Joe Winona wrote on May 18, 2008 5:23 AM:
" Sonny:
Just a couple of questions, based on your comments, of course:
1.) When did you get get your DWI? (I'm betting fairly recently)
and;
2. ) Did you learn anything from it? (I'm thinking; "NO".....) "
Sonny wrote on May 15, 2008 11:10 PM:
" Old- There is a part of you that misses Winona isn't there? You not only read the paper online, but you read the comments too. It is hard to break away sometimes isn't it? Good luck to you in your new community. "
oldwinona wrote on May 15, 2008 9:21 AM:
" Its because of people like "Sonny" that I am glad I moved from Winona. Sonny is truly ignorant. These saturations are held all over the country. This isn't something that the chief pulled out of his butt just for fun. Police are responsible for more than just kids egging cars and the crack dealers. They don't care about revenue because the department doesn't get a cent of that cash. Any money from the fine (which is very little) must go to the general fund. People, quit your whinning and show some support for your police department! "
Me wrote on May 15, 2008 7:43 AM:
" You also propose that the special enforcement is meant to produce revenue. Can you tell me who gets the revenue? The city? The county? How much goes where and who gets what? Just who comes out with the cash? Wasn't the reason the city went to the Administrative Ticket was because so little of the fine was going to the city to cover the expenses? "
Me wrote on May 15, 2008 7:38 AM:
" Sonny- I saw those that were doing the survey and they looked like college aged kids to me and not cops.
What have you done to make the department better? What leadership role did you take on to make it better? Or, were you just one of those that always sits back and complains behind the boss' back and never had the ambition to take on a leadership role to make it better? As for DWI arrests, I have read over and over again in the blotter about why cars were stopped and not just for having an airfreshner hanging from the mirror either. How close to retirement are you? May be you could get an early retirement and leave. You and the rest of us might be better off with a person that wants to do the job. "
fozzy bear wrote on May 15, 2008 5:13 AM:
" this just means that you should buckle up now when you drive home from the bars. they won't pull you over unless they see you're not wearing one "
Sonny wrote on May 14, 2008 5:58 PM:
" I read the article. Do you think the DWI arrests at 1:30AM are the cops stopping people for DWI. No, they follow them and find something else wrong, stop them and arrest them for DWI. The same is true for seatbelts. If they see you aren't wearing one they can follow you for a short time and stop you for some other reason. That is what they will do during the seatbelt campaign also. Like it says, they can't stop you just for seatbelt. Why didn't they do that during the survey? Why don't they do it all the time? Why do they need a special saturation? "
Ezzee wrote on May 14, 2008 2:42 PM:
" To me, wearing a seatbelt when I get into the car is second nature if I'm in the front seat. I've found if you are in the back seat, especially for someone my size, they just don't fit me. But hey, that is the risk I take. As far as everyone else, if you don't like to wear seatbelt, fine. Don't get caught speeding or anything else. And don't expect any sympathy from me if you get injured in a car accident. As I say with other stupid things people do, it's God's way of eliminating the stupid people. "
Daventrian wrote on May 14, 2008 10:30 AM:
" Personally using my seatbelt is second nature. I have seen partial ejections (trust me, a person who only makes it halfway through the windshield is not a pretty site), legs crushed into the firewall and wrapped around brake/gas pedals, etc.... I feel the minor inconvenience of a seatbelt is worth the possible alternative. I also feel that is MY choice and there is nothing wrong with a little Darwinism in the world. The government was not meant to protect me from me, nor you from you. "
CaptnTony wrote on May 14, 2008 10:04 AM:
" Sonny, the officers that were performing the survey WERE enforcing the crime. The issue is that the popo cannot pull you over because you're not wearing a seat belt. It's not a primary offense (you need to read the article). "
Sonny wrote on May 14, 2008 8:30 AM:
" Maybe this campaign is Pomeroy's idea of what to do now that he has eliminated the "turmoil" that was in the Winona PD when he took over. Every year he talks about how much his department has reduced crime. If his statistics are correct, there isn't any more crime in Winona. "
Sonny wrote on May 14, 2008 8:26 AM:
" If seatbelt use is the law why not just enforce it all the time? Why a special, expensive (overtime) campaign? The cops that were doing the survey of seatbelt use could have been enforcing that law instead of just counting violators. This campaign, DWI campaigns and speeder campaigns are designed to boost revenue. The past seatbelt enforcement campaigns don't seem to have helped according to the statistics they site. "
Hot Rod Otis wrote on May 14, 2008 8:21 AM:
" Finally, crime must be solved in Winona if they have time to devote for this. "
former resident wrote on May 14, 2008 7:59 AM:
" Thank you to the House of Representatives for NOT bowing to the "Nanny State" radicals demands! I agree that these campaigns are just ploys created to make more $$.
So this campaign lasts 2 weeks...wouldn't it be quite the coincidence if the next one is scheduled during Steamboat Days?!?!?!
"
East Of The Hogline wrote on May 14, 2008 5:49 AM:
" Why not just call it what it is? This is just the state of MN allowing a little revenue building by way of fining the crap out of us for some B.S. law they made up. Sorry about the young girl dying in a head-on but facts are she would not likely be saved by a seat belt in a head-on. A head-on is almost always fatal, regardless of seatbelt use. "
Advertisement
