Talk:Shamrock, Texas: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:15, 22 March 2008 editAnmaFinotera (talk \| contribs)107,494 edits →Removal of content: reply← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 07:34, 9 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,275,638 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject Cities}}. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(57 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	{{WikiProject Texas\|class=Start\|importance=Low}}
	{{~~WPCities~~\|class=Start\|~~importance=Low}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|
			{{WikiProject United States\|importance=Low\|TX=yes\|TX-importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Cities}}
			}}

			==Merger of City and District Articles==
	== Stop Editing this page ==
			Oppose. Under Texas law, school district boundaries do not necessarily coincide with city or county boundaries. Also, the two are separate legal entities with separately elected officials. ] (]) 19:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

			:Being separate legal entities with separately elected officials isn't a reason not to merge. The merge was proposed as this is a very small town with a very small school district. The district article will likely remain a stub and if AfDed would end up being merged anyway. ] (]) 20:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	I think that all users should stop editing this page. It does not seem fair that one side of an edit war has been blocked (the IP) while the other side now has free reign to make all the changes they want.

			Many McLean students go to school in the Shamrock school district. Oppose. ] (]) 19:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
	There has be absolutely no vandalism that I can ascertain -- only edit warring that both sides are guilty of. There has been the deletion of sourced facts with no explanation of consideration given on this talk page. Please stop to consider whether or not the current editing that is happening is taking place in a fair manner. Respectfully, ] ] 00:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

			:What's your point there? It is still the Shamrock school district. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
	:An administrator disagreed with your view, hence his being blocked and the page being protected. The anon-user who was "editing" was adding non-neutral content from false sources under the claim that they were "facts" when they were not. They were given nearly a month of warnings to stop before being blocked. That is more than fair. People who only edit in a disruptive manner are, of course, blocked from editing. I am not the first editor who removed those comments, BTW. If you check the article's history, you will see this has been going on for a month and that multiple editors have warned the user and removed the false content. As for stopping editing, why should anyone else stop editing? If people are making appropriate contributions, they should not have to stop editing because of the actions of one vandal. I personally am currently making a few expansions/additions that are completely appropriate per the city MOS to include some of the very basic city information the article is missing. Unlike the anonymous user, I am properly sourcing all of my additions from ] and being sure to adhere to a NEUTRAL point-of-view. ] (]) 01:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

			==Nice Job!==
	:: hmm... interesting reply. So you are not willing to discuss this? I don't think it's as black and white as you make it out to be. An administrator protected the page on good faith from you that it was truly vandalism that was occurring. I am not sure this was vandalism. And no discussion has been carried out with this IP at all. And, by the way, if you look down the list, I was here editing and interacting with this IP a month ago... before you in fact. This shows itself to be an edit war, primarily between two parties. ] ] 01:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
			I'd like to say that you guys did a nice job on the Shamrock page. Keep up the good work! ] (]) 02:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

			:Thanks :) Hoping to add more history and stuff when I can look in some of our local sources since there isn't much online about the city. ] (]) 02:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::To discuss what, in particular, beyond your request that I stop editing, which is unnecessary and not really an appropriate request when I have made only proper edits to the article? Have I made a single edit to the article since his block that is controversial? No. Nor did I make any before. I simply redid the removal of inappropriate content after someone requested the Texas Project keep an eye on the article because of this on-going issue. The IP received warnings on other IPs. His edits were vandalism. Please look at his "sources." Two are the front pages of news websites, one is very obviously not a neutral site in any way, shape, or form, and the other is a suspicious link claiming to be a government site. Additionally, the words he wrote were primarily unsupported by anything but the one very bad source and were not in neutral language. It was agenda driven and not an attempt to actual improve the city's article at all. ] and ] are two core Misplaced Pages policies that this user continued to ignore. After a month of chances, yes, his edits are vandalism. He did leave a message on my talk page, but he ignored my response just as he ignored all of the edit summaries when his edits were undone and instead left a threat of physical violence. That is never appropriate. ] (]) 01:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

			== Radio Station ==

			I agree with AnmaFinotera on her removal of the radio station website, while it may be appropriate to mention the radio station, that linked site looks like a conspiracy site. ] (]) 18:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
	== The Decision of an experienced and neutral Administrator on the Appropriateness of Some Edits ==
	As per a request from ''Tjbergsma'', I examined this issue in-depth. The disputed content was added by {{user\|216.167.133.217}} and consisted of two lines:
	{{cquote\| but is now rapidly dwindling due to local governmental corruption and abuse of power}}
	and
	{{cquote\|Shamrock's location, situated at the intersection of I-40 and US-83 (two major highways connecting north, south, east and west) makes it ideal for the drug and crime ring that has held a stranglehold on the area for many years, now.}}
	that was referenced to:
	{{cquote\|<nowiki>; ; , the </nowiki>}}
	At first glance, text both additions appear to be written in an extremely ]-pushing fashion. Of the five references given, the first two do not work, and the last two only link to generic news pages rather than the specific news articles required by ]. The only remaining source, www.shamrocktx.us appears to be a ] that falls far short of our ] source criteria. Additionally I highly doubt that a reliable souce could ''ever'' be found that could be used to ] statements such as "due to local governmental corruption and abuse of power" and "for the drug and crime ring that has held a stranglehold on the area." At ''best'' these look like a clear violation of ] and ].

			:There is no evidence it is even legally licensed station, which is another reason it doesn't get mentioned at all. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 18:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
	While a valid section that discussed corruption in Shamrock could well be added to this article, it would need to be written in a ] tone and be properly ] and ] to ]. That said, I see zero salvagable content in the oft-reverted additions of this IP. --] (]) 01:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

			:Copied from the vandalizing IP's talk page (since he immediately removed it):
	==Removal of content==
			: confirms that the equipment formerly transmitting as KBKH is no longer authorized by the ] to do so as of October 25, 2007, as convicted felon Terry Keith Hammond is no longer licensed to operate it.   — <span style="font-size:large;">] ]</span> 19:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
	How about this rather novel suggestion:
			:: After looking this over and seeing the IPs other contributions, I'll agree with AnmaFinotera whole-heartedly. If the station isn't notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages page, don't list it here. If it is, only link to that page, not the conspiracy site. ] (]) 04:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	Instead of striking down my facts, SUGGEST what it is that I need to provide in support of them? I can assure you that NONE of this is "fantasy" and the local people here are quite proud to have made international news at least once in the existence of the town. Even if it was a "bad experience" for some, it was seen (locally) as a hopeful new begining for others. Just an idea but, I'm not even sure that asking this question isn't "harrassment" by your standards that seem to be a bit beyond my understanding. {{unsigned\|216.167.143.152\|22:39, 21 March 2008}}

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	'''Note:''' I am moving the below conversation from my talk page to here as I feel it is relevant to the situation and the above post, particularly the last paragraph in the quoted section from the IP.

			I have just added archive links to {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	<blockquote>
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080402013458/http://abcnews.go.com:80/US/wireStory?id=3194639&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 to http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3194639&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
	I am not at all that familiar with your "system" of politics here so, please forgive me if I "cross over" some imaginary "line" that is not very clearly drawn for me to see. My question is as follows:

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
	In the "Harassment will not be tolerated" statement that was sent me, I had put forth my OPINION that, just pehaps, the representatives of local media in Shamrock Texas would be forced to resort to hiring individuals to aid us in the correction of the vandalism of our city references as shown on you site.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
	Could some kind-hearted individual PLEASE take the time to explain to me just exactly how this can be considered any more "harrassing" than the constant deletion of information that is extremely pertinent to our community and that has been verified by many numerous governmental and media sources?

			Cheers. —]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]:Online</sub></small> 18:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
	I'm NOT trying to be a "pain" but, the information sincerely is a "part of the community" and, as do many who live here, we feel that it is our only "claim to fame" in the world. (The Rick Roach drug conspiracy was the first and only time Shamrock was ever mentioned in the New York Times.)

			== The Shamrock police are highway robbers ==
	Why can these vital (and documented) facts not be left to stand? Are you so selective that you only want your own version of the "facts" available? If that is the case, I need to approach our town council about having you remove the Shamrock Texas page altogether.

			Shamrock police stake out that section of old highway 66 looking for people to shake down for money. If you have car trouble and pull over or look like someone they don’t like, they will haul you in and extort money from you. Or, they may simply take your things, tell you to shut up and send you on your way. It’s legendary and interesting until it happens to you. It’s interesting to note how that particular corrupt police force isn’t getting defunded. ] (]) 03:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
	Can someone please explain this to me? It is all I ask. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:I seriously doubt your town council would want their city falsely listed on Misplaced Pages as being a drug haven. See the article talk page for a full breakdown of the inappropriateness of your entry by the administrator who blocked you. Misplaced Pages does not allow false use of sources and NPOV claims. We work under a system of verifiability and neutrality, based on reliable sources. Your additions are not "vital" facts nor are they documented by any of the sources you used. Also, a city can not have its Misplaced Pages page removed as far as I know. Public information and making legal threats is also against Misplaced Pages policy and could result in a permanent ban. ] (]) 03:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


	Please, cite the "false sources" that you reference. I can assure you that all are 100% legitimate. It just takes a bit of verifyng. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:Again, see the article's talk page. Its all broken down for you there. As for the Rick Roach issue, he was the District Attorney for five counties, and not a single New York Times article even mentions Shamrock specifically. Nothing in the case I see is specific to Shamrock at all, but to him. Your claims of corruption, et al are completely unsupported by any reliable sources. ] (]) 03:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	Again I ask: Is the USDOJ an "unsubstantiated source"?

	Shamrock was Rick Roach's base of operations. It was (and still is) the "gateway of entry" (via I-40) of the stream of illicit drugs. There is still a pending investigation into the matter but, as I can see, you have already determined that all of what I say is "fantasy" jst as the locals did when I told them of the pending arrest of Roach several years back. (I'm TRYING to learn the "proper ettequitte" here. Please bear with me...)] (]) 03:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	:Nothing on the USDOJ site supports your claims either. The link you posted doesn't work. This seems to be your own personal agenda to prove that Shamrock was his "base of operations" not backed up by any substantial evidence from a neutral, ], and ]. ] (]) 03:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	: I too spent 1/2 now looking at the USDOJ site (the link didn't work, but if you remove the front gibberish down to the www, then it does). However, there is nothing there that their search engine brings up that I can find. Also, the Radio Station webpage is only a private source -- there is a YouTube video of the owner of this radio station venting his complaints, and on there he say s that he is private sole proprietor of the radio station. Therefore his site must be removed, being a non neutral point of view and unprovable to anyone but himself. Another source looked identical to the webpage of the radio station and looks to be run by the same station owner. Oh, by the way, anything still ''pending'' is way out of bounds. ] ] 03:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	</blockquote>


	I am beginning to very clearly see that NOTHING is ever completely "verifiable" unless it supports your own points of view but, if you folks gove any validity at all to court documentation (complete and notarized), I would suggest that you peruse http://www.shamrockedc.com for some "verifications" thatwas good enough to meet the criteria of both the state of texas as well as the USDOJ. (Just a suggestion and not intended as "harrassment" as in "Do we need to hire people rto help keep our information accurate?"

	I still am having a bit of a problem in seeing how this could possibly be construed as "harrassment" while the wholesale elemination of factual information is considered "acceptable". I'm sory but, you people seem to be something of an "elitist" culture here that I'm not sure I want to be involved with. I prefer to see reality and - as we ll are very well aware - reality "ain't always spotlessly clean" as you would have it if allowed to wantanly edit that reality. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:"Verifiable" is fairly easy to understand, if you'll please look at wikipedia policies like ] and ]. If there's something you'd like to use as a reliable source at the website you listed, please be far more specific about what it is and where it is located. Just saying "look here" isn't enough, no one is going to dig through a hundred links looking to verify your information. ] (]) 05:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	I had almost decided to do just that but... (read below)--] (]) 06:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	: Just a question for IP 71.158.252.222, are you TERRY KEITH HAMMOND, the owner of the radio station and of the websites? (and please sign your posts with four ~'s), Cheers, ] ] 05:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	I am not. But, I do know of him and he speaks the truth. I've attended the hearings and seen the evidence. But, I know that, in your opinions, this will mean that he is "not verifiable".--] (]) 06:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	:(edit conflict x2)That site does not meet the reliable source guidelines which you have been pointed too several times before. And, as has already been noted, nothing on the US DOJ website supports your claims at all. Multiple editors have checked. Nothing in any reliable news source supports your claims either. The only sites supporting this is a set of three sites which appear to be run by the same person with a heavy biased that completely fail our requirements for being a reliable source. We are not "elitist". We simply do not allow the disparagement of people, companies, or cities without reliable, verifiable sources to backup such claims. Both myself and Tjbergsma made attempts to find sources to back up your many claims. Neither of us could even find the sources you claimed exist, such as a New York Times article and content on the US DOJ site. Had such evidence of any problems in Shamrock existed, it would have been added to the article appropriately, but they do not. As such, the content will remain out. It is not a matter of our only wanting "our version." I have no ties to Shamrock at all. If such claims of corruption could be substantiated, they would be added as per our ].

	:The harassment, BTW, refers to your threat of physical violence left on my talk page. We take ] very seriously here. Threats of violence and legal threats are wholly inappropriate and can result in permanent banning. ] (]) 05:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	True to form, most of the referenced stories do seem o have been snatched down but, if anyone would be so kind as to look about one-quarter of the way down the page at http://www.shamrocktx.us/roach.htm, you would find complete copies of many numerous substantiating articles from many numerous news agencies that are state, national and local in origin.

	Mentioning the hiring of editors to keep our information straight is construed as a threat of physical violence? I, personally, find that to be an extremely amusing way of interpretation. (By this token, I suppose that all human resources departments at major corporations must be guilty of murder?) Geez! Where is the threat in the mention of hiring people to keep facts straight? Thank God, I didn't mention the fact that the town is looking to hire a new librarian. This has gone beyond ridiculous when the mention of "Hiring someone to help keep our facts straight" become a "physical threat".

	I'll tell you what: You can take your "wikipedia" and turn it into an iealistic rose garden that is based upon your views of "reality" that doesn't really exist if you want. I will provide my information in a more reliable manner than here. This place seems to deal in fantasy and nothing is ever "verifiable" enough for the powers that be here.--] (]) 06:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	:You have ever opportunity to post your version of things here, as long as you can provide reliable sources to back them up. You are an anonymous IP editor, without secondary verification of what you're alleging, it's not encyclopedic. You may have seen or heard all sorts of things, but they are just speculation unless you provide proof.

	:Misplaced Pages isn't some "rose garden." No offense, but it's extremely doubtful that a cabal of wikipedia editors got together to restrict the flow of reliable information coming out of a tiny panhandle town. If it can be proved, it goes on the page. If not, it doesn't, same as on every single other article.

	:You can get angry and go somewhere else, or you can find the reliable sources you claim we're all ignoring and add them to the page. Good luck, either way. ] (]) 06:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	:You said "I can see that we will need to hitr people to keep our listing accurate". Hitting is physical violence. Perhaps you mistyped but that is what it reads. ] (]) 06:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	::My keys on my laptop are very close for my fat fingers. I'm sorry I mis-typed.The word was supposed to be "hire". For this, I do apologize.--] (]) 06:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	http://www.shamrocktx.us/roach.htm#references --] (]) 06:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	:All of those "references" are personally hosted files. Do any of the original versions specifically mention Shamrock? None I checked mentioned any connection to Shamrock nor did they back up the specific claims made here. Additionally, none of the content that was attempted to be added here had anything to do with Roach at all but claims that some drug trade is causing the town population to drop drastically, and to make claims that the town is a center of a crime ring. ] (]) 06:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	Do you not suppose that he had a source (Shamrock) for these drugs that he was selling through the county courthouses? That source was (and still is) Shamrock! (Look at a map of Pampa - where Roach's MAIN office is located - and Shamrock, then read the articles of how the "drugs were confiscated from travelers on interstate 40 and kept in the local courthouse" and see if you can find another branch office any closer to I-40 than Shamrock...

	If that and the "personally hosted" files on our local MEDIA OWNED website are not "verification"enough, just forget the entire issue and we'll let Misplaced Pages stand as the "fantasy versio" of a Shamrock texas page ad roll our own that specializes in fact. Sorry. Local history is very much "encyclopedic" in any encyclopedia that deals in real facts.--] (]) 07:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	:As per ], "the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." Specifically, claims in Misplaced Pages articles need to be cited {]) to "reliable, third-party, published sources" (]). --] (]) 07:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


	How about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/15/national/15prosecutor.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

	Is New York Times qualifid as "verifiable"? The stories ARE true. They have just become obscured by time...--] (]) 07:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

	:Again, that source is about Roach. There is not a single mention of Shamrock within the article. ] (]) 07:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:34, 9 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shamrock, Texas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Texas Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Merger of City and District Articles

Oppose. Under Texas law, school district boundaries do not necessarily coincide with city or county boundaries. Also, the two are separate legal entities with separately elected officials. 160.147.240.6 (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Being separate legal entities with separately elected officials isn't a reason not to merge. The merge was proposed as this is a very small town with a very small school district. The district article will likely remain a stub and if AfDed would end up being merged anyway. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Many McLean students go to school in the Shamrock school district. Oppose. 70.253.74.91 (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What's your point there? It is still the Shamrock school district. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice Job!

I'd like to say that you guys did a nice job on the Shamrock page. Keep up the good work! 76.113.99.153 (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Hoping to add more history and stuff when I can look in some of our local sources since there isn't much online about the city. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Radio Station

I agree with AnmaFinotera on her removal of the radio station website, while it may be appropriate to mention the radio station, that linked site looks like a conspiracy site. Dayewalker (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence it is even legally licensed station, which is another reason it doesn't get mentioned at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Copied from the vandalizing IP's talk page (since he immediately removed it):

This document confirms that the equipment formerly transmitting as KBKH is no longer authorized by the FCC to do so as of October 25, 2007, as convicted felon Terry Keith Hammond is no longer licensed to operate it. — Jeff G. ツ 19:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

After looking this over and seeing the IPs other contributions, I'll agree with AnmaFinotera whole-heartedly. If the station isn't notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages page, don't list it here. If it is, only link to that page, not the conspiracy site. Dayewalker (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shamrock, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080402013458/http://abcnews.go.com:80/US/wireStory?id=3194639&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 to http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3194639&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The Shamrock police are highway robbers

Shamrock police stake out that section of old highway 66 looking for people to shake down for money. If you have car trouble and pull over or look like someone they don’t like, they will haul you in and extort money from you. Or, they may simply take your things, tell you to shut up and send you on your way. It’s legendary and interesting until it happens to you. It’s interesting to note how that particular corrupt police force isn’t getting defunded. 69.247.66.110 (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Categories: