Posted on 09/27/2007 6:23:25 PM PDT by Ken H
Sorry, I mentioned your name and forgot to ping you for post 60.
I’m not familiar with the incident. Reminds me of some Cleveland PD coppers who went after one of the local newschannel reporters who made them look bad. I believe they ended up losing their jobs and some charges filed.
Not worth my career. Forrest Gump rule 1: “Stupid is as stupid does”
This video needs to be sent to the local news (maybe Bill O'Reilly too) and to the D.A. for issuance of citations if the officer who was driving the vehicle can be identified. And of course, a written signed complaint needs to be filed with internal affairs of the department.
Do not go gentle into that good night!
I would only approach them with witnesses with cameras.
STL_FINEST could have been disarmed and arrested within a couple of hours of posting his death threat, that is, if anyone really cared. Also, they all know the officers in Car 65 whom they sent on their intimidation mission, which went bad.
Nevertheless, the complaint will serve as an additional mark of their complicity in future.
If there is a sworn officer communicating a threat via the internet then I believe the FBI can start looking into it as a violation of civil rights under color of authority. Keep fighting back.
". Also, they all know the officers in Car 65 whom they sent on their intimidation mission, which went bad."
It is possible that management sent they guys around, but I tend to think that they are doing this on their own in support of another officer. I would be surprised if this happened much more once the video becomes available.
Put me on a ping list for further developments.
Apologize for what?
I don't believe he has any pending lawsuits, though one sure sounds like a good idea to me.
Not a problem. I hope that many of your neighbors will likewise begin to video these thugs on as many occasions as possible. With video phones that should be much easier. Put this department under 24/7 surveillance.
Stay safe.
Considering the background of this chief = it looks like a nest of vipers -wannabe Gestapo
It sounds like this is a systemic pattern with this dept - have you read the backgrounds of this cop and the chief?
***From what I’ve read, that looks like a fair estimation of the situation. I don’t know if this survived the thread pull, but the police chief himself has been accused of some sexual misconduct under color of authority.
(I keep referring to him as “cop” because he doesn’t deserve to be called an officer.
***The cop was fired, so you have a good point there. He obviously didn’t deserve to be called an officer.
Not my neighbors Tiger I live 4,000 miles from the scene.
Thanks for the ping.
I really would like to be involved in this discussion, but the last thread was pulled and the same disruptors are on this thread, so I don’t have confidence that what we write will stay public and open and in the light. This is disturbing on 2 levels:
1) Brett Darrow is a freeper, a brave one at that, and what he posts is primary source material, in contrast to some endless hypothetical nonsense we’ve had to endure on this topic. Brett NEEDS us Freepers as a form of protection, see post #40.
That we are reading this now, and that any retaliation the cops may take will be public, is acting as a shield to protect this man. It would be a disservice to this freeper and society at large if a thread devoted to discussing this topic were pulled like the last one.
2) Brett is standing up for some constitutional rights in the face of fascism, which goes directly to the founding principles of Free Republic. That’s why I’m pinging JimRob: to invite him onto this thread and see where he thinks the balance of rights in our constitution should reside, shed some light on the decisions pertaining to what kind of comments are considered provocative, and to keep the thread open rather than get it pulled.
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
Free Republic ^ | Jim Robinson
Posted on 03/22/2004 6:22:17 PM PST by Jim Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts
In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against ***totalitarianism***, socialism, ***tyranny***, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side....
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, ***pro-Constitution***, ***pro-Bill of Rights***,pro-gun, ***pro-limited government***, ***pro-private property rights***, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, ***pro-freedom***, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, ***fascism***, pacifism, ***totalitarianism***, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc.
....
We aggressively defend our God-given and ***first amendment guaranteed rights*** to ***free speech***, ***free press***, free religion, and ***freedom of association***, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal ***private property***. ...
We are conservative activists dedicated to ***defending our rights***, ***defending our constitution***, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
This explanation of the video was lost when the last thread was pulled:
Officer who berated driver loses job in St. George
Posted by Brett Darrow to All
On Bloggers & Personal 09/25/2007 4:55:22 AM EDT · 621 of 725
*UPDATE*
Sunday I went out to my car and I saw a St. Louis City police car camped out at the bottom of my street dead end street. As I got into the car, he started to pull up the street and him and his partner just stared me down. They stopped again at the top of my dead end street. I started up the car and turned around. As I did this, they took off making a right from my street. I followed. I realized it was on Night Shot mode and flipped it to regular and zoomed in on them trying to get away from me. They ran a red light when they made a right turn by not stopping, then flipped a U-turn knowing I couldn’t. As I came around the corner, they looked at me again, and quickly took off.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5591813350444656353
Then this morning (Monday), I get a call from a St. Louis County detective that has supposedly been asked by the prosecutors office to investigate the possible assault by the officer. I went in to talk with them at 1PM.
The detectives hadn’t seen the tape yet even though they had a copy. That really surprised me and I wondered why not. There questions weren’t even about what happened on that parking lot. They just wanted to know why I was going to the parking lot, what I had done before, and what I had done after this. They even want my Camera so a tech person can look at it and pull up the useless footage from before and after.
Then they got into the deal about it being uploaded off site. I told them it wasn’t true. They then asked if I thought it was a good idea to lie to a police officer. I said, with this officer, HELL YES! He wasn’t a police officer, but a raving lunatic that was going to beat me, arrest me, and maybe kill me that night for no reason. Then he threaten to steal my camera, I had to do something.
I quickly learned that this was about finding something I did wrong and not the officer.
They wanted to take a picture of the camera which I agreed to since it shows how big it is, but then they pressed again about it uploading and wanted to check in the trunk. I told them no. To me, this seemed like they were trying to figure out how to beat my system in the future and spread it around the local LEO community. Well they have a big surprise coming next time they stop me. They’re stupid to think I would just keep using the same thing I currently do.
So I’m going to get a hold of the media again and let them know what is up.
I’ll keep you guys up to date when I can.
Well done.
Don’t taze me dude!
Some people, in this case folks dressed like cops, only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others
Well done! The pulled thread had very good information with court rulings as reference material.
"They then asked if I thought it was a good idea to lie to a police officer. I said, with this officer, HELL YES!"
What can happen as a result of this may be that on the stand the detective will be asked if he was told by the subject that it was ok to lie to the police. He will answer "Yes, on such and such date and time I asked the subject if he thought it was ok to lie to the police. The subject answered 'Yes.' " It will take a whole lot of explaining to overcome the negative impact this statement will present to a criminal or civil jury.
This question was a trap question and a lawyer would not have allowed a client to respond.
The DA's office may or may not be looking into this, but Police Management and the city's liability carrier are definitely interested. Their goal, via having the interview conducted by sworn detectives, is to impeach witnesses and limit liability. Talking to authorities any further without a lawyer present causes enormous hurdles for the lawyer later on.
I think you misunderstood the post - it was made by Brett Darrow not me. I was simply posting it as it appeared on the pulled thread.
But what you say is certainly true ... he must be very guarded in any conversations with them.
(=^..^=)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.