he fell over the horse's neck and landed pretty much on his head.

Witnesses say the horse spooked for reasons unknown. He didn't just fall over the horse's neck, that horse flat out stopped before the third jump unexpectedly and threw the rider. It's like having bad tires. If you can't trust the only thing between you and landing on your head, then landing on your head is what's gonna happen to you.

And how many people die from other causes each year? More than that. If you want to live in a bubble, go right ahead.

I don't live in any bubble. Far from it. I totally believe in safety. There's a fire extinguisher in my kitchen and in my truck. There's a gun mounted on my wall. There are alarm systems in my house and phones in every room. I'm not a coward, I'm a survivor and I plan to survive. I'm going to die, I know that but it won't be from preventable causes.

That's why they are always testing cars to make things safer. Shoot my mom's Volvo is pretty much an army tank on wheels. Then again Volvos have always been ahead of their time safety wise.

NASCAR is one of the proving grounds. Anybody willing to pay a race car driver a million bucks a year is willing to keep his investment safe. The best drivers live to be very old men. It's the bad drivers who wind up epitaphs on turn three.

Well considering my Jetta is completely paid off, I don't have to worry about having a car payment either. Still, in this economy when you don't have as much money as you used to and life ain't getting any cheaper, people are gonna look to save money somehow.

A Jetta is dangerous as it gets. Seriously dangerous vehicle in my experience, because they're a lot faster than their design allows for. Be careful driving one because if any car can get away from a driver, a Jetta can. That vehicle is the proverbial tiger by the tail.

People looking to save money should look at living another day. It really doesn't matter if you have a retirement plan if you don't live long enough to retire.

In a pickup truck, you most likely would, especially from the back. Then again, our 2004 Volvo XC90 would give any Ford a run for their money in the safety department.

That is not the point. I don't plan to crash my Ford F-150 into anything or anybody, least of all your Volvo XC90. I don't want that and I'm pretty sure you don't want that. My point is that if an accident happens, preparation pays off. I'm going to be the guy with the fire extinguisher. I'm going to be the guy conscious and checking pulses and saving not just my own butt, but other people's butts too.

Driving is not just about you. It's not a selfish act. You have to communicate, signal, be totally predictable and if an accident happens you have to be prepared to render assistance. There's a first aid kit and a fire extinguisher in my truck. How about your Volvo XC90? Is it ready to render aid?

Cheap shoes? I have yet to see such a thing.

Check out a Wal*Mart sometime. They have $5 flip flops I wouldn't put on a dog.

That guy is hysterical. I love listening to him.

The thing about comedians like Jeff Foxworthy is they understand that comedy must have an element of truth. Every joke Foxworthy makes is funny because it's stone cold true. If there were no truth nobody would "get it."

I've never seen an used tire dealer, that I know about. Then again, if Sam's Club is an used tire dealer, then we're in trouble.

I looked at Costco for tires and they didn't balance them. That meant "No Sale" to me because unbalanced tires at 70 MPH means "Lose Control" and I really do not want to be in a car upside down on the freeway doing 70 MPH again. Been there, done that. Not fun.

Dude have you seen most people on the road today?? Talk about being completely out to lunch!!!

That's why I don't want to be like them. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then why would I want to flatter morons?

I thought this whole argument was about someone absentmindedly forgetting their driver's license? That's something that could happen to anyone. Although people make illegal turns and don't even realize it sometimes. Happened to my uncle one night. We still laugh about how he managed to get out of getting a ticket.

It's not an argument, this is a discussion board by design and this is a discussion. There's no prize for winning.

Absentmindedly driving can get people killed. One second at 60 MPH is 88 feet. You can't be absentminded for even one second. If a ticket is all that happens to you, you're getting off lucky. The law of physics is far less forgiving.

Truck vs car, truck is gonna win. That wasn't even a fair fight.

It ain't a fight and I have no intention of playing fair. It's not a game either. It's my life and I'm in it to win it. I plan to survive.

Forgetting your wallet (which is what this whole thing was about!) IS a minor mistake that can indeed happen to anyone.

That's dangerous too.

Let me tell you a story (true one).

About 6 months ago I was cutting up a tree for my girlfriend when the chainsaw bucked and knocked me on my ass. I wound up with a nasty gash on my head, a scalp wound which eventually took three staples to close.

I gave my wallet to my friend and I was bleeding out, Visa, Mastercard, American Express in there and I didn't care, I'd be dead in an hour anyway and the hospital didn't care about any of the money but they did love on the Cigna card. Once they saw the Cigna insurance card they were lovey-dovey. Yes sir, right away sir, all that jazz and if I hadn't have had that wallet, would I have gotten any service?

Heck no! Back of the line with the rest of the bums, that's where I'd be and I'd have probably lost enough blood to cause permanent brain damage.



If only more people realized that!!

Indeed, people should take driving more seriously. It's not a casual thing.