opdad, generally, the range on an ankle bracelet extends a certain amount of feet from the house.
betsyog, SO WHAT? The woman has a criminal record? Big flippin' deal. If I were you, I'd be more concerned the caps lock button on your keyboard is clearly stuck.
July 21, 2009 at 9:18 a.m.
It's beautiful how you folk have joined together as a community to endorse and promote police brutality, but let's face it: they don't really *need* your support. YPD is quite capable of coming up with their own half-baked justifications to promote violent behavior. steerlerman09 - The correct answer to the comment on description? They were looking for a black teenage boy. They found one. What more description do you need to justify stopping every black teenage-looking boy in the area?
July 20, 2009 at 2:25 p.m.
Wow. That's a huge weight off my chest. I know I'll be breathing easier knowing that all those amoral characters with broken tail-lights and mad villains who top the speed limit by three miles an hour will be subject to the intense scrutiny only Youngstown police can provide.
June 8, 2009 at 1:42 p.m.
You're right, boboberg. Prohibition failed. The war on drugs is a total failure. There's still money in funding anti-drug programs though, and since anti-drug programs are generally based on scare tactics, they're not going away anytime soon. Fact of the matter is, who gets or killed along the way of getting illicit substances from the plantation to the crackhead's doorstep is in direct proportion to the amount of laws being broken between point A and point B. Less laws, less people hurt or killed. How do I know this? Alcoholics generally don't shoot convenience store owners for a fix, and there are no alcohol cartels hosing down groups of citizens with semi-automatic weapons for getting in the way of business practices. allstar720, alcoholics aren't the only ones beating their wives. The correlation between men who beat their wives and men who drink is sketchy, at best. Google it if you don't believe me. While drinking and spousal abuse may go hand in hand in some cases, it is NEVER the only factor. It is very possible that there is a 'type' of person who is interested in not only beating their wife, but excessive drinking as well. Your implication is that alcohol is a cause of spousal abuse. It's not. It's an excuse for it. Alcoholics are not the only dangerous thing behind the wheel of an automobile, either. While they've got a corner on the market, 41% of all traffic fatalities in 2006 I think, there is still a whopping 59% of people who were just plain oblivious to imminent death. Sure, alcohol slows your reaction time - what's the excuse for the other half of the population? Heroin is not a drug that destroys. In and of itself, heroin is nothing more than one of many substances on the face of this earth that just happens to have narcotic qualities. Heroin addicts destroy their own lives. They're *not* victims, any more than someone who points a loaded gun at their head and pulls the trigger.
May 22, 2009 at 2:51 p.m.
Control freaks. It's not like gay people want to get married out of some vicious evil plot to kill people or make life dangerous for everyone else. Let them get married if they want. Legalize it and I can guarantee within months they'll regret it too, just like any sane heterosexual.
May 8, 2009 at 11:10 a.m.
mother4earth, hippies and yuppies like yourself are ruining the English language. The word 'retard' means to slow, and anything extra you glean from it is only the value you assign it. It's not the author's fault you don't like the word. HERE'S A THOUGHT: Take some responsibility for your own thoughts and feelings.
May 7, 2009 at 1:45 p.m.
This is like watching de-evolution at a remarkably accelerated speed. Articles like this are in the paper every day. You'd think, if they were hauling in enough money with drug trade, they'd finance a small research department. Or even set up some penpal accounts with kindred Florida or Texas drug traffickers, to see how it's really done. Avoid making things worse. Like ... don't run drugs with guns. It really doesn't help. Don't stuff it under the seat. Cops will find it. Under the seat is one of the first places they look. Transport it in small loads if you can. A kilo is 1-5 years in jail - the maximum sentences are broken down by grams. Measure it and the risk of transporting it. Find a good middle ground. And for the love of heaven, don't break the standard traffic laws. Why give a cop a reason to pull you over to begin with? Before any of you get grouchy about me not supporting the war on drugs, which is a ridiculous financial waste across all branches of the legal system, please remember that like Prohibition, the war on drugs doesn't stand a shot in h-e-double-hockey-sticks of actually working. Where there is a will, there is a way. And we need to face the problem with a more responsible approach that John Wayne would have.
May 4, 2009 at 3:42 p.m.
Thank you, FifthAve, for being a voice of reason. The fact of the matter is, as FifthAve pointed out, police officers are first and foremost, supposed to neutralize any threat to innocent bystanders. Stopping to shoot someone's dog at point blank range several times, and ending that with a bullet in its skull, could easily be indicative of emotional distress - not the levelheaded behavior of someone who should have a gun. Fine - the officer had to protect himself. Now. Read the article carefully. It says nothing about the dog advancing on the officer. It says aggressive behavior. For all we know, that means the dog looked at the officer the wrong way. What the article does say is that the officer shot the dog in the head from mere inches away. One had to move in on the other in order for that to happen. If it was the dog, going to attack the officer, that's one thing. But if it was the officer? He's a total sicko. So who was it?
April 17, 2009 at 4:27 p.m.
Actually, cambridge, if you work a little bit on your reading skills, you'll find the article isn't about smokers, it's about business owners who want to be able to offer their customers the ability to light up in their establishments. That non-smoker whining is interfering with the way establishments are allowed to run their businesses. That *isn't* right. Non-smokers and employees alike have the opportunity to both work and patronize places that will cater to their non-smoking preferences - if a business wants to offer smokers the same, that should be a business decision.
March 15, 2009 at 7:03 a.m.
FormerRes, the air is still free. It's not yours, and yours alone, by any law of man or nature. If the air comes tainted with cigarette smoke, go breathe somewhere else. No one is responsible for you or your family having clean air; your irresponsibility when it comes to doing something as simple as moving your family to a safer place, and all the while whining about how unfair it is, just goes to show what's wrong with this country: it's continually populated by self-cloning idiots who feel compelled to impose their 'what's best for me is best for everyone' line of thinking. Do the world a favor. Grow up and don't breed.
March 13, 2009 at 2:43 p.m.