Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Dad of the Year...

This story begins way back in early 2010. Picture your humble Officer sitting in one of his favorite duck blinds, when what should appear but a driver on his cell phone yacking merrily away.

Well, of course this calls for a ticket, so away we go after who will soon become Dad of the Year.

When Dad slowed down in traffic, the officer rode right up to his driver's window, and from 4 feet away could clearly see the blue and silver flip phone in his hand, held to his left ear.

Bingo. The lights go on and the siren sounds, and Dad puts his phone in the center console as he pulls to the curb.

Officer Smith swaggers (okay, so I embellish a bit. Call it artistic license...) to the window, greets the driver and his teen son, and explains the reason for the contact.

When asked what his emergency was that justified using his phone in a non hands free format, Dad's knee-jerk response is "I wasn't on the phone."

Not one to deny any driver the benefit of the doubt, the good Officer informs Dad of the aforementioned 4 foot distance from the violation, and even describes the phone and its present location in the console.

Dad refused to admit his indiscretion, arguing til the end that the officer did not see what he saw. He did, however, sign the ticket and continue on his way.

Fast forward, now, to early January 2011. Officer Smith and Dad of the Year appear in traffic court for the previously issued citation.

When it's Dad's turn to talk, he again insists that he was not on the phone, and now says he doesn't even OWN a cell phone. As if that's not enough, next he calls his teenage son as a witness, and has him tell the judge Dad wasn't on the phone.

Way to go, Schmuck. You just taught your kid it's okay to violate the law, it's fine to lie to the police when you get caught, it's acceptable to lie under oath in court, and it's encouraged to lie for someone else in court. All because you didn't want to pay the fine for what you and I both know you are guilty of. And you STILL had to pay it.

And we wonder why kids have no respect for the police, an inordinate sense of entitlement, and no sense of responsibility.

Good job, chump...


suz said...

I hope the judge humiliated him in front of his son. What a loser!

Bagpuss said...

Dear Lord. Is there any way Dad of the Year can be charged or prosecuted for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

Mad Jack said...

...from 4 feet away could clearly see the blue and silver flip phone in his hand, held to his left ear.

Which is why all officers should be wired for video whenever they are on duty.

...he calls his teenage son as a witness...

Just think of the position his son is in. Even as an adult living on my own, I'd have been hard pressed to turn my father down if he asked me to lie for him in court. As a teenager? Forget it. That kid has to live with his father in the same house until he's 18. Then there's the rest of his life to consider. That's a raw deal for a teenage kid.

You know, I just can't see it. Having been caught on a moving violation I see no point in lying. Pay the fine and get on with your life.

FlyTrap50 said...

I don't give out many cites, but there is one thing you can do to guarantee a ticket. Lie to me about what I told you I pulled you over for. I had a guy last week who cut out in front of me causing me to slam on my brakes. So i go to talk to him and he tells me I was not behind him and that I was in the other lane. Instant ticket! Just add lies.

Joshkie said...

This justmake me :-( .

Jay said...

He is probably teaching his son the same lessons his father taught him. The fact that he still had to pay the fine was hopefully another lesson the son learnt.
Apart from all that it was also a waste of your time and took a valuable resource (namely your good self) off the road.

HonkingAntelope said...

"Way to go, Schmuck. You just taught your kid it's okay to violate the law, it's fine to lie to the police when you get caught, it's acceptable to lie under oath in court, and it's encouraged to lie for someone else in court. All because you didn't want to pay the fine for what you and I both know you are guilty of. And you STILL had to pay it."

When the police shake people down to the tune of $500 a pop for rolling through a right on red at 1-3mph with no real safety hazard or when a lousy 10mph over posted limit ticket runs nearly $300 with traffic school, is that perfectly okay?

How about when the "courts" blatantly trample people's rights and render decisions completely contrary to law just to extract more money out of the motoring public (El Dorado County being one of the more egregious examples I've seen)?

People v. Goulet nailed it best: "Traffic rules account for most of the contact by average citizens with law enforcement and the courts. Enforcement of laws which are widely perceived as unreasonable and unfair generates disrespect and even contempt toward those who make and enforce those laws."

Kim Hosey said...

Sad. Raising kids to lie, AND raising them to disrespect police and the law. I'll admit, I've been known to have a lead food (although I really DON'T own a cell phone), and I've been known to get pulled over, but what I've never been known to do is lie about it. I'm ridiculously bright and lesson-y about it to my son: "That's why we have the police! To remind us to drive safely! Hooray! Mom got a reminder!" And yeah; I can't even fathom lying. When the officer pulled me over with my son in the car and asked why I was speeding, I got nervous and blurted out "Because I didn't know you were behind me! Sorry!"

(I'm reminder-free for a couple of years now, but that's still how he talks about it.)

KC in Fla said...

I have to agree with Mad Jack. The kid gets a pass IMHO because Dad probably threatened to make his life miserable for him if he didn't go along with the lie.

Daddy-dearest however needs to be taken out back and beaten with a "clue-stick" asap.

Cleanville Tziabatz said...

Unless you were on a motorcycle, the judge should have tossed the ticket as soon as you were four feet away because you were more than four feet away. If you are willing to lie about the distance, what else are you willing to lie about?

M.G. Reaper said...

What a shame people do not realize the reason for traffic laws. Maybe some people need to come upon a scene with the brains of a father laying around while the son, in shock, wanders around all because someone violated an unreasonable and unfair traffic rules.
Just because it didn't happen to you this time doesn't mean the future won't have your brains or the individual's whose accident you caused spread around the accident scene.

Officer "Smith" said...


You are now going to follow Woycechowski's lead and have all of your future comments deleted because you make asshole assumptions and are unnecessarily inflammatory.


Bye now. It's been real.

Bad Luck Detective said...

I was blessed with one of these this week although it was a Mother of the Year award winner. What's wrong with these parents? They'll be enabling their kids for the rest of their lives and never have a clue!

Candi Apple said...

I'm with Mad Jack on it, I feel bad for the teen. Coming from a less than happy home, you bet I would have lied to save my own skin from having to deal with bad parents. Sad? Yes. Wrong? Yes. But I'm all grown up and still turned out to know the difference between right and wrong.

Secondly, call me petty, your response to Cleanville was amusing.

Curtis Medina said...

I agree that cell phones in some circumstances are a bad idea, as are any distraction... food, putting on make-up... just about anything. However, I don't agree with the blanket law of NO CELL PHONES EVER. It gives police one more reason to pull over citizens which are not doing anything else wrong, often not even recklessly using their cell phone. Please, always pull over reckless drivers... but just because you spot a cell phone... it's ridiculous. I will fight this law forever and disagree that it saves more lives than simply pulling over bad drivers would on a case by case basis. Everyone I know ignores this law... and it's true it does cause contempt from the public when they are having to pay for something that is generally considered to be an okay practice.

No, the man shouldn't have lied. I'm with you there. Thanks for sharing.

Officer "Smith" said...


Last time I checked, and I check occasionally, there was not a NO CELL PHONES EVER law unless you happen to be a bus driver, or a driver under the age of 18. For the rest of us there is a law that prohibits cell phone use unless it is hands free or an emergency. You can most definitely still use your cell phone while driving.

I don't understand why people are so resistant to using a hands free device when they're driving. Why WOULDN'T you want to leave both of your hands free to control your vehicle?

Please, by all means, use your phone while you're driving if you are mentally capable of sufficient multi-tasking to be able to do so safely. Most drivers are capable of this. But use it hands free, as 90% or of phones on the market today are capable of being used (this is, of course, my non-scientific estimate).

Keep your hands available for the primary task at hand. Guiding that 4000 lb. steel (or plastic if you're so inclined) missile you have the privilege of driving.