LEO intimidates restaurant customers--UPDATE
Video tape is now posted: Use link below (Full story)
And we wonder why respect for police officers is deteriorating. I saw the tape on the news. The LEO is a total jack$$$. This POS needs to be retired.
"A Memphis Police Commander, the fourth in the chain of command, is under investigation for police intimidation. It all started over a table at a pancake restaurant.
Jonathan Simpson and his friends went to eat at a local restaurant last week. As they were about to sit down, they were told to move; not by the waitress but by Inspector Don Drewry of the Memphis Police Department.
In exclusive surveillance video obtained by Action News 5, Jonathan Simpson and his friends walked into the Pancake Shop on Summer Avenue.
"Ma'am do you mind if we sit here," said Simpson. The waitress nods yes. But, Inspector Don Drewry came in behind them.
"This is a police table. You have to leave," Drewry was heard saying.
Full story
And we wonder why respect for police officers is deteriorating. I saw the tape on the news. The LEO is a total jack$$$. This POS needs to be retired.
"A Memphis Police Commander, the fourth in the chain of command, is under investigation for police intimidation. It all started over a table at a pancake restaurant.
Jonathan Simpson and his friends went to eat at a local restaurant last week. As they were about to sit down, they were told to move; not by the waitress but by Inspector Don Drewry of the Memphis Police Department.
In exclusive surveillance video obtained by Action News 5, Jonathan Simpson and his friends walked into the Pancake Shop on Summer Avenue.
"Ma'am do you mind if we sit here," said Simpson. The waitress nods yes. But, Inspector Don Drewry came in behind them.
"This is a police table. You have to leave," Drewry was heard saying.
Full story
0
-
I like shades of blue and gray, generally. 0 -
Don't see many dogs getting tickets. The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue....[;)]
Trinity+++0 -
quote:Originally posted by TrinityScrimshaw
Tailgunner,
You won't find anything on a LEO exemption under the Lautenberg Act, there isn't one.
Trinity +++
Might not be Lautenberg, but there is a LEO exception.
quote:1116 Prosecutions Under 18 U.S.C. ? 922(g)(8)
Title 18 U.S.C. ?? 922(d)(8) and (g)(8) concern the prohibition against disposal of firearms to, or receipt or possession of firearms by, persons who are subject to domestic violence protection orders. Section 922(d)(8) prohibits the knowing transfer of a firearm to a person who is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, and section 922(g)(8) prohibits the receipt or possession of a firearm or ammunition by such a person.
There are several key evidentiary issues which can arise in these cases. A violation of ? 922(d)(8) must be "knowing." Proof concerning knowledge of the restraining order on the part of the supplier must be established. The term "intimate partner" is defined as including a spouse or former spouse, or a person with whom the victim has had a child, but it does not include a girlfriend or boyfriend with whom the defendant has not resided. See 18 U.S.C. ? 921(a)(32). In addition, the protective order must have been issued following an evidentiary hearing as to which the defendant had notice and an opportunity to appear. The order must include a specific finding that the defendant represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the victim or by its terms explicitly prohibit the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.
The provisions of this statute do not provide an exception for law enforcement officers, but the provisions of the Federal firearms laws permit an exemption from many of the restrictions. Section 925(a)(1) of Title 18 grants an exemption: "The provisions of this chapter, . . . shall not apply with respect to the . . . possession . . . of any firearm or ammunition . . . issued for the use of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof."
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) has issued an advisory letter outlining the parameters of this exemption. The BATF letter states:
This [exemption] applies to an officer's possession of a firearm or ammunition whether on or off duty, as long as the officer's official duties require the possession of the firearm or ammunition. On the other hand, Federal law would be violated if an officer subject to a disabling restraining order receives or possesses a firearm or ammunition in a personal capacity.
October 1997 Criminal Resource Manual 11160 -
quote:Originally posted by TrinityScrimshaw
I spent all weekend disgusted with myself for having allowed you to get under my skin. Trinity +++
You got to be kidding me?
If you let something from GB bother you like this you might want to take a break. You are obviously on the wrong forum.0 -
Trinity- Warpig883 has got that right. The hardest thing about participating in these forums is to not let people get to you. Some do it without trying while others are like ego-seeking missiles trying to crush you.
Work on learning to shrug it off. What do you care what these people... most of whom you will never meet or even know their real names... think or say? They have zero influence over you so why concern yourself? Let them say what they want and everyone can judge for themselves.
If we could all (and I most certainly include myself in this) learn to ignore the digs and innuendos those who do it on purpose to get a reaction would grow weary of the wasted effort and back off and the unintended slights would be easily ignored.
Working for peace in our lifetime... [:D]0 -
"Give love a chance...." [:D][:p][:D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by TrinityScrimshaw
I have been off the internet all weekend, so I couldn't reply until this morning. Looks like I have a lot of replying to do, but I'll try and cut it short.
Tailgunner,
You won't find anything on a LEO exemption under the Lautenberg Act, there isn't one.
Old Fool
"So you think that Fire and EMS personnel are "on the other side"? You think that the Armed Forces are "on the other side"? That is the kind of attitude that makes a few LEOs look like idiots. I am USN (ret) with 23 years service. I have served in the past as a reserve LEO, as a volunteer EMT, and as the Chief of a volunteer fire department, but I am an enemy of LEOs because I am not one? Get a grip, your paranoia is showing."
Sir, in all do respect those are your words not mine. I have no problem with Fire & EMS. Both are extremely respectful public servant positions I hold in high esteem. However, I don't expect them to come to the assistance to a police officer. They do, and that is great when they do, but it is above & beyond. I have worked for the Armed Forces for 27 years in both active duty & civilian Law Enforcement positions. I don't differentiate between Military LEO & Civilian. The point I attempted to make was that an LEO can not depend on the public to come to their defense or support. Nunn is correct about the Garrity Rule. An officer under an IA investigation can not plead the 5th.
Dongizmo,
Sir I agree with everything you have said.
It496,
I too am considered an administrator in my department. I hold a senior level position, and have been with my current department for 18 years. I also know that our lower lever road patrols consider me part of the problems that they run up against. I was at their position for many years, and I understand where they are coming from, and I know they are mostly misinformed. However, I have not been at their level for sometime, I don't wear a uniform, and things have changed quite a bit sense I last wrote a ticket. As an administrator I need to be cognizant of that fact. Nunn is quite correct in his assumption of this officer (whose actions I do not support). Being a sworn officer shouldn't matter. If he was a dog catcher, or trash collector he shouldn't have done what he did.
Yawarkai,
Your community service & volunteering is commendable sir.
Whiteclouder,
I spent all weekend disgusted with myself for having allowed you to get under my skin. Nunn didn't need to cover my backside here. I am man enough to admit when I am wrong, and I was wrong for having called you a chump! I let you get my goat with I felt were your absurd remarks. Like the officer in question on this post I allowed myself to fall into a trap. He fell deeper than I did when he allowed the complainant's remarks to get under his skin. Fortunately my over reaction was not on duty while wearing a uniform dealing with the public. Had I let you antagonize mw while on duty to the point of lashing out at you in any manner I would have only played into your hand, and helped you prove your point. I have never liked being called a "COP". It is a personnel thing with me. Not that I am not proud of being one, but more so because it is so often used by the public and here on GB to describe something disgusting. I guess we should just agree to disagree, and if I offended you in any manner I apologize.
Nunn,
I'm sorry you had to clean up after me. I'll try and keep things more respectful in the future
Trinity +++
I do wear a uniform, drive a marked Black & White and make it a point to stay openly and visibly current with practice and procedure. I stay involved with recruit training and also the FTO Program. I make traffic stops regularly and jump calls/back up my deputies regularly. I make it a point to go out to the various patrol regions and ride with various supervisors and deputies as a two man unit. All this is to stay in touch with the line, let them know that this administrator understands their job and is ready willing and able to perform line functions if needed.[;)]
Call me crazy, but I believe in leading from the front.0 -
quote:Originally posted by nunn
quote:Typical mindset of LEO!
37% of LEOs abuse their spouses. Redbook magazine.
Still waiting for references. Or a retraction, whichever.
www.justice.eku.edu/about/grants_KJSRBfeb1999.asp
They say 40% according to their survey.
little video on the story:
www.wmctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=69809640 -
quote:Johnson found that 40 percent of the officers surveyed indicated they had behaved violently toward their spouses and/or children in the previous six months.
This study is from a university. Most liberal educator types consider spanking a child violence. That seriously skews the number if taken out of context.
quote:Ten percent of the officers' spouses indicated they had experienced physical violence at the hands of their police-husbands. Abuse, however, was not defined, and the context of the acts is not clear. This makes it impossible to determine what types of acts occurred and whether the violence was aggressive or defensive in nature.
Yup. I believe I pointed that out. These "studies" are nowhere near scientific or accurate. One has to define "violence," or "abuse." Most of these libs will define as abuse a swat on a kid's tushie, or raising one's voice at a spouse.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ObiWan
quote:Originally posted by nunn
quote:Typical mindset of LEO!
37% of LEOs abuse their spouses. Redbook magazine.
Still waiting for references. Or a retraction, whichever.
www.justice.eku.edu/about/grants_KJSRBfeb1999.asp
They say 40% according to their survey.
little video on the story:
www.wmctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6980964
Hummm, if it wasn't for the exception that I posted above, and that TS++ says doesn't exist, 2 out of every 5 "law" enforcement officers would be out of a job.0 -
quote:Originally posted by MosinNagantDisciple
I applaud the officer for showing that ungrateful youth who's boss. Damn kids these days, have no respect for vet'rins or law enforcement. I think they should all be locked up for 12 hours and searched for drugs. Then drafted into the military. Would straighten those punks out and put the fear of god in 'em.
Wheres my geritol.
+1, I don't care if you were joking.
quote:Originally posted by nunn
Now, stop insulting one another and discuss this event as adults.
You're joking, right?[:D]
Here's a Chuck Norris story from Chuck himself. He went into a bar for a drink, and had a large Agro-American type get in his face and tell him "You're sitting in my spot." Chuck just got up and moved to another place without saying a word. He saw the bartender talking to the guy, who then walked over looking kinda pale.
LAAT: You're Chuck Norris, aren't you?
CN: Yeah.
LAAT: You could've kicked my ass any time you wanted to.
CN: Yes, but what would that have proved?
Is there no one besides me who would've just went to another table and got on with their meal, with no damage done? Is it even a briuse to your ego to let the people who've probably already covered your ass, whether you're aware of it or not, have a seat where they want? Is that your Constitutional Rights hill to die on? It's not like the officer said no kids/blacks/gun owners/whatever are allowed to sit here.
The officer had a chip on his shoulder for whatever reason, and the kid was a mouthy punk who knocked it off because he figured that the officer would have to just shut up and take it, because he was an officer. Do you think the kid(s) would've been so ballsy if, instead of police, it had been a group of Hell's Angels? One of the strange things about being an LEO is having to take a ton of crap from the same people who demand you jump through fiery hoops when they call for help.
Before anyone accuses me of being a cop groupie, you should know I've had my share of not-so-friendly interaction with LEOs on the street.
Drive by "Hey, boy, watcha doin there?": ~Once or twice a week.
Full traffic stop for no other reason than being in the wrong neighborhood: ~Twice a month.
Proned out in the grease and broken glass and what-not at gunpoint: ~Once a year.
I know they're just trying to keep the peace, and I know that those exact same cops will come running if I call 'em. If one had come up to me in a resturant and said "This is a police table. You have to leave" I'd probably say sure and be thinking yeah, whatever, Mr. Man. If he had said "Do you mind if we sit here?" It'd make me feel better but the effect on my life would be the same: Inconsequential.0 -
Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence, (1, 2) in contrast to 10% of families in the general population.(3) A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24% (4), indicating that domestic violence is 2-4 times more common among police families than American families in general. A police department that has domestic violence offenders among its ranks will not effectively serve and protect victims in the community.5, 6, 7, 8 Moreover, when officers know of domestic violence committed by their colleagues and seek to protect them by covering it up, they expose the department to civil liability.7
Unique Vulnerability
Domestic violence is always a terrible crime, but victims of a police officer are particularly vulnerable because the officer who is abusing them:
has a gun,
knows the location of battered women's shelters, and
knows how to manipulate the system to avoid penalty and/or shift blame to the victim.5, 6
Victims often fear calling the police, because they know the case will be handled by officers who are colleagues and/or friends of their abuser. Victims of police family violence typically fear that the responding officers will side with their abuser and fail to properly investigate or document the crime.5, 7
Failure of Departmental Policies
These suspicions are well founded, as most departments across the country typically handle cases of police family violence informally, often without an official report, investigation, or even check of the victim's safety.5, 8, 9 This "informal" method is often in direct contradiction to legislative mandates and departmental policies regarding the appropriate response to domestic violence crimes. Moreover, a 1994 nationwide survey of 123 police departments documented that almost half (45%) had no specific policy for dealing with officer-involved domestic violence. In that same study:
The most common discipline imposed for a sustained allegation of domestic violence was counseling.
Only 19% of the departments indicated that officers would be terminated after a second sustained allegation of domestic violence.9
A recent study of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department found inconsistent policies and practices for officers accused of domestic violence, regarding arrests, seizure of firearms, and Employee Assistance treatment.10 There is no reason to believe that the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department is unique in this; rather, this inconsistency is typical for police agencies responding to domestic violence committed by its own members.
Although the International Association of Chiefs of Police have prepared a model policy on police officer-involved domestic violence, there is no evidence that police departments across the country are doing anything other than simply including the policy in their manuals.
Violent Police Officers Receive "Exceedingly Light Discipline"
The reality is that even officers who are found guilty of domestic violence are unlikely to be fired, arrested, or referred for prosecution, raising concern that those who are tasked with enforcing the law cannot effectively police themselves.5, 6, 7 For example:
In 1998-1999, 23 domestic violence complaints were filed against Boston police employees, but none resulted in criminal prosecution.6
The San Diego City Attorney typically prosecutes 92% of the domestic violence cases that are referred, but only 42% of the cases involving a police officer as the perpetrator are prosecuted.11
Between 1990 and 1997, the Los Angles Police Department investigated 227 cases of alleged domestic violence by officers, of which 91 were sustained. Of these 91 allegations that were sustained by the department, only 4 resulted in a criminal conviction. That means that the LAPD itself determined in 91 cases that an officer had committed domestic violence, but only 4 were convicted on a criminal charge. Moreover, of these 4 officers who were convicted on a criminal charge of domestic violence, one was suspended for only 15 days and another had his conviction expunged.12
In fact, an in-depth investigation of the Los Angeles Police Department conducted by the Office of the Inspector General concluded that the discipline imposed on officers found guilty of domestic violence "was exceedingly light when the facts of each incident were examined" (p. i).12
Performance Evaluations Not Affected; Violent Officers Often Promoted
The study of the Los Angeles Police Department further examined the 91 cases in which an allegation of domestic violence was sustained against an officer.
Over three-fourths of the time, this sustained allegation was not mentioned in the officer's performance evaluation.
Twenty-six of these officers (29%) were promoted, including six who were promoted within two years of the incident.
The report concluded that "employees with sustained allegations were neither barred from moving to desired positions nor transferred out of assignments that were inconsistent with the sustained allegation" (p. iii).12
The LAPD Investigation
In 1997, the Los Angeles Office of the Inspector General conducted an investigation of the LAPD after a legal consultant named Bob Mullally leaked shocking LAPD personnel files to the press. These files documented scores of violent domestic crimes committed by LAPD officers. Mullally was so shocked by the LAPD's mishandling of this police family violence that he decided to violate the civil protective order in the case he was working on and turn the files over to the media, in the hopes of creating change in the LAPD.
Rather than reviewing the problem or recommending improvements, the LAPD sued Mullally for leaking the information.
In 2002, after multiple appeals, Mullally was sentenced to 45 days in federal prison. None of the police officers he exposed were ever prosecuted for their crimes, and many continue to serve as gun-carrying LAPD officers.
Even the prosecutor in the case stated on record that this sentence was "extreme" for a violation of a civil protective order.
Mullally is the first person in United States history to ever serve a jail term for this type of violation. He served his time in 2003, 6 years after he exposed the files.
http://www.womenandpolicing.org/violenceFS.asp
There is a lot of good info at that site, and it is only one of a lot of sites that confirm there is around a 30 to 40% of domestic violence within police officers families...
Also on this site, the sources are listed for the studies etc..0 -
I still call BS on the 37%-40% figures.
And they are BS. The only way those figures can be close to accurate is if they include every act of discipline/punishment between the officer and his/her child, and if they also include every incident in which the officer raises his/her voice, throws a wrench across the garage floor, etc.
Either that, or I work with a bunch of Boy Scouts.0 -
David..
Its not bs...Report after report say the same thing citing different sources as well, but they all come back to one conclusion...
The wives/girlfriends/mothers are afraid to report it...
Domestic violence is always a terrible crime, but victims of a police officer are particularly vulnerable because the officer who is abusing them:
has a gun,
knows the location of battered women's shelters, and
knows how to manipulate the system to avoid penalty and/or shift blame to the victim.
Victims often fear calling the police, because they know the case will be handled by officers who are colleagues and/or friends of their abuser. Victims of police family violence typically fear that the responding officers will side with their abuser and fail to properly investigate or document the crime.
and then nothing is done or very little is done when it is reported....No one knows what goes on inside another person's home....
does every cop you work with know what goes on in YOUR home?0 -
There were seven officers present at briefing this morning. Statistically, about 2.6 of those officers beat their wives. I asked, and they said they don't, so there. 0 -
quote:There were seven officers present at briefing this morning. Statistically, about 2.6 of those officers beat their wives. I asked, and they said they don't, so there.
Like they were going to tell you if they did! I don't know if I believe the 40% or not, but I have heard that the percentage of cops who abuse a spouse or significant other is higher than the normal population. I don't know. I do know the cop in this story was wrong in what he did, even if the kid was mouthing off to him. YOu cannot use your position, no matter what it is, to take advantage of any situation. That is just an entitlement mind-set and it is wrong.0 -
David,
Did you ask former Police Chief Huckabee?0 -
Haven't seen old Bob since he got back. I reckon he is keeping a low profile, but he is in poor health. Maybe he can't get out and about much. 0 -
Quote from tailgunner:
Might not be Lautenberg, but there is a LEO exception.
quote:
1116 Prosecutions Under 18 U.S.C. ? 922(g)(8)
Title 18 U.S.C. ?? 922(d)(8) and (g)(8) concern the prohibition against disposal of firearms to, or receipt or possession of firearms by, persons who are subject to domestic violence protection orders. Section 922(d)(8) prohibits the knowing transfer of a firearm to a person who is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, and section 922(g)(8) prohibits the receipt or possession of a firearm or ammunition by such a person.
There are several key evidentiary issues which can arise in these cases. A violation of ? 922(d)(8) must be "knowing." Proof concerning knowledge of the restraining order on the part of the supplier must be established. The term "intimate partner" is defined as including a spouse or former spouse, or a person with whom the victim has had a child, but it does not include a girlfriend or boyfriend with whom the defendant has not resided. See 18 U.S.C. ? 921(a)(32). In addition, the protective order must have been issued following an evidentiary hearing as to which the defendant had notice and an opportunity to appear. The order must include a specific finding that the defendant represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the victim or by its terms explicitly prohibit the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.
The provisions of this statute do not provide an exception for law enforcement officers, but the provisions of the Federal firearms laws permit an exemption from many of the restrictions. Section 925(a)(1) of Title 18 grants an exemption: "The provisions of this chapter, . . . shall not apply with respect to the . . . possession . . . of any firearm or ammunition . . . issued for the use of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof."
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) has issued an advisory letter outlining the parameters of this exemption. The BATF letter states:
This [exemption] applies to an officer's possession of a firearm or ammunition whether on or off duty, as long as the officer's official duties require the possession of the firearm or ammunition. On the other hand, Federal law would be violated if an officer subject to a disabling restraining order receives or possesses a firearm or ammunition in a personal capacity.
October 1997 Criminal Resource Manual 1116"
Tailgunner,
Good try , but this is not quite what you were referring to before.
This exemption is as it states
"This [exemption] applies to an officer's possession of a firearm or ammunition whether on or off duty, as long as the officer's official duties require the possession of the firearm or ammunition."
Under Lautenberg the rest of this (ATF) Federal Firearms exemption would apply to any LEO.
"On the other hand, Federal law would be violated if an officer subject to a disabling restraining order receives or possesses a firearm or ammunition in a personal capacity."
Like any other citizen an LEO would be in violation of this law if they possessed a firearm or ammunition after Lautenberg was enacted upon them.
So based on this, exactly what is an LEO exempted from? I stand by what I previously said. An LEO gets no exemption from the Launtenberg Act.
Trinity +++0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
139 comments