More police protecting and serving

LTCRN

NES Member
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
2,033
Likes
726
Location
Southeastern, MA
During a medical emergency / MVA , isn't the FD in charge of the scene until the medical emergency is over? Aren't the police there to direct traffic, gather some evidence, and once all victims have been cleared from the scene, the police then start their full investigation as to how the accident occurred? Usually the PD and FD work well together but in this case, Bones is correct, this cop has an ego problem and his past history shows it!
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
14,669
Likes
12,291
Location
Granite State of Mind
Cops have the most fragile egos. Another cop arresting a fireman for doing his job.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_BICQTWXjoc
The original incident was 2014, and I'm pretty sure it was posted on the forum.

This is a good update, because it turns out the CHiP had done the same thing at least once before, and at least twice since.


During a medical emergency / MVA , isn't the FD in charge of the scene until the medical emergency is over? Aren't the police there to direct traffic, gather some evidence, and once all victims have been cleared from the scene, the police then start their full investigation as to how the accident occurred? Usually the PD and FD work well together but in this case, Bones is correct, this cop has an ego problem and his past history shows it!
States vary, but that's the general protocol.
 

SKumar

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
7,143
Likes
13,743
Location
Middlesex
Cop arrests another cop for DUI.
You heard it from the horses mouth "SFSTs are a trap. Only a moron would submit to it. We all know it is. It's more evidence that you're drunk."

Must be tough for a cop to weasel their way out of serving one of their own. Sucks for them!
 

Matt_SERE

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
7,966
Likes
7,836
Location
North of Boston
Cop arrests another cop for DUI.
You heard it from the horses mouth "SFSTs are a trap. Only a moron would submit to it. We all know it is. It's more evidence that you're drunk."

Must be tough for a cop to weasel their way out of serving one of their own. Sucks for them!

No, no, no. He wanted her to do the sfst and he was going to pass her, lose the footage, and let her go. Officer discretion. Who you gonna believe? C'mon, man! [laugh]

She was just too drunk to see it that way. I mean, blinded by the accident, confused. Not drunk.
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
5,211
Likes
9,890
Location
western mass
It'd be a real shame if that CHP prick was to ever be in an accident and Chula Vista FD was responding and they stopped care to move the engine. A real shame.

It would be a better shame if the CHP officers house were on fire and no one showed up and neighbors disconnected their garden hoses and reeled them in.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
14,669
Likes
12,291
Location
Granite State of Mind
Cop arrests another cop for DUI.
You heard it from the horses mouth "SFSTs are a trap. Only a moron would submit to it. We all know it is. It's more evidence that you're drunk."

Must be tough for a cop to weasel their way out of serving one of their own. Sucks for them!
She should quit the force and become a teacher, because she's definitely not guilty.
 

LTCRN

NES Member
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
2,033
Likes
726
Location
Southeastern, MA
Was his first mistake telling the Sheriff he was armed when he didn't legally have to and he already knew it? It seems this caused things to escalate unnecessarily. He could have just further explained he was not trespassing and been on his way, He volunteered to much information that was used against him which caused further escalation. The rest is just very terrible police work and I'm sure a violation of his rights somewhere!
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
18,526
Likes
14,952
Location
Southern NH
. He could have just further explained he was not trespassing and been on his way,

Unfounded speculation that’s refuted by the video. First, he literally did explain what he was doing. Second. He was immediately told to get out of the car.

Cop: “Go ahead and step out [of the car].”

Your made up scenario: No thanks officer.
Cop: Well in that case, never mind. Have a good day!

That’s utter nonsense. He was detained from the very beginning, before he ever said anything about being armed.
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
18,526
Likes
14,952
Location
Southern NH
The rest is just very terrible police work and I'm sure a violation of his rights somewhere!

I’m not sure if you are being serious or facetious. If serious, you are correct, indeed there was!
If facetious, I can explain.

The legal requirement “for a police officer to undertake an investigatory stop, the officer must have reasonable suspicion, based upon specific, articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts, that the particular person to be stopped has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity”.


“It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the stationhouse and prosecution for crime -- "arrests" in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person.

The danger in the logic which proceeds upon distinctions between a "stop" and an "arrest," or "seizure" of the person, and between a "frisk" and a "search," is twofold. It seeks to isolate from constitutional scrutiny the initial stages of the contact between the policeman and the citizen. And, by suggesting a rigid all-or-nothing model of justification and regulation under the Amendment, it obscures the utility of limitations upon the scope, as well as the initiation, of police action as a means of constitutional regulation.

And, in determining whether the seizure [was] "unreasonable," our inquiry is a dual one -- whether the officer's action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place...in justifying the particular intrusion, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction.

And simple "'good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police.”
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
18,526
Likes
14,952
Location
Southern NH
He still volunteered to much info. and my sequence of events were off when typing or not explained well enough, sorry.

Oh, I completely agree. I’m always a proponent of saying as little as possible. In this case, it didn’t matter much. He immediately dispelled any notions of criminal activity saying he was doing a radio podcast there because he doesn’t have service at his house. And the cop then immediately demanded he exit the vehicle. So really, he was unlawfully seized before he said too much of anything. Had he then said nothing, or talked as he did, it was irrelevant at that point. The cops were going to violate his 4th Amendment rights either way, there wasn’t anything he could do about it.
 

Matt_SERE

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
7,966
Likes
7,836
Location
North of Boston
I can't remember if it was in this thread or a COVID thread.


AWisconsin high school student on Friday won a federal lawsuit she brought against a sheriff who threatened her with jail time early in the COVID-19 pandemic if she didn’t remove social media posts saying she had the virus.

U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig ruled that Amiyah Cohoon’s constitutional right to free speech was violated when a Marquette County sheriff’s deputy in March 2020 demanded the Oxford teenager take down her Instagram posts post or face arrest.
“The First Amendment is not a game setting for the government to toggle off and on,” the judge wrote. “It applies in times of tranquility and times of strife.”

The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty filed the lawsuit against Marquette County Sheriff Joseph Konrath and a patrol sergeant. Luke Berg, the attorney who filed the case, said “this decision underscores that First Amendment rights cannot be dispatched with in an emergency. More importantly, law enforcement has no business trying to regulate the social media posts of local teenagers.”

Samuel Hall, attorney for the sheriff and the Marquette County Sheriff’s Department, said at the time the lawsuit was filed that the girl’s messages “caused distress and panic within the school system and law enforcement acted at the request of school health officials in a good faith effort to avoid unfounded panic.”




 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
14,669
Likes
12,291
Location
Granite State of Mind
I can't remember if it was in this thread or a COVID thread.


AWisconsin high school student on Friday won a federal lawsuit she brought against a sheriff who threatened her with jail time early in the COVID-19 pandemic if she didn’t remove social media posts saying she had the virus.

U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig ruled that Amiyah Cohoon’s constitutional right to free speech was violated when a Marquette County sheriff’s deputy in March 2020 demanded the Oxford teenager take down her Instagram posts post or face arrest.
“The First Amendment is not a game setting for the government to toggle off and on,” the judge wrote. “It applies in times of tranquility and times of strife.”

The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty filed the lawsuit against Marquette County Sheriff Joseph Konrath and a patrol sergeant. Luke Berg, the attorney who filed the case, said “this decision underscores that First Amendment rights cannot be dispatched with in an emergency. More importantly, law enforcement has no business trying to regulate the social media posts of local teenagers.”

Samuel Hall, attorney for the sheriff and the Marquette County Sheriff’s Department, said at the time the lawsuit was filed that the girl’s messages “caused distress and panic within the school system and law enforcement acted at the request of school health officials in a good faith effort to avoid unfounded panic.”




As much as I enjoy Lehto, he never links to the actual cases, and spends 10 minutes dancing around what we actually need to know.

 

Radtekk

NES Member
Rating - 100%
116   0   0
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
9,047
Likes
8,767
Location
Breathing free in Tennessee!
Top Bottom