Re: What can you say but..............TEXAS........ ;) (67HEAVEN)
This is obviously a composed picture, but in my experience, constables in Texas are wannabe sheriffs anyway. Even though they are technically law enforcement, it is an elected office with few duties and little jurisdiction. No insult is intended for those who wear the title with honor and dignity in the RCMP of course. :D :D
While I was living in Houston, a story made the news about one of these constable maroons that had CLOCKED A TRAIN speeding through a small outlying town (this is a true story...if I'm lying, I'm dying!). So what did this clown do about this grievous disrespect for the LAW? He raced ahead to the next crossing and stood on the railroad tracks with weapon drawn and trained on the oncoming offender!
I think the train did manage to stop before shots were fired or the constable gene pool was improved. Wadda' maroon! But, you have to give him a little credit...what he lacked in brains, he made up in balls. :nonod:
Now, I ask you fellers, where can you be entertained with stories like the one above? Not SNL, not The Comedy Channel, but... LIVE FROM CORVETTE FORUM IT'S Factory Correct Resto! (SNL intro theme in the background) :lol: :lol:
[Modified by Chuck Sangerhausen, 12:46 AM 10/26/2002]
Re: What can you say but..............TEXAS........ ;) (Chuck Sangerhausen)
Quote:
This is obviously a composed picture, but in my experience, constables in Texas are wannabe sheriffs anyway. Even though they are technically law enforcement, it is an elected office with few duties and little jurisdiction. No insult is intended for those who wear the title with honor and dignity in the RCMP of course. :D :D
None taken. I guess 'constable' and 'sheriff' denote something different south of the border. Up here, sheriffs don't have full peace officer status (ie: they can't arrest people or write tickets) and they mainly serve to escort prisoners to court and provide courtroom security. They used to deliver subpoenas and summons but don't anymore.
Up here, a constable is a peace officer- one of the few, the proud, the thin blue line between civilization and anarchy!! :eek:
The RCMP was paramilitary for it's conception in 1873 as the North West Mounted Police. Originally, Sir John A. Macdonald (a distant relative, by the way, and our first Prime Minister) wanted to call the regiment the North West Mounted Rifles and keep them under the auspices of the Army but that changed as the mandate was to stop liquor trafficking in the North-west by unscrupulous traders from south of the border (uhhmm, that would be the 'Mericans, ya bunch of carpet-baggers!! :D), to gain the respect and confidence of the natives and to perform all the duties of a police force.
The NWMP was modelled after the Royal Irish Constabulary but with a paramilitary basis. The initial regiment was to be 300 men but, before the first Commissioner could complete his recruiting and training, more troubles began. The first Troops (3 Troops of 50 men each) were quickly organized after the government received reports from Cypress Hills that white wolf hunters had massacred a band of the Assiniboine indians.
Starting a tradition that continues to this day, the Commissioner of the day made a knee-jerk reactionary decision and sent his men forth: short handed, under equipped, only partially trained and without experienced leaders.
After 129+ years, that's still how we do business: knee-jerk reactionary decision making by upper ranks, short handed, under equipped, etc etc.
Re: What can you say but..............TEXAS........ ;) (Mac)
Quote:
I guess 'constable' and 'sheriff' denote something different south of the border. Up here, sheriffs don't have full peace officer status (ie: they can't arrest people or write tickets) and they mainly serve to escort prisoners to court and provide courtroom security. They used to deliver subpoenas and summons but don't anymore.
Indeed, the job titles do denote something different down in the USA. In fact, it's like the the duties are exactly the same, but yawl got the titles swapped. Constables down here can arrest people and write tickets if they run across crime in progress. :D :D
County sheriffs have more jurisdiction in the US than any other law enforcement agency. Sheriff departments have jurisdiction anywhere inside their county, but usually defer that jurisdiction to local police departments inside the city limits. Even inside the cities, the county sheriff's department get involved with felonies, because in Texas, it is usually the counties that prosecute the perps.
Ouside the city limits, felony law enforcement is almost the sole domain of the sheriffs, although the Department of Public Safety (Highway Patrol) does help out with traffic control and with large felony deals (Texas Rangers)...you know, like huge drug arrests, Republic of Texas militants like Richard Davis, etc.
Of course, there will usually be also be others eager to share the limelight saying "We're from the government, and we're here to help you". After that fateful Waco campaign by the ATF/FBI, Texas law enforcement maintained jurisdiction of the Richard Davis situation, and gun violations or not, everybody got out alive except a couple of hard cases who decided to make a run for it.
Hey, I just noticed...that orange license plate on that 55 Shoebox ain't no Texas plate! No wonder that ole geezer got stopped...that officer probably saw that Yankee license plate, and decided to check him out. Constable Smith probably thought that ole geezer was a "terrorist". :lol: :lol:
[Modified by Chuck Sangerhausen, 9:47 AM 10/26/2002]
Re: What can you say but..............TEXAS........ ;) (Chuck Sangerhausen)
Quote:
County sheriffs have more jurisdiction in the US than any other law enforcement agency. Sheriff departments have jurisdiction anywhere inside their county, but usually defer that jurisdiction to local police departments inside the city limits. Even inside the cities, the county sheriff's department get involved with felonies, because in Texas, it is usually the counties that prosecute the perps.
Here in Canajun Land, the RCMP has jurisdiction throughout the Dominion. We are the Federal police force (equivalent to FBI) but we also do Provincial policing (equivalent to state) as well as municipal. Needless to say, we're a large and complicated organization.
Quote:
Outside the city limits, felony law enforcement is almost the sole domain of the sheriffs, although the Department of Public Safety (Highway Patrol) does help out with traffic control and with large felony deals (Texas Rangers)...you know, like huge drug arrests, Republic of Texas militants like Richard Davis, etc.
Texas Rangers? Isn't that the baseball team George Duh-bull-yuh used to own?? :lol:
Re: What can you say but..............TEXAS........ ;) (Mac)
Quote:
Here in Canajun Land, the RCMP has jurisdiction throughout the Dominion
What Mac means to say here is that he gets to stick is nose in anywhere-the-hell he wants to..... :lol: :lol: :lol: ....not that there's anything wrong with that. :D
Re: What can you say but..............TEXAS........ ;) (Mac)
Quote:
Texas Rangers? Isn't that the baseball team George Duh-bull-yuh used to own??
Well, Sonny, iffn' you git to doin' any cattle rustlin' or uther cross county felony crime in Texas, yew will git yer education completed fer ya. Texas Rangers are the plains clothes investigation division of Texas' Department of Public Safety. Now, I know you have got to be pullin' my leg...even people up there in Canajunland have had to watch about a kazillion re-runs of "Walker, Texas Ranger". :D :D
Of course, there ain't as many Texas Rangers as there are Mounties (aka "a large and complicated organization"), cuz one Texas Ranger is worth about 30 Mounties. You know what they say down here..."One riot = one Ranger". :lol: :lol:
Re: What can you say but..............TEXAS........ ;) (Chuck Sangerhausen)
Quote:
Of course, there ain't as many Texas Rangers as there are Mounties (aka "a large and complicated organization"), cuz one Texas Ranger is worth about 30 Mounties. You know what they say down here..."One riot = one Ranger". :lol: :lol:
I always was impressed with Ranger Walker.......you know........why simply arrest the bad guys when you can have a good ol' karate fight first? Now, silly me........if'n I ran across three suspected murderers, I'd prolly just pull my trusty .45 and yell, "Hike 'em boys, and I ain't foolin'!!!". But not our boy Ranger Walker. Why bother with that nasty ol' pistole in your holster when you can practice all your moves on the bad guys "for free".
One of these days, though, one of them bad guys is gonna think to hisself, "Heh, maybe I should pull out my own weapon while this here idiot is kickin' everbody in sight!?!? :crazy: "
Re: What can you say but..............TEXAS........ ;) (67HEAVEN)
Quote:
I always was impressed with Ranger Walker.......you know........why simply arrest the bad guys when you can have a good ol' karate fight first?
There...just as thought! You Canajuns ARE afflicted with the same terrible TV programming as we are south of the border. :D
As soon as I posted that statement, I figured it was mistake...I just knew ole Macster was going to come back and say nobody watched it up there because it was brain deadening, and he would have been right. It will take the Texas Rangers a long time to live down this contribution to Chuck Norris' long colorful karate career. :D :D
Re: What can you say but..............TEXAS........ ;) (Chuck Sangerhausen)
One of my favorite sayings is attributed to Chuck Norris. "Men are like steel- both are useless when the temper is out." Makes sense to me!
The Rangers predate the Mounties, having been first mustered in 1823 as guides and protecters for immigrants (if memory serves) although not officially recognized as a law enforcement agency until a few years later. I don't think the Rangers started using Dodge trucks for patrol vehicles and using karate wheel kicks instead of guns until much, much later.
One of the Canadian historic events which has, of late, has come under scrutiny was the Metis Rebellion of 1885 when Louis Riel decided to formented a rebellion against the government of Canada. Under his guidance, the Metis people united and began raiding and looting the various prairie communities. Riel proclaimed his group to be a separate nation (under his governance, of course) from Canada. The Mounties rode against the group and eventually captured Riel and dispersed his group. Riel was tried and convicted for treason and was hanged.
A prominent defence lawyer in Ontario, Ed Greenspan (no relation to Allan that I know of), studied the transcripts of the trial and recently released the results of his review- Riel should have been found 'Not Guilty' in his opinion. A bit late, I suppose, since he was hanged in 1885.
Re: What can you say but..............TEXAS........ ;) (Mac)
Quote:
A prominent defence lawyer in Ontario, Ed Greenspan (no relation to Allan that I know of), studied the transcripts of the trial and recently released the results of his review- Riel should have been found 'Not Guilty' in his opinion. A bit late, I suppose, since he was hanged in 1885.
Let me guess....the dude's civil libeties were violated....hehehehe.....in those days there were no civil liberties, no liberal judges....you mess up, u gonna swing, boy. Kinda makes me wish we still had the law of the land. Just think about this a minute.....think O.J. would have walked had his missdeed taken place 120 years ago?
Re: What can you say but..............TEXAS........ ;) (67HEAVEN)
Quote:
Well, George, if the truth be told, do you think O.J. would have even been married to a white woman 120 years ago?
Down in the Southland 120 years ago, OJ would have been hung because he looked at a white woman the wrong way, let alone because he murdered her, and I don't think the trial would have taken nearly as long as that one either.
Re: What can you say but..............TEXAS........ ;) (Chuck Sangerhausen)
I'm pretty much a 'live and let live' kinda guy when it comes to who you wed and who you bed; it ain't nobody's business but your own until you tell me I have to change how I live my life!
The tactics which allowed OJ to walk have become endemic in our legal systems. It's no longer a question of innocent or guilty- it's a question of whether the police jumped through all the appropriate hoops and, if they did, then attack the credibility of the individual officers. The evidence standards are no longer 'guilt beyond a reasonable doubt', it's 'guilt beyond any doubt' in the criminal courts. Of course, my objectivity in these matters could be called into question..... ;)
Corvette Store
What can you say but..............TEXAS........ ;)
