04-19-02

You Can Make a Difference

Mrs. Taylor, as she stood in front of her 5th grade class on the very first day of school, told the children a lie.

Like most teachers, she looked at her students and said that she loved them all the same. But that was impossible, because there in the front row, slumped in his seat, was a little boy named Teddy Stoddard.

Mrs. Taylor had watched Teddy the year before and noticed that he didn't play well with the other children, that his clothes were messy, and that he constantly needed a bath.

And Teddy could be unpleasant. It got to the point where Mrs. Taylor would actually take delight in marking his papers with a broad red pen, making bold X's and then putting a big "F" at the top of his papers.

At the school where Mrs. Taylor taught, she was required to review each child's past records, and she put Teddy's off until last.

However, when she reviewed his file, she was in for a surprise.

Teddy's first grade teacher wrote, "Teddy is a bright child with a ready laugh. He does his work neatly and has good manners...he is a joy to be around."

His second grade teacher wrote, "Teddy is an excellent student, well liked by his classmates, but he is troubled because his mother has a terminal illness and life at home must be a struggle."

His third grade teacher wrote, "His mother's death had been hard on him. He tries to do his best, but his father doesn't show much interest and his home life will soon affect him if some steps aren't taken."

Teddy's fourth grade teacher wrote, “Teddy is withdrawn and doesn't show much interest in school. He doesn't have many friends, and he sometimes sleeps in class."

Mrs. Taylor was ashamed of herself. She felt even worse when her students brought her Christmas presents wrapped in beautiful ribbons and bright paper... except for Teddy's. His present was clumsily wrapped in the heavy brown paper from a grocery bag. Mrs. Taylor took pains to open it in the middle of the other presents.

Some of the children started to laugh when she found a rhinestone bracelet with some of the stones missing and a bottle that was one quarter full of perfume. But she stifled the children's laughter when she exclaimed how pretty the bracelet was, putting it on, and dabbing some of the perfume on her wrist.

Teddy Stoddard stayed after school that day just long enough to say, “Mrs. Taylor, today you smelled just like my Mom used to."

After the children left, Mrs. Taylor cried for at least an hour.

On that very day, she quit teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic. Instead, she began to teach children. Mrs. Taylor paid particular attention to Teddy. As she worked with him, his mind seemed to come alive.

The more she encouraged him, the faster he responded. By the end of the year, Teddy had become one of the smartest children in the class and, despite her lie that she would love all the children the same, Teddy became one of her "teacher's pets."

A year later, she found a note under her door, from Teddy, telling her that she was still the best teacher he ever had in his whole life.

Six years went by before she got another note from Teddy. He then wrote that he had finished high school, third in his class, and she was still the best teacher he ever had in his whole life.

Four years after that, she got another letter, saying that while things had been tough at times, he'd stayed in school, had stuck with it, and would soon graduate from college with the highest of honors. He assured Mrs. Taylor that she was still the best and favorite teacher he ever had in his whole life.

Then four more years passed and yet another letter came. This time he explained that after he got his bachelor's degree, he decided to go a little further. The letter explained that she was still the best and favorite teacher he ever had. But now his name was a little longer...the letter was signed, Theodore F. Stoddard, MD.

The story doesn't end there. You see, there was yet another letter that spring. Teddy said he'd met this girl and was going to be married. He explained that his father had died a couple of years ago, and he was wondering if Mrs. Taylor might agree to sit in the place at the wedding that was usually reserved for the mother of the groom.

Of course, Mrs. Taylor did.

She wore that bracelet, the one with several rhinestones missing. And she made sure she was wearing the perfume that Teddy remembered his mother wearing on their last Christmas together.

They hugged each other, and "Dr. Stoddard" whispered in Mrs. Taylor's ear, "Thank you, Mrs. Taylor, for believing in me. Thank you so much for making me feel important and showing me that I could make a difference."

Mrs. Taylor, with tears in her eyes, whispered back. She said, "Teddy, you have it all wrong. You were the one who taught me that I could make a difference. I didn't know how to teach until I met you."

Dumb Crooks

On October 16, 2000, two suspects entered the bank. One suspect stood by the front door with his hands in his pockets, apparently trying to appear inconspicuous while being a lookout. The second suspect got in line and pulled a check from his wallet as he approached the teller window.

The check he pulled from his wallet was stolen from his ex-wife. He had scribbled out her name and address, and the bank name. He did not, however, scribble out the account number, the routing number, or anything else. The check was made out to him (his real name)!

The suspect handed the check to the teller as he approached her window.

He then immediately jumped up on top of the counter and threw a plastic grocery bag to her and another teller, telling them to fill the bags.

The suspect and his accomplice then ran out of the bank together, leaving the check behind! We obtained some most excellent pictures of both suspects.

The F.B.I. went to the ex-wife's home a couple of days later and showed the pictures to her, asking if she knew either of them. The ex-wife immediately said, "That's my ex-husband, Jack, and his friend, Patrick."

© 2002 Dumb Crooks
Www.dumbcrooks.com
Used with permission

A city police department received an anonymous tip that a named man was in possession of cocaine and heading to a location outside the city limits. According to the tip, the man would be in one of three vehicles, one of which was described.

A city officer enlisted the aid of a county deputy sheriff in locating the suspect’s trailer. Its location had been described by the informant. The deputy and city officers found the trailer, which was located in the county, and set up surveillance.

One of the city officers saw the defendant leave the trailer and get into a car matching the description given by the informant. The deputy saw the vehicle commit a traffic offense and radioed this information to city police officers, who stopped the suspect’s car.

The stop and search of the defendant’s car, and the man’s arrest, took place outside the city limits. Only the deputy saw the traffic offense that led to the stop, and no other law enforcement agent saw the suspect commit any offense prior to his arrest.

The deputy did not participate in the stop, search of the car that yielded cocaine in the side pocket of the door, or the defendant’s arrest. Two officers who were present at the scene later offered conflicting testimony about whether the defendant had consented to a search of the car; the videotape of the stop did not include any evidence that the suspect consented.

The defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized in the stop and search of his car. The trial judge denied the motion and held that the city officers had probable cause to stop, search, and arrest the defendant because the deputy sheriff was in the area. It was undisputed that the deputy was not actually at the scene.

Holding: “Texas law does not authorize a peace officer to make warrantless arrests anywhere within the State.” Outside his territorial jurisdiction, an officer may arrest only for a felony or breach of the peace committed in his presence or view.

Article 14.03(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly prohibits peace officers other than those commissioned by the Public Safety Commission and the Director of the Department of Public Safety to arrest outside their jurisdiction for violations of the Transportation Code.

Neither of the city officers in this case were authorized by Texas law to stop the defendant for the traffic offense witnessed by the deputy. They were outside their jurisdiction and lacked authority to arrest the defendant for a traffic violation.

Contrary to the trial court’s ruling, the city officers lacked authority to stop the defendant based on the information that was given by the confidential informant. Even if they had jurisdictional authority, probable cause was lacking in this case.

The stop of the defendant was made because of the deputy’s radio report of a traffic violation, and not because of the tip. None of the city officers saw the defendant commit any offense or engage in any conduct that would have led them to believe criminal activity was taking place.

The tip that the police received could not be corroborated merely by observation of innocent, easily obtainable details unrelated to criminal activity. And the traffic offense that was reported by the deputy bears no relation to the informant’s claim that the defendant was in possession of drugs.

Any claim that the search was consensual fails in this case because there was no sufficient authority for the stop. “When no authority for the stop exists in the first place, the consent to search does not attenuate the taint and any evidence seized in the course of such search must be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree.”

This was not a “multi-agency” investigation because one of the city officers testified that he was in complete control of the operation from start to finish. Their purpose, to investigate the defendant’s drug possession, was formed even before they enlisted the aid of the deputy to help them find the man’s trailer.

The stop was made by the city officers, and not the sheriff’s department. Consequently, because the officers lacked authority to stop the car, the evidence found in it was inadmissible and should have been suppressed. Armendariz v. State No. 08-00-00457 (Tex.App.-El Paso, 12/6/01).

A wealthy Englishman who lived in another country was satisfied with nothing but the best. This attitude extended even as far as the car he drove. His pride and joy was a Rolls Royce coupe he had owned for years and that had given great service all that time. One day, while driving down a bumpy road, his car hit a deep pothole resulting in a broken rear axle.

The owner had the car shipped back to the Rolls plant in England and was surprised by the quick repair that was performed. He received no bill for the work and knowing his warranty had run out, he had expect one. He waited for months and still no bill for his car came. So he finally communicated with the company about the bill for the car repair.

Again the response from the factory was immediate. The reply was, “We have thoroughly researched our files and find no record of a Rolls Royce axle ever breaking.”

This is a case where the integrity of that company would not permit a flaw in workmanship or materials to be made known.

Neither are our forgiven flaws made known to God!

Cyber Space

An email rumor circulating since January 2000 alleges that teenagers "all throughout the country" are tossing homemade firebombs into randomly chosen vehicles as part of a violent game called Spunkball."

The claims are completely unsubstantiated.

In spite of allegations that two people have died in these attacks and “uncountable injuries" have occurred along with "thousands of dollars in damage," there have been no news reports or police alerts confirming that any such crimes have occurred anywhere. Until and unless more information becomes available from reliable sources, there's no reason to take this rumor seriously.

This is very similar to Internet alerts proliferating over the past few years concerning an "initiation rite" wherein aspiring gang members supposedly turn off their car headlights at night and open fire on good samaritans who flash their lights in response.

The latter has been known for some time to be an urban legend, debunked by countless police departments, gang experts and news sources since the early '90s.

Still, people find both rumors plausible enough to pass along, which bespeaks a general fear of teenage violence in America and perhaps a disquieting sense that it has gone out of control.

Like all types of folklore, rumors — even false ones — have something to teach us about the culture in which we live.

Officer Safety

This 180,000-volt Stun Gun is designed to look like a standard Cell Phone. The cell phone stun gun, which does not work, comes with a leather carrying case, measure 6”x2”x1” and weighs 5.3 ounces without the battery. This weapon is also equipped with a 130-db siren

Law enforcement and Security personnel should be mindful when conducting searches that weapons which resemble ordinary items can incapacitate an individual very quickly.

Getting Warm