Posted on 07/08/2011 12:27:56 PM PDT by freedomwarrior998
Uh no.
Mrs. Tessener claims the parking lot was gravel. The photograph shows it was asphalt.
Mrs. Tessener claims the the trooper denied her access to her husband and refused to let her husband see the second test reading. The video shows nothing of the sort.
Mrs. Tessener claims the trooper got one inch from her husbands face. The video shows that the trooper never got anywhere near that close to her husband.
Mrs. Tessener claims the headlight in her car was in perfect working order. The service record shows that there was an ongoing problem with the headlight and that the car was serviced numerous times for that very reason.
I have yet to see credible evidence that Mrs. Tessener is not a liar.
Well on that we agree.
And you think cops never lie?
I vote that the trooper lied every time he needed to cover his butt. He said, she said, I believe she.
Thanks for the reply - even if you didn’t actually respond to my point.
None of which is credible evidence supporting the officer’s claim that Mrs. Tessener drank any alcohol that evening.
Cops are not in charge of your personal safety. But I’m sure that’s not what you meant.
It’s unfortunate, how many cops have forgotten Robert Peel’s principles.
*****
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2672663/posts
Known as the “Father of Modern Policing”, Sir Robert was the man responsible for the creation of what many believe to be the first modern professional police department — the Metropolitan Police Force in London.
Prior to Sir Roberts little experiment, the British in the 1800’s had a strong antipathy for the idea of a full-time police department — matter-of-fact, it was seen as a threat to liberty and a (and this is a direct quote from JP Smith): “...disturbance of all private happiness.”
Nonetheless, everyone — from the man in the street to the last politician — agreed that the old system of watchmen simply wasn’t working. Matter-of-fact, the perception was that crime wasn’t only rampant, but that it was sharply rising.
Enter Sir Robert.
In order to mollify those who believed that professional police were “a curse and a despotism”, and secure their aid in creating his professional police force, Sir Robert Peel developed what became known as The Peelian Principles; which are considered to be the basic foundation for all modern policing:
1) The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2) The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3) Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4) The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5) Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6) Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7) Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8) Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9) The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
My academy devoted two days to the study of Sir Robert and his Principles of Policing. I am of the firm opinion that these Principles should be Gospel for every Peace Officer.
There are times, though, when I am forced to wonder if some of my fellow Peace Officers have even heard of the Peelian Principles.
And I guaran-damn-tee you that a whole bunch of politicians and police administrators (but I repeat myself) have never heard of #9.
Anyone who doubts this should listen to the next District Attorney, County Commissioner, Representative or any other critter cite the rising number of arrests as proof that their pet anti-crime law is working.
*sigh*
LawDog
****
The question is not whether corrupt police officers violate Peelian principles but how many of his principles they violate.
Evidently the police state proponent has been doing some research to prepare for his latest flame war. In his last several threads like this he just threw insults and didn’t put out anything resembling facts.
Perhaps you can point out in the playbook where he is supposedly pulling stuff from. Be specific since the playbook is easily available.
Ironically I searched through it and found no reference to the “jamming” technique rokkitapps is supposedly using.
These meatheads couldn't make it in the real world so they became cops to keep reliving their high school years - all seven of them.
Both Smith and Wyrick also made one “verbal” cell phone call to each other, so there’s no record of what they discussed. More importantly, when Smith stopped the husband for “speeding”, he did not make a log of the traffic stop- which is required by state law. Now if you’re a couple of scumbag cops who understand the husband is from out of town and has no idea how to get to the magistrate’s location, what better way to screw him over than to stop him just long enough so he can’t follow the car transporting his wife. And if you wanted to hide the fact you stopped him, what better way than not to log the stop. This whole thing was a whitewash by the Governor and the police.
In an encounter with a cop, he as a weapon and the authority to use it if he feels in any way threatened, whether or not that threat turns out to be genuine. In NC we’ve had a whole series of incidents with law enforcement shooting unarmed people because the cop felt “threatened”. The people were riddled with bullets because the cops are shooting to kill. In that situation the cop is, in fact, very much responsible for whether I live or die. The fact that some cops are “complete idiots” is unacceptable.
Suppose police officers were placed under the UCMJ, so instead of Internal Affairs, they would be investigated by its military counterpart. Suppose also that, like the military, there would be no union.
1. Would such a system be more effective than the current system in weeding out idiots and criminals?
2. Would you favor the above scenario being applied?
First of all - the trooper, NOT Mrs. Tessener, filled out that form - he could have written ANYTHING and attributed it to her.......
Secondly... as to any ‘alcohol’ odor— as any Chem Lab expert who testifies to analyzing blood samples for a blood alcohol content would say: “When the arresting officer testifies that he smells the odor of an alcoholic beverage on the suspect’s breath, he/she is saying that he/she is smelling the aldehydes and ketones that are by-products as the alcohol breaks down in a person’s body – if there is no alcohol to break down, then there is no smell”
And thirdly...... how did my original post end up on this site?
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.