Cop gets LTC suspended

[GSG]

Am I the only person who thinks it's a painfully stupid idea to advertise in the newspaper which cops aren't allowed to legally own and carry guns? But to be even smarter, they mention it in the same article that gives his home address.

http://www.telegram.com/article/20090527/NEWS/905279960/1116

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Accused city officer, wife in court against one another

By Linda Bock TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
[email protected]







WORCESTER — A Worcester police officer, recently charged with domestic assault, and his wife were the subject of separate hearings in Central District Court today in cases involving allegations against one another.

The case against Officer William D. Mosley, 32, of ***edited out by GSG***, alleges he assaulted his wife May 19. He was arrested on charges of aggravated domestic assault and battery, and threatening to commit a crime. His case was the subject of a pretrial hearing today. The officer is on restricted duty.

Meantime, his wife, Stacey M. Mosley, of ***edited out by GSG***, who is pregnant, was in the courthouse for a hearing on a motion relating to a criminal harassment charge filed against her husband.

Both cases were continued.

In the case against the officer, according to court records, the officer was outside his home with his wife, who has a different home address from Officer Mosley. Mrs. Mosley told police that Officer Mosley yelled at her and said he didn’t want her at his home, the records say. Mrs. Mosley told police her husband forcefully grabbed her left arm and dragged her toward her car, according to court records. She also said he threatened to assault her, police reports said. Police were called and Officer Mosley was arrested. Yesterday, in an interview with the Telegram & Gazette, Mrs. Mosley said she planned to ask the court to dismiss the charges against her husband. That did not happen.

Within the last six months, Mr. Mosley sought legal action against his wife.
According to court documents, Mr. Mosley reported four incidents to the Worcester Police between Dec. 26 and Jan. 26. Mr. Mosley told police that Mrs. Mosley showed up at his house and began knocking on his door and yelling for about 20 minutes outside until he called police. On Jan. 1, Mr. Mosley alleged that Mrs. Mosley parked outside his house. On Jan. 26, Mr. Mosley alleged that Mrs. Mosley had been continuously calling him and driving by his house for the previous four to six weeks, and on this date, walked into his house unannounced, according to court documents.

Police Chief Gary J. Gemme has said Officer Mosley was put on restricted duty recently, is assigned to the Service Division, and that the officer’s firearms license has been temporarily suspended.

ETA

I removed the address, faintly hoping that the T&G will too.

 

[Blitz1]

Wow, that's really smart putting in their address.

I know it's public info and all but that is just wrong.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Wow, that's really smart putting in their address.

I know it's public info and all but that is just wrong.

Actually LEO addresses are no longer public info per MGLs (changed a number of years ago).

However everything (not sealed by a judge) filed in court is a public record. Media should still use discretion . . . but they usually don't.

 

[dagwag77]

We just have to hope the shitheads dont read the newspaper. I hope the T&G changes their article soon, we dont need to make any cop more of a target...

 

[cekim]

but they usually don't.

Indeed... [sad2]

Irresponsible...

 

[vellnueve]

What's the life of an officer over a good news story?

The media makes me sick.

 

[maee]

Am I the only person who thinks it's a painfully stupid idea to advertise in the newspaper which cops aren't allowed to legally own and carry guns? But to be even smarter, they mention it in the same article that gives his home address.

Why do they need guns when they have the police there to protect them??

 

[jhblaze1]

Am I the only person who thinks it's a painfully stupid idea to advertise in the newspaper which cops aren't allowed to legally own and carry guns? But to be even smarter, they mention it in the same article that gives his home address.



ETA

I removed the address, faintly hoping that the T&G will too.

F that. They'd post all my personal info too if my LTC was revoked/suspended.

ETA I wouldn't lose any sleep over the death of some prick who beats on his pregnant wife either.

 

[dagwag77]

F that. They'd post all my personal info too if my LTC was revoked/suspended.

ETA I wouldn't lose any sleep over the death of some prick who beats on his pregnant wife either.

Yea, they'd post your info, but your job isn't to put criminals in jail, criminals who most likely would like to eff you up for "what you did to them" rather than "what they did to themselves". Lets not make it easy for criminals to go after the cops that put them away. There is no reason to make them an easy target.

and 2. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Or do we selectively choose the rights we want to parade around touting? OK, so if he beats his wife, hes a shitbag, and he'll end up with the homies he put away, or at least (hopefully) a RO and a divorce.

 

[jhblaze1]

Yea, they'd post your info, but your job isn't to put criminals in jail, criminals who most likely would like to eff you up for "what you did to them" rather than "what they did to themselves". Lets not make it easy for criminals to go after the cops that put them away. There is no reason to make them an easy target.

and 2. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Or do we selectively choose the rights we want to parade around touting? OK, so if he beats his wife, hes a shitbag, and he'll end up with the homies he put away, or at least (hopefully) a RO and a divorce.

A) I don't care what cops do for a living. They're safety is not more important than mine. Period. If they don't like the risks that come with the job, a job they're compensated for, then they can either stop bitching or go find a new line of work. Do I agree with the media posting his or anyone else's info? Nope, I don't. But, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

B) Innocent until proven guilty only applies on this board when a cop is the suspect in a crime. Any story on here where it's some "thug" or "POS" accused of a crime he's immediatley deemed guilty. See post number 4 here:
http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=52075

See most of this thread:
http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=49847&highlight=groping

I don't have a hard statistic, but I'd be willing to bet that 80%+ of the time when someone is accused of a crime, they actually did it. I believe in trial by jury and innocent until proven guilty, however that doesn't nullify my right to have an opinion. Don't pretend you never make judgements when reading the headlines and always wait until you learn the verdict.

 

[sy32478]

Why do they need guns when they have the police there to protect them??

That is hilarious!



I think it is probably unusual that a cop would lose an LTC. I know of one town where a cop was caught using illegal drugs IN HIS CRUISER and remained on the force (and therefore likely to still be armed). I am not positive, but IIRC he was consuming evidence.

You can bet your life that if anyone else did that they would not ever see their permit again.

 

[GSG]

F that. They'd post all my personal info too if my LTC was revoked/suspended.

ETA I wouldn't lose any sleep over the death of some prick who beats on his pregnant wife either.

Take the cop's profession out of this for a second.

How many gun owners have gotten hosed in this state because a crazy ex took out a 209A on them and they lost their guns? Does NES collectively jump on them too?

More importantly, if you did the exact same thing, it wouldn't be newsworthy, and if it did make the news, it would be a note of your arrest in the Court Logs, not a detailed story saying where you work, where you live, and that you no longer can legally own or carry guns.

That's what bothers me about this.

 

[GSG]

Update:

http://www.telegram.com/article/20090527/NEWS/905270377

Dismiss charges, officer’s wife says
Incident ‘blown out of proportion’



By Scott J. Croteau TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
[email protected]

WORCESTER — The wife of a city police officer who allegedly assaulted her said in an interview yesterday she plans to ask that the charges against him be thrown out in court today.

In an interview yesterday, Stacey Mosley said Officer William D. Mosley, 32, of Ashmore Road, never assaulted her and the whole incident has been “blown out of proportion” by police. She said she plans to ask for the criminal charges to be dismissed in court.

Mrs. Mosley could invoke marital privilege not to testify against her husband if the charges are not immediately dismissed.

Officer Mosley is scheduled to appear for a hearing in Central District Court today. He was arrested and arraigned last week on charges of aggravated domestic assault and battery, and threatening to commit a crime.

The charges stem from a May 19 incident.

According to court records, the officer was outside his home with his wife, who has a different home address from Officer Mosley. Mrs. Mosley, who is five to six months pregnant, told police that Officer Mosley yelled at her and said he didn’t want her at his home, the records say.

Mrs. Mosley told police her husband forcefully grabbed her left arm and dragged her toward her car, according to court records. She also said he threatened to assault her, police reports said.

Police were called and Officer Mosley was arrested.

“He did not drag me. He did not assault me,” Mrs. Mosley said. “It was a verbal argument.”

Mrs. Mosley said she left and did call police. She said she did not call because of the argument, but she would not say exactly why she called police.

“I called police for a different reason,” she said.

The officer was arraigned last week in Central District Court and posted $500 cash bail. Officer Mosley’s lawyer did not return a call yesterday.

Police Chief Gary J. Gemme said Officer Mosley is on restricted duty and is assigned to the Service Division.

Citing department policy, Chief Gemme said the officer’s firearms license has been temporarily suspended, as is the case in any domestic incident. The suspension will remain in force pending the outcome of an internal police investigation and the criminal case.

 

[GSG]

Another:

http://www.telegram.com/article/20090528/NEWS/905280631

Thursday, May 28, 2009


Accused officer, wife in court



By Linda Bock TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
[email protected]

WORCESTER — A Worcester police officer charged with domestic assault and his wife, accused of a criminal harassment by her husband, were the subject of separate hearings in Central District Court yesterday.

The case against Officer William D. Mosley, 32, of Ashmore Road, alleges he assaulted his wife May 19. He was arrested on charges of aggravated domestic assault and battery, and threatening to commit a crime. His case was the subject of a pretrial hearing yesterday. The officer is on restricted duty.

Meanwhile, his wife, Stacey M. Mosley, of Glenn Ellen Road, who is pregnant, was in the courthouse for a hearing on a motion relating to a criminal harassment charge filed by her husband.

Both cases were continued.

In the case against the officer, according to court records, the officer was outside his home with his wife, who has a different home address than Officer Mosley. Mrs. Mosley told police that Officer Mosley yelled at her and said he didn’t want her at his home, the records say. Mrs. Mosley told police her husband forcefully grabbed her left arm and dragged her toward her car, according to court records. She also said he threatened to assault her, police reports said. Police were called and Officer Mosley was arrested. Tuesday, in an interview with the Telegram & Gazette, Mrs. Mosley said she planned to ask the court to dismiss the charges against her husband. That did not happen.

Within the last six months, Officer Mosley sought legal action against his wife.

According to court documents, Officer Mosley reported four incidents to the Worcester police between Dec. 26 and Jan. 26. Officer Mosley told police that Mrs. Mosley showed up at his house and began knocking on his door and yelling for about 20 minutes outside until he called police. On Jan. 1, Officer Mosley alleged that Mrs. Mosley parked outside his house. On Jan. 26, Officer Mosley alleged that Mrs. Mosley had been continuously calling him and driving by his house for the previous four to six weeks, and on this date, walked into his house unannounced, according to court documents.

Police Chief Gary J. Gemme has said Officer Mosley was put on restricted duty recently, is assigned to the Service Division, and that the officer’s firearms license has been temporarily suspended.

 

[Half Cocked]

F that. They'd post all my personal info too if my LTC was revoked/suspended.

Please show me all of these newspaper reports of people (non LEO) who have had their LTC's revoked.

I will be waiting.......

Please show me all of these media reports (other than the court log) of Domestic arrests (non LEO)........

I will be waiting......

If this did not involve a LEO it would never be in the papers.

 

[Coyote33]

Here's one:

Auburn Man has guns confiscated. Related to the Worcester incident.

 

[Half Cocked]

Here's one:

Auburn Man has guns confiscated. Related to the Worcester incident.

That article was not about his LTC being revoked..

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Please show me all of these newspaper reports of people (non LEO) who have had their LTC's revoked.

I will be waiting.......

Please show me all of these media reports (other than the court log) of Domestic arrests (non LEO)........

I will be waiting......

If this did not involve a LEO it would never be in the papers.

That article was not about his LTC being revoked..

you asked, and he provided. Doesnt mean it was correct.

 

[Coyote33]

That article was not about his LTC being revoked..

Neither was the first post here, which this thread is about. The first post was about "Accused city officer, wife in court against one another", and it also mentioned LTC being revoked. Same diff.

 

[Half Cocked]

Neither was the first post here, which this thread is about. The first post was about "Accused city officer, wife in court against one another", and it also mentioned LTC being revoked. Same diff.

My statement was in response to post #8 which stated...

F that. They'd post all my personal info too if my LTC was revoked/suspended.

Please follow along here.

 

[Half Cocked]

you asked, and he provided. Doesnt mean it was correct.

He did not provide what he was asked to. Apples to Oranges.

The person in his article had no LTC as it had been revoked years before.

The basis of the article was not about an LTC being revoked.

 

[GSG]

Here's one:

Auburn Man has guns confiscated. Related to the Worcester incident.

That's a completely different kind of incident.

 

[n1oty]

I think the point he is making is in regards to personal information (ie. name, address, identifying information) being published regarding firearms.

 

[Dmac82]

On a side note, In Connecticut, the state keeps all issued Pistol permits info confidential. I wounder if Mass is the same way??

 

[Len-2A Training]

On a side note, In Connecticut, the state keeps all issued Pistol permits info confidential. I wounder if Mass is the same way??

By MGLs, yes it is. However once the PD gets "involved" they seem to like to spill the guts of gun owners all over the media!!

 

[WILDCATT]

domestic

It seems the LEO was trying to remove his wife from his property.he had made several complaints.I wonder who the father of the baby is.they keep on bringing that up.he seems to be the victim here.he still must be able to carry on the job as he has not been suspended.

 

[n1oty]

But this is Massachusetts.......

.......and Massachusetts does things quite differently from most states. Although I have been retired and out-of-the-loop for awhile, I believe that the law regarding 209A RO's remains the same in that the LTC is suspended and firearms confiscated, regardless if a civilian or a LEO is involved. I don't think it is always fair, but that's the way it is. Even worse, it could get worse if the RO is made permanent or extended beyond a one year time frame. Can any current Mass LEO's or attorneys comment on whether that is still valid in Massachusetts? Is it fatal to the LTC if the 209A is extended beyond a one year time frame?

It seems the LEO was trying to remove his wife from his property.he had made several complaints.I wonder who the father of the baby is.they keep on bringing that up.he seems to be the victim here.he still must be able to carry on the job as he has not been suspended.

 

[Len-2A Training]

n1oty, you are correct . . . it hasn't changed.

The guns usually "disappear" to the usurious "bonded warehouses" well before the year is up. Many chiefs will DQ as "unsuitable" if the RO is extended, even if it has expired. Nobody can legally possess any firearms while a 209A is in force. LEOs are only exempt while working (per statute) but not off-duty IIRC.

 

[GSG]

n1oty, you are correct . . . it hasn't changed.

The guns usually "disappear" to the usurious "bonded warehouses" well before the year is up. Many chiefs will DQ as "unsuitable" if the RO is extended, even if it has expired. Nobody can legally possess any firearms while a 209A is in force. LEOs are only exempt while working (per statute) but not off-duty IIRC.

Sort of. If the department authorizes them to carry their duty weapon off duty, then they can do so, even with a restraining order.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b6

(B6) Do law enforcement officers who are subject to restraining orders and who receive and possess firearms for purposes of carrying out their official duties violate the law? [Back]


Not if the firearms are received and possessed for official use only.

The law prohibits persons subject to certain restraining orders from receiving, shipping, transporting or possessing firearms or ammunition. To be disabling, the restraining order must:

specifically restrain the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an "intimate partner" of the person (e.g., spouse);


be issued after a hearing of which notice was given to the person and at which the person had an opportunity to participate; and


include a finding that the person subject to the order represents a credible threat to the "intimate partner" or child of the "intimate partner" OR explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force against the partner.

However, the GCA has an exception for the receipt and possession of firearms and ammunition on behalf of a Federal or State agency. Therefore, the GCA does not prohibit a law enforcement officer under a restraining order from receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition for use in performing official duties. Possession of the firearm for official purposes while off duty would be lawful if such possession is required or authorized by law or by official departmental policy. An officer subject to a disabling restraining order would violate the law if the officer received or possessed a firearm or ammunition for other than official use. (See Question Q13 on officers’ receipt and possession of firearms and ammunition after a conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The government exception does not apply to such convictions.)

 

[Len-2A Training]

GSG, I stand correct. Thank you.