Coleman files in Carrboro

My friend witnessed what happened and described it to me as a case of road rage. I don't know Mr. Coleman or vote in Carrboro, but I participate in local running and cycling events in which volunteers routinely guard crosswalks to ensure my safety. And I've also volunteered at intersections and crosswalks during races to protect the safety of others. What concerns me is that Mr. Coleman's actions imply that individual drivers can ignore event volunteers and make up their own minds about the safety of the runners or cyclists. No thanks for the dangerous example he has set.

Here, here, Jim.

I too am concerned with the situation as a whole.
5:30 is a time when children are being taken to their practises and also when the dog park is heavily used by people getting off work. Line up enough cars and you're on Hwy 54. This sounds like a recipe for disaster.

As the parent of an elementary school student I am also a little perturbed by some of the dismissiveness in the thread toward 6 year olds. Participation in physical activity is important for all children. To a 6 year old or 5 year old or 7 year old arriving in a timely manner and participating fully in their weekly practise may feel just as important as placing in the meet to a high school student.
Parents of children that age may also have additional siblings who are younger, including infants and toddlers and accoutrements, and getting out and walking half a mile on a 90 degree day may be no small task.

It seems to me there have to be ways to structure the use of the parks so that the scheduled events - and the needs of the participants - are not at odds with each other.

I was a volunteer at the meet and heard the story exactly as related by Rick's daughter from Amanda herself, two of the runners, and at least two other volunteers.

Other things not already mentioned:

- Coleman had already let his kid(s) out of the car to walk to the field which was much less than 1/2 mile away.
- The police officer continually attempted to browbeat Amanda into not filing charges (I witnessed a bit of this firsthand).
- The charges of fabrication (or exaggeration) for political purposes are simply false. It was not immediately apparent that Coleman was anything other than an average (albeit obnoxious) citizen. His position as an Alderman was only later revealed to me by some of the cross country parents that recognized him. Amanda lives in Durham, has no interest in Carrboro politics, and would not have recognized Coleman.

Ah, if only the world was as we wanted it to be and life was always fair! As one old boss use to say, "if you want fair as a sure thing, go to Raleigh in October."

There is no way that a ball game for a 6 year-old can justify a
dispute that results in a call to the police. Obviously someone
grossly overreacted.

Ruby, you say agree with Fred about increased scrutiny of elected officials "...IF* the accusations are true and are related to one's ability to govern". I gotta call BS on that statement. Since you say you've known Dan a while I can understand and even appreciate your wanting to give him every benefit of a doubt. But how often does any reporting on public officials' lives affect ability to govern, other than the coverage itself? Fred is right, would Larry Craig have made the news if he was Joe Schmoe? Of course not, just like the 44 others faced with similar charges based on MN bathroom behavior didn't make much news.

Seems to me the papers have handled this pretty fairly. In fact, I'd say the CH Herald article was generous to Dan and was certainly so compared to the N&O. For instance the Herald did not note that it was a high school cross country meet, which is not too hard a fact to establish. I read their article first and was left with the feeling that this was some informal running club that was arguably holding up traffic inappropriately. Clearly that is not the case.

Also, this thread is interesting in terms of the discussions - dare I say bragging? - about blogs and OP-type websites leading the news. While that is true sometimes and certainly blogs can and do make for thought provoking interactive forums, they also are often extremely and inherently biased. That may or may not be a bad thing and it is also related to the self selection of who is aware of and chooses to participate. But I believe it is important to recognize and remind ourselves of that bias.

There are a number of ways that this thread could go and certainly there are a lot of relevant points being discussed but I feel there is one that is being missed. Why was there a cross country meet going on in an area where the runners had to cross an active parking lot or anywhere where there is automobile traffic? I ran cross country in both High School and College and the only time I remember having to cross traffic was when it was essentially a road race. In those cases, from what I remember and it was a million years ago, there were trained traffic control officers either police or auxiliary police at places that required traffic control. Why was there a large(?) meet going on in this acknowledged awkward and perhaps dangerous place? In disagreement with what Duncan said above, I think it is pretty easy to site a cross country course in this area without crossing a road or completely tying up a parking lot. Without thinking very hard, I can come up with a few that exist and a number of other suggestions. Why there? Do all the local High Schools run their X-country meets there? I hope this isn't about each school needing its own course.

Additionally, what I couldn't get from the article in the paper was- what was Ms. Koutecki charge? And who gave her the assignment? Had she been instructed in traffic control by anyone? By the Carrboro police, the parks department or the meet director.

None of what I've said above excuses the aggressive behavior that has been described in the newspapers and in this thread. I wasn't there but it sounds like there was enough to go around. It reminds me of an old Dylan song about people going around like there is no one in the world but them. Not that I am not guilty of that at times myself.

This thread is getting curiouser and curiouser. There is no excuse for threatening anyone, regardless of the situation or the speed of movement, with a vehicle. I can't believe anyone, let alone parents, are trying to explain away this incident. We may not know all the details, but from the accounts in the newspapers and from the reports here the relevant details do not appear to be in dispute.

During a race, runners are most concerned with either catching the runner in front of them, watching their footing, or simply trying to survive the heat. We rely on volunteers such as Ms. Kotecki to protect us, since they are the only ones that can assess the big picture. As a qualified volunteer for the job, being an athlete herself, Ms. Kotecki would have been able to judge when it was safe for a car to pass. Any uncertainty should go in the favor of the 120lb. runner, rather than the 2 ton car (aka: deadly weapon). In that particular section of the race, we came fast downhill from a wooded area, out onto the cross walk that Ms. Kotecki was guarding. We could not see the cars, and they could not see us.

The altercation was in progress when I crossed through the area in the first third of the main pack, and runners before and after me reported hearing a male voice yelling.

It is my understanding that Carrboro High School unfortunately cannot yet host a home meet on campus, as the grounds are still under construction in some areas. The coaches obtained permission from the Carrboro Parks and Recreation Association to host the meet at that time, in that location.

"I think it is pretty easy to site a cross country course in this area without crossing a road or completely tying up a parking lot" states Jim Rabinowitz. Almost every cross country course in this area crosses a road or parking lot. Most aren't even lucky enough to have a cross walk. SAS soccer park's cross country course, one of the premier courses in the area and host of numerous regional collegiate and high school invitationals, crosses both park entrance roads which are guarded by volunteers.

Ms. Kotecki is a hero, because if the car hadn't been stopped by her, it could have hit one of us. She was brave to stand in front of that car. There are five witness statements that will document what happened. This is not a "He said, She said" case as reported by WRAL.

P.S. All five witness reports will also show that she did not jump on top of Mr. Coleman's car.

I don't feel I'll be in a position to evaluate the situation properly until I know whether the vehicle in question is a hybrid, how many miles per gallon it gets, and whether Dan Coleman and his 6-year-old could have biked to the practice rather than driving.

Well, Mr. Coleman sure does have a lot of friends here.

I think this is a rather simple, sad and all too common incident in our society today, Road Rage.

I experience it too often when biking on our rural roads and conditions don't allow an automobile to pass for a little while. Honking. Passing deliberately close. And choice words about how the car and driver deserve the right of way.

I've never been hurt, but others have been, some seriously. Not deliberately, but because these are the situations in which accidents happen. In this case, all parties should feel fortunate that Ms. Kotecki wasn't hurt. A little slip of the foot under such heated circumstances could have resulted in a different outcome. You just don't fool around with a couple thousand pounds of metal.

It is clear Mr. Coleman wanted to get his child to practice. But is it appropriate to model an aggressive response to a frustrating situation? What lesson does the child learn from a father who gets into an argument, pulls around other cars, allegedly bumping someone no matter how gently? It's like one of those awful video games come to life.

However this is sorted out, we must remember that other frustrated drivers chose not to engage Ms. Kotecki, challenge the situation, or disrupt an ongoing youth race. Mr. Coleman made a different choice. A patient response would have been a better lesson for a 6 year old. Some contriteness on Mr. Coleman's part after the fact would set a good example, too.

Jim: you're absolutely right: "Why was there a cross country meet going on in an area where the runners had to cross an active parking lot...?"

How dare they schedule a track meet at an athletic park where kids are playing baseball? ;-)

No Tim, my question is -Why do we have a X-country course that requires the runners to run through the traffic of a parking lot that is apparently quite active at the time the meet in question was going on? I say apparently because I haven't been there recently. Additionally, if someone was assigned to control traffic for this X-country meet were they qualified? My concerned is for the safety of the athletes.

Tim, perhaps the most operative word in your post is "schedule". I don't know, but maybe better scheduling would have helped all involved.

Sounds like thanks to Ms Kotecki all of the athletes were kept safe in the park that day

Nary a mention of the story in today's Chapel Hill News.

Not a peep in the CH Herald or Carrboro Citizen either. The local press must be cowed by Mr. Coleman's formidable wrath.

There was a mention in CH News today, Carrboro Citizen went to press before it happened, CH Herald covered it as it happened, thought not as well as N&O.

I think the Daily Tar Heel had it on the front page the morning after it happened, that's where I read about it.

For those interested, they just posted Mr. Coleman's 911 call on OrangeChat.

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/orangechat/index.php?title=carrboro_alderm...

You think maybe the woman got her back up a little because her authority to stop traffic at the cross-country meet was challenged by someone who saw a common-sense opportunity to drive by in the large gap between runners?

Did she maybe decide to register a charge because a cop came out as a result?

Ruby--did you listen to the same call I did? Let me quote:

"I tried to push forward...she jumped on the hood of my car."

If he "tried to push forward" and she was standing in the crosswalk then he drove toward her, whether or not he was "trying to drive over anyone." I'm sorry, but that could easily be construed as hostile...particularly given the tone of Dan's voice.

Mark, if I were given the task of stopping traffic to keep HS runners safe, and I wasn't convinced I had enough time between runners to let cars through, I'd probably have done the same thing. I'll agree, in a perfect world, the powers that be wouldn't lay out a course that takes them across a parking lot. That said--I've had to stop for five minutes or more for the other HS cross country teams on more than one occasion. And for Kids walking to Weaver Street from Carrboro Elementary.

If anything is clear from Dan's call, it is that one shouldn't use Anderson Park unless one is a Carrboro resident. Even if one attends Carrboro High School.

"Do you live in Carrboro? Do you live in Carrboro? Do you live in Carrboro?"

Lovely.

Before another molehill morphs into a mountain - it was clear that a frustrated Coleman was asking about Carrboro residency in regard to the authority of those who were holding up traffic. He certainly wasn't making any statements about who he thought should use the park.

Mark--if the person is stopping traffic for a cross country meet--I don't see why that person's residency (or lack thereof) has any bearing. Either one is allowed to stop traffic for a cross country meet or one isn't. My guess (and it is based on having sent two children all the way through the CHCCS system) is that MANY of the teachers at Carrboro High School do not live in Carrboro. Hence, those volunteering (and remember--coaches VOLUNTEER their time) may not live in Carrboro.

I was not aware that people who live in Carrboro have the authority to stop traffic in Carrboro parks, whereas people who live outside Carrboro do not.

The volunteer had a conflict. Holding up runners to wait for traffic would mess up their times; holding up traffic would delay the start of the little kids' baseball practice... not her problem.

One assumes that all of the waiting drivers wanted to get to Field 3 on time. Maybe the baseball coach has a rule about promptness. There probably were no runners in sight when Dan moved his car to the front of the line and insisted on being allowed to pass. He decided for some reason that a 911 call was justified.

"Talk to me, sir. Talk to me, sir."

What we hear in this recording is the frantic, furious voice of a little leage parent hell-bent on getting his way. When the dispatcher asks repeatedly "What is she so upset about?' Dan responds incoherently by yelling at the whole world.

Of course the dispatcher sent an officer to Anderson Park. "Calm down, sir." "I am calm." Oh, swell.

I have a confession to make. I am sure most of you can't think worse of me than you already do, but here it goes.

I once pulled out of a line of cars, drove up to a construction worker directing traffic and insisted on being let through. I was on Legion Road trying to turn down Ephesus to get to my daughter's preschool. It was between 2:30 and 3:00 when pick up happens at Ephesus Elementary too. I had waited 6 minutes according to my car clock, not long - but I couldn't wait 12 and be on time and I figured other people in my line of traffic were also waiting to get their kids and the construction worker didn't have a clue. I was not particularly articulate when I yelled out my window - I think I said "You have to let me through NOW. I am going to pick my kid up from school." I did not say please, I was not making a request.

The construction worker could have gotten right in front of my car and refused to let me by. He could have yelled back at me. He could have waved his stop sign. The other construction workers could have come over to join him. He could have called the police and claimed I was going to run him down.

I got lucky. He looked startled and waved me through and then waved the line of cars waiting. It did not occur to me at that moment that the other cars in the other line were probably also on their way to schools.

I remember this so clearly, years later, because I have no idea why I experienced that sudden determination. I even stop and let pedestrians cross when they aren't in the crosswalks Maybe it was too much caffeine, low blood sugar, insomnia the night before, Mars in Sagitarrius. No doubt Freud would find a reason.

If the construction worker had been a woman without a vest, without cones - all of which he had - without any sign saying what she was doing or why there were teenagers running across the road, I am pretty sure I would have done the same thing.
On that particular day, I would have insisted that I be let through to get to the school on time. Even though my child was with adults I trusted and was not in any danger if I was late.

So even if I was inclined, which I'm not, to throw stones at Dan, I couldn't. But I am really pleased to know that so many other people are Bodhisattvas and have never been impatient or frustrated or flustered.
One more good reason to live here.

I, for one, am often impatient and frustrated. I know a lot of other people who get impatient and frustrated also. They're more successful than I am, most of the time, in not acting out that impatience and frustration and becoming a jackass. That we all have acted like jackasses from time to time does not lessen our jackassedness, or the quality of jackassedness in others, or make that jackassedness more acceptable.

(That said, I have never run up on any construction worker, traffic cop, or civilian holding up traffic for safety and insisted that I be let through, especially when others are also waiting. I also tip too much, never send my food back to the kitchen, never block intersections in traffic, and always let merging lanes in ahead of me. Maybe I'm just a sucker.)

This discussion of whether the volunteer had a "right" to be stopping traffic, or was properly attired or trained, or whatever else, is really starting to piss me off.

At that moment on that day and at that hour, there was a cross country meet, and whether you like it or not, the approved course took those kids across a small parking lot briefly. That required someone to guard them for their safety, to include barring traffic temporarily. Whether you think this person was dressed properly, or had a right to be there by virtue of their training or place of residence are utterly irrelevant considerations at that moment. The volunteer has shouldered the burden of those kids' safety, and I see no reason why she should have to argue about it, or negotiate it, one the race is on and kids are coming and going across that road. (And, for the record, let's stipulate that this is not a "road" in the traditional sense, but a series of connected parking lots.) That's right, she's not a traffic cop, and thus should not be expected to start and stop traffic constantly, nor to know precisely what a safe gap is among the runners. It's much safer to stop traffic once than to keep dancing out in front of it, hand upraised, hoping there isn't an overly aggressive driver in the line.

Should there be police officers assigned to manage traffic every time school-age children have to cross a parking lot in a public park while running in an official school event? Maybe that's your point of view, and the town board can appropriate the extra money to pay for it. But even police officers are no guard against aggressive, entitled, impatient, frustrated drivers: During the first Raleigh Marathon (Sherri was running; I was cheering), in 2000, I witnessed a man in an argument with a police officer who had barred the way across an intersection for approaching runners. The man in the car thought he was a better judge of what was a safe interval for the passage of traffic, and so he went right around the officer and plowed into the wheelchair athlete who, at that moment, was leading the race. The wheelchair marathoner was treated in a local hospital, and the man was jailed. My point is that they put people at intersections because people in cars are impatient and frustrated and can't always be trusted to make the best decisions.

I've already told y'all I was bumped hard by a car during a dual meet and had to withdraw. Our team went on to win the state championship, but I was not the same runner after that. (Those of you who know me are now saying, "That tub of lard can run? What?") Anyway, I take this criticism of the cross country volunteer very hard. And if it's true that the prevalent attitude of folks in Chapel Hill and Carrboro are that cross country runners and their meets are intolerably aggravating and that cross country volunteers are there to be yelled at and challenged whenever you're a few minutes late to whatever it is you think is so damned important, then I am very sad.

Sad and resolved, that is. If y'all really can't see that the choice between being late to an appointment and potentially injuring a child is no choice at all, then I will begin volunteering at cross country meets in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. I will bar the road, and you will not ever get through me.

I am really disappointed.

Well said, Duncan. Well said.

Citizens don't often get insight into how someone running for office would handle a conflict situation, but the 911 recording provides this opportunity.

Steering clear of the criminal allegations, the recording along with the basic facts reported about the situation gives insight into how this alderman handled a minor conflict. It appears that Mr. Coleman lost his cool with a volunteer. The volunteer was apparently tasked with insuring that runners in a timed competition could safely cross an entrance to a park.

Mr. Coleman's statements in the 911 call strike me as heavy handed for the situation. I expect elected (and appointed, as Coleman is) officials to handle conflicts with an appropriate level of assertiveness and to err on the side of being peaceful and gracious when folks are not in immediate danger. I also expect officials to identify and deal with the appropriate leaders. It appears that the volunteer was not in charge of the track meet. As a point of comparison, had a police officer been posted there, the officer may have been commanded by his or her superior as to when to stop traffic. Discussing a change in traffic priority with the officer might have been for naught, because the matter would need to be taken up with the superior officer. Beyond informally suggesting that the volunteer allow cars to pass, this matter should have been taken to a higher authority.

I think that Mr. Coleman should have pulled to the side of the road, gotten out of his car, and had a calm and peaceful discussion with the volunteer. Alternately, he could have called the police earlier since Mr. Coleman was asserting a dispute regarding public right of way. Or he could have waited until the next day to contact the parks and rec employee or perhaps the town manager to discuss the situation. It is important for officials to recognize where they have direct authority. I am not an expert in council-manager governance nor a lawyer, but it is my understanding that the aldermen, as a group, direct the town manager and the town manager directs staff and this volunteer was acting indirectly under the authority granted by an agreement with the parks and rec department. While an informal conversation with the volunteer is entirely in order as a citizen, Mr Coleman appears to escalate beyond that.

Had Mr. Coleman been transporting an injured child to a doctor or some other urgent need, then the impatience may have been warranted, but that is not the case here.

I am also troubled by Mr. Coleman's repeated and irrelevant question about whether the volunteer resides in Carrboro. Are citizens going to have to start presenting papers to use a park? Will Carrboro and Chapel Hill have to hammer out a bilateral park usage accord?

I also agree with Duncan's comments.

what if had told the 911 operator that he had a wide stance?

Mark M., your rationalizations are humurous, in a sad sort of way.

Dan's friends really aren't helping him by making excuses. What's ironic is that so many of those making the excuses are the same ones advocating for a walkable, bikeable community.

Dan screwed up like so many of us do on a regular basis. If he would have apologized as soon as he cooled down, this whole thing might have just blown itself out.

"That we all have acted like jackasses from time to time does not lessen our jackassedness, or the quality of jackassedness in others, or make that jackassedness more acceptable."

No, but I think it would make us all think twice before publicly eviscerating others. But apparently that's as much of a sport as cross country.

I'm curious to know why the responsibility of the safety of high-school children does not equally rest on the coaches who route meets through heavy trafficked areas during rush hour.

Cross-country runners are, by definition, not bounded by tracks and roadways. Can't they plan a different route that doesn't disrupt traffic? Even a circuitous one that might involve, say, more running? Isn't the safest plan to avoid any traffic interaction altogether?

Were I a cross-country coach, I would never assume that I had to right to commandeer roadways at my whim, and I would certainly never put kids in danger to do so.

Had a backup of traffic onto HWY-54 caused a collision, who would be responsible?

Certainly, Dan overreacted, but I believe his fundamental point, unauthorized and short-sighted disruption of traffic, was a valid one. In the context of a multi-car pile-up on the highway, the law might agree.

Fair use of municipal roadways is a two-way street.

For what its worth, I've been there often when a cross-country meet was taking place. I've driven across the runners route during a race - the runners get very spread out. It's not brain surgery. And it doesn't really take any training to notice that there are no runners within a hundred yards and allow a car to pass. In fact a 12 year old could do it. So the image of the heroic protector of our youth seems a bit overblown.

Pardon the interruption - now you Bodhisattvas can get back to piling on.

good gravy, sounds like a d-bag on that 911 call, I would not vote for a person who handled a situation like that.

Maria: In your comment: "...I think it would make us all think twice before publicly eviscerating others..." are you referring to Mr. Coleman's behavior toward the crossing guard or OP contributers offering up their opinion of Mr. Coleman?

To me this issue is about who's judgement was correct about whether there was enough space to let cars pass, and I certainly don't feel qualified to make that decision.

The primary issues are whether pedestrians versus cars have right of way and how conflicts are best resolved between a motorist and a pedestrian event volunteer who appears to be directing traffic. There are additional secondary issues involving citizenship, etc.

The 911 call does not portray anyone in a positive light (well, except maybe the 911 operator).

It sounded to me like a confrontation between two people who aren't very accustomed to being told what to do.

anecdote:

One time I blew up at a kinko's sales "associate" because they screwed up some photocopies (expensive ones that you can transfer to a t-shirt with an iron). I huffed and puffed and threatened to call the national HQ (which, I found out later, amounts to about nothing because they are individually owned and operated). I looked behind me in line to search for sympathetic faces. None.

Afterwards, I felt really embarrassed about my sense of entitlement. I was being an ass and I was the last person in the room to figure it out.

oh yeah, at the time, I was also 17 years old and not running for public office.

Not to pile on, but I look for a bit more humility from elected folks in stressful situations. Not that I can always accomplish that myself; but I'd like to see more of that in Mr. Coleman.

But, hey, he's done some good things for Carrboro. If he apologizes (even if it wasn't all his fault) I'd probably forgive him and vote for him.

We all screw up. And forgiving others helps us feel good about ourselves.

Paul R.,

Suggesting that coaches lay a different path that "might, say, involve more running" makes as much sense as suggesting that we could fit more baseball fields in at Hank Anderson if we reduced the basepaths to 10 feet each. Cross country, in competition, is a fixed distance sport.

Please, please, please try to lay out the perfect cross country course: 3.1 miles that isn't an endlessly repeated loop, incorporates a variety of terrain, and never touches any kind of traffic-bearing road, parking lot, or thruway. Good luck finding that kind of public space! But I have confidence in you! Surely, you can do what generations of cross country coaches have failed to do. Lord, those cross country runners and coaches love to run near cars, don't you know! So irresponsible. You would do so much better.

And thanks for reminding me that what occurred at Hank Anderson Park was not so much a heated argument involving a motorist in a hurry and an athletics event volunteer, but an impromptu informational meeting on the policy implications of traffic disruption.

Finally, thanks for reminding me that "authorized by the Carrboro Parks and Recreation Department" means "unauthorized."

You know, at the beginning of all this I was really inclined to give Dan Coleman the benefit of the doubt. I know Dan, I've supped with Dan and talked with him any number of times. But the more specious the arguments become, and the more inclined you and others are to shift the blame for the confrontation to anyone (volunteer, coaches, the parks dept.)but the person who was doing the yelling, the more skeptical I become.

I hope that Dan's account proves to be the accurate one and that there was no assault. But you and Mark Marcoplos are doing him no favors.

It took me until just now to realize it, but there's actually an issue lurking in here that I've often wondered about: what is it OK to call 911 for?

I'm serious about this, and not trying to pick a fight.

I have always thought 911 was for "emergencies" -- you know, you wake up hearing somebody trying to break into your house, or you come home and see flames in the upstairs windows, or you step into your boss's office and find her unconscious on the floor, or (to take a timely example) a plane flies into your office building. And though I've never really had to articulate it before, I guess I've always hesitated to call 911 in situations that have arisen for fear that I'd be tying up an operator when a more urgent call came through.

It would simply never occur to me to call 911 because somebody was blocking my path and keeping me from getting my daughter to a violin lesson on time. Yet it obviously occurred to Dan Coleman -- and he may well have been quite right to make the call. I really don't know.

So what are the rules/guidelines for dialing 911, anyway?

Every CH police officer I've ever heard answer this question (community relations and such) has said you shouldn't hesitate to call 911 for any situation. They must expect the non-emergency calls and be able to handle (at least here -- in Atlanta I called once and the 1st question is a computer prompt that asks "is this an emergency?").

Here's an "official" answer -- http://townofchapelhill.org/FAQ.ASP?QID=59

-J

Eric, the Carrboro web site for the PD says:

"Please Note the Following:

"Please dial 911 in the event of an emergency. If you need to file a "non-emergency" report or crime during regular business hours (Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.), please do so at the Carrboro Police Department or you may call the main Police Department phone number (918-7397). At all other times, Carrboro Police Department officers are dispatched through 911 whether the call is an emergency or not. Please do not hesitate to dial 911 during weekends or times other than regular business hours.

"Please do not attempt to file a report via e-mail. Thank you."

Very helpful.

(It had also never occurred to me to report a home intruder via email!)

Taking son to softball game? Pitty the poor coach and umpire if things don't go to dad's satisfaction.
Don

It was a PRACTICE, not even a game. And for the record, his son's team lost their 1st game on Friday. Dan was in attendance and I heard nothing but encouragement for his son from him.