ucso deputies

[cruiser on weekends]

Andrew wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, here is another articulate and otherwise finely penned philosophy. Perhaps Sheriff Stephens did drive a dump truck, but, that was prior to his receipt of training to become a Deputy Sheriff. He was then promoted through the ranks to Lieutenant before he became Sheriff. His opponent, however, was not promoted in 29 years. Don't you think that's odd? Isn't it also odd that, despite the fact that you tout his qualifications to replace the incumbent, you won't be able to pen a satisfactory reason as to why Mr. Mason was not promoted beyond 'slick sleeve'???? So, please, tell me why it is that the incumbent should be replaced.

These are the questions no one is asking Mason and should be.
I have the same questions about Mason. Replacing Scott has more to do with hate for Lamar than it does for Scott. The topix people see Scott as an extension of the commissioner's office.

I've yet to have any one prove Scott has a drinking problem, either. It is slanderous comments like this that convince me not to vote for Mason.

Something stinks in Denmark with this Mason guy. I don't like his attack ads in the paper and his priorities are all screwed up for a man in law enforcement. He is like the man who ran against Scott four years ago, Tom Jones. Jones was so convinced he'd win, too, just like Mason.

[Really]

Well no your wrong there I support Lamar but have no use for the current sheriff Scott on the other hand is a good person but he has no control over the office he holds and this is the reason Mack is running and most people are ging to vote against him!

[Samantha]

Really wrote:

Well no your wrong there I support Lamar but have no use for the current sheriff Scott on the other hand is a good person but he has no control over the office he holds and this is the reason Mack is running and most people are ging to vote against him!

Give me an example how Scott doesn't have control of the office.

[Really]

Well for example what about some The deputies that have been involved in domestic violence and 2 that have been caught for DUI

[Samantha]

Really wrote:

Well for example what about some The deputies that have been involved in domestic violence and 2 that have been caught for DUI

Bring forth the proof since you have the knowledge.

[Willie]

Samantha wrote:

<quoted text>
Bring forth the proof since you have the knowledge.

Remember , records have a way of disappearng in Union County .

[Voter]

Willie wrote:

<quoted text>Remember , records have a way of disappearng in Union County .

Names please, if your too gutless to name them. Shut up.
I know of only one and he was arrested and fired. Was a Lt. in investigations.

[Voter]

Really wrote:

Well for example what about some The deputies that have been involved in domestic violence and 2 that have been caught for DUI

Only one and he was arrested and fired. Who was involved in the DV?

[Really]

Samantha the first was deputy Stanley caught near glen gooch bypass by deputy worden and second was deputy Vernode who was actually charged with DUI and if you want more I can tell you about domestic violence by deputies and some the sheriff's closest friends

[Really]

Verdone

[OCGA]

O.C.G.A. 40-8-73.1 (2010)
(b) Except as provided in this Code section, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle in this state:
(1) Which has material and glazing applied or affixed to the front windshield, which material and glazing when so applied or affixed reduce light transmission through the windshield; or
(2) Which has material and glazing applied or affixed to the rear windshield or the side or door windows, which material and glazing when so applied or affixed reduce light transmission through the windshield or window to less than 32 percent, plus or minus 3 percent, or increase light reflectance to more than 20 percent.
(c) The provisions of subsection (b) of this Code section shall not apply to:
(1) Adjustable sun visors which are mounted forward of the side windows and are not attached to the glass;
(2) Signs, stickers, or other matter which is displayed in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or signs, stickers, or other matter which is displayed in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest the driver;
(3) Direction, destination, or termination signs upon a passenger common carrier motor vehicle if the signs do not interfere with the driver's clear view of approaching traffic;
(4) Any transparent item which is not red or amber in color which is placed on the uppermost six inches of the windshield;
(5) Any federal, state, or local sticker or certificate which is required by law to be placed on any windshield or window;
(6) The rear windshield or the side or door windows, except those windows to the right and left of the driver of:
(A) A multipurpose passenger vehicle;
(B) A school bus, any other bus used for public transportation, and any bus or van owned or leased by any religious or any nonprofit organization duly incorporated under the laws of this state;
(C) Any limousine owned or leased by a public or private entity; or
(D) Any other vehicle, the windows or windshields of which have been tinted or darkened before factory delivery or permitted by federal law or regulation;
(7) Any law enforcement vehicle;
(8) Any vehicle that displays a valid special license plate issued to a government official under Code Section 40-2-61, 40-2-63, or 40-2-64;
(9) Any vehicle owned or operated by the state or a political subdivision thereof and that displays a valid license plate issued pursuant to Code Section 40-2-37; or
(10) Any vehicle operated in the course of business by a person licensed or registered under Chapter 38 of Title 43, relating to private detective and private security businesses..
(g) Any person who violates subsection (b) or (e) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Folks here is the Georgia Law concerning the "illegal window tint" that we are all tired of hearing about. If you will read subsection (c) paragraph (7)... ANY law enforcement vehicle is exempt from the window tint law. Just found that to be interesting as to why we are being told that it is illegal? Maybe Mason needs to brush up on his laws!

[Reb]

OCGA wrote:

O.C.G.A. 40-8-73.1 (2010)
(b) Except as provided in this Code section, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle in this state:
(1) Which has material and glazing applied or affixed to the front windshield, which material and glazing when so applied or affixed reduce light transmission through the windshield; or
(2) Which has material and glazing applied or affixed to the rear windshield or the side or door windows, which material and glazing when so applied or affixed reduce light transmission through the windshield or window to less than 32 percent, plus or minus 3 percent, or increase light reflectance to more than 20 percent.
(c) The provisions of subsection (b) of this Code section shall not apply to:
(1) Adjustable sun visors which are mounted forward of the side windows and are not attached to the glass;
(2) Signs, stickers, or other matter which is displayed in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or signs, stickers, or other matter which is displayed in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest the driver;
(3) Direction, destination, or termination signs upon a passenger common carrier motor vehicle if the signs do not interfere with the driver's clear view of approaching traffic;
(4) Any transparent item which is not red or amber in color which is placed on the uppermost six inches of the windshield;
(5) Any federal, state, or local sticker or certificate which is required by law to be placed on any windshield or window;
(6) The rear windshield or the side or door windows, except those windows to the right and left of the driver of:
(A) A multipurpose passenger vehicle;
(B) A school bus, any other bus used for public transportation, and any bus or van owned or leased by any religious or any nonprofit organization duly incorporated under the laws of this state;
(C) Any limousine owned or leased by a public or private entity; or
(D) Any other vehicle, the windows or windshields of which have been tinted or darkened before factory delivery or permitted by federal law or regulation;
(7) Any law enforcement vehicle;
(8) Any vehicle that displays a valid special license plate issued to a government official under Code Section 40-2-61, 40-2-63, or 40-2-64;
(9) Any vehicle owned or operated by the state or a political subdivision thereof and that displays a valid license plate issued pursuant to Code Section 40-2-37; or
(10) Any vehicle operated in the course of business by a person licensed or registered under Chapter 38 of Title 43, relating to private detective and private security businesses..
(g) Any person who violates subsection (b) or (e) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Folks here is the Georgia Law concerning the "illegal window tint" that we are all tired of hearing about. If you will read subsection (c) paragraph (7)... ANY law enforcement vehicle is exempt from the window tint law. Just found that to be interesting as to why we are being told that it is illegal? Maybe Mason needs to brush up on his laws!

What you fail to understand is that the general public is tired of the batmobile apperance that the sheriff's office likes to imitate. They want to see the person who is suppose to be protecting them instead of hiding out in a car that can't be identified. You just don't get the fact that the general public is tired of not having a sheriff that is only seen every four years at election time, investigators who are only concerned with what woman they are going to try and screw today, traffic stops that are treated like Elliot Ness and Al Capone and the list is way to long to type. People are just simply tired of Scott and his unprofessional group of thugs.

[Voter]

Really wrote:

Well for example what about some The deputies that have been involved in domestic violence and 2 that have been caught for DUI

Just how did that have anything to do with Scott not having control of his department?
A member of your family could be involved in a similar incident and has nothing to do with you not having control of your family.
A sheriff, chief of police, mayor, county commissioner, father or mother is not responsible for day to day lives of the people they are associated with. You have rules and sop manuel and if its violated .......... there are consquences. An there have been for violators. Just about every police department in the state has been on tv in the last few years with officers and misconduct. Have you ever seen the reporters saying the chief or sheriff has lost control??????????

[Voter]

Reb wrote:

<quoted text>What you fail to understand is that the general public is tired of the batmobile apperance that the sheriff's office likes to imitate. They want to see the person who is suppose to be protecting them instead of hiding out in a car that can't be identified. You just don't get the fact that the general public is tired of not having a sheriff that is only seen every four years at election time, investigators who are only concerned with what woman they are going to try and screw today, traffic stops that are treated like Elliot Ness and Al Capone and the list is way to long to type. People are just simply tired of Scott and his unprofessional group of thugs.

Reb your wrong......... very few of you even care. The majority just want the job done right and could care less about tint or any of the other nit picking foolishness touted on this site.

[Carter]

Will Scott the Sot guard the votes that have been cast in court house or leave it up to Lieing Lamar Paris ?

[Amos_1]

Voter wrote:

<quoted text>

Have you ever seen the reporters saying the chief or sheriff has lost control??????????

This has got to be the funniest and most ridiculous statement on topix.


reporters indeed! what reporters?

what la-la land do youse live in.........

[Voter]

Amos_1 wrote:

<quoted text>
This has got to be the funniest and most ridiculous statement on topix.
reporters indeed! what reporters?
what la-la land do youse live in.........

Georgia, can you read?
The statement went along with the statement reporters on tv talking about misconduct and you misconstrue it right back to Union County. Thats why we can't have a discussion here. You guys just WON'T acept any view but yours so have at it. You won't win in November anyway.

[A Voter]

Voter wrote:

<quoted text>Georgia, can you read?
The statement went along with the statement reporters on tv talking about misconduct and you misconstrue it right back to Union County. Thats why we can't have a discussion here. You guys just WON'T acept any view but yours so have at it. You won't win in November anyway.

You won't accept any view but your own as well. Typical.

[information]

? what ever happen to the sheriff officer that was dealing drugs and why does the sheriff dep. know about thr drug dealers and do nothing about it like the open on cook street

[Lakehouse owner]

I had to deal with 2 UCSO deputies this weekend. They were incredibly professional, and seemed genuinely concerned. Bashing to bash is what this is. My wife and I were both very impressed.