i agree; the law enforcement officers of course deserve due process per criminal charges (and civil charges, which will cost someone money--hopefully not the public). but officers such as these (or at least the officers that were leading the mob) need to be terminated immediately because their poor judgement is a financial and safety liability; the officers displayed incompetence. if i was leading this agency, and hired people such as these to perform a duty, and then i received this unprofessional display of immaturity, poor judgement, and incompetence, then i would definitely fire the leader of law enforcement mob. there just isn't any reason to keep officers such as these on payroll when there are so many other better candidates and veterans willing and able to do a better job. someone could have gotten seriously hurt. personally--and i know this will be unpopular--i don't even care if the story we are hearing is one-sided and biased to the young innocent student. law enforcement officers need to be above reproach, or the public will lose trust. firing a public servant in order to restore or repair broken trust is more important than preserving a few mediocre careers. we do it in politics all of the time.And I would say many things but I believe that I would be violating the comment policy which I believe you just did in your comment. You have based your opinion on a pr piece put out by the girls defence attorney designed to get them off from their charges. You are calling for firing and jail time but haven't pointed to any violation of the, you know, actual law or even that the agents violated any of their agencies policies. Cops are human beings and are entitled to the same protections that we all enjoy and deserve. Due process, to be considered innocent until proven guilty, the chance to confront their accuser, and here is a big one to actually break a law before going to jail. "But the girls didn't break any law!" You'll cry in response to the last. Yes they did. They resisted, they fled, they assaulted. Not their explanation is because they were just that scared as to why they did so. Fine, but that doesn't mean they didn't do the crime just they had a reason they shouldn't be held guilty for the crimes. The rest of your screed was so off point that I'm not even going to bother.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Over-policing plus justified fear of impersonators”
- Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:14 pm
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: Over-policing plus justified fear of impersonators
- Replies: 192
- Views: 22076
Re: Over-policing plus justified fear of impersonators
- Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:36 pm
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: Over-policing plus justified fear of impersonators
- Replies: 192
- Views: 22076
Re: Over-policing plus justified fear of impersonators
i don't think think the financial issue is "overdone". Do we really want to say that taxes on booze must be spent on booze related issues? Are my property taxes spent on maintaining my property, or on other stuff, like education? And what about my income tax? How is that spent on income related stuff. Oh that's right, it is given away to non-working people as income! Maybe I should eat my words! Nevertheless, an alcohol tax should be an alcohol tax, not a fee to fund this type of nonsense. If one of these girls had a concealed weapon and tried to use it then someone could have gotten hurt. These officers need to be immediately fired. If someone did this to my daughter I would devote the rest of my life to picketing them, suing them, and doing everything i could within the law to make sure it never happened again, and that they experienced all things punitive. parents work too hard, spend too much money to raise and protect their kids to have it all come close to being undone by stupid people. stupid people are everywhere and we need to not give them authority over us or any of our money.EEllis wrote:It sounds like dropping the charges was the correct move but I think some of the criticism maybe a bit silly. These are ABC agents which are normally paid for out of taxes on booze so the financial issues seem overdone. Less agents would most likely mean less money available not more. I really don't buy the whole "impersonator" theme because, well, it would be a first that 6 guys dressed up as impersonators to jack 2 girls in a parking lot that I ever heard of. There is some talk about the whole militarization of police but we have no idea if they were in tac gear and if so that lowers the reasonability of thinking they may be impersonators not increases it. If on the other hand they were plain clothes so they could go into establishments that served alcohol without notice to check for violations the whole "militarization" issue isn't relevant here. Even if it were the case that the girls feared impersonators how would that be the agents fault? What would you want them to do different here, while still being able to do the rest of their job. Maybe the girls shouldn't of been arrested but it looks like all the charges were factually accurate. What actions that they took were so outrageous? They saw a underage girl heading out to a parking lot with what looked like it could've been a 12 pack of beer. They tried to stop the girl and she ran to her car So they should just say "Oh well" and turn around? They chased after her when she jumped in her car and she started up her car when they were yelling commands at her thru the window. Well certainly then they should've just said "too bad she started her car" and turned around. Instead, like most cops who are trying to stop someone who appears to be fleeing, they actually try and stop her from leaving , which she does, coming into contact with 2 agents as she pealed out of the lot. So in what world would the cops not chase her down? Is there some issue with PC for the original stop? Mind you it is small potatoes for an ABC agent to do a MIP but booze is their thing and it if it is important enough to pass a law then we shouldn't complain when the cops actually do their jobs. As to the issue of 6 officers. College town. If they were planning on checking any bars at all that night having 6 agents in a group doesn't seem crazy to me. Slo why should they be fired, lose their pensions, and be called insulting names?