<0.25% of the total stopped netted an arrest for the purpose of the exercise.
It's well known that saturation patrols are more effective, but seriously, had they staged this effort for an exodus from the Country Club, it might have been worth the effort. As it sits, it was a colossal waste of monies for the return on the premise of the grant.
A couple of local Jefferson City streams listed on the 303(d) "impaired" waters list (which I am sure they readily would be listed) would garner some serious attention to the Capitol city's water woes). DNR has no right pointing a finger at Cole Co. when it has it's own house to tend to.
It really is a pity the agency can't see to fulfilling its mandates by We The People as contained in RSMO 644.051. I know the politicos won't jump unless somebody sues and wins or EPA puts the hammer down. Being driven by litigation and politics is not sound science and causes more problems that the agency isn't staffed to solve.
In general, if it's not a "conservative" slanted media outlet, "conservatives" don't care for it. It works the same for "liberals". Still, if reporting is what it is, then speculation or opinionated inclusions by reporters should be clearly spelled-out as such.
Uh, big whoop? What I read is 72 of 452 citations from who knows how many drivers stopped netted a ticket relevant to the enforcement purpose--use of safety belts. Being as a seatbelt violation isn't probable cause for a stop (secondary violation), that's 72 tickets for seatbelts in addition to a primary violation such as speeding, failure to maintain equipment, expired tags, failure to obey signals (running stop sign/light), C&I, or not using turn signals.
Color me nonplussed. The number of peeps stopped for a primary violation should be a matter of routine. I wonder how the 237 stops indicated for a primary violations stacks-up to a typical weekend? That would be something worth noting. The remaining 215 citations were all for secondary violations--meaning the driver was stopped for some other legitimate (maybe) reason.
State has a problem with racism too.
Pertaining to this issue, methinks every dime the county spends in the city, the city should have cut from its budget.
JC is terrible--City cops, county cops, highway patrol, capitol police, highway patrol, other agents with Law Enforcement Commissions, all patrolling the same streets. Talk about waste and redundancy.
I'm surprised the City hasn't had something to say about the matter, or the county. Money has to be changing hands somewhere somehow for this kind of coordinated (unresisted) jurisdictional overlap.
Wouldn't work with DNR and MDC. Funding sources in their charters. Also, one of two things would happen; DNR could no longer be legislature's whipping-boy as it currently is, because of how funding is drafted into that agency's Charter. They can, and do, whack DNR's funding at every chance they can get. They will NOT give that up. They also can control permit fees, even appropriate those fees away from that agency. They're not going to give that up either.
They can't do so with MDC because of pittman-robertson and other controls in the Charter.
So, back when Blunt said "no new vehicles for any state agencies.", Conservation bought pretty-much a new fleet. DNR was in vehicles 10yrs-old with parts falling off.
MODOT is also protected. Not so the any education departments--remember the raw deal they got with the state Lottery?
The boards and commissions typically already don't respond to public comments unless there is a credible threat of litigation. It won't change a thing as to who gets what; the Department itself has been legislatures whipping boy for a long time. Decisions are not only influenced by the Gov. or their cabinet, but also by individual reps & sens. Already the level of serving "at pleasure" has descended as low as it can be taken, and much lower than it should.
You want a better DNR? Clamor for a way to make appointments durable so that politics, power, and influence takes a hind-seat to science. Blunt put politicians in control (ex-Sen Childers, who recommended current Sen. Schafer). Nixon has put lawyers in control. Staff can't effect the duties of the department's charter and mission (the will of the people) as a result.
Uh, huh. And that's why we have a democratic Gov, a black, liberal, pro-fem POTUS, divided National congress, and a "conservative" slanted SCOTUS.
The "conservative" backlash will eat itself. The TPers already demonstrated that, or weren't you paying the attention bill?
We're in a time that both parties need to tread very carefully. Woe to those that don't, because they'll be in the limelight at lightspeed.
Seen much action out of our Conservative Republican dominated, veto-proof house majority in Missouri? I would that they had your gusto. What they are suffering is aftershock, as in "oh crud. it's all on us, huh? we better be careful..."
And that would be why they haven't gone all yippee-ki-yay and put in motion all sort of "conservative" intrusions aligned with big business exemptions.
Or, did you have another reason they've been so quiet in their veto-proof majority where they can force their agenda with nigh utter impunity?
They're scared. That's good.
Actually, there are a lot of implications where cheaper surveillance is considered. First, look at the violations from manned flyovers. Next, consider that the Agricultural Statistical Service maintains complete confidentiality on production numbers. Why? Because some people are declaring less than they have. That could potentially make some information quite interesting to the IRS.
Does the legislature have better things to do? Yep. And need I remind that this legislature's party dominance was the same party seeking to make it a crime to photograph agricultural operations from public right-of-ways, even in the case where there was an obvious violation?
Just adhere to the rules on the books. If you're violating private property boundaries, stop, unless you have cause that'll get you a warrant to proceed. It's not that hard. There are blank-check warrants for search and seizure at the CCSD. All the officer has to do is fill in the blanks. They are already signed by the judge.
I equate a breed of animal known for aggressiveness and damage potential to a firearm with a mind of its own. Granted force was necessary, but significant restraint was exercised. That's grace under pressure. Props guys-n-gals! :-)
(I'm normally the among last to compliment LEOs on their discretion, if that weights my compliment any...)
Last login: Monday, July 1, 2013
© 2013 News Tribune Publishing.