Aldercreatures NOT Above the Law
- A Chicago ordinance banning the use of hand-held cellular phones in vehicles has bitten one of its creators.
Ald. Thomas Tunney (44th) acknowledged Monday that he was ticketed last week in his North Side ward as he was conducting city-related business on the phone while he drove.
"It was what it was," said Tunney, who was among supporters of the ban when it was approved by the City Council in 2005. "Of course, I am embarrassed by it."
Let's keep track of the officer who wrote the ticket though.
Labels: department issues
posted by SCC at 12:01 AM
50 Comments:
Relating to Alderman Dixion: Since when do we bow down to alderman? Has a grievance been filed with the F.O.P. That is harassment and creating a hostile work environment.
The aldermen are not our bosses.
This is a really interesting example -- for all that you folks like to criticize the media, the bottom line is that 10 years ago, it took a lot of courage on the part of a police officer to call a reporter, who he likely didn't know, to tip him off to high-handed behavior like this. And without evidence, what is a reporter supposed to do -- just go about repeating that aldermen are corrupt?
But today, a little blog post gets followed up on -- somebody read the story here and told the reporters, who then asked Tunney.
It's a lesson. If something like this happens, post it, brothers.
Ah, the old "don't you have more dangerous criminals to catch" defense.
You know, he's right. The gang of 50 blows our tax money and makes up these stupid ordinances, but they really shouldn't be enforced, right Tom. And your constituents have a hard time believing the Police actually work?
Whenever we talk about getting everyone together, the talk turns to taking it out on the public and banging them with bullshit tickets. That's all wrong. I think we should just give everyone a friendly reminder that they violated the law and have a nice day. Maybe the general public will see us as their pals.
I'm a copper & I like Tunney! I voted for him and his cinnamon roles are pretty tasty too! Hell, he beats ol' Hansen any day!
When so many POs in the city drive around on their cellphones in both marked and unmarked cars, questioning the enforcement of this when no other crime occured-careless driving for instance-is justified. I don't know the PO who wrote it, but unless he's out stopping gangbangers as agressively and not just messing with working people for petty offenses, I have to side with the alderman.
Was the Alderman doing something wrong other than talking on the phone? Blow a red light? Did he give the PO an attitude? Jump out of his car? Threaten him? When dozens of TVBs roll through 023 every hour, it is not justifiable to write a cell phone ticket without some other reason. Sounds like a cop who is afraid to stop anyone but soccer moms and other soft targets. And writing one of the few Alderman who didn't hate us isn't something to be applauded. The same posters who rip on P.O. R.A. in Unit 151 for writing drunk cops praise this guy? This looks like a case of classic traffic cop with an inferiority complex to me. Alderman or not: Dumb mover. Try to do some police work in your career.
Check out the article on the front page of Suntimes.com. Tunny voted for the cell phone bad. His bad.
Investigation underway as to why his license was returned to him after making a phone call to GY.
You guys just can't win.
Sounds like they wrote him an cash-bond and returned his license? Why they take your license in this state for bond is a mystery to me...especially with the need for I.D. where ever you go these days. I offer everyone with a license cash bond so they can get it back....Why do we offer people with no license and insurance and i-bond but if you have a license we can't? Thats silly...whats the difference? If alderman are allowed to carry a side-arm then why not be allowed to talk on a cell phone when conducting city business like we can:)
Why is this on the front page of the Sun Times? And why is this such a big Fucking Deal? How many time do we let coppers kids go, or take a drunk cop/boss home? Why is this bullshit Tunney ticket a big deal?
Anonymous said...
Why is this on the front page of the Sun Times? And why is this such a big Fucking Deal? How many time do we let coppers kids go, or take a drunk cop/boss home? Why is this bullshit Tunney ticket a big deal?
************************
because if this was about an officer, it WOULD be a big deal. For those of you who think he should have the same right as an officer who talks on the phone, then let's be fair. Let's treat him like an officer. Analyse everything he does when he is in public, make sure he is always at fault,feel like he cannot do his job without the media disecting everything he does etc. Do not ever compare any other profession to an officers. It's hard to think of another profession that is so OWNED by the public. Media-back off the officers. Why don't you stop being the big pu****s you are and finally bring Daley down. Why are you waiting for the federal government to do it? Why not do it yourself?
once again , you story makes the headlines. the tunney thing is on the scum times front page.
Who carse??? And i can'y stand aldermen, but its a ticket. By the way, we can talk on the phone if its police relatrd
The old "don't you have more dangerous criminals to catch" defense, is a good one and its true. However, based on today's climate, caused in part my our fine elected leaders of this city, BS tickets are better than getting sued chasing bad guys.
"Why is this on the front page of the Sun Times? And why is this such a big Fucking Deal? How many time do we let coppers kids go, or take a drunk cop/boss home? Why is this bullshit Tunney ticket a big deal?
10/16/2007 07:06:00 AM"
Spoken like a true 35th St Whiteshirt Assclown trying to justify his feeble existence made possible only by sucking up to Aldercreatures & other nefarious filth. Credit to those that lay it on the line each day NOT!!
Hopefully he will be a man and just pay the fine. Wouldn't that be a nice change of pace! Lord knows he has the money! He was the owner of a successful chian of restaurants ont he N side.
Anonymous said...
Sounds like they wrote him an cash-bond and returned his license? Why they take your license in this state for bond is a mystery to me...especially with the need for I.D. where ever you go these days. I offer everyone with a license cash bond so they can get it back....Why do we offer people with no license and insurance and i-bond but if you have a license we can't? Thats silly...whats the difference? If alderman are allowed to carry a side-arm then why not be allowed to talk on a cell phone when conducting city business like we can:)
10/16/2007 06:07:00 AM
or why do we give out of state drivers I bonds or even better,let them just sign their name on the ticket promising to comply, but our own citizens we take their licenses? Annnd,why do we make an officer drive into the station for an I bond,when they could just as easily write it or have the supervisor write it on the street. Most suburbs write their own bonds on the street.
Oh and off topic,if anyone downtown is reading,these new PDT's suck. Always out of range ...
DO YOU THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THEY GOT THIS STORY FROM THE BLOG? IT WAS POSTED A FEW DAYS AGO, AND NOW ITS FRONT PAGE NEWS. THE DANGEROUS THING ABOUT THIS BLOG IS THAT YOU KNOW THE MEDIA READS THIS, WHY WOULDN'T THEY? COPS ARE GOING TO RANT AND RAVE ABOUT EVERYTHING, AND THAT'S FINE, BUT LATELY I'VE SEEN POLICE RUNNING THEIR MOUTHS AND GIVING THE MEDIA THE AMMO TO WRITE ABOUT THINGS AND PLACES THEY SHOULD NOT BE PRIVY TO....
If anything happens to the officer, that's on the Cmdr, not Tunney. Tunney naver asked for special treatment (DL delivered to hie office) or for the cop to be in any kinda trouble. We know the first happened, if the second did, the "vacationing" Cmdr. Yami definitely is coming home to a shitstorm.
Was the Alderman doing something wrong other than talking on the phone? Blow a red light? Did he give the PO an attitude? Jump out of his car? Threaten him? When dozens of TVBs roll through 023 every hour, it is not justifiable to write a cell phone ticket without some other reason. Sounds like a cop who is afraid to stop anyone but soccer moms and other soft targets. And writing one of the few Alderman who didn't hate us isn't something to be applauded. The same posters who rip on P.O. R.A. in Unit 151 for writing drunk cops praise this guy? This looks like a case of classic traffic cop with an inferiority complex to me. Alderman or not: Dumb mover. Try to do some police work in your career.
Are you serious? these are the same people that sit in the city council enacting these very ordinances, they did nothing but beef about people on cellphone demanding action and passed the ordinance. This violation in and of itself is p/c for a stop, another offense isn't necessary. It sounds like this officer was doing what he was supposed to be doing and now even other coppers second guess it? cut it out already will ya...
Yes, they are above the law. As a convicted felon, an alderman can carry a gun. They do not even need an F.O.I.D. card.
The only ones above the law are "The Police" When was the last time a copper got a cell phone ticket off-duty ? Get a grip on reality and stop patting yourself on the back all the time. Long live clout, long live political corruption !
Anonymous said...
Relating to Alderman Dixion: Since when do we bow down to alderman? Has a grievance been filed with the F.O.P. That is harassment and creating a hostile work environment.
The aldermen are not our bosses.
10/15/2007 11:34:00 PM
Another SCC Lemming not have knowledge of the real world...Alderman are our bosses !
Murphy40Pct said...
Was the Alderman doing something wrong other than talking on the phone? Blow a red light? Did he give the PO an attitude? Jump out of his car? Threaten him? When dozens of TVBs roll through 023 every hour, it is not justifiable to write a cell phone ticket without some other reason. Sounds like a cop who is afraid to stop anyone but soccer moms and other soft targets. And writing one of the few Alderman who didn't hate us isn't something to be applauded. The same posters who rip on P.O. R.A. in Unit 151 for writing drunk cops praise this guy? This looks like a case of classic traffic cop with an inferiority complex to me. Alderman or not: Dumb mover. Try to do some police work in your career.
10/16/2007 02:14:00 AM
First of all, P.O. RA enjoys writing dui's and is very good at it. He on the other hand is in no way, going to be praised for jamming police or other city workers, who are not invovled in an accident, but may have driving with a odor of alcohol on their breath, but not staggering or falling over.
If your drunk and get into an accident, your on your own. But, that other bullshit that RA has written is just that, BULLSHIT.
Also, let us not foret the 019 officer, who is very good at giving out the same. Did'nt want to give all the light to RA.
Peace ooout.
Dumbass speaks again, and again.
The returning of the license to Tunney's office will be reviewed, Bond said.
But she said there have been "extenuating circumstances" where citizens -- average citizens -- were allowed to pay a ticket and get their license back at police stations.
"It has to be very, very extenuating -- [such as] someone has to go out of the country," Bond said.
When asked about accepting the favor, Tunney said: "Oh, I don't know. I don't know what the [normal] protocol is. I very seldom get stopped. It's still a violation. ... It makes it more convenient, I guess, for the time where it's in the court system. But, I signed off on that."
Tunney, who in 2005 voted for the ban on cell phone use while driving without a hands-free device, said he was conducting routine business while holding his cell phone and driving.
"I was remiss," he said. "I should have an appliance in my car because I need to be on the phone all the time. I should have known better."
As of August, Chicago Police had issued about 8,500 violations for using a hand-held cell phone while driving -- a $50 ticket. In 2006, police wrote 13,400 tickets.
She must be a product of Starks GED program and didn't finish it. First off anyone can get thier license back just go to the station and sign a bond. I guess that what the department is going to look into for her also. Maybe if you where ever the police you would know such simple things. Let alone the apparently more complicated things like contact cards. you do not need probable cause for a contact card DUMBASS.
It is either time to revoke that silly ordinance or make every distraction illegal- like putting on make up, eating while driving, reading or working on your computer while driving.
This ordiance was the result of a buffoon- Natarus. It should be repealed.
I'm a copper & I like Tunney! I voted for him and his cinnamon roles are pretty tasty too! Hell, he beats ol' Hansen any day!
And by cinnamon rolls you mean? Not that there's anything wrong with that. And is Hansen your little guy's nickname?
Why do we offer people with no license and insurance and i-bond but if you have a license we can't?
10/16/2007 06:07:00 AM
I've been saying this for years,also,why do we tvb someone only to have the same officer or another one write the I bond in the station? Or,why can out of state people simply sign the ticket,promise to comply,but our own citizens,we make them give us their license?
Got this off his website:
PRESS RELEASE Contact: Bennett Lawson
October 16, 2007 773.525.6034
STATEMENT FROM ALDERMAN TUNNEY ON CELL PHONE TRAFFIC VIOLATION
“First of all, let me say that have I nothing but the utmost respect for the men and women of the Chicago Police Department and the job they do and the risks they take 24/7, 365 days a year. I am very disappointed that this traffic ticket has been used by others in an attempt to make it appear otherwise.
I have been open about the fact that I was ticketed for driving while talking on my cell phone. Typically, I pull over when I receive a call on my cell phone, but did not have an opportunity to do so on Friday.
My interaction with the police officer was pleasant and I found him to be very professional. As far as I was concerned, he was a police officer doing his job. He saw a violation of a city ordinance and enforced the law.
When I arrived at my office, I did call the 23rd District Commander to question why, in an understaffed police district where we have serious crimes unsolved, officers are assigned to pull people over solely for cell phone violations. Although I did not ask him to, following our conversation the Commander had my driver's license returned to me at my office.
I must emphasize that at no time did I ask for any special treatment. I have sent my payment in and will use my hands-free device while driving in the future. “
####
If that had been Meeks instead of Tunney...
Forget Tunney. What about the hundreds of dicks being asssgned to hotels for 18 days (19 Oct-5 Nov) to baby sit the AIBA boxers. Terrorist threat? No. To prevent any embarrassing incidents involving the boxers. Chasen is in charge. Nothing must stop the march to 2016. Damn the taxes. Full speed ahead.
Anonymous said...
Sounds like they wrote him an cash-bond and returned his license? Why they take your license in this state for bond is a mystery to me...especially with the need for I.D.........
10/16/2007 06:07:00 AM
Illinois tried that in the mid 1980's, signing for a minor ticket rather than post a bond (license, bond card or cash).
License suspensions for failing to comply went through the roof. Between asshole motorists who ignored the ticket, and a (VERY) few coppers who allowed any asshole on the street to give any damn name and sign, it was unmanageble.
I'd bet the farm that Tunney got an I-Bond and his license back. I only have one problem with that....a copper had to DELIVER him his license. Screw that shit...he should have gone into 023 and gotten his license himself!
Just a reminder, there's different sets of rules for each class of people, and aldercreatures put themselves on the top.
WE SHOULD DELIVER EVERYONE LICENSE WE TAKE. EVERY WATCH COMMANDER SHOULD BE SO HELPFUL AS TO ACCEPT THE CALLS FROM OFFENDERS AND HELP THEM OUT. JUST REMEBER WHNE YOUR WIFE GET A TICKET OR KID THE WATCH COMMANDER DOESNT EVEN WANT TO COME OUT OF HIS OFFICE.
SO IS THE ALDERMAN WRONG WHO CARES.
IS THE WATCH COMMANDER TREATING CLOUT PERSON BETTER YOU BETCHA YOUR ASS.
IS THE OFFICER A HERO SOUNDS LIKE A GOOF STILL WRITING TICKETS TO GENERATE REVENUE FOR THE CITY. KEEP HIM UP NORTH ITS SAFER.
Why should we give the too many aldercreatures any breaks? What breaks have been tossed our way by them? We have to sit on their houses, go on calls that come from their office about gangbangers on certain corners, yet it is just a complaint, not an in progress call. They throw us under the bus and believe their "voters" in the hood who "saw" what happened instead of the police who were there. They just create headaches for us, lets put some heat on them and show the public that it doesn't matter who you are, if you act like an ass you get wiped like one.
"Why is this bullshit Tunney ticket a big deal?
10/16/2007 07:06:00 AM"
___________________________
I agree! Tunney's an alright guy. Let this media fueled non-story die.
Police are allowed to talk on cell phone while at work. It's written in the law.
Yes you can pull someone over using a cell phone as probable cause.
Why is this on the front page of the Sun Times? And why is this such a big Fucking Deal? How many time do we let coppers kids go, or take a drunk cop/boss home? Why is this bullshit Tunney ticket a big deal?
10/16/2007 07:06:00 AM
It is a big deal because most Alderman hate the Police, YOU NIT WIT! And two to let them know they are NOT better than anyone else!
As for the Commander of 023, that was a dumb move to allow it to happen and that bottom boy needs to be dumped!
I'd have to agree with one of the earlier posters. Tom Tunney supports us. Why him? Because he's openly gay? Enemies we don't need. Although I wish Tunney had been man enough to not call the alderman and whine about it, jeez..
From the suntimes website:
The returning of the license to Tunney's office will be reviewed, Bond said.
But she said there have been "extenuating circumstances" where citizens -- average citizens -- were allowed to pay a ticket and get their license back at police stations.
"It has to be very, very extenuating -- [such as] someone has to go out of the country," Bond said.
My rant:
Since when are "extenuating circumstances" required before posting a cash bond for traffic?
Ms Bond is a liability- she lacks a grasp of the basic police procedures/policy-
Please find a sworn member-
or "brief" Ms. Bond on police procedure before she speaks for our dept
I used to think it was absurd that Pat Camden was able to retire and come back as a civilian (in the same job)- as if we did not have anyone else qualified to speak...
...maybe the dept never even looked for an active sworn spokesperson- and why should they when Ms. Bond is available??
Why is this on the front page of the Sun Times? And why is this such a big Fucking Deal? How many time do we let coppers kids go, or take a drunk cop/boss home? Why is this bullshit Tunney ticket a big deal?
10/16/2007 07:06:00 AM
Why isn't it a big deal? That's the problem with everything today. Whether others get or don't get a ticket is besides the point. If you break the law, you can expect consequences. He's a Goddamn Alderman. He voted for a law he felt didn't apply to him because he's Tom Tunney. That's bullshit. If I get a ticket I have to post my license for bond. I don't get to call the Commander to have a police officer taken off the street to personally deliver my license back to me. Did anyone stop and think how humiliating that would be for any cop to have bring that license back to the ward office? And don't think Tunney didn't love that. Why, because it puts the police and the district commander in their place. It reminds everyone who's in charge, doesn't it? Otherwise, what's the reason for the phone call? It was a power trip, plain and simple.
What I found particularly interesting are two comments he made. 1. "I'm going to try to get my car equipped so it doesn't happen again." Hello, you don't "TRY" to do anything. You either do it or you don't. And the ticket isn't his car's fault. It's his. What's to equip? You get a bluetooth. And when was this ordinance signed into law? Every news channel had specials on bluetooth technology when this law was passed. He has had ample time to "equip his car" AND his ass by now. He's just trying to distance himself from his behavior. 2. According to Tunney, after TUNNEY called the station, the Commander said "the least I can do is return your driver's license." WHY? Either Tunney's lying or the Commander is a quivering coward to imply that he should apologize because a law enforcement officer THAT HE SUPERVISES did their job and gave Tunney getting a ticket. My opinion: this is a clear-cut example of how it all works. We hear about it on SCC and here's the proof. This incident should put every bullshit politician or media whore on notice that the playing field has been leveled. You do something now, everybody is going to know about it.
---Not a cop.
Yes, they are above the law. As a convicted felon, an alderman can carry a gun. They do not even need an F.O.I.D. card.
10/16/2007 09:53:00 AM
Why the hell to Alderman need firearms? What kind of message does that send? WTF.
This is not a big deal. IAD should not even bother to investigate.The alderthing did not get out of the ticket, we know where he lives, a little courtesy to the aldeman as I'm sure has been extended to others is no big deal. The big deal here is Monique putting her foot in her mouth, again. Please, someone tell her to manage the office and let Pat talk to the media. Does she even realize how many mistakes she has made, how bad she sounds and how bad she makes us look?
Pallidin
WAS DRIVING ON 111TH BETWEEN PULASKI AND WESTERN, SAW 21 DIFFERENT DRIVERS )IN ABOUT 10 MINUTES) PASS ME THE OTHER WAY TALKING ON THEIR CELL'S......I SAY START CRACKING DOWN =$100 A TICKET = $2100 IN REVENUE - CITY WIDE = MILLIONS -
"Anonymous said...
"Yes, they are above the law. As a convicted felon, an alderman can carry a gun. They do not even need an F.O.I.D. card.
10/16/2007 09:53:00 AM
Aldermen can carry a firearm and NOT need a FOID card you say? Might be the Chicago way, but if I catch one armed, he/she better have FOID or he's going to be charged with UUW. I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, but these Chicago politicians are among the worst as far as preventing the average, law abiding citizens from protecting themselves, so screw them.
ISP Officer
Much ado about nothing
Anonymous said...
WAS DRIVING ON 111TH BETWEEN PULASKI AND WESTERN, SAW 21 DIFFERENT DRIVERS )IN ABOUT 10 MINUTES) PASS ME THE OTHER WAY TALKING ON THEIR CELL'S......I SAY START CRACKING DOWN =$100 A TICKET = $2100 IN REVENUE - CITY WIDE = MILLIONS -
10/16/2007 10:32:00 PM
--------------------------------
Maybe we are seeing the result of a slowdown in police work forced on us by our bosses and OEMC. If Im going to an assist fire call for someone who fell out on the sidewalk and another calls that are not a police matter. How can I be taking a proative approach to traffic enforcement? Thats what generates revenue.
Hence- lower revenue must be balanced out with higher taxes
Ms. Bond is proof sound can travel through a vacuum.
About the Alderman and firearms comments...
Don't think so. City ordinancee allows them to carry a firearm. City does not trump state. The FOID laws and UUW by a Felon laws are very clear and trump a City ordinance.
Law 101: This holds true for federal laws also...
A law created by a municipality or state can make a law more narrow, but cannot broaden the law or make legal what the federal law declares illegal... Felons with guns are illegal both federally and in ILCS. City can't say it's OK. If you catch an Alderman with a gun, make sure the gun is registered and that he/she has an FOID card. If not, make the arrest. If you catch one of our convicted felon Alderman with a gun. lock him up...Do your paper right though.....
If you catch one of our convicted felon Alderman with a gun. lock him up...Do your paper right though.....
10/17/2007 12:00:00 AM
You know, just the thought that an alderman CAN be a convicted felon makes me want to vomit.
But thanks for clarifying.
Anonymous said...
About the Alderman and firearms comments...
Don't think so. City ordinancee allows them to carry a firearm. City does not trump state. The FOID laws and UUW by a Felon laws are very clear and trump a City ordinance.
Law 101: This holds true for federal laws also...
A law created by a municipality or state can make a law more narrow, but cannot broaden the law or make legal what the federal law declares illegal... Felons with guns are illegal both federally and in ILCS. City can't say it's OK. If you catch an Alderman with a gun, make sure the gun is registered and that he/she has an FOID card. If not, make the arrest. If you catch one of our convicted felon Alderman with a gun. lock him up...Do your paper right though.....
10/17/2007 12:00:00 AM
and some have D-3 bodyguards and still carry a gun WTF?
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
About the Alderman and firearms comments...
Don't think so. City ordinancee allows them to carry a firearm. City does not trump state. The FOID laws and UUW by a Felon laws are very clear and trump a City ordinance.
Law 101: This holds true for federal laws also...
A law created by a municipality or state can make a law more narrow, but cannot broaden the law or make legal what the federal law declares illegal... Felons with guns are illegal both federally and in ILCS. City can't say it's OK. If you catch an Alderman with a gun, make sure the gun is registered and that he/she has an FOID card. If not, make the arrest. If you catch one of our convicted felon Alderman with a gun. lock him up...Do your paper right though.....
10/17/2007 12:00:00 AM
great you think anything would happen to the alderthieves? of course not waste of time!
<< Home