Cop gone wild---lying and making threats
0
-
I will say that none of the cops I have dealt with are like this one, and I have always been respectful of them(probably part of the reason they have never given me a ticket, even though they easily could have twice). Its a two way street, and when a cop is that arrogant, and careless regarding the laws and rights of others, I want to see him strung from a tree. 0 -
Yep, The cop is guilty................. of rude and obnoxious behavior.
Also looks like the kid baited him into it by being a smart ass at the outset of the contact, knowing his video was running and wanting to get some spicey material.
Shame on the ofcr for allowing himself to get drawn into the "show" and loosing his temper.0 -
"allude"
"losing"
D.0 -
quote:Typical police attitude. I've seen this enough times for it to be seen as norm rather than an exception, most cops are smart enough not to be obvious with it.
Maybe you need to read a little Dale Carnegie. [;)]
quote:If it's up to a cop to punish a cop, he'll walk.
Another damn lie. BTDT, and I damn well know better.
quote:The video clearly indicates the 'boy' signaling. The chief flatfoot saw the video yet takes the junior flatfoot's assertion that he had reasonable cause to stop the taxpayer. Both a liars and perjured themselves.
Where did you get that the chief was in on anything?
quote:Doin' what comes natually.
Yes, you are. Sadly.0 -
It sounds like conduct unbecoming of an officer and maybe disorderly conduct at best. Out of line sure. Anyone who says that they have had run ins with police means they were doing something they shouldnt have been. You also dont need probable cause to ID someone. You also dont need to explain to someone excatly what is going on step by step. In fact you dont even have to be truthful with them as long as you do have a legit reason to engage them in the first place. ie if i stop someone who has a felony warrant i may tell them i stopped them for some traffic infraction just so they dont realize that i know about the warrant. the way of the world is now police should assume that you are being taped during any contact. I would think you would need to have terroist connections to make a terriorst threat. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by bigmill
Anyone who says that they have had run ins with police means they were doing something they shouldnt have been. You also dont need probable cause to ID someone. You also dont need to explain to someone excatly what is going on step by step. In fact you dont even have to be truthful with them as long as you do have a legit reason to engage them in the first place. ie if i stop someone who has a felony warrant i may tell them i stopped them for some traffic infraction just so they dont realize that i know about the warrant. the way of the world is now police should assume that you are being taped during any contact.
what nobody sees anything wrong with what this person said?0 -
I would think that in the big picture, all of this officers past arrest would now be open to scrutiny. Don 0 -
quote:Originally posted by bigmill
It sounds like conduct unbecoming of an officer and maybe disorderly conduct at best. Out of line sure. Anyone who says that they have had run ins with police means they were doing something they shouldnt have been. You also dont need probable cause to ID someone. You also dont need to explain to someone excatly what is going on step by step. In fact you dont even have to be truthful with them as long as you do have a legit reason to engage them in the first place. ie if i stop someone who has a felony warrant i may tell them i stopped them for some traffic infraction just so they dont realize that i know about the warrant. the way of the world is now police should assume that you are being taped during any contact. I would think you would need to have terroist connections to make a terriorst threat.
That citizen was one eye-contact away from an assault or worst, but not improbable case, taking a bullet. Perfect spot for a badge-heavy cop; deserted parking lot, no civilian witness, a partner unwilling or unable to intervene, and a young victim. The cop was aching for a chance to go off on this man, you can hear it--he's almost hysterical. You don't think a cop can terrorize? You need a 40 caliber pistol muzzle stuck in your ear a time or two.
Clouder..0 -
Powerhungry.
I don't like him one bit. He is the tyrant.
I also find it remarkable that anyone would attempt to defend his actions.
I also agree with dcon. He's done this before.
Ben0 -
quote:Originally posted by fishermanben
Powerhungry.
I don't like him one bit. He is the tyrant.
I also find it remarkable that anyone would attempt to defend his actions.
I also agree with dcon. He's done this before.
Ben
+1
And he has gotten away with it....
Don0 -
Well in Nebraska you don't have to show ID if you have not done anything wrong. Case in point. A guy walks up to the sheriff's department door to go in and file a comlpaint against a officer in the department. The door is locked as the office was closed. The guy starts to walk away as a officer rolls up and asks if he could help him. The guy asks when the sheriff will return, the cop asks him why he wants to talk to the sheriff, over and over again. Finally, the guys says he wants to file a complaint against a officer. The cop goes nuts and starts demanding this guy's ID. He won't provide it and turns to leave. Cop arrests him for some stupid crap. Problem is some news crew was there and caught the whole ordeal on tape, audio and all. Case thrown out, officer fired, lawsuit filed.
Got Guns?0 -
quote:Originally posted by GUNFUNCO
Lt496-
(Per Criminal Law and Procedure-Fall 2000-published by the state of Michigan for police)
In my state, Terry merely requires 2 things
that there is reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot=stop
and Reasonable suspicion to believe person is armed=frisk
Those are the only 2 elements.
When I went to the academy, I recall that there was a 3rd element and there must also be fear on the part of the officer, but that is not in the manual (2000 edition) that my state puts out.
My book here even states as case law that an officer ordered a driver out of the vehicle before noticing a bulge in a guys coat. The driver was frisked and found to have a gun. The court found that ordering the guy out was a minimal intrusion and did not violate 4th amendment. (case-Pennsylvania v Mimms 98 S.Ct. 330-1977)
As far as manufacturing the information to conduct the stop, (I'm referring to the high crime area, etc-not the weaving or use of turn signals) that would have to be proven. I realize that the cops credibility is down the tube, but the justification may not be.
(I have thought that a far better approach would have been a walk up contact without emergency lights to establish what is going on or pull alongside the vehicle and make contact with the driver to engage in a conversation. That being said, I'll give a little leeway on the way the contact was made specifically because I DON"T know the area and wouldn't normally second guess a cop when making decisions that might directly affect his safety, like driving alongside a vehicle to make contact and taking a blast in the face from a shotgun. (A friend of mine was recently walking up to the car when the driver poked out a shotgun and shot him in the midsection.)
________________________________________________________
As far as Unlawful imprisonment, I think the police officer did not have a serious problem with his "original" contact being reasonable. It was not until he became abusive that most would have had a problem with his actions, IF he could substantiate that it was a high crime area or (other facts existed) but that is not known to either of us but doesn't diminish the actual facts if they are true. Neither of us know that yet. A 12 minute stop, if the officer had articuable(sp) suspicions do not seam unreasonable. It was his comments that were.
You eluded to the fact that that your comments might have been "hastily written". So we kind of agree on the above.
_________________________________________________________________
Now I will agree with you that a "simple assualt" charge would probably be a valid charge in this case (and stated so myself earlier) as well as "disturbing the peace" both of which are simple misdemeanors in my state. (90 day) Hardly the punishment most here want to inflict on the officer like shoooting him or sending him away on a felony.
As you said "of course a thorough investigation would have to be completed..." That is the point I was trying to make to some of the people here. You don't just charge the cop (just like he can't charge the public) without a solid knowledge of all the facts of a case.
____________________________________________
AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN! I am not making excuses for the cop. Just trying to use reasonable judgement in judging his actions.
_________________________________________
ALSO, Maybe you would like to elaborate to buschmaster how many times cops and judges are threatened by suspects. He doesn't seem to believe me.
GUNFUNCO,
Good discussion.
First the "Terry Frisk" issue. Using your own example, simply pulling into a public parking area does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion IMO. Having cops toss out that old tired "high crime area" schtick doesn't necessarily make reasonable suspicion. If it does in the eyes of most Americans then we are truly screwed constitutionally, again IMO.
Second point on the "Terry Frisk" issue. Based on what I saw in the video and I watched the entire thing, there was nothing to indicate suspicion that the kid was armed, period.
Regardless of your reading of Terry, it didn't apply here.
The cop made the contact for some reason, unknown to me. Probably fishing. Ok, he decided to check on the vehicle/driver who by now was legally parked in a public lot. He contacted the driver with the normal line, ok. When the driver of the legally parked vehicle questioned the validity of the contact, absent some other suspicious circumstance, the officer should have advised him of the issues and wished him a good evening. He could have gone so far as to check his vehicle LP and his driver license for wants and warrants if he based that action on parking in a public lot at night, but stretched things under the reported umbrella of a "high crime area".
The contact went south when the kid simply questioned the reason for the contact, pointed out that he was lawful in parking there if he chose and asked what he did wrong. Spanky went nuts at that point, due to the "how dare you question me" theory of policing.
As an officer, your actions relating to temporarily suspending the free movement of someone had BETTER be based on legal and constitutional ground. Spanky's actions were not, in my professional opinion.
Everything that happened after that was wrong, again in my professional opinion.
Where, in your eyes, was the legality of Spanky's actions from that point?
Just because you are a cop does not mean you can do anything you want to, nor does in mean that you can "bull through" what should have been a consensual contact to simply check on someones status, when the legality and appropriateness of your contact is merely questioned.
If you are on legal ground, you can justify, explain, or otherwise back up your actions. When you are not acting in a lawful manner, you can't back your actions up and either back out of the contact, or as in Spanky's case, go nuts and "bull through".
I maintain that he "could" have asked for the kids ID to check him and absent any wants or warrants "should" have left if no other suspicious circumstances were present. Nothing would have prevented him from driving by any number of times to "remind" the kid that his presence was noted. At the point he ordered the kid out of the car, he stepped outside of acting lawfully, again in my professional opinion.
You mention something about ordering someone out of a vehicle prior to the officer noticing a bulge and subsequently conducting a "Terry Frisk", this from Pa Case Law. My question to you would be at what point is it lawful for the officer to "order" someone out of a car in Pa, absent some threat, or other circumstance? Remember, this was not a traffic stop, it was a parked car. Was there an articulable reason to "order" the kid from the vehicle? Open to interpretation I guess, like most police work is.
If he was lawful in ordering the kid out of the car, at what point was it apparent that the kid was not a threat and not involved in criminal activity? On what legal basis did he restrain the kid after that point?
Back to the Unlawful Imprisonment issue.
I contend that even if this was a high crime area, this in and of itself gives the cop no right to blanket check everyone who may be there. Put your wife in that car, your mother, yourself or your brother. Same circumstances. Is the legality of the officers actions any different? Are we as American Citizens not allowed to even ask a polite question as to the reason for the contact? Should not the officer have simply explained the reasons for his concerns and his presence, professionally conducted his business then left?
Having someone merely question what the basis is for an agent of the government to interrupt his personal business, does not rise to suspicious or criminal behavior. Since in my opinion, there had been no basis laid as of yet to do anything further than to check an ID and/or the LP on the vehicle, Skippy's actions at that point crossed the legal line, e.g. he created his own exigency for his further actions. Sorry, can't do that and it doesn't fall into the "good faith" category either.
His actions, under the letter of the law, constitute unlawful imprisonment here. Do I realistically think he will be charged, no.
When I spoke of a hasty reply, it was based on not taking a great deal of time to compose my position, nothing more, nothing less. I rattled off what seemed to be some applicable charges, but in retrospect realized the threatening and intimidating charge wouldn't apply, oops.
Bottom line, we do not agree on the unlawful imprisonment issue.
Once again, in my professional opinion, this guy need to be sent packing and I would like to see some charges brought up against him. It is indeed that egregious to me. He betrayed his oath and the public trust.
These actions damage the standing of the thousands of good officers out there addressing public safety issues and conducting business under constitutional guidelines. Policing is NOT supposed to be conducted like the modern day Gestapo.
The Civil Rights issue came directly into play when his actions, as an agent of the government, stopped being in good faith and under legal authority. It is high time that such actions are slapped down and slapped down hard, period.
As to judges and cops receiving threats, yes it happens. I have worked a few cases on threats against judges and have been threatened myself a couple of times. Not sure of the relevance of this information, but there it is.0 -
quote:Originally posted by CA sucks
But I'll settle for criminal charges for...
-Making a terrorist threat:
"574.115. 1. A person commits the crime of making a terrorist threat if such person communicates a threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life, communicates a knowingly false report of an incident or condition involving danger to life, or knowingly causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life: "
How does "I will F*@K up your life" sound for making a threat of danger to someones life
I was just sitting here on the sidelines watching people froth when I noticed a blatant lie.
Assuming you don't have Missouri's criminal statutes memorized, you looked up their terroristic threat statute and posted it to enlighten us. The problem is you only posted the first sentence, completely omitting the portions that didn't support your assertion.
Here's what it actually says....
Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 574
Offenses Against Public Order
Section 574.115
Making a terrorist threat, penalty.
A person commits the crime of making a terrorist threat if such person communicates a threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life, communicates a knowingly false report of an incident or condition involving danger to life, or knowingly causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life:
(1) With the purpose of frightening ten or more people;
(2) With the purpose of causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation; or
(3) With reckless disregard of the risk of causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation; or
(4) With criminal negligence with regard to the risk of causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation.
2. Making a terrorist threat is a class C felony unless committed under subdivision (3) of subsection 1 of this section in which case it is a class D felony or unless committed under subdivision (4) of subsection 1 of this section in which case it is a class A misdemeanor.
3. For the purpose of this section, "threat" includes an express or implied threat.
4. A person who acts in good faith with the purpose to prevent harm does not commit a crime pursuant to this section.
It's clear the acts of this jack-azz actually don't fit the required elements of this offense.
I notice you also failed to cite any of the required elements for the other offenses you say this jack-azz is guilty of.
FYI-The dead giveaway was that you forgot to also delete the semi-colon. Might want to watch that next time. [;)]0 -
I'm sure any decent prosecutor would be able to find 9 other people willing to testify to similar threats, making his threat apply to 10 or more people, a successful prosecutor could argue it is the same threat, just repeated to over 10 people.
A parking lot is a facility of transportation, and it was this cops intent to evacuate him from it.
All you need are 9 other people willing to attest to the cop doing the same thing.
As others on this forum have already said, I'm sure this wasn't the first time this pathetic excuse for a human being has acted like this.
Moreover the cop wanted to make an example of him, and one could argue that making an example of one person is meanto to frighten others- surely after this 20 yr old guy gets done telling all his friends what happened, they too would be frightened of running into this cop.
It wouldn't take a multi-million dollar lawyer to make the charge stick, but those cops watch each others backs I'll bet, and he probably won't even go to court.
That town needs another "Battle of Athens" to happen, if the police chief is defending that sack of puke.0 -
I use to work mids, so when the week end came up, I was always up at night. I would go to winn dixe, lowes, to run my rc cars.
Most of the time the cops would come by to see, most time they liked it. I had one time, the cop got in my face. Lucky I knew a lot of guys on the force. one call, one of them would show up and calm him down. friends in high places0 -
quote:Originally posted by CA sucks
I'm sure any decent prosecutor would be able to find 9 other people willing to testify to similar threats, making his threat apply to 10 or more people, a successful prosecutor could argue it is the same threat, just repeated to over 10 people.
A parking lot is a facility of transportation, and it was this cops intent to evacuate him from it.
All you need are 9 other people willing to attest to the cop doing the same thing.
As others on this forum have already said, I'm sure this wasn't the first time this pathetic excuse for a human being has acted like this.
Moreover the cop wanted to make an example of him, and one could argue that making an example of one person is meanto to frighten others- surely after this 20 yr old guy gets done telling all his friends what happened, they too would be frightened of running into this cop.You're either joking or clueless. [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
BTW-Can you explain for us why you chose to omit this portion of the statute in your earlier post if this is the portion you're saying he violated?0 -
quote:Originally posted by CA sucks
It wouldn't take a multi-million dollar lawyer to make the charge stick, but those cops watch each others backs I'll bet, and he probably won't even go to court.
That town needs another "Battle of Athens" to happen, if the police chief is defending that sack of puke.
Yawww. Ya really think that? [:D]
Clouder..0 -
stupidity 0 -
I'm back.
I think most of us can now plainly see (at least any of us with a little knowledge of law and how it works) that CA sucks wants to bend and twist the law to suit his personal vendetta against the cop. That is not real rational thinking. I think he has the same kind of problem that this cop did, he wants to use the law to his own advantage and to his own end. Not what is constitutionally reasonable.
CA- I don't know how you came by your twisted sense of judgement since you have never been treated poorly (by police) by your own admission. I hope you feel so strongly for such severe punishment when you or one of yours steps outside the line.0 -
Txs- Brevity, as it was in a list of a bunch of other things I would try charging him with.
I believe this guy deserves no mercy, and would make arguments to make as many laws apply to this situation as possible.
I admit, some of them are stretching the law a little far, but this guys actions weren't stretching the law, but clearly breaking it, they were clear violations of not just minor laws, but of inalienable human rights, of the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution.
If he can break the supreme law of the land, I can stretch some laws that are offshoots of a propaganda campaign to punish him.0 -
Another thought occurred to me.
Since after the cops rant, he failed to even issue the most minor violation, in spite of the fact that he was ticked at the fact that the young man challenged him and his reason for a stop, he likely knew that all he had done was feed the kid a line of crap that he couldn't back up, so he didn't make a trumped up charge, (that so many think he would have so easily done) and just let him go.
Does anyone here not think the cop would not have issued him a ticket to teach him a lesson after he challenged him if he had one he could solidly write and testify to in court?
The cop knew he was feeding him a line of crap that wouldn't fly so he swallowed his pride and let him go. In other words, he basically chewed the kids ass but made a bigger one of himself.
Therefor, maybe it would be less likely that the cop had charged other people improperly than some here might think?
Just some thoughts...0 -
GunFunCo - Some things just don't sit right with me, blatant abuse of power is one of them.
I believe respect for the law should be mutual, as should politeness and civility. I am not disrespectful to officers I meet, and thus far they have returned the favor.
But once one in power violates that relationship of mutual respect with blatant disregard for the rights of the citizen, as this officer clearly has, there are no limits as to what I would deem acceptable punishment for him.
I normally believe in the rule of law based on the Constitution.
However, when those charged with enforcing the law step outside the law, I believe retribution may rightfully be taken outside the law as well (in extreme cases, this is in the form of a rebellion, see "Battle of Athens" or US Revolution).
If he expresses disdain for one's constitutional right, I will express my disdain for his rights.
Heck, I'd be happy if this officers own personal assault on the constitution were deemed to be "adhering to our enemies" - Bush did say those terrorists "hate us for our freedom" after all. Execute him.
This sort of thing should not be tolerated.
Of course I have similar thoughts about the cops involved in weapons confiscation during Katrina.0 -
GunFunCo- I believe the only reason the cop eventually calmed down, and did not issue a violation, is because he saw the camera. Particularly once he was told the video tape was not in the car, but rather it was a wireless transmission to another location.
The fact that he backed down when he realized he might be getting caught does nothing to absolve him in my opinion.0 -
quote:Originally posted by CA sucks
GunFunCo- I believe the only reason the cop eventually calmed down, and did not issue a violation, is because he saw the camera. Particularly once he was told the video tape was not in the car, but rather it was a wireless transmission to another location.
The fact that he backed down when he realized he might be getting caught does nothing to absolve him in my opinion.
But there was one video he could take care of----and it appears he did. But then, there's nothing wrong with about destroying city/county/state property, or evidence tampering. Naw, he's a cop.
Clouder..0 -
It's pretty obvious the cop was set up by a smart ass kid. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The best thing you can say about the cop is that was totally unprofessional behavior. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
It's pretty obvious the cop was set up by a smart ass kid. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The best thing you can say about the cop is that was totally unprofessional behavior.
yep! i would say that cop was a complete idiot!0 -
Lt-
I agree on the "good discussion".
The point I was trying to make about having all the facts and doing a complete investigation is...
Would any reasonable person have a problem with the cop making the "contact" if there were 4 cars broken into on different nights between, say midnight and 6 am, in the last 2 weeks, in lots in that area? Especially since from the appearance of the video, the lots were very lightly used?
It would jump up the "high crime area schtick" a few notches, I would think.
There could be many more legitimate reasons for checking the vehicle at that time of night. I think we both know that. I agree that absent other factors, this was nothing more than a "fishing expedition".
But cops also are taught to "seek out" law violators and generate activity to put on their dailys as a routine occurence with many departments.
I don't agree with this cops actions.
I personally think a misdemeanor charge would be appropriate. Depending on his prior record of citizen complaints as well as his overall disciplinary record with his department, I could see a disciplinary action of anything from a 30 day unpaid suspension and counselling to a termination from the department as appropriate. If anyone thinks a 30 day unpaid leave won't "ruin your life" for a couple years, you are mistaken. (Oh, and also a written and public apology to the young man and the public at large.) I often tell my kids, you can't get forgiveness until and unless you ask for it.
Most other people don't lose their jobs over "simple misdemeanors".
Some simple misdemeanors, like "operator failed to provide personal flotation devices on watercraft" are also 90 day misdemeanors in most states. If a cop's kid took out his throwable cushion on his boat, the crime is the same and the potential penalty the same as the type of charges that would be appropriately charged here.
Just a few more thoughts....0 -
Did the kid's girlfriend ever show up with his phone ??
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by GUNFUNCO
Lt-
I agree on the "good discussion".
The point I was trying to make about having all the facts and doing a complete investigation is...
Would any reasonable person have a problem with the cop making the "contact" if there were 4 cars broken into on different nights between, say midnight and 6 am, in the last 2 weeks, in lots in that area? Especially since from the appearance of the video, the lots were very lightly used?
It would jump up the "high crime area schtick" a few notches, I would think.
There could be many more legitimate reasons for checking the vehicle at that time of night. I think we both know that. I agree that absent other factors, this was nothing more than a "fishing expedition".
But cops also are taught to "seek out" law violators and generate activity to put on their dailys as a routine occurence with many departments.
I don't agree with this cops actions.
I personally think a misdemeanor charge would be appropriate. Depending on his prior record of citizen complaints as well as his overall disciplinary record with his department, I could see a disciplinary action of anything from a 30 day unpaid suspension and counselling to a termination from the department as appropriate. If anyone thinks a 30 day unpaid leave won't "ruin your life" for a couple years, you are mistaken. (Oh, and also a written and public apology to the young man and the public at large.) I often tell my kids, you can't get forgiveness until and unless you ask for it.
Most other people don't lose their jobs over "simple misdemeanors".
Some simple misdemeanors, like "operator failed to provide personal flotation devices on watercraft" are also 90 day misdemeanors in most states. If a cop's kid took out his throwable cushion on his boat, the crime is the same and the potential penalty the same as the type of charges that would be appropriately charged here.
Just a few more thoughts....
GUNFUNCO,
My whole premise on the issue is based on my absolute disdain and outright disgust with a public servant taking actions such as Sgt. Skippy did. He is simply a heavy-handed "storm trooper type" cop and an oath violator to boot.
In an earlier post, I clearly stated that of course a complete investigation needs to be conducted to gather all the facts.
As to the "initial" contact. Given your circumstance above, I don't see a problem with that "initial" contact. Police can certainly approach citizens and inquire, or if lawful, detain to investigate possible criminal acts. That is how we "police" the community. These actions need to be undertaken in a lawful and reasonable manner however.
Take the circumstances as they were in the video. A car pulled into and parked in an almost vacant lot, not near anything else and not in a suspicious manner. I don't have a problem even then with Skippy contacting the occupant. Things simply degenerated after his initial schtick. The occupant merely questioned what he had done wrong and away Skippy went. Where was the "reasonable suspicion" to detain and further investigate? Was Skippy's reasonable suspicion based on the mere questioning of his police authority to do what he was doing? Remember, the circumstances of the vehicle arriving and parking away from everything, in an open and moderately well lit area, were not in and of themselves suspicious in my opinion.
Sure, having the lot as a legitimate "high crime" area would notch things up a bit. I am not arguing otherwise. I am focusing on the "actual" situation that occurred. Were the actions or activities of the vehicle and/or the driver suspicious enough to warrant the subsequent detention? The initial contact is fine. Where from that point does Skippy lawfully base his further detention and disorderly conduct?
In my heart, I wish charges were brought against him because of his pathetic actions. However, I do not think it likely that this will occur. I attempted to put some of his egregious actions into the context of existing criminal law to illustrate that SHOULD the County Attorney choose to do so, a case COULD be made. In fact, I advocate that charges should be filed.
Given the current climate in government in condoning overreaching and outright unconstitutional (IMHO) actions by police around the country, I think that the likelihood of charges and/or conviction is about nil.
Police are purportedly held to a higher standard that others, due to our authority. Skippy demonstrated, quite clearly to me, that he is not worthy of the public trust and not worthy to be a steward of the power conferred on him by his state. Skippy could be the "poster boy" of a creeping illness that has infected the police community.
Barring the filing of criminal charges, Skippy should be given his "due process" rights in a disciplinary hearing and then be terminated, period. There is no arguing with what occurred.
Bye-bye Skippy and have a nice life.[;)]0 -
"Challenging" a LEO is not a crime. Having a "bad attitude" (meaning that the LEO does not like the way that you dress, talk, etc) is not a crime. Any LEO who drums up a charge against a person on the basis of "challenging" or "attitude" should be terminated immediately. Like wise, searching a vehicle (destroying its contents) based upon an officer's "feelings" is wrong. Do it by the book. I was in various forms of law enforcement (military and civilian) for enough years to know what is required of a LEO, and hassling individuals because you do not like their "attitude" is not a requirement, it is illegal and immoral. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
93 comments