.

Banning P.D.

Interesting article on the Informer. I know some of you don't like the the Informer for various reasons, but I just found them and found them to be very factual with a bit of a spin.


http://www.thebanninginformer.com/?page_id=7178
Libi Uremovic December 04, 2013 at 09:31 AM
'...officer Feola admits to traveling at 75mph, which was the posted speed limit at the location...' it's the posted speed limit for cars, but the posted speed limit for heavy vehicles is 55mph and the legal speed limit in the state of cali is 'what is safe'....
Libi Uremovic December 04, 2013 at 09:35 AM
reason stated on application: "The Banning Police Dept currently utilizes an older armed transport vehicle used in the past by a money transport company. The requested MRAP vehicle would enhance the safety of the department tactical team when approaching critical incidence involving armed suspects." ... mrap stands for "mine resistant ambush protected"....why would a little town need something like this and how could they possibly afford it...??
haden ward December 04, 2013 at 11:00 AM
I don't know, I just saw the wreck part and thought about the previous article on the Informer regarding that vehicle. I believe the vehicle is free to the department under a special program. But I don't think it's gonna be free after all the expenses that are going to be paid out. Glad no one got hurt / killed.
Carol Stull December 04, 2013 at 03:09 PM
Has anyone asked themselves "Why would the US gov't give these vehicles out to local PD's ?" Hemet got one a while back if I'm not mistaken. I know both Banning and Beaumont are full of terrorists - just look at the weekly arrest reports that have "terrorist threats" in the charges. Btw - bail for that can be as high as $500k vs $25k for "criminal threats". The DA's office complained about it but our PD's just keep on doing their own thing. Need to get rid of both PD's and contract with the Rvsd sheriff's dept - way cheaper for the same low level of performance.
Dex December 04, 2013 at 04:37 PM
"The sky's the limit" seems to be the attitude these days when it comes to outfitting our police and fire departments. I'm all for the safety of these guys, but at what cost? It seems like all the police departments are hell bent on outfitting themselves like little military units anymore. I looked at some of the statistics of what we spend on law enforcement these days, compared to 25-30 years ago. I am still trying to pick my jaw up off the floor....
Alexander Cuttleworth December 12, 2013 at 03:41 AM
Honestly, you all get yourselves in a twist over the strangest things. So what if Banning has an armored vehicle. Just because Banning is a small town doesn't mean we are automatically protected against terrorist or any other mass shooting. Carol, do you really think all terrorists are from other countries? I'm sure Sandy Hook never imagined what would happen in their town. I'd much rather be safe than sorry. America is changing, and not for the better. Dex, 25-30 years ago. it was safe for kids to walk to and from school, and play outside until dark. Now we have drive-by shootings. I grew up in La Mesa where nothing much ever happened. It's not that way any more.
Diego Rose December 12, 2013 at 10:56 PM
Oh here comes our ex-military man to scare you into needing to be protected from the bad guys!!! YOU are the problem. You are 8x's more likely to be shot by a police officer than to be involved in any terrorist act!! FACT!!! There is less violent crime today (per capita) than 50 years ago!! FACT!!! Overall crime in the US has been on a decline over the last twenty years. You are scared because you buy what they're selling! You believe in a police state and that government is the best way...What will it take for you to learn? You need to be educated on some of the reality of the world and not what you are sold in the media and by your OWNERS! If you can't tell, that scared American crap chaps my hide....Get some facts quickly so we begin to regain what is being scared away!! A great man once said, and I am paraphrasing, "Those who would trade their liberty for safety should have neither!!" Sad. . . .
Alexander Cuttleworth December 13, 2013 at 12:33 AM
Keep chapping your hide then, Diego. While you might live in a police state, I don't. I'm free to come and go when and where I please. I do obey the laws, something that my parents taught me. You might consider doing that. BTW, I haven't traded my liberty at all
Alexander Cuttleworth December 13, 2013 at 12:46 AM
Too often, Diego, personal liberty is inconsideration of others. For example, you are incensed by the week-end ban on burning wood. Never mind those who are seriously affected by pollution. That doesn't matter since YOU evidently see that as taking away your personal liberty. You are the problem, Diego, not me.
Diego Rose December 13, 2013 at 02:09 AM
My feet vote for me. . . If I don't like something you do, I avoid you!! If I don't like what you say at me, I don't listen. If I were any more affected by pollution than I already am, I would probable not live in/around the LA basin. Liberty requires tolerance and some level of personal responsibility! I have a feeling you would benefit from this quiz? . . . . . http://shiftinggearsca.org/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=promo&utm_campaign=shiftinggears. . . Care to take it? We have legislated our lives away in order to protect everyone from themselves and in the end we created a society of well, THIS QUIZ! You do live in a police state and you know it but you won't accept it because you and your profession have built it. Sorry but true.
Alexander Cuttleworth December 13, 2013 at 06:38 AM
Diego, I took the quiz but honestly don't see the point of it. No incarceration for criminals and drug users? Fine, let's just shoot them and there would be no reason for prisons. I should have guessed that was a northern CA ACLU website. Treat people fairly? Ask the victims that question. The sky is falling and the black choppers are hovering overhead. Commit a crime and go to prison. No pity; everyone has a choice.
Diego Rose December 13, 2013 at 11:42 AM
I order to live in my idea of what America is, you'll need tolerance. In order to live in the America that you seem to want, you'll need obedience!! You will never get it. You were just born to be a yes man! When the land of the FREE has more people incarcerated than every other country in the world, you are not in the land of the free. If you really didn't get anything from that quiz then you are either unwilling to listen and learn, or you are just plain ignorant. Either way, you seem to be part of the problem that will have to be fixed in order for the country to begin healing........Your a real piece of work. I can hardly wait for them to declare martial law. I'll bet you'll fall right in line. You should also check out the Oath Keepers. Those are some real stand up vets and police who seem to have a better grasp of reality than you. In my opinion of course.
Alexander Cuttleworth December 13, 2013 at 04:53 PM
Diego, if the point of that quiz was to shame me and the Nation for having so many incarcerated, it didn't work. Everyone has a choice to comment a crime or not. This is pretty classic Ron Paul. Tolerance towards whom and why? You stated that the US has more people incarcerated than every other country. My first reaction was 'so?' but what is your solution? I have never committed a crime nor been arrested; not as a child nor an adult. That is my choice. It's not blind obedience since I can understand the reason for the laws. I don't personally know anyone who has ever been arrested or committed a crime. The bottom line, which you are ignoring, is choice.
Diego Rose December 13, 2013 at 08:59 PM
You wrote,"Everyone has a choice to comment a crime or not" I'm sure you mistyped commit, but your point being that everyone must "choose" to break laws. I promise you that you have in fact broke a law. . . .Unless you have lived under a rock I guarantee that you have in fact broke at least one law even in the simplest of existence's. There is a law for almost every aspect of your life and every life around you. From driving to taking medications given by a doctor, to enjoying a beer at your own house. No matter, you have broke a law! What you haven't done has been get caught, targeted, or falsely accused in court of breaking a law. There really is a whole world outside of your house that is not black and white. There is a lot of grey and many of those grey areas get filled in with people who simply didn't know the law. Are you aware of all the laws on the books. Did you know last year alone, over 29,400 new laws were added to the books throughout the country. Do you believe peace officers have any moral duty when enforcing bad laws or is the age old,"I was just doing my job, I don't make the laws" good enough? What if cops, military personnel, federal agents and other government agents were instructed to kill every civilian on site who was caught littering? Would people be correct in being mad at those cops and government agents or does all responsibility go toward the people who made the 'litter and die' rule up and the cops would be removed from all moral responsiblity because they were merely getting paid to do a job. If your answer is that they would hold some responsiblity, then why don't they hold any responsibility when it comes to other laws such as civil asset forfeiture, tax liens, or even remodeling your kitchen without a permit? Is it merely because the extremeness of the the example provided? If so, what criteria do you use to determine that the degree of the "crime" determines the cop's culpability when it comes to enforcement? As "impractical" as this scenario seems, I would like you to respond on a philosophical level and answer the whole question if you feel so inclined. Sorry it's bit wordy.
Alexander Cuttleworth December 13, 2013 at 10:32 PM
I'll try, Diego. Yes, spell check got me again :) Commit, not comment. I admit that I don't know all the laws, especially new ones. I do believe that peace officers have the a moral duty to enforce laws, good or bad. Peace officers do not make the laws; they just enforce them. Laws created by the government, State or Federal, whom the public elected. Driving through litter clogged Banning, perhaps your hypothesis would be appropriate. But if it became a law, then the peace officer, etc, would be responsible for enforcing the law, whether they agreed with it or not. Littering, while annoying and ugly, is a little extreme. There are a host of common sense laws that many people resent, such as the seat belt law. That's just common sense, which unfortunately some people don't have. But at the same time, there are a host of good laws. I doubt that littering would bring a prison sentence so that doesn't account for the number of people who are incarcerated. I believe that we, as a Nation, have, in effect, encouraged people to take what they want because these people feel like they deserve it. We've become a 'I don't have it so I'm taking yours' Nation. Suppose a kid takes your son's ipad. Should the kid be punished? A teen breaks into your home & steals your computer. Should that teen be punished? An adult steals your car and wreaks it. Should that adult be punished? My response to all these scenarios is yes, each punished to the full extent of the law. But what would you suggest as a solution to incarceration? Let each person get away with it because of their civil liberties? But trying to make my response as thorough as possible, if the law stated that a person who litters must be shot, then there is no culpability on the part of the peace officer. However, if the person that litters immediately picked up the trash, and was shot anyway, then the peace officer would be culpable.
Diego Rose December 14, 2013 at 02:51 AM
Well that certainly answered a lot. You wrote a few things, one being,"we, as a Nation, have, in effect, encouraged people to take what they want because these people feel like they deserve it." Well this "nation" of the same elected officials you spoke of passing laws, are extracting your and my wealth through these laws, and providing for a "nation" of entitled people. Those people become dependent on that entitlement and yes "we" have created this society. Government can provide nothing that it does not first take from you or I, including your rights. (My inherent problem with the city of Banning buying an armored vehicle to police the city in) My problem will never be with any officer enforcing sensible laws. The fact is that "we" as a nation have allowed the thought that you can legislate away stupidity, run amok, against the principles of liberty and freedom. 29,400 new laws last year ALONE!! Please stop keeping me safe from me. Of course their should be jails and I am in full support of the death penalty when applied with integrity and due diligence! However, you may be willing to admit that there are entirely too many laws, codes, and ordinances. There are so many, that you could spend your entire life fighting them in order to simply live the way you want, and do so without hurting anyone else. . . . . I am wondering this as well. What are your thoughts on the soldier who follows orders from his commanding officers even though he knows it is wrong? Similar to torture? I respect something about those who can simply do without questioning why. I am not wired that way. Very thankful for your time and thoughts. .
Alexander Cuttleworth December 14, 2013 at 11:13 PM
Good evening, Diego. Sorry for the delay; the winds and I fought over raking the leaves to see who would win. THE wind most certainly won. I guess the reason I am not overly concerned about my personal liberties is that I do live the way I wish. If I owned a small business, I would not be happy in California because it is not a small business friendly environment, I realize that Social Security is often considered an entitlement, but as long as I am paying into it, it is not an entitlement in my opinion. Several years ago and before the economy went toxic, I talked to a store manager who was trying to hire an assistant. She wasn't able to find anyone who was qualified and willing to work. Applicants would rather collect unemployment than actively seek a paying job. Ridiculous situation. But you ask about the military. First, I want to state the I enjoyed almost every minute of my USAF career, even with being undermanned. If a military member directly refuses to obey aa command, it means a Court Martial or at best, an Article 15. Ether way the member can forget about making a career of the military, unless the order was so ridiculous that the member was able to by-pass the Commander and go up the chain of command. Each military member is required to follow orders to the letter and has taken a pledge to do that. And honestly, it has to be that way or the unit could fail. Not always easy especially when one's CO is a first class jerk. This has been a very interest discussion, Diego, and I appreciate your politeness. and openness.
Diego Rose December 15, 2013 at 06:12 AM
Ditto.
desertpatriot December 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM
stinkin' rose wrote: "When the land of the FREE has more people incarcerated than every other country in the world, you are not in the land of the free" question: aren't you the one that said "There is less violent crime today (per capita) than 50 years ago!! FACT!!! Overall crime in the US has been on a decline over the last twenty years"? can you see the contradiction here? would you agree that we the good are free from those (incarcerated) who are bad? isn't that a good thing?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something