Small Town Police Blotter, Part 2

Okay, so when I posted the previous entry, I was reminded of one I saw the other day that struck me as being almost as absurd.

From July 24, 2009 Yankton Press & Dakotan:
• Two females and a male reported Friday morning that someone put peanut butter under the door handles on their vehicles while they were parked in the 2900 block of Douglas Ave. Several area residents were spoken with about the incident and were told to get along with each other.

I've heard the term "nanny state" loosely thrown around in political debates, but this incident seems to be a perfect, albeit very literal definition of the term.

I am beginning to wonder if there is a "special investigations" officer on the Yankton Police force, who specializes in stern lectures and finger-waggings for "hoodlums, scallywags and rascals". Instead of a gun, he carries a ruler, and slaps people on the wrist with it if they get too far out of line.

Small Town Police Blotter, Part 1

I regularly get a chuckle from some of the things that end up in the newspaper's police blotter up here. Coming from a big, crime-ridden city....I'm used to the newspaper only printing a "portion" of the area's arrests & incidents (to print them all would likely require a whole newspaper section). Most of the time the big city paper includes only the more serious crimes/incidents, and NOT the times when Old Aunt Millie down by the river called 911 to report the pesky squirrels on her lawn, or something. Not here....it seems ALL calls to 911 that required any sort of officer follow-up are printed in the paper. They. Print. Everything.

The following entry is from the Yankton Press & Dakotan, published Aug 7, 2009:
"• A request for an officer was received at 7:49 p.m. Wednesday. Memorial pool staff requested that an YPD Officer speak with an 8-year-old boy about pooping on the floor. Boy was spoken to and advised he would not do it again."

I don't even know how to follow that. It speaks for itself. I'll refrain from the obvious astonished reaction i.e. "exactly where was this child's parents, why were they not supervising him at the pool, and IF they were present why did they need a policeman to scold their own child for public defecation?"

Let this be a lesson to anybody thinking of visiting Yankton....don't poop on the floor at the pool, or you'll be visited by the cops, given a stern talking-to, most likely combined with a firm finger-wagging.

ETA: Re-reading the newspaper entry; I notice some ambiguity in the way it's written. The officer was there to "speak with an 8-year-old boy about pooping on the floor." It's unclear- was the cop there to CHASTISE the boy, or did the pool staff just think the boy needed to have a bizarre, uncomfortable discussion with a man in a uniform, about poop?? And then, "Boy was spoken to and advised he would not do it again." Who was doing the "advising" here- the boy, or the officer? I am by no means a grammar whiz, but the writers for the Dakotan also get PAID to write; you'd think they'd form better sentences. Also, "pooping"? Seriously? A college degree in journalism and you're actually using the word "poop" in a newspaper? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.