This is response to Laile Atkin’s letter, dated Nov. 14, “Police officers must set example.” I agree with Mrs. Atkin.
If I am driving and talking on a cell phone, I am breaking the law unless I am using a hands-free device. Then it is OK to talk on a cell phone while driving.
So why can’t police officers, or any public servant, use hands-free devices, just like everybody else?
I am surprised that with today’s modern technology, all emergency vehicles are not equipped with Bluetooth hands-free devices.
But you put this in first,"You are correct, but wouldn't that parent who wrote the original letter be setting a bad example for their children by calling 911 on his/her cellphone?"I say, no, not if it is an emergency.
And then you say,"Probably be best for him/her to wait and dial 911 after driving another several miles to the nearest exit and then safely pull over and use his/her cellphone safely setting the proper example for his/her children." This could happen lets say if she were on a freeway, but she didn't say that. So if this is your clause it doesn't fit the story. If I remember correctly she didn't say she was on a freeway. IMO, you put what you say is a clause to try and get away with saying stupid stuff that doesn't pertain to the story. It's what most people call stirring the pot.
No more bereating each other over pretend what-if scenarios that are not clear and present danger. What's obvious to you is a completely different scenario than the original article addressed. I also put a clause in my comment for emergency situations.
That's not what is called "smart alik". It was a clause, depending on case by case basis. I think you missed may have missed that part.
No she would not now thanks to the berating she took from a select few of you. That even tho you all pounced on her, which is the norm here, I think you all could have been more teachable in your responses. And your distasteful smart alick remark which would obviously put someone in danger if that was the way a 911 calls from a cvilian was handled, say she saw someone getting raped would put an made up victim in serious trouble, say if it were your child at risk. I'm sure you would want someone to take there time calling 911. Maybe a rape victim to you is rated low on your priority list of when to make a 911 call while driving or waiting and pulling over to a safer location. Personally, I would call 911 and start honking my horn to attempt to scare the rapist away. The reason I say this is because every situation has to be handled on a case by case basis. That is how the cops do it.
You are correct, but wouldn't that parent who wrote the original letter be setting a bad example for their children by calling 911 on his/her cellphone?
Probably be best for him/her to wait and dial 911 after driving another several miles to the nearest exit and then safely pull over and use his/her cellphone safely setting the proper example for his/her children.
Unless it requires an immediate call to the TPD or the TFD's 911 call center. I bet that would confuse the heck outta those we're supposed to be setting an example for? They'd probably think we're nuts?
If you want to walk around looking like a borg with several blue-tooth devices in each ear, that's your business.
But, why do we feel the need to push opinions on everybody else?
The law states they can use cellphones because this was already discussed and decided by people you voted into California and federal government, people.
Perhaps you should have paid attention to who you were voting for and what laws they were votin' into law.
Complaining about it now is kinda like ignorance of the law. And wasn't that how these letters got started in the first place?
I couldn't agree more against both writers and would like to know where they got their 'info' from?
There are a few other exemptions, but I don't think there's been an issue with anyone except law enforcement because they are so visible to the average person. Patrol cars at the same eye level as most drivers and there's something about a police car that immediately grabs our attention. The odds are we're gonna see a police officer holding a cell phone before we notice the driver of a fire truck or ambulance.
It's Catch-22 for law enforcement. We want them to be visible and are relieved to know they are on patrol, yet it's this same visibility that makes them "targets" for every "armchair quarterback" with an opinion on how they should do their jobs.
The fact is the law states they are exempt. Quit your whining.
Do ya really want ta impair th hearing of yer police officers by havin a bluetooth device stuck in thair ear?
Now here's a way ya can drive with yer cell phone while yer talkin on it.
Just become a policeman or a fireman an when yer on th job ya can use yer cellphone ta yer hearts content.
By th way, not all public workers have this privlege, just th cops an firemen.
An honestly, I feel sorta sorry fer ya in that ya have th notion that ya just absolutely need ta be yackin on th phone when yer drivin down th road instead of payin attention ta yer drivin an worryin th police are doin somethin that you can't do.
How did our society come ta be married to these little electronic leashes where we feel we just gotta have em an use them all th time?
Are all yer telephone conversations really all that important ya gotta have these things glued ta yer head everywhair ya go?
Apparently so. At least sum people thank so.