Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
Undeniable proof that cops actually are cracking down on drivers who disregard the cell phone ban: Alderman Tom Tunney got a ticket for talking on his cell phone while driving.
Tunney voted in favor of the ban when crazy Uncle Natarus finally got it before the council. He pointed out that he was talking about city business when he was pulled over. While the violation isn't totally outrageous, like if someone saw Joe Moore munching on some foie gras, it's still pretty embarrassing. It's also a good reminder for other drivers in the city who may have, say, completely disregarded it for the last two years that the ban exists. If you get caught, you'll have to pay a fine.
The story's not quite done, though; Police are now investigating whether they violated protocol when they hand-returned Tunney's license.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Don't forget the part where Tunney reportedly contacted the 23rd district commander to complain about being ticketed when there's so much violent crime that SHOULD be addressed instead.
1- That's lame. The patrol officer saw him violating the law and addressed it. it's not like s/he ignored a mugging taking place across the street so s/he could ticket Tunney.
2- Not to overstate the obvious, but if he feels like it's such a frivolous ticket, why did he vote in favor of the ordinance?
Personally, I'm disappointed in him. Not so much for violating the ordinance (though it does scream "do as I say, not as I do"), but for bad-mouthing the police officer who was doing his/her job, enforcing the very ordinance that Tunney supported.
I bet he gets caught eating fois gras next.
Tunney got very unlucky. This is the most unenforced law in Chicago, much to my disappointment.
He voted for a stupid law and he got caught then tried to get special treatment.
I bet it was gay cop that brought him, his license too.
Tunney got very unlucky. This is the most unenforced law in Chicago, much to my disappointment.
That's my opinion too. I'd almost believe it *never* gets enforced if it was for occasional incidents like this. This is a law that I wish was strictly enforced.
It's because he's gay.
If the police actually ticketed every driver who used a cell phone while driving, we would not be talking about a budget shortfall. If the police actually ticketed every driver who used a cell phone while driving, I wouldn't fear for my life every time I crossed the street.
What's next, Joe Moore getting caught serving foie gras for Thanksgiving? -- Beachwood Reporter
Great minds think alike...
I got a ticket once and they didn't return my license, although the cop did tell me exactly who I needed to talk to at the precinct office and the exact time I should go there to get it.
A very nice officer, I actually felt bad about driving 70 on S. Lakeshore
It's not a gay issue but he got a lot votes blindly from the GLBT folks for the simple fact that he is gay. They don't care where he really stands on the issues.
He reminds of Larry Craig.
The same laws don't apply to them that apply to everyone else.
He's nowhere near the same universe of hipocrisy that Craig's in. Trying to pull a "I was talking city business" is really weasel-ish but not Craig bad.
Agreed, Navin. Plus, it has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
(my 'gay' comment was just a joke to rile things up, since i didn't see Spook commenting.)
I agree with Julia's first point. Not too mention, Tunney's ward is one of the safest in the city. Crime is never going to be abolished, and to insinuate that a police officer should be out fighting some other crime is ridiculous.
Also as an alderman who supported this ordinance, and an alderamn during such a tremendous budget crisis, seems to me he should be pushing for a greater enforcement of this law. After all throwing muggers in jail is only going to cost tax payers more money we dont have. But pulling over every Mercedes, Lexus, Volvo, and BMW SUV will greatly increase out city's revenues, because they are all driving and talking on cell phones without a hands free device.
Even from a bit of a distance, I think I can identify or recall a few violent incidents in the 23rd district over the last 2 years. Were not a few people shot on Belmont, off of Sheffield in the midnight hours in separate incidents perhaps a year ago? Are there not occasional rapes between the lakefront and Clark Street, Fullerton to Lawrence (the 23rd district boundaries). Aren't there occasional violent incidents up north of Irving, and particularly towards Lawrence?
Its generally safer than most of Chicago, but that doesn't mean safe like SAFE.
This is being overblown though. If any of you had a call to a commander for each run-in with the police, would you not? This guy actually sounds like he was more reasonable, in that by all accounts he did not insinuate in any way that the officer was in the wrong.
And from the police commander's viewpoint, is there really a threat the Alderman Tunney isn't going to be back in town if you give him his license back to run?
This is nothing more than a cute story about mild hypocricy, and should barely register with anybody who has lived in Chicago for any period of time. I mean, really, this almost makes it sound like things far worse than this don't happen here every day!
JP2- the fact that crime does, in fact, happen in the 23rd district doesn't mean that all traffic laws are off the table for enforcement. That's ridiculous. "Don't you have anything better to do??" (which is essentially what Tunney was arguing) is a pathetically weak argument. Enforcement of traffic laws is part of maintaining a civil society. The police aren't out there, ignoring rapes and murders, choosing instead to pull people over for blowing stop signs and talking on their cell phones.
Tunney got caught breaking the law. Calling the commander and insinuating the police are ignoring the most importants parts of their jobs in an effort to persecute people who are too important to hang up and drive was an adult tantrum.
JuliaPorter1, I agree that its a weak argument in isolation. But, Tunney has, in a very particular way, a primary responsibility for a significant portion of the 23rd district, and providing input into the allocation of 23rd district manpower would actually seem to be part of his job.
All the better if the complaint were based on first-hand knowledge which did not actually involve him, but whatever.
There have been some very recent incidents that have raised serious questions about the allocation of police manpower in Chicago. Try as they might to hang the Durkin Park incident (SW side) on two busy dispatchers, the members of the CPD have stated pretty much unanimously via secondcitycop and secondcitysarge that district field manpower is tremendously understrength, to the point where some are in fact arguing that the police brass are ignoring rapes and murders, choosing instead to conduct safety-belt checkpoints and wolfpack missions.
Questioning a particular use of this manpower does not seem out of line.
It would be out of line if it were him asking for special treatment, but he so far insists that this is not what he was asking.
So aside from the timing, would you object if he waited a week before voicing his concern? Maybe if he drove around parts of the 23rd district in his ward, and documented everytime he saw a teenager wearing a gang uniform loitering on a corner while police drove by?
Believe me, I'm on the side of the officer enforcing the law, and I'd be pissed if someone called his particular action into question. But there is no account as of yet that his action has been called into question.
And, compared to the many daily abuses of the political class in Chicago, Cook County and Illinois generally, this incident does seem entirely overdone. Its your "adult tantrum" turned from a private telephone conversation between Tunney and the 23rd district commander into a public affair with nothing more than diversionary insinuations.
Isn't there some huge tax increases to talk about?
And on that note, I called my mortgage lender today to find out why my 2nd installment for this year has not yet been paid. They tell me that Cook County has not issued bills yet, and has already extended the due date because nobody (including lenders with escrow) has the first clue how much is owed.
Sure enough, with a quick google check, I get the statement on the first page of this... http://www.cookcountytreasurer.com/
Funny how quickly our attention can be diverted away from the things that actually should worry us.
Tunney's "Don't you have anything better to do??" comment was quite lame. If Tom really wanted to improve what the police spent their time on, he would have told the district commander not to have a police officer waste time delivering his license to his office. But then again, Tom Tunney doesn't really think that far ahead...
I did not realize that gangs were issuing uniforms these days. My how times have changed.
This is a relatvely mundane story. However no one should ever voice the opinion than in lieu of writing traffic violations police officers are ignoring other crimes; Alderman, or other citizen.
Perhaps by pulling over the alderman, the officer precvented him from running over a child down the streetm, because he was distracted by being on his cell phone. Thus preventing a vehicular manslaughter crime.
Yes our officers are woefully understaffed, and underfinanced. Thats why they should really begin inforcing this law as it will literally generate millions of dollars for the city by shooting fish in a barrell.
I agree that this is a slow-news-day kind of story, but doesn't it just highlight the cluelessness of people who drive with their cellphones plastered to their head? They just don't see what's wrong with it. At least follow the law and use a hands-free device if you can't be without constant chatter!
>>This is a relatvely mundane story. However no one should ever voice the opinion than in lieu of writing traffic violations police officers are ignoring other crimes; Alderman, or other citizen.
Oh the stories I can tell. There are police officers assigned, literally, as traffic cars in both districts and in the citywide traffic unit out of 18th and State. That is, officers assigned to write traffic violations (and handle traffic accidents) for an entire tour.
Other than that, I don't really disagree with what either of you (the last two) have said.
Breaking the law is bad. Talking on your cell phone while driving is generally bad, and is particularly bad in an urban area where people are walking around. The police should be enforcing this and all other laws, and it is sorta funny to see them enforce these laws on the lawmakers who make these laws.
Nope, my only quibble in this post is that you and others in Chicago would likely be AMAZED to see where 13500 sworn police officers in Chicago are on any given day. For many, many of these public servants, Chicago would be lucky to get a traffic citation's worth of work out of them in a year.
Nope, my only quibble in this post is that you and others in Chicago would likely be AMAZED to see where 13500 sworn police officers in Chicago are on any given day.
Now you've piqued my curiosity. Just WHERE are they?
Sorry 'bout the delay Ferdy, I'm just catching up and hope you catch this.
Think of it this way. The most beats in any district in a city is 15. Assume all 25 districts have on all watches 2 man beats, and each of three sectors a sergeant. On 3 watches, you would have 99 field officers in the course of a day. Multiply that out by 7/5 for days off, and 5/4 for furloughs and medical. Perhaps now you are at 175, more or less.
Multiply that out by 25 and you have, at best, 4375 officers and sergeants manning beat cars and sector sergeant cars, including those on days off, furlough and medical.
Now here is the rub. There are not 375 beats in the city. There are something like 281. And on second watch, most any beat is not provided with 2 officers, its provided with 1. And, as reported on SCC, many beat and sergeant cars in districts are down for an entire tour at some point or another, every day.
So to put this back out numerically (if you aren't asleep yet), there are 281 beats with 5 officers per day, for a total of 1405 officers on beat cars each day, at best. Plus 75 sergeants per day, at best. Multiply the 1480 out by 7/5 and 5/4 to cover for days off, and furloughs and medical, and you need only 2590 officers and sergeants to cover the beat and sergeant-sector cars for the entire city. But the CPD can't even do that.
Average that out by district and that should be about 104 officers in a district. But I think districts average 250+ assigned.
This then includes a commander, 3 captains, perhaps 6 lieutenants, and 136 hidden in offices and discretionary assignments.
Where the the POs? 14 or so are assigned as Daley's personal bodyguards. Burke has a crew too. There are hundreds (or perhaps thousands) assigned to headquarters at 35th and Michigan. There is a graphics arts section, and a fugitive unit, and mission teams and saturation teams, and officers managing cameras on West Madison, and officers actually still dispatching 12 years after civilians were brough in so that the police could be put out on the street. There are POs in mass transit, and the marine unit, and a helicopter unit, and a mounted unit, and hundreds in a Temporary Response Unit.
There are so many different places where people may or may not be working that nobody really knows where everybody is. All anybody knows is that a whole bunch of beat and sergeant cars, which are at the very heard of the CAPS program, are not manned in many districts at many points during any given day.
In other words, they can't even find 1/6th of their 13500 to put into beat cars, though beat cars and sector sergeant cars are the front line and core component of any police department. So people might have an idea where some of the other 11000 officers are, but nobody really knows where they all are.