Archive for July 7th, 2010

Sensing Weakness, Drug Cartels Issue Warning to U.S. Law Enforcement

July 7, 2010
July 5, 7:35 PMVirginia Beach Conservative ExaminerDave Gibson

Nogales, AZ Police Chief Jeff Kirkham recently announced that his department has been warned by a Mexican drug cartel that his officers will be targeted for murder if they carry out another off-duty drug bust.

In early June, two off-duty Nogales officers riding horseback came upon a smuggling operation, which resulted in the seizure of 400 pounds of marijuana.

Chief Kirkham told reporters: “The warning was … that the officers, if they are off duty, are to look the other way and ignore any drug trafficking loads that are coming across the border, otherwise they will be targeted.”

This was only the latest in a series of outrageous acts taken by the cartels against the U.S., demonstrating the boldness with which they feel will go unanswered by a weak U.S. government.

In April, someone tossed an explosive device onto the grounds of the U.S. consulate in Nuevo Laredo. The bomb broke windows and caused some minor damage, but no injuries were reported.

Nuevo Laredo is just across the river from Laredo, TX.

In March, U.S. consulate employees in Juarez were murdered in targeted attacks, after leaving a child’s birthday party.

On March 13, in two separate attacks, cartel gunmen murdered two Americans attached to the U.S. consulate in Juarez.

Lesley Enriquez Redelfs, a consulate employee, along with her husband, Arthur Redelfs, a detention officer with the El Paso County Sheriff’s Department were gunned down on as they were leaving a child‘s birthday party. The couple was murdered after being chased-down by the hitmen. Their baby daughter who was in the backseat survived the assault.

Also shot to death in the coordinated attacks was the husband of consulate worker, Jorge Salcido Ceniceros, after the gunmen boxed-in his car. His wife, Hilda Antillon, was traveling in the car behind him was uninjured, though the couple’s two children were wounded in the attack.

The hit squads used AK-47s as well as 9mm handguns.

A member of the Mexican drug gang known as the Aztecas has been arrested for the murders.

President Obama failed to respond to either the bombing of our consulate, or to the coordinated murders of U.S. consulate employees. That inaction, combined with his unwillingness to defend the border has undoubtedly sent a message of weakness to the cartels, and will likely result in the deaths of more U.S. law enforcement officers.

Of course, Obama’s predecessor was equally weak on this issue. The threats began in earnest under the Bush administration, as assaults on Border Patrol agents began rising at unprecedented rates. By 2007, assaults (which include shootings) had tripled from 2001, with 987.

In 2007, the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin reported that they had obtained a confidential Department of Homeland Security memo. The function of the document was to issue an Officer Safety alert to U.S. Border Patrol agents that human smugglers were bringing MS-13 gang members into the country for the sole purpose of murdering the agents.

The alert reads: “Unidentified Mexican alien smugglers are angry about the increased security along the U.S./Mexican border and have agreed that the best way to deal with U.S. Border Patrol agents is to hire a group of contract killers.”

A Border Patrol agent speaking on the condition of anonymity said: “It’s not just people coming over here to pick lettuce. These gang members, criminals, are endangering American lives.” He went on: “Our vests won’t stop a rifle bullet, and many of us feel like sitting ducks.”

On August 25, 2008, federal and local law enforcement officials told the Associated Press that Mexican drug cartels are now sending hit men into the U.S.

Officer Chris Mears of the El Paso Police Department told reporters: “We received credible information that drug cartels in Mexico have given permission to hit targets on the U.S. side of the border. One of the first things we did was to notify all officers in our department of the situation.”

In July 2008, police in New Mexico and Texas received a cartel hit list, uncovered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The list contained the name of at least one New Mexico police officer.

Luna County Sheriff’s Capt. Arturo Baeza told the press: “We have been concerned for quite some time that this thing will spill over here.”

Snipers, who at one time, operated only on the Mexican side of the border, now move about freely. They fire a few shots at agents, then move to cover–only to fire again from another location. The tactics are typical of military sniper training. More than likely, the snipers are creating a diversion so that the smugglers can cross in another location. They know that the U.S. agents cannot pursue them into Mexico, and their own government is seemingly powerless to stop their activities.

In 2005, Border Patrol spokesman Andy Adame said: “We believe the vast majority of these assaults are directly tied to alien and drug smugglers based in Mexico.”

Of course, Mexico´s drug cartels are now operating within the interior of the U.S.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the cartels have set up shop in 231 U.S. cities. Atlanta, for instance, has been transformed into a major hub from which Mexican methamphetamine is distributed throughout the east coast.

With a largely unprotected border, and a President and a Homeland Security chief who seem oblivious to the threat posed to American cities, it is very easy for cartel hit men to cross into the U.S.

If Obama does not begin to take seriously his oath of office, we must install a Congress which vows to impeach the man who seems more concerned with golf than with the safety of U.S. citizens.

Obama’s weakness only encourages the violent cartels, now in control of Mexico.

Prosecutor Wants to Lock Up Detroit-Area Parents Who Repeatedly Miss Teacher Conferences

July 7, 2010

From: www.startribune.com; Minneapolis – St. Paul, Minnesota

By COREY WILLIAMS , Associated Press

Last update: July 6, 2010 – 4:35 AM

DETROIT – The night Demarco Harris shot and killed a woman during a robbery on a Detroit street, his parents told police knocking on their door at 2 a.m. they didn’t know where their 12-year-old was.

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said that’s indicative of a larger issue in Detroit, where the lack of making parents accountable for their children partly is blamed on elevated truancy and dropout rates, as well as a recent rash of violent crimes involving teens.

Worthy has a new idea she hopes will fix the problem: Jail parents for up to three days for repeatedly missing scheduled parent-teacher conferences.

“I have seen that younger and younger children are committing more violent acts and we need to look at different approaches,” Worthy told reporters. “I know we need to try something different. We should not have to legislate this, but what we have been doing is not working.”

She’s still working on the details, but once her proposal is finished, she hopes to present it to county commissioners in August and persuade them to approve an ordinance. After that, she may take it to state legislators in Lansing.

It’s unlikely to quickly become an ordinance because it would probably be challenged in court because civil libertarians say it may be outside the law. Even some teachers, who often spend several hours waiting for parents who don’t show up for the conferences, are skeptical.

“I understand the prosecutor’s concern, but jail time?” said Detroit middle school teacher Ann Crowley.

Worthy first considered her proposal after a spate of shootings involving students that culminated in the June 2009 wounding of seven teens at a city bus stop. The Demarco Harris’ trial convinced her she was on the right track.

He had been in and out of school a lot and his parents rarely met with his teachers. Then came Aug. 1 2009 when authorities were investigating a killing.

“When police went to his parents, his parents were not able to account for his whereabouts and it was about 2 in the morning,” Worthy said.

Harris, who is now 13, was convicted in May of killing 24-year-old Trisha Babcock. He was sentenced to a high-security juvenile lockup.

“We’re trying to prevent any more Demarco Harrises from going down that road,” Worthy said.

Under her plan, Wayne County parents would be required to pick a time and day to attend one parent-teacher conference a year. If that conference is missed, the school would send out a letter to set up another within 14 days. If the second is missed, parents get a letter about sanctions, which could include up to three days in jail.

Parents with health concerns and those whose children are performing above average could be exempt. “I’m not interested in putting parents in jail if their children are high achievers,” Worthy said.

Currently attendance at parent-teacher conferences isn’t mandatory, and Worthy’s plan may be challenged because it could infringe on a parent’s civil rights.

“A criminal justice solution is not the answer to complicated social problems,” said Kary Moss, executive director of Michigan’s American Civil Liberties Union. “The last thing many families in dire situations need is more punishment by the criminal justice community. There’s established law already that governs child abuse and neglect, and that sets up the standard for involvement by the government in the family’s affairs.”

There doesn’t appear to be any existing legislation similar to what Worthy wants. She didn’t know of any and the National Conference of State Legislatures, which tracks state laws, didn’t know of one. Similar proposals in Texas and Kentucky have failed.

Republican Kentucky state Rep. Adam Koenig submitted a bill last year that didn’t make it out of committee. It would have required parents to attend at least one conference with teachers for each child in school. Failure to do so would have meant a $50 fine.

“I wanted to get parental involvement in the schools more attention,” Koenig said. “There’s a reluctance to fine parents who are often viewed as too busy. I’m of the opinion that there’s a lot of people who’ve paid taxes to have these kids learn. Parents have some responsibility.”

The 2007 Texas bill called for fining parents $500 and charging them with a misdemeanor for missing a scheduled parent-teacher conference.

Making sure Detroit students make it to school and stay there through the end of the day has long been a problem. The average student missed 46 days last school year.

Worthy’s office penalizes parents and guardians for school truancy. But by the time prosecutors get involved, large chunks of classroom time already have been missed. Hundreds of cases are reviewed each year, but only 50 or so result in prosecution. Educational neglect is a misdemeanor that carries up to 90 days in jail and a fine for parents. Older students could end up in juvenile court.

Derek Muhammad, who has a son in high school, has never attended a conference with a teacher, saying it’s hard to find the time while working. The 40-year-old said it’s also up to students to understand what’s required of them in terms of school achievement and positive behavior.

“Anytime you’re talking about a penalty that will take away the parent from the child who already is in trouble, then you have a very dangerous outcome,” said Muhammad, a motivational speaker. “There’s anger from the student, time away from the parent and hostility toward whatever caused that, and that’s the school system.”

Caught in the middle are teachers, who want to help students succeed, but struggle to compel parents to have the same interest.

Former Detroit special education teacher Emily Williams said it was disheartening when 3 out of 15 parents would attend meetings.

“Sometimes I would call home. Sometimes the phone was cut off. If you send a letter home, sometimes it wouldn’t get to the parents,” she said.

Instead of jailing parents, Williams suggests Worthy give them community service.

“A lot (of homes) are headed by single parents,” she said. “If momma is not coming home, who is going to watch the kids?”

Fireworks Thrown at Clover Police Car Draws Felony Charge

July 7, 2010

Man Throws Mortar-Style Piece at Police

By Kimberly Dick – kdick@heraldonline.com; Wednesday, Jul. 07, 2010

 A Clover man faces a felony weapons charged after police say he ignited a mortar-style firework and threw it at a police car this weekend.

The incident was one of three during the holiday celebrations, and police say they amped up enforcement for just that reason.

Montavius Lamont McCoulley, 21, was charged with illegal use of destructive device, a felony that carries a 10- to 25-year prison sentence, said Clover Police Capt. David Dover.

He’s accused in one of three incidents in Clover since June 24 in which artillery-style fireworks were thrown at patrol cars – burning one and denting another, Dover said.

In one incident, an officer’s hearing was temporarily damaged by a blast to an open driver’s side window of a patrol car.

Aerial-shell fireworks can be “very powerful,” Dover said. The shells, about an inch in diameter, are designed to be propelled into the air from a tube and explode in midair.

“From experience, when seated in a patrol car when one of these fireworks is thrown under a patrol car, it rocks the entire car from side to side,” he said. “It’s that powerful.”

Such incidents have happened in the same Clover neighborhoods for years, Dover said, with police unable to catch and prosecute offenders. This year, extra officers were on patrol July 3 and 4 to try to curtail the fireworks attacks.

“Normally, we’d have more than three incidents this weekend,” Dover said. “… This year, we allowed for extra manpower to fight it.”

While McCoulley is the only person charged this weekend – tracked by officers on foot following Sunday’s blast – Dover said they are looking for others.

In Sunday night’s incident, an officer was patrolling the Roosevelt Community with a ride-along guest around 11 p.m. The car was stopped at Mobley Street and Zion Church Road when an officer saw the explosive device thrown in the road near the driver’s side of the car, according to a Clover police report.

The ride-along witness gave the officer a description of the man he saw throw the device at the patrol vehicle, the report said. The witness saw that man standing in a driveway near the intersection.

When the officer got out of the patrol car, the suspect ran. After a brief chase, the officer found the suspect in a storage building on Mobley Street, the report said.

McCoulley was being held at the Moss Justice Center, where his bond had not been set at $5,000.

Clover Police ask that anyone with information regarding similar fireworks incidents to call 803-222-9494.

Kimberly Dick 803-329-4082

Southport, NC Police Officer Resigns Amid Allegations

July 7, 2010

By Jon Evans of www.wect.com; Jul 07, 2010

SOUTHPORT, NC (WECT) – A probationary officer from Southport has resigned from the town’s police department, after allegations surfaced over stolen money.

Police Chief Jerry Dove said David Benjamin Rivenbark, 25, is no longer with his department. According to Chief Dove, Rivenbark was called to assist an officer from Boiling Spring Lakes who had been involved in a foot chase. During a subsequent search of a home, officers found crack cocaine and cash. Dove said Rivenbark is accused of stealing the money found in that search.

The District Attorney’s office called in agents with the State Bureau of Investigation to work the case.

Chief Dove apologized to the citizens of Southport for the incident.

“It’s hard to see what’s in a man’s heart,” Dove said.

The Brunswick Beacon is reporting the DA’s office had to dismiss more than a dozen DWI cases Rivenbark was involved in, saying he could not be called as a credible witness.

Southport, Indiana Police Chief, Officers Resign In Uproar

July 7, 2010

Southport Mayor Touts ‘Improved Operational Model’

From: www.theindychannel.com; July 20, 2009

SOUTHPORT, Ind. — Southport’s police chief and the majority of the paid police force resigned Friday, prompting concern from residents that the community isn’t receiving adequate police coverage and that the mayor is imposing his will without input from others.

  

 Southport, in southern Marion County, has maintained a part-time police force to supplement Indianapolis police protection for many years, but after Chief Duane Burgess and several officers walked out, the public safety landscape changed dramatically, 6News’ Tanya Spencer reported.

 ”Those are guys that we know that come in this neighborhood. My kids know them. We’re familiar with them,” said one Southport resident, who didn’t want to be identified. “They stop to ask how we’re doing, are there any problems. Now, we don’t have that safety feeling anymore.”

Neither the chief nor the officers are commenting about their move, but some residents blame Mayor Rob Thoman. He wasn’t sure how many officers quit, but told Spencer he thinks it was five or six.

 Thoman said the resignations give Southport an “opportunity to move forward with an improved operational model” and create a smaller department with better services as part of a plan he came forward with in April 2008.

 ”I think he has forced people into situations where they’ve had to resign, and it’s wrong,” the resident countered.

 Council members and others who live in Southport said they feel left out of the process.

 ”He politely told us he didn’t need the council — ‘I can do things I want to do without you. I can spend the money when I want to. I don’t need your help,’” said Rose Harrison, council president. “Well, there’s your checks and balances going out the window.”

 Thoman insisted that improving public safety is his top priority and hired the city’s first full-time police chief on Saturday.

 ”I think he just likes to make a lot of new committees, make a lot of new jobs for certain people and eliminate the jobs that are the important ones,” one resident said.

 Thoman said the new full-time chief will pick up the shifts of the officers who resigned, so there won’t be a gap in protection. He also said he intends to increase the number of officers on the streets.

 A meeting was scheduled for Monday at 7 p.m. at Southport’s city building, where council members and Thoman will discuss the weekend’s developments.

2nd Amendment Victory? An Opposing View

July 7, 2010

by Rick Montes, New York Tenth Amendment Center

www.tenthamendmentcenter.com

The recent Supreme Court case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, has gun rights advocates celebrating. The National Rifle Association and the true champion of gun rights, Gun Owners of America, are hailing this as a landmark decision. As an avid gun enthusiast, collector, NRA Member and Pistol Instructor and life time member of GOA, I am deeply troubled. Let me explain why.

The Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, were never intended as a check on the powers of the States. They are intended as a check on the Federal government ONLY. The Preamble of the Bill of Rights opens with: “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution”. Prevent misconstruction or abuse of power from what? The Federal government of course!

In the Supreme Court case Barron v. Baltimore 32 U.S. 243 (1833), Chief Justice Marshall stated: “But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government — not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them”.

Can’t be much clearer. The Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, are restrictions against the Federal government NOT the States.

Why then has supposedly Conservative Justices voted to expand the power of the Federal government by interfering in a clearly State matter? How did they come to their conclusions? Well, they would argue and have argued that the Fourteenth Amendment changed everything and made the Bill of Rights enforceable on the States. But does it? So many Supreme Court Justices, lawyers and supposed Constitutional Scholars agree that it does, so therefore, it does! But are they correct? Lets take a look. Here is the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Why was this Amendment passed? Well, it was ratified July 9, 1868 a few years after a bloody war. Some of the Southern States were trying to find ways to basically undue the 13th Amendment which freed the slaves. Laws were being passed that kept Black’s from enjoying their newly won freedom. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed to protect the rights of a recently enslaved people who were not considered citizens. This Amendment bestowed United States citizenship (different from State citizenship) on them. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified nearly two years later, then bestowed upon them the right to vote.

Don’t take my word for it, here is Justice Henry Billings Brown in his majority Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) opinion:

“…but it was said generally that its main purpose (the 14th Amendment)was to establish the citizenship of the negro, to give definitions of citizenship of the United States and of the States, and to protect from the hostile legislation of the States the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as distinguished from those of citizens of the States.” He goes on…“The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either.”

Now, just hold on all of you who are going to argue about this horrible, racist decision that upheld separate but equal laws. I add this because it shows a Supreme Court Justice’s understanding of what the 14th Amendment meant.

Next, another Supreme Court decision that lets us know what the true intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was:

The Slaughter House Cases (1873)

Justice Samuel Freeman Miller who was appointed by none other than Abraham Lincoln wrote extensively on the meaning of the 14th Amendment, particularly the “Privileges or immunities” clause. In his Slaughterhouse opinion he writes: “…We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this amendment (14th) of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (1st paragraph, section 2), which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several States. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same. He goes on….”Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment.”

An Abraham Lincoln appointee none the less!

So, what does this all mean? We have been hoodwinked by the Federal government and its minions in the Supreme Court. The Federal Frankenstein Monster continues to usurp power at the expense of the State governments and supposed Conservatives are marching in tune. They have drank the Kool-Aid and now believe in National Socialism.

We don’t want or need a Federal government interfering in a States right to regulate firearms. Remember, if Obama gets to pick a few more Justices a 5-4 majority could switch the other way and the Supreme Court could rule that the Federal government has the right to ban all firearms. Then what? The States were and should be the defenders of your individual freedoms. They did long before the current Constitution was in force. Here are some State Constitutions:

Virginia (1776)

SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

New York (1777)

XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same; may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth. And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.

Massachusetts (1780)

Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defense. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

Connecticut:

SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

We are supposed to live in a Federal Republic where certain enumerated rights were DELEGATED to the Federal government. If you depend on the Federal government, like the NRA and GOA are doing now, you seek the help of the Devil. The States are where sovereignty resides. If the people of Chicago elect anti-gun politicians who will take away your right to defend yourself. So be it.

If the citizens of the Peoples Republic of New York allow their elected officials to trample our rights. Shame on us for not trying to defeat them. But if the people of Vermont and Alaska, Montana and Tennessee want to allow their citizens to own machine guns and carry firearms openly, thank God! Who is the Federal government to tell them they can’t? The Supreme Court decision in Mc Donald v. Chicago is just plain wrong and all Conservatives and Gun lovers who support this should rethink it.

Bizarre Crimes from the Files of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Dept.

July 7, 2010

From www.charlotte.creativeloafing.com

Published 7-6-2010

By Ryan Pitkin

Not The Time: Two police officers filed a report on a trespassing suspect for threatening them after being arrested. In the report, the officers stated that the man was being processed at intake when he told them, “If I ever see you on the street again I’m going to beat the goddamned hell out of you.” It sounds like an oxymoron, but I suppose if anywhere is damned by God, it would be hell.

I Trust You: A 19-year-old man filed a police report after falling victim to an idiotic scam. He was approached by a man who claimed to be a Wachovia employee who could help him get free books for school. The scammer said that Wachovia had all sorts of unclaimed money from deceased account holders and would give the victim some, no questions asked. The victim then gave the man his debit card and pin number. Surprisingly enough the suspect deposited two checks into the account, only to later make three withdrawals and five purchases with the card.

Something Smells Fishy: A man was arrested last week leaving a local Bi-Lo with stolen goods. The man was caught in the parking lot after trying to conceal two bags of shrimp, a bag of flounder and a donut in his clothing before leaving without paying. I’m thinking it probably wasn’t too difficult for police to pick up his scent.

Real Talk: A 23-year-old man called police after being threatened by a known suspect. He told officers he received a text from the man stating, “I hope the cops find you and your baby mama before I do. I promise it’s a threat. It’s real talk, and it’s a real story.” You never really know these days; it could just be based on a true story. I think he meant that it’s not a threat, it’s a promise, but nice try.

On Fire: Employees at a local gas station on Graham Street called the fire department and police last week after they were nearly all blown to kingdom come. The reporting person told officers that a man was smoking a cigarette while pumping gas into his white minivan. The embers from the cigarette ignited the fumes from the gas nozzle and began melting the entire handle. The reporting person extinguished the fire and the man responsible said that he had burned his hand but would be OK. He then left the scene, which was probably a good thing.

Rambo: A man was arrested at a local Wal-Mart last week after attempting to steal a pair of swimming trunks. A loss prevention officer witnessed the man change into a pair of camouflage trunks in the store and then attempt to leave before being apprehended by the officer. When caught, the man asked, “How in the hell did you see me?”

Is It Coach?: A 22-year-old woman called police after being repeatedly threatened by a known suspect. She told officers the suspect called her 20 times during one day and stated, “I will see you soon, and bitch you might be leaving in a body bag.” I hate when people keep calling and calling even when they know they are going to see you in a few minutes anyway.

Try Again: A 46-year-old man called police after someone stole a car from his driveway. He told police that someone got into his 1995 Oldsmobile and started it up. The suspect moved the car about five feet down the driveway and then parked it again. The suspect then got out and entered the 1988 Dodge pickup truck that was parked next to it – which is the vehicle the suspect ended up stealing. I had no idea Goldilocks was a truck-driving kind of girl.

The Dude: Police were called to Magnolia Place apartment complex after someone stole something from the property. Employees told officers that sometime between 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m., someone came into their hospitality center and left with the area rug that had been on the floor. This is serious – because everybody knows a rug really brings the room together.

Multitasking: A 51-year-old woman called police after being threatened by a known suspect. The suspect called her 14 times in three days and made statements such as, “Don’t make me come down there. I am going to fuck you up and then kill you.” Well, if it makes no difference to you, I’d rather you reserve the “fucking up” until after the killing part.

Threat of the Week: A woman called police after being threatened by a robot. She told officers that she received four threatening calls within an hour from a computerized system that shows her own number on the caller ID. When she picked up, a digital-flavored voice stated, “Bitch, I am going to beat your ass when I see you. Tonight I am coming over to kill you and your kids.” The machine then gave up its identity when it signed off by stating, “Hasta la vista, baby.”

Blotter items are chosen from the files of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department.

2 Teens Charged with Impersonating a Police Officer

July 7, 2010
By Steve Lyttle
slyttle@charlotteobserver.com
Posted: Wednesday, Jul. 07, 2010

 Two young men face charges in Union County of impersonating a police officer, authorities say.

 The two were arrested early Sunday morning by Waxhaw police following a traffic stop. Charges were Barrett Hudson, 18, of Indi9an Land, S.C.; and Joseph Centrella, 17, of Weddington.

 Police say they pulled over a white 2007 Hummer about 1 a.m. on Providence Road, N.C. 16, near Providence Farms Road. The police report indicates officers found a number of police-type items inside the vehicle, including a blue light, handcuffs, and a badge.

 In addition, police say, both men were wearing clothing that had the word “police” printed on it.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.