Over-policing plus justified fear of impersonators

[baldeagle]

and so it goes again. More condemnation and calls for firing based on a one sided PR piece and without actually saying what they did wrong except "bad Judgment"? By the way most cops for any major agency are civil service. Fire them for "bad Judgment" and when they sue and get their jobs back it will cost the agency even more money.

I really wish you would quit lying about this. These were news stories, not one sided PR pieces. And please post a link for the supposed claims of the girl's lawyer, which you have repeated ad naseum without ever backing it up. Since the department has already announced that it will be making changes based on a review of the incident, it's obvious they are more willing to be open-minded than you are. You've continued this unabated unreasoned completely blinded defense of the police for eleven pages now. Numerous people have made reasonable points about what went wrong that night, yet you stubbornly refuse to even consider that the ABC agents might have done something wrong. I'd appreciate it if you would just stop, but I know you won't, so the last word is yours.

[texanjoker]

and so it goes again. More condemnation and calls for firing based on a one sided PR piece and without actually saying what they did wrong except "bad Judgment"? By the way most cops for any major agency are civil service. Fire them for "bad Judgment" and when they sue and get their jobs back it will cost the agency even more money.

I really wish you would quit lying about this. These were news stories, not one sided PR pieces. And please post a link for the supposed claims of the girl's lawyer, which you have repeated ad naseum without ever backing it up. Since the department has already announced that it will be making changes based on a review of the incident, it's obvious they are more willing to be open-minded than you are. You've continued this unabated unreasoned completely blinded defense of the police for eleven pages now. Numerous people have made reasonable points about what went wrong that night, yet you stubbornly refuse to even consider that the ABC agents might have done something wrong. I'd appreciate it if you would just stop, but I know you won't, so the last word is yours.

Sorry but you cannot fire somebody based on what a news story says. I expect ABC to do an investigation like any other complaint and then go from there. Any LEO and agency can learn from an incident. Regardless if they did wrong or not, make a policy change for the better. As some of these posts have shown, various stories have different versions of this incident. It is too easy to jump on a band wagon one way or another based on a news article. Heck if you go by the news Zimmerman should get the death penalty.

[Keith B]

Alright, enough personal attacks. If you guys don't stop the thread will be locked.

[mojo84]

Doesn't matter why I would think it or what you might think. In this case depending on the flavor I think the carton has colors and designs that would lead me to think it was beer not soda. Now other people may look and use different input to draw other conclusions but if the agent saw something and that led them to believe that the package was likely beer. What matters for the RS for the stop to be found legal in court is that the agent can articulate the reasons for their belief and that a judge find that explanation of the agents belief reasonable. The judge doesn't need to agree or think that he would also think the same just that to the agent it was reasonable. I hope I gave a decent explanation because an expert I'm not. Is it a bit arbitrary? You could look at it like that. You can take 5 cops have them look at a situation and only 1 may see RS and even though no one else sees RS if the 1 cop can explain it in court then it may well be good RS.

I'm sorry but what you said scares the heck out of me. Paraphrased, it says "justice administered by the officer with the most vivid imagination." I don't accept that. In this case, there compound mistakes. I judge the worst of those mistakes to be the DA going along with the events and filing the initial charges against the girls. There should have been more of an investigation before that happened.

We seem to have lost the concept that there are checks and balances. For me, one of the first checks should be from police administration who reviews what an individual officer does and allows it to continue or stops it right there. The second check is that the DA should be carefully reviewing what is brought to him or her to make sure that the elements necessary to prosecute the case are available or that they are not.

I would submit that if 5 officers review a situation and 4 of them don't see RS, retraining is needed. Either 4 of them are missing things or the 1 is finding things that aren't there. I completely understand that breakthroughs in some cases come from a single officer finding a piece of evidence that was overlooked. For me, that is vastly different than 5 officers looking at a live scenario and only one of them seeing something that requires further action. There are enough blatant infractions of the law that we don't need to be pursuing subtleties

Look this is not new. Heck there are more restrictions of cops now that there ever were in the history of this country. They just also have a bit better protections than before in some jurisdictions, meaning they can only be fired when they violate the law or their dept regs not just because there is bad press.

I'm sorry you have such an issue with the RS doctrine but you do realize that it has only gotten stricter over the years requiring even more from law enforcement. As to your "submission" , it's impossible to say that with the info given!!! That's why we have judges who review RS. Maybe the guy notices some smell, has better vision, haw 30 years of experience, has a pet parrot and happens to know exotic pet statutes the others don't. You would take Sherlock Holmes and kick him out of the Dept because he is too observant? Yes he is fictional but serves a point. I made the 5 to 1 comment to illustrate it was just about what is in the mind of the individual officer and their ability to articulate it to the court that determines RS. Does that leave a lot to the vagaries of human opinion? Well yes but until the robots take over that is what we are stuck with.

Now as for as the DA taking charges I think you are even farther off base. You have suspects who fled the scene and hit 2 agents. After investigating the DA felt that prosecution would be wrong but deciding without info would of been just a dereliction of his duty.

Why has it been necessary for this; "it has only gotten stricter over the years requiring even more from law enforcement over the years"?

[Dave2]

More condemnation and calls for firing based on a one sided PR piece and without actually saying what they did wrong except "bad Judgment"?

What's wrong with firing someone for bad judgment? Bad judgment leads to bad actions, which can have costly consequences. It'd be irresponsible to not fire someone for bad judgment. Especially when we're talking about people who're being paid to run around looking for trouble, bad judgment eventually gets the wrong people killed.

[EEllis]

and so it goes again. More condemnation and calls for firing based on a one sided PR piece and without actually saying what they did wrong except "bad Judgment"? By the way most cops for any major agency are civil service. Fire them for "bad Judgment" and when they sue and get their jobs back it will cost the agency even more money.

I really wish you would quit lying about this. These were news stories, not one sided PR pieces. And please post a link for the supposed claims of the girl's lawyer, which you have repeated ad naseum without ever backing it up. Since the department has already announced that it will be making changes based on a review of the incident, it's obvious they are more willing to be open-minded than you are. You've continued this unabated unreasoned completely blinded defense of the police for eleven pages now. Numerous people have made reasonable points about what went wrong that night, yet you stubbornly refuse to even consider that the ABC agents might have done something wrong. I'd appreciate it if you would just stop, but I know you won't, so the last word is yours.

These stories were based of a press release done up by the girls lawyer. One source, and only one, I saw actually called VABC to get their side and none did any real investigation. That VABC made, or will make, changes is great but in no way impacts anything I said. Mind you they could think their policies are just fine but someone is just trying to get the press off their back so your conclusion that it proves something is thin. Even so if you actually bother to look at what I say I never approve, support or in any way condone any policy or tactics that VABC has or uses. I just think that so far no one has even tried to say that any of the agents have broken or violated any law, policy or anything else so to call for these extreme responses is unwarranted.

Oh and if you don't think this story came from a press release how do you think it came about?

[EEllis]

More condemnation and calls for firing based on a one sided PR piece and without actually saying what they did wrong except "bad Judgment"?

What's wrong with firing someone for bad judgment? Bad judgment leads to bad actions, which can have costly consequences. It'd be irresponsible to not fire someone for bad judgment. Especially when we're talking about people who're being paid to run around looking for trouble, bad judgment eventually gets the wrong people killed.

If they used the normal tactics that they always use then the agents at the bottom are not the ones who should take the hit. They do as they are told/trained. Maybe the supervisory agent on scene might be responsible but for all we know they may have done the exact same thing 1000 times and just this time it went wrong and or got press this time. Is this any different than other states? No one here has the info needed, at least as far as I've read, to make these sweeping statements with any real legitimacy. I'm not supporting, approving, whitewashing or anything else, about the actions of VABC. It's just that the statements people make and the facts they use to support them are ........ well off.

[bizarrenormality]

What's wrong with firing someone for bad judgment? Bad judgment leads to bad actions, which can have costly consequences. It'd be irresponsible to not fire someone for bad judgment.

A real job does fire people for bad judgement. Welfare in disguise doesn't.

[talltex]

These stories were based of a press release done up by the girls lawyer. One source, and only one, I saw actually called VABC to get their side and none did any real investigation. That VABC made, or will make, changes is great but in no way impacts anything I said. Mind you they could think their policies are just fine but someone is just trying to get the press off their back so your conclusion that it proves something is thin. Even so if you actually bother to look at what I say I never approve, support or in any way condone any policy or tactics that VABC has or uses. I just think that so far no one has even tried to say that any of the agents have broken or violated any law, policy or anything else so to call for these extreme responses is unwarranted.

Oh and if you don't think this story came from a press release how do you think it came about?

EEllis, you are always critical of opinions given that cannot be supported by documented sources...where did you see a disclosure citing the girl's attorney as the source? Maybe it was just investigative journalism. Regardless of the source, the DA's office stated that girl's version was "factually consistent" with what occurred. As for no one claiming the agents broke or violated any law...well, NEITHER DID THE GIRLS before they were subjected to an "over the top" assault by 7 agents when they had done NOTHING wrong. One of the agents DID jump on the hood of the car...at least one of them WAS beating on the windows...at least one of them DID have a gun pointed at the girls. The resisting/fleeing/assault charges were a poor attempt at CYA after the fact (that's purely my opinion).

[EEllis]

These stories were based of a press release done up by the girls lawyer. One source, and only one, I saw actually called VABC to get their side and none did any real investigation. That VABC made, or will make, changes is great but in no way impacts anything I said. Mind you they could think their policies are just fine but someone is just trying to get the press off their back so your conclusion that it proves something is thin. Even so if you actually bother to look at what I say I never approve, support or in any way condone any policy or tactics that VABC has or uses. I just think that so far no one has even tried to say that any of the agents have broken or violated any law, policy or anything else so to call for these extreme responses is unwarranted.

Oh and if you don't think this story came from a press release how do you think it came about?

EEllis, you are always critical of opinions given that cannot be supported by documented sources...where did you see a disclosure citing the girl's attorney as the source? Maybe it was just investigative journalism. Regardless of the source, the DA's office stated that girl's version was "factually consistent" with what occurred. As for no one claiming the agents broke or violated any law...well, NEITHER DID THE GIRLS before they were subjected to an "over the top" assault by 7 agents when they had done NOTHING wrong. One of the agents DID jump on the hood of the car...at least one of them WAS beating on the windows...at least one of them DID have a gun pointed at the girls. The resisting/fleeing/assault charges were a poor attempt at CYA after the fact (that's purely my opinion).

You might be right that it wasn't a press release. It appears the reporter who "broke" the story has the courthouse beat and so she may just of read the pleadings.The statement the defence attorney filed with the court much better and unbiased. Mind you I don't say a bit of it is incorrect just that it is not evidence of what is claimed or enough for the actions that seem so urgent to some of those here.

Agents positioned themselves near the front of Daly's SUV and one ended up on the hood as she maneuvered to get away, according to a criminal complaint.

So it, according to the agents, it wasn't someone jumping on the hood that scared her, she was already driving away. And no one ever said the gun was pointed at her, not even her.

Daly said she and roommates were “terrified.” The three women said agents yelled at them to get out of the car, banged on the windows and pulled at the door handles. When one of the agents drew a gun, Daly said, “Our panic heightened.” All of the women described the agents as confrontational.

A gun was drawn but nowhere have I seen anything about it being pointed at anyone. One story described the gun at low ready but since there have been more than one fact that has differed between stories, like 6 or 7 agents, I wouldn't call that gospel but none of the stories I've read has the gun pointed at anyone.

The girls did technically break several laws but it was felt they had reason, they were under duress. I've not really argued that. The officers did not, so far as anyone has been able to come up with, break any laws. We don't know that they did anything outside of policy or what they always did when conducting arrests. You don't blame the bottom rank because you dislike their policies.


http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/virgi ... 0f31a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[chasfm11]

The girls did technically break several laws but it was felt they had reason, they were under duress. I've not really argued that. The officers did not, so far as anyone has been able to come up with, break any laws. We don't know that they did anything outside of policy or what they always did when conducting arrests. You don't blame the bottom rank because you dislike their policies.
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/virgi ... 0f31a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While it is interesting to discuss what was said in the various news accounts, nothing has changed the basic conditions in this matter.

1. The original offense in Virginia is a Class 1 misdemeanor. Punishment is up to a $500 fine, probation, community service and a license suspension - if the girls had been guilty of the suspected crime.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/re ... ges-penalt
2. More than 5 undercover agents were sent against the "suspects" for a misdemeanor. That begs the question "is this the normal criteria for misdemeanor enforcement?"
3. The girls committed no crimes until the police action against them started.
4. A gun was drawn in a suspected misdemeanor apprehension. Any time a gun is drawn, even if it is not pointed at someone, it escalates the severity of the situation. In Texas, most police departments have a no-chase policy against motorcyclists who run after being sought for a moving violation. The point of that policy is not to escalate the matter and endanger lives, even though the motorcyclist, in running, is guilty of more crimes than the original infraction. That begs the question "what was it about this situation that caused the escalation to the possible use of deadly force?" or "what is it about a misdemeanor enforcement that is worth someone dying over?"
5. No one in the Virginia ABC group has acknowledged responsibility. If the officers involved were simply following policy, someone in their management chain should have come forward immediately and said "they were following policy." By not doing so, it is that ABC management team, not the public, that is throwing the agents "under the bus.". In the DPS cavity search matter, DPS management immediately stepped up an took action, making responsibly for the matter clear. Like it or not, those involved in a matter are assumed to be responsible for it unless other information becomes available. If I'm driving a vehicle with an expired registration, the citation goes to me, not the owner of the vehicle. I'm the one behind the wheel.

If your statement is correct and there is nothing about this situation that was outside of policy, I'm certainly glad that I don't live in VA. I expect this sort of thing in MD or DC. They trample on citizens all the time with impunity.

[EEllis]

OK let's look at it
1So?

2 Facts not in evidence. Further examination of the local paper revealed that the agents were making multipul arrests in the parking lot, 10 was the number I saw, over 2days. Trying to phrase it like there were 5+ agents to make that one arrest is less than accurate. After the girl refused to comply that all the agents in the area converged is entirely reasonable and doesn't really mean anything.

3 So? The law doesn't allow you to ignore cops if you didn't break the law. If they have RS they can and should stop you and you, by law, must comply. That you were not guilty is not a defense.

4 A gun was drawn but it was not even aimed. I'm not surprised that when a car that a suspect is in starts to drive away, with agents in front of the car, that someone drew a weapon. Maybe the agent shouldn't of done so, I'm not an expert on their use of force policy but it just doesn't seem out of line. De-escalation is all fine and well but if you are going to have agents making arrests you just can't take their right of defense away. As far as other dept policies, that still would reflect on the Agency not the agents so I'm not sure your point in the way this conversation is going. That a different agency has a different policy, well so?

5 That the agency hasn't stepped up is more the norm than anything else isn't it?

Finally I haven't said this was in or out of policy. I don't know and obviously you don't either. That has been my much repeated point.

[Cedar Park Dad]

If you draw a gun in my vicinity I'd consider it aimed. If you weren't a cop and you drew a firearm on my family (but not aimed) you'd be very very dead.

Note: I am in no way condoning or recommending in any way acting in a seflf defense mode with police. Thats what "I refuse all consent" and the lawyer is for.

[Panda]

We don't know that they did anything outside of policy or what they always did when conducting arrests. You don't blame the bottom rank because you dislike their policies.

I thought "just following orders" was discredited as a defense before I was born.

[chasfm11]

OK let's look at it
1So?

2 Facts not in evidence. Further examination of the local paper revealed that the agents were making multipul arrests in the parking lot, 10 was the number I saw, over 2days. Trying to phrase it like there were 5+ agents to make that one arrest is less than accurate. After the girl refused to comply that all the agents in the area converged is entirely reasonable and doesn't really mean anything.

3 So? The law doesn't allow you to ignore cops if you didn't break the law. If they have RS they can and should stop you and you, by law, must comply. That you were not guilty is not a defense.

4 A gun was drawn but it was not even aimed. I'm not surprised that when a car that a suspect is in starts to drive away, with agents in front of the car, that someone drew a weapon. Maybe the agent shouldn't of done so, I'm not an expert on their use of force policy but it just doesn't seem out of line. De-escalation is all fine and well but if you are going to have agents making arrests you just can't take their right of defense away. As far as other dept policies, that still would reflect on the Agency not the agents so I'm not sure your point in the way this conversation is going. That a different agency has a different policy, well so?

5 That the agency hasn't stepped up is more the norm than anything else isn't it?

Finally I haven't said this was in or out of policy. I don't know and obviously you don't either. That has been my much repeated point.

So? I don't want to live in the kind of environment that this stop occurred in. I don't kill mosquitoes with a shotgun. The overall outcome of this incident smells like a police state to me. And I'm prepared to vote out of office any government that sanctions this kind of approach. And I do vote. If this had occurred in Texas, I would personally be driving to the town to protest. Legal or not, it isn't acceptable to me. Others are welcome to a different opinion.