Posted on 06/10/2013 4:44:58 AM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
The state's attorney or the FBI.
It was NJ. State’s attorney didn’t want to hear about it.
Easier to move. NJ is so corrupt you just don’t know who is connected to whom. And how. Better to just move than end up a victim yourself.
I wondered what was up when this particular friends hubby answered the phone there at 8:30 one morning. I couldn’t get her on her cell phone (this was early cell phone days) so I tried her house. He’d parked his car in the neighbors driveway and stayed home from work that morning. When he walked out and casually asked the cop if there was some sort of problem the cop nearly peed himself. Then threatened to write him a ticket for parking in someone elses driveway (that’s a crime?) and interfering with police business when he asked if that was a crime. THEN, asked him if consented to have his car searched and called for backup. FORTUNATELY my friends neighbor was a corporate lawyer and still at home.
Complete steroid driven wackjob.
I’m sure you can understand why they just moved instead. My friend was very pretty and this wasn’t the first stalker kind of person she had encountered in life. It WAS the first LEO stalker though. It sucked for their kids as they had to change schools in mid term.
County Sheriff's Department, maybe?
In NJ. LOL.
There was a town in NJ where the ENTIRE police department was so corrupt even the NJ state police didn’t want to deal with it. They just called in the feds.
Turned out crime in that town was VERY organized. Prostitution, drugs, gambling, B&E. Very Very organized.
Organized by the police department!
IIRC all of them ended up doing time.
I can understand where Maryland drivers make you want to shoot them, but you still shouldn’t.
“The family eventually had to move. Who do you report the Chief of Police to when they’re abusive?”
I’d recommend a talk with ones lawyer, followed with a talk with a judge. Newspaper/TV talks after that, but be sure to video Chiefie Poo first.
Sue the bachelor’s child!
This was prior to wide availabilty of cell phone video and most peeps didn’t have video cams ‘just because’.
NJ cops are crazy and ‘connected’ by and large. Sure there are probably a lot of decent and honest ones too. They’re usually not labeled for type though :P So’s ya just never know.
I gave all of them a wide berth. Just prudent.
My, my - what a nasty attitude. The Whaaambulance must be busy saving another Liberal from “Knotted Knappy” syndrome. Life is rough, but you can survive the wait.
As for your “The “Darwin Awards Committee” suggests that you take an IQ test.” - I was tested, by a past president of APA and found to be at the high end of the bell curve. But, what is such a finding compared with your opinion.
Based on the article, a man with his wife and children was dealing with two males. Where in the article did I err?
Based on what is written in the story it is hard to fault the cop.
He identified himself as the two, Harvey and his “passenger” approached.
While I tend not to believe the cops, who have a sorry history of lying, there is still too little information presented.
I have never seen a road rage incident that can’t be defused by just moving over to the slow lane and doing 5 mph below the speed limit. You typical road-rager is angry because he is in a hurry, and will not be able to drive that slow. After a few minutes, he will be speeding off to torment his next imaginary enemy.
But to get back to NJ cops...
In my town, the cops started doing off-duty security at the local grocery stores, and were permitted by the stores to take groceries as part of their compensation. Well, the situation escalated, and by the time all was said and done, the cops were diverting one in three trucks making deliveries to the two local grocery stores to their own warehouse. They operated their own grocery store, called Groceries for Less, with a big sign out on the road, and everything.
The Feds finally came in and broke it all up. But this went on for a years.
Visit the link on the nj cops I posted from the nytimes. They had it all figured out.
And every driver on the GSP during rush hour is a road rage driver. We didn’t call it the deathrace 2000 for nothing.
I didn’t get shot, but I was chased for 15 miles by an off duty Nevada State Police officer in his personal truck because “I cut him off.”
I stopped several times to let him pass, did what I could (legally passing others) to put distance between us, called 911, and he would not relent.
Finally I saw all the cops, and was relieved. Turns out he called his buddies, and they were there for ME!
Cost me $1500 to have the absurd reckless driving charge dismissed, and he has suffered no consequences.
I’m lucky because I was smart enough and wealthy enough to fight it, instead of having a borderline criminal conviction.
It’s not just the GSP! LOL
During incidents like this, “introducing” a firearm is a step to defend your life and life of another.
I would not bet my life, or the life of my family, that the enraged doofus coming at me was unarmed.
And, ala George Zimmerman, are you willing to bet your life that the enraged doofus wasn’t going to beat and kick you to death?
Are you willing to bet your life and the life of your family the enraged doofus, after killing you or knocking you senseless, would not do the same to your family?
That is why we have concealed carry—for the lawful person to defend themselves and their families.
“No gun, and there is a fistfight and maybe some relatively minor injuries.”
Like this is some sort of junior high school-yard fistfight? And like I said before, you want to bet your life that all that is going to happen is a “minor” injury?
“Add a gun, for either person, and a struggle immediately becomes a matter of life and death, since whoever doesn’t have control of the gun is likely to die.”
Good for George Zimmerman and countless others that have saved their life or the life of another by using a firearm responsibly.
Just a quick question: Do you have to wait until you are getting your head smashed into the pavement before you can take steps to defend yourself with a firearm?
And if so, just how are you assured you will be conscience enough to act defensively if you take a hard hit that drives you to the ground?
View the videos and you can see all it takes is one punch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YATxHB8IlIk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJx_rO972Ws
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/01/nyregion/ex-chief-tells-of-widespread-police-corruption.html
******************************************************************
Thanks for the posting Black Agnes. This (Hudson county) is the same New Jersey jurisdiction that the cop who just recently shot the Maryland man is from. I get a little irritated at supposedly rational individuals who AUTOMATICALLY assume that when a cop shoots an unarmed man, it just MUST HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED. And the irrational “thinker” goes on to gloat and revel in the dead man’s death. And as part of their irrational thinking, they automatically assume facts about the case that appear, from multiple news sources, to be not facts at all.
This is the same irrational thinking that automatically assumes the States Attorney in Florida would not prosecute a clearly innocent man (Zimmerman) for murder.
The only reason his family was at risk was because he stopped and exited the vehicle to confront the other guys. I’ve driven over a half million miles in the last 33 years and have never and will never stop my car to avoid or confront an aggressive driver. Actually, I can think of only one valid reason to stop. That would be to let the other driver exit his vehicle and approach - giving me a chance to take off with a head start. The shooter’s family was in the car. He was looking for a confrontation. (IMHO)
We also do not "know" that Zimmerman used his firearm responsibly, though the MSM version of events doesn't seem very likely to be the truth.
Let's look at it the other way. What about if the other (now dead) guy had also got out of his car with a gun, and he won the gunfight? Would he have "acted responsibly?" Did he not have reasonable cause for fearing his life was in danger? Doesn't that bring the issue of moral culpability down to a matter of luck and/or skill, neither of which has anything at all to do with right or wrong?
In other words, if two guys get into an armed fight, should the survivor be automatically assumed to have acted in legal self defense? If so, then I guess dueling is legal again.
That is not actually the case, even in Florida. The aggressor cannot claim self-defense, even if the "victim" is armed or if he had genuine reason to fear for his life at the time he pulled the trigger. May not be 1st degree murder, but he definitely shouldn't walk.
My point is that distinguishing between perpetrator and victim is not always easy to do. As you would know if you'd ever seen a barfight escalate.
Videotape him and put it on the web.
He'll be out of a job.
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.