Rookie cop takes heat for arresting off-duty officer

colchar

Banned
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
33,834
Reaction score
74,682
I HIGHLY doubt that this would hold up in the States.


Yeah right, what about automatic arrests in domestic violence cases?


And if I caught a cop that was DUI or was committing a felony crime, you bet they would be getting arrested, so don't dare judge me on my attitude towards this.


You said you would give the guy crap so I damned well will judge your attitude as it has been displayed here.
 

Eric Smith

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2011
Messages
7,480
Reaction score
8,022
Yeah right, what about automatic arrests in domestic violence cases?





You said you would give the guy crap so I damned well will judge your attitude as it has been displayed here.

What about them? This is NOT a domestic dispute that, as you put it, involves violence which is evidence enough of someone to go to jail. It wouldn't hold up.

And how? I guess I should read what kind of harrassment this guy got. I for sure would be letting him know that he is an idiot, that he doesn't have evidence that this guy was driving, and that we can't just pull "facts" out of the air. Yes I know that the guy admitted to driving the vehicle. You just want to stir the pot, shich is what I think these two officers wanted to do when the whole thing went down. The AO wanted to prove that LEO's aren't above the law so he went and persued charges that he can't prove and the guy getting arrested wanted to prove that there is really nothing he could do about it.

Get your last shot in because I just put a fork in me and I'm done.
 

colchar

Banned
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
33,834
Reaction score
74,682
What about them? This is NOT a domestic dispute that, as you put it, involves violence which is evidence enough of someone to go to jail. It wouldn't hold up.

Oh good grief, are you really this obtuse?

Your problem with the arrest seems to be that a witness called about an erratic, possibly drunk, driver and that they went to the cop's house and arrested him there after noticing he was loaded (and from what I remember he admitted to having been driving). Your problem is that they lack proof and arrested only on the information the witness provided in the phone call. Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that the arrest is obviously allowed here because the case is working its way through the courts, can you honestly not see the parallel between this and an automatic arrest domestic violence situation?

Since you obviously can't, let me spell it out for you. Cops attend a house on a domestic dispute call. Woman claims man assaulted her even though there are no other witnesses and all they have to go on is her word. Man is arrested and it is left to the courts to sort out.

So in both cases, all they had to go on was an uncorroborated claim by one person yet arrests are still made. Can you not see the parallels? Seriously?



I guess I should read what kind of harrassment this guy got.

Yeah, actually reading about this case before shooting your mouth off might help.


I for sure would be letting him know that he is an idiot, that he doesn't have evidence that this guy was driving, and that we can't just pull "facts" out of the air. Yes I know that the guy admitted to driving the vehicle.

How can you possibly be this thick? The issue in this story is not that the guy was arrested as the arrest is obviously valid enough that the case is still working its way through the courts a couple of years later, the issue here is that the arresting officer was harassed for daring to charge another cop.


You just want to stir the pot

How, exactly, am I stirring the pot? The officers who harassed the other officer were charged internally, found guilty, and disciplined over their behaviour. How is agreeing that they were wrong stirring the pot?


shich is what I think these two officers wanted to do when the whole thing went down.

You should probably read the facts and refrain from shooting your mouth off until you have at least half a clue about the story because, right now, you don't seem to know jack shit. For starters, it was only one officer as the other one refused to take part in the arrest of another officer. If you had bothered to read any of the information provided in this thread you might know that. But instead you are shooting your mouth off without knowing the most basic facts of the case.


The AO wanted to prove that LEO's aren't above the law so he went and persued charges that he can't prove

WTF are you talking about? If they cannot be proved then please explain to me why this case is still before the courts a couple of years later?


and the guy getting arrested wanted to prove that there is really nothing he could do about it

Again, WTF are you talking about?
 

SWeAT hOg

SWeAT hOg
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
37,700
Reaction score
67,938
Apparently the defense the cop is going to use is that it took too long to get his case to trial. Doesn't sound innocent to me.
 

Skintaster

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
20,530
Reaction score
44,441
Im not saying I agree or disagree with any perceived or actual "perks". The actual ones extended thru the job are discount gym memberships, movie tickets etc. I believe you are a butcher/BBQ place guy, correct? Do you get free/discounted product? No one else here does. Its a perk. It can be argued from now until kingdom come, but every job on the planet will have perks. The kid at mcdonalds gets an employee meal. We all go in and pay full price.

Well, seeing as my family owns the business, we've already paid for anything we take home, so it doesn't really apply. Most jobs have perks, but only law enforcement positions seem to allow for a different set of rules as far as the application of certain laws. You can't seriously compare getting out of speeding tickets to getting a free meal at McDonalds can you?

What pisses me off is that people go and complain about police officers getting "perks" when they fail to see how many freaking times I sat down to a meal and as it came out something that needed my attention came over the radio even though it was just arriving at my table. They fail to see how many meals that I paid for in full that I never got to eat.

Every job has it's hassles. I routinely defend cops in threads on this forum, and frankly, I don't consider free coffee or even meals as being out of line. I DO think it's rotten that off duty officers routinely get out of traffic tickets, and in some cases the spouses and children of cops get special considerations too.

Y'all can call it "discretionary" all you want, but do any of you policemen think you could shake off a ticket by saying you're a cop? It's the expectation of a second set of rules that I don't like, and while I don't accuse any of y'all of doing this kind of stuff, I've seen it happen many times over the years. Cops will generally let other cops off lightly, unless we're talking about felonies... And in some cases even then.


Have you ever gotten a warning for a moving violation?

Of course, but I've also gotten tickets. How about it? Have any of you cops gotten out of tickets because you're policemen? If not, could you?

Being defensive because people are criticizing what was apparently serious harassment of one cop by others, because he arrested another cop is unnecessary. If you haven't engaged in that kind of behavior, then it's not about you.

There ARE bad cops out there. Why defend shitty behavior, or act like some policemen don't treat each other differently than they would a regular citizen. In doing so it just makes y'all look defensive and oblivious to the fact that these things happen.

Maybe it's regional - I have a lot of cop buddies, and they have no problem admitting that they aren't held to the same set of rules with certain things. I assumed it was almost universal.
 

SWeAT hOg

SWeAT hOg
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
37,700
Reaction score
67,938
Northernguitarguy, I GUARANTEE that there are an obscene amount of internal department politics behind the scenes in this case. This is just one reporter's take on one guy's side. I'm sure that there are a lot more factors in play.

This was discussed yesterday on a talk show in Toronto and more was said there. It does seem bad for the police involved and the drunk officer, but I do not see this as indicative of the behavior of the vast majority of LEOs.
 

lespaul01

Banned
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Messages
16,929
Reaction score
16,600
Like what? What perks?

Percocet%20325-5%20mg.jpg
 

colchar

Banned
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
33,834
Reaction score
74,682
Apparently the defense the cop is going to use is that it took too long to get his case to trial. Doesn't sound innocent to me.

Yeah he is going to make an 11b application. He fired his lawyer yesterday so I am betting that lawyer was telling him the application had no chance and the guy was determined to go through with it anyway.
 

Joeydego

your mom is a nice lady
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
24,167
Reaction score
39,165
Well, seeing as my family owns the business, we've already paid for anything we take home, so it doesn't really apply. Most jobs have perks, but only law enforcement positions seem to allow for a different set of rules as far as the application of certain laws. You can't seriously compare getting out of speeding tickets to getting a free meal at McDonalds can you?

Skin, you're missing it. You cant compare an employee meal at mcdonalds to a LE job, either. I'd LOVE to compare my job to, OH , I DUNNO, maybe a wall st banker who take home my yearly salary in christmas bonus. Am I entitled to any of that? Of course not. And the perks you're talking about EVERYONE is entitled to when it comes to summonsing. Its officers discretion, nothing more. You MUST allow LEOs discretion in summons writing or there will be a whole lot of people getting needlessly hammered.
 

Skintaster

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
20,530
Reaction score
44,441
Skin, you're missing it. You cant compare an employee meal at mcdonalds to a LE job, either. I'd LOVE to compare my job to, OH , I DUNNO, maybe a wall st banker who take home my yearly salary in christmas bonus. Am I entitled to any of that? Of course not. And the perks you're talking about EVERYONE is entitled to when it comes to summonsing. Its officers discretion, nothing more. You MUST allow LEOs discretion in summons writing or there will be a whole lot of people getting needlessly hammered.

Well, I can appreciate that, and understand what you're getting at. I agree for the most part.

I guess my main point is that there are officers that probably abuse that discretion, and that while I'm in no way saying that ALL policemen do that, there's no reason to circle the wagons when cops act badly and people criticize them for it.

In short, I think most cops really are the good guys, and they shouldn't feel threatened by criticisms aimed at cops that act badly.

The traffic ticket thing is really just an example of job privilege, and while it rubs me the wrong way, I don't think it's that serious of an issue. But when the "code of silence" allows a few bad apples to do really bad stuff, then I think that it's valid to criticize the culture that allows it. From your earlier responses, I "think" we probably agree on that.

Shit man, I'd buy you and Caleb donuts and coffee anytime. Y'all are some of the good ones. :)
 

Eric Smith

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2011
Messages
7,480
Reaction score
8,022
Oh good grief, are you really this obtuse?

Your problem with the arrest seems to be that a witness called about an erratic, possibly drunk, driver and that they went to the cop's house and arrested him there after noticing he was loaded (and from what I remember he admitted to having been driving). Your problem is that they lack proof and arrested only on the information the witness provided in the phone call. Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that the arrest is obviously allowed here because the case is working its way through the courts, can you honestly not see the parallel between this and an automatic arrest domestic violence situation?

Since you obviously can't, let me spell it out for you. Cops attend a house on a domestic dispute call. Woman claims man assaulted her even though there are no other witnesses and all they have to go on is her word. Man is arrested and it is left to the courts to sort out.

So in both cases, all they had to go on was an uncorroborated claim by one person yet arrests are still made. Can you not see the parallels? Seriously?





Yeah, actually reading about this case before shooting your mouth off might help.




How can you possibly be this thick? The issue in this story is not that the guy was arrested as the arrest is obviously valid enough that the case is still working its way through the courts a couple of years later, the issue here is that the arresting officer was harassed for daring to charge another cop.




How, exactly, am I stirring the pot? The officers who harassed the other officer were charged internally, found guilty, and disciplined over their behaviour. How is agreeing that they were wrong stirring the pot?




You should probably read the facts and refrain from shooting your mouth off until you have at least half a clue about the story because, right now, you don't seem to know jack shit. For starters, it was only one officer as the other one refused to take part in the arrest of another officer. If you had bothered to read any of the information provided in this thread you might know that. But instead you are shooting your mouth off without knowing the most basic facts of the case.




WTF are you talking about? If they cannot be proved then please explain to me why this case is still before the courts a couple of years later?




Again, WTF are you talking about?
I can't believe that I am still talking about this and don't want to take the time deleteing all of this nonsense but here goes.

The issue really isn't that the AO got the call or that the offending officer was driving or admitted to it or whatever. The issue is that the AO went to his house, knocked on his door, questioned him about it and then arrested him. What is so hard to understand about the fact that he didn't have a just cause to persue it in the first place?

Sincerely,

Thick obtuse guy with an attitude that is just shooting off his mouth.
 

colchar

Banned
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
33,834
Reaction score
74,682
The issue really isn't that the AO got the call or that the offending officer was driving or admitted to it or whatever. The issue is that the AO went to his house, knocked on his door, questioned him about it and then arrested him. What is so hard to understand about the fact that he didn't have a just cause to persue it in the first place?


How can you not grasp this? I mean seriously - how can you not? The arrest is allowed up here. The charges are being dealt with by the courts and have not been thrown out in like two years of court proceedings. Does that not give you a clue that the arrest is legit? Seriously? You might not agree with it, but that does not mean it is not a legit arrest. Why is that so fvcking hard for you to grasp? Why can you not wrap your head around that? This story didn't happen this week - it happened a couple of years ago and the charges still stand (it is only in the news again because the guy arrested for drunk driving made another court appearance). That, in and of itself, indicates that it was a completely valid arrest.

And the other police's actions, actions which their own union has come out and said were wrong and for which three officers were disciplined, were not based on it not being a good arrest...they were based entirely on him arresting another cop. Hell, they were calling out 'rat' over the station loudspeakers when he was still in the station (he didn't take the suspect to his own station, he went to the one nearest to the suspect's home) because they disagreed not with the arrest, but with the arrest of another cop.

Seriously...why is it so difficult for you to grasp that the arrest is legit and that the problem is the behaviour of the other officers?
 

Eric Smith

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2011
Messages
7,480
Reaction score
8,022
How can you not grasp this? I mean seriously - how can you not? The arrest is allowed up here. The charges are being dealt with by the courts and have not been thrown out in like two years of court proceedings. Does that not give you a clue that the arrest is legit? Seriously? You might not agree with it, but that does not mean it is not a legit arrest. Why is that so fvcking hard for you to grasp? Why can you not wrap your head around that? This story didn't happen this week - it happened a couple of years ago and the charges still stand (it is only in the news again because the guy arrested for drunk driving made another court appearance). That, in and of itself, indicates that it was a completely valid arrest.

And the other police's actions, actions which their own union has come out and said were wrong and for which three officers were disciplined, were not based on it not being a good arrest...they were based entirely on him arresting another cop. Hell, they were calling out 'rat' over the station loudspeakers when he was still in the station (he didn't take the suspect to his own station, he went to the one nearest to the suspect's home) because they disagreed not with the arrest, but with the arrest of another cop.

Seriously...why is it so difficult for you to grasp that the arrest is legit and that the problem is the behaviour of the other officers?
I don't find it difficult to grasp that this is fact in Canada (and no that isn't a cheap shot), I'm just saying that it wouldn't hold up here in Indiana and more than likely anywhere else in the States. I have sat near homes before waiting for the drivers that have been reported to show up. (with about 50/50 success, some just don't make it because of getting pulled over or they go somewhere else) If the car is in the driveway and no one is behind the wheel with the keys on the driver or in the ignition then they got away with one unless of course they hit someone or something. It's just different and has too many possibilities to say for sure that this guy would be guilty. I would however wonder what the outcome would be if the offending officer said that he was not driving.
 

Joeydego

your mom is a nice lady
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
24,167
Reaction score
39,165
I don't find it difficult to grasp that this is fact in Canada (and no that isn't a cheap shot), I'm just saying that it wouldn't hold up here in Indiana and more than likely anywhere else in the States. I have sat near homes before waiting for the drivers that have been reported to show up. (with about 50/50 success, some just don't make it because of getting pulled over or they go somewhere else) If the car is in the driveway and no one is behind the wheel with the keys on the driver or in the ignition then they got away with one unless of course they hit someone or something. It's just different and has too many possibilities to say for sure that this guy would be guilty. I would however wonder what the outcome would be if the offending officer said that he was not driving.

You'd be able to justify an arrest with a complainant. So long as someone will go to court and finger him as the driver, you'd have a fair case.
 

Eric Smith

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2011
Messages
7,480
Reaction score
8,022
That's a pretty big if though. I guess the caller could follow them or actually knew them and saw them go into their house like a vindictive neighbor or something.
 

Eric Smith

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2011
Messages
7,480
Reaction score
8,022
Sometimes I miss stuff like this....no I don't....yes I do.....
 

colchar

Banned
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
33,834
Reaction score
74,682
I don't find it difficult to grasp that this is fact in Canada (and no that isn't a cheap shot)

Yes you are because you keep going on about how it was a bad arrest and how he had no proof.


I'm just saying that it wouldn't hold up here in Indiana and more than likely anywhere else in the States.

It very well might since you have automatic arrest situations there which do not require anything more than an accusation.
 

Latest Threads



Top