Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Another one for Fo
Author Message
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #41
RE: Another one for Fo
I liked the answer I heard from some talking head yesterday who was asked what should be done. "I think it should be left up to the Moats famly." I would hope, for the officer's sake, that they'd be more charitable than I would.
03-29-2009 02:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
onlinepole Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,196
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 18
I Root For: NU & NIU
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Another one for Fo
While it can be debated whether or not Powell is a bigot; he has shown poor judgement and use of authority in the past based up on the following article:

Updated: March 29, 2009, 2:50 AM ET
Thomas' wife detained by Moats' cop
Comment Email Print Share
ESPN.com news services

Another allegation has surfaced against the officer who prevented Houston Texans running back Ryan Moats from entering a hospital to see his dying mother-in-law last week.

The Dallas Morning News reports that Maritza Thomas, wife of former Cowboys linebacker Zach Thomas, was handcuffed and spent approximately three hours in jail after Dallas officer Robert Powell pulled her over for an illegal U-turn in July 2008.

"This in no way compares to what happened to Ryan Moats and his family," Thomas told The Morning News. "But we wanted to tell our story, not knowing how many others have been affected by Officer Powell. We know the vast majority of the Dallas police force are good and professional people, but this guy just seems excessive."

Four of the five tickets issued against Maritza Thomas were later dropped including failure to show proof of insurance, running a red light, improper address on driver's license and a registration sticker was not on the windshield. She accepted deferred adjudication for the illegal U-turn charge, and her record will be cleared next month.

"This situation never should've happened," Maritza Thomas' attorney, Brody Shanklin told The Morning News. "Unless extraordinary circumstances exist, no person should be arrested for a Class C citation. In this case, it was an example of Officer Powell being overzealous and exerting his authority in a manner that he never should have."

Bob Gorsky, Powell's attorney, defended his client's actions.

"I do understand that an arrest on multiple traffic charges happens often and is absolutely proper under these circumstances," Gorsky told The Morning News. "Often, when there are multiple charges, an arrest made and bond posted, some of the charges from a single event are later dropped."

Powell pulled over Moats for running a red light on his way to the hospital to see his dying mother-in-law. Powell detained Moats for 13 minutes, in which time his mother-in-law died. Powell issued an apology on Friday.

A Dallas police spokesman declined to comment but said the department would investigate any complaint filed against Powell, who is on administrative leave.

I assume that Maritza Thomas is a Caucasian because Zach Thomas is. This officer seems to display the same lack of professional behavior no matter who he encounters.
03-29-2009 03:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #43
RE: Another one for Fo
(03-27-2009 03:01 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  You may remember the Odwalla fatal outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 bacteria in 1996 caused by contamination of apple juice. Odwalla originally sold unpasteurized juices because the process of pasteurization alters the flavor of juice.

And certainly the recent peanut scare will cause people to demand a "safer" food supply.

I respect that these laws were put in place for a reason. Thy also prevent lots of cost-cutting dairies from putting out bad product. But, there should be alternatives for people who want those products. There also needs to be the understanding, that if someone wants to break the rules, they will, and more rules won't prevent that.

And seriously, raids?
03-30-2009 07:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SumOfAllFears Offline
Grim Reaper of Misguided Liberal Souls
*

Posts: 18,213
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 58
I Root For: America
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Another one for Fo
(03-30-2009 07:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  
(03-27-2009 03:01 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  You may remember the Odwalla fatal outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 bacteria in 1996 caused by contamination of apple juice. Odwalla originally sold unpasteurized juices because the process of pasteurization alters the flavor of juice.

And certainly the recent peanut scare will cause people to demand a "safer" food supply.

I respect that these laws were put in place for a reason. Thy also prevent lots of cost-cutting dairies from putting out bad product. But, there should be alternatives for people who want those products. There also needs to be the understanding, that if someone wants to break the rules, they will, and more rules won't prevent that.

And seriously, raids?

Well then, you understand the reason for the laws, but some laws, and some people are allowed to break the laws and society should just be around to pick up the pieces.

Great Philosophy there Dr.

Scofflaw is the term.
03-30-2009 09:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #45
RE: Another one for Fo
(03-30-2009 09:09 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(03-30-2009 07:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  
(03-27-2009 03:01 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  You may remember the Odwalla fatal outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 bacteria in 1996 caused by contamination of apple juice. Odwalla originally sold unpasteurized juices because the process of pasteurization alters the flavor of juice.

And certainly the recent peanut scare will cause people to demand a "safer" food supply.

I respect that these laws were put in place for a reason. Thy also prevent lots of cost-cutting dairies from putting out bad product. But, there should be alternatives for people who want those products. There also needs to be the understanding, that if someone wants to break the rules, they will, and more rules won't prevent that.

And seriously, raids?

Well then, you understand the reason for the laws, but some laws, and some people are allowed to break the laws and society should just be around to pick up the pieces.

Great Philosophy there Dr.

Scofflaw is the term.

You may have misunderstood me. I'm saying that there need to be alternatives in place to get to the purpose of the law. You want raw milk? Don't make it illegal, just require a dairy submit samples for bacteria analysis. The rest of us will drink pastuerized if we don't take the time to research raw milk.

What I was saying about the peanut situation is that extra laws never ensure safety, b/c if someone ignores the current ones, they'll ignore the extra ones.

OTOH, I am a scofflaw at times. There are bad laws on the books. There are also mutually contradicting laws on the books, tough not to be a scofflaw there.
03-30-2009 09:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #46
RE: Another one for Fo
(03-30-2009 07:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  
(03-27-2009 03:01 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  You may remember the Odwalla fatal outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 bacteria in 1996 caused by contamination of apple juice. Odwalla originally sold unpasteurized juices because the process of pasteurization alters the flavor of juice.

And certainly the recent peanut scare will cause people to demand a "safer" food supply.

I respect that these laws were put in place for a reason. Thy also prevent lots of cost-cutting dairies from putting out bad product. But, there should be alternatives for people who want those products. There also needs to be the understanding, that if someone wants to break the rules, they will, and more rules won't prevent that.

And seriously, raids?

Government safety standards are a joke. Already most major producers use independent certification to insure quality. The free market certifiers have higher standards than the government. There is no reason why the government should even be involved in this. The market place is capable of doing this task on its own. Do people think that businesses are seeking to "poison" the very customer that provides their income? The mere thought of that is foolish. Companies already join together and set industry standards on their own. The same would occur in the food industry without having the "force" of government being involved.
03-31-2009 05:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #47
RE: Another one for Fo
(03-31-2009 05:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Government safety standards are a joke. Already most major producers use independent certification to insure quality. The free market certifiers have higher standards than the government. There is no reason why the government should even be involved in this. The market place is capable of doing this task on its own. Do people think that businesses are seeking to "poison" the very customer that provides their income?The mere thought of that is foolish.

You're joking right? You are aware of the peanut recall.

Quote:Companies already join together and set industry standards on their own. The same would occur in the food industry without having the "force" of government being involved.

Some would, but some unscrupulous sellers would cheat. I don't mind the gov't defining standards and methods...what I mind is that they forbid people to make a choice.
03-31-2009 08:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #48
RE: Another one for Fo
(03-31-2009 08:16 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  You're joking right? You are aware of the peanut recall.

Weren't the peanuts subject to plentiful government regulation?
How much good did that do?

I'm very skeptical of any plan to take control away from greedy, evil capitalists and give it to greedy, evil bureaucrats. And I see no reason to believe that bureaucrats are any less greedy or evil than capitalists. Bureaucrats just have less accountability.
03-31-2009 08:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #49
RE: Another one for Fo
(03-31-2009 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-31-2009 08:16 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  You're joking right? You are aware of the peanut recall.

Weren't the peanuts subject to plentiful government regulation?
How much good did that do?

Plenty. Lots of tainted peanuts haven't been sold b/c there are laws in place.

Quote:I'm very skeptical of any plan to take control away from greedy, evil capitalists and give it to greedy, evil bureaucrats. And I see no reason to believe that bureaucrats are any less greedy or evil than capitalists. Bureaucrats just have less accountability.

Bureaucrats aren't. That's why you don't give them a vested interest in this.

Gov't should set a standard, defend the logic behind it, define acceptable measurements of that standard. After that, it's up to business to determine how they get there.
Gov't should then enforce the standard, but that has a different look than what we see today. So, if you're selling raw milk and calling it pastureized, you get busted. If you're selling raw milk as raw milk, fine. If you tested it, and post those results, even better. If you didn't, caveat emptor.

You have tainted peanuts? You can't sell them as "safe". If you do, then you're busted (possibly for murder). Maybe you can cut your losses by selling the oil for fuel. Or maybe you can irradiate them and make them safe.
The fact that someone did sell them as "safe" shows that gov't is necessary. But that doesn't mean any gov't is acceptable.
03-31-2009 08:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.