To Protect and to Serve II

#8,752
#8,752
VolStrom said:
So I asked you this question: "Until someone breaks the law what do think people should be allowed to do?"
And this was your response?
Click to expand...
My response to that is people are free to do whatever they want as long as it’s legal and doesnt put others in danger. Which the examples I have do
 
#8,754
#8,754
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#8,761
#8,761
Rickyvol77 said:
So a drunk guy runs a stop sign into traffic, and died because he wasn’t wearing his seat belt and you believe the officer who hit him should be jailed?
Click to expand...
The cop was doing over twice the speed limit through the intersection. Had he been following the law this never happens. I think we can all agree if a cop ran a stop sign and got tboned by a civilian doing twice the speed limit he’d be under the jail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#8,762
#8,762
DancingOutlaw said:
The cop was doing over twice the speed limit through the intersection. Had he been following the law this never happens. I think we can all agree if a cop ran a stop sign and got tboned by a civilian doing twice the speed limit he’d be under the jail.
Click to expand...
The speeding was not the primary cause of the accident. Yea guess they could’ve given him a ticket but the accident was the fault of the guy who
- was driving drunk (which is harmless according to you all)
- ran a stop sign
- wasn’t wearing a seat belt

If any of those things were different, the accident wouldn’t have occurred
 
#8,763
#8,763
Rickyvol77 said:
The speeding was not the primary cause of the accident. Yea guess they could’ve given him a ticket but the accident was the fault of the guy who
- was driving drunk (which is harmless according to you all)
- ran a stop sign
- wasn’t wearing a seat belt

If any of those things were different, the accident wouldn’t have occurred
Click to expand...
So if the cop had been driving the speed limit the results would have been the same? He was not supposed to be driving anyways, he was in violation of department policy and off duty at the time. This guy was a Texas Ranger and the Texas Rangers conducted the accident investigation even though the accident occurred in a jurisdiction with a police force. He wasn’t even given a speeding ticket. You know, the same treatment a normal person would get.
 
#8,764
#8,764
I just want to say Rickyvol is the sane, reasonable one here. A quick reading of this thread would not give that impression. I didn't think this was Twitter where everyone is full of **** idiots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#8,766
#8,766
DancingOutlaw said:
So if the cop had been driving the speed limit the results would have been the same? He was not supposed to be driving anyways, he was in violation of department policy and off duty at the time. This guy was a Texas Ranger and the Texas Rangers conducted the accident investigation even though the accident occurred in a jurisdiction with a police force. He wasn’t even given a speeding ticket. You know, the same treatment a normal person would get.
Click to expand...
I’ve had plenty of people that have been speeding and even caused accidents but I didn’t give tickets too. However even then, the officer didn’t cause the accident. Which was clearly obvious
 
  • Like
Reactions: A_Vol_n_Hog_Country
#8,767
#8,767
Weezy said:
I just want to say Rickyvol is the sane, reasonable one here. A quick reading of this thread would not give that impression. I didn't think this was Twitter where everyone is full of **** idiots.
Click to expand...
Thanks for saying that, don’t let a few boisterous posters with disagreeing views let you think that everyone online thinks that way. They are a minority opinion for a reason
 
#8,768
#8,768
Rickyvol77 said:
I’ve had plenty of people that have been speeding and even caused accidents but I didn’t give tickets too. However even then, the officer didn’t cause the accident. Which was clearly obvious
Click to expand...
You’ve had fatal accidents involving reckless driving speeding and the person speeding wasn’t cited? Does this argument go both ways? If the DUI driver kills the speeding cop does he walk because the cop was speeding?
 
#8,769
#8,769
DancingOutlaw said:
You’ve had fatal accidents involving reckless driving speeding and the person speeding wasn’t cited? Does this argument go both ways? If the DUI driver kills the speeding cop does he walk because the cop was speeding?
Click to expand...

I didn’t say fatal accidents. You keep trying to move the goalposts to fit your misguided view of the world
how about this? If an officer was driving drunk and ran a stop sign and was hit by a citizen and killed, the officer would still be to blame for the accident.
just like this dumbass criminal was killed because he was drunk, ran a stop sign and wasnt wearing a seat belt

Pretty simple concept. You want to blame the officer because you hate police, but the blame lies on the idiot who put himself and others at risk and basically got himself killed
 
#8,770
#8,770
Rickyvol77 said:
I didn’t say fatal accidents. You keep trying to move the goalposts to fit your misguided view of the world
how about this? If an officer was driving drunk and ran a stop sign and was hit by a citizen and killed, the officer would still be to blame for the accident.
just like this dumbass criminal was killed because he was drunk, ran a stop sign and wasnt wearing a seat belt

Pretty simple concept. You want to blame the officer because you hate police, but the blame lies on the idiot who put himself and others at risk and basically got himself killed
Click to expand...
How is the guy driving twice the speed limit also not an “idiot who put himself and others at risk”?
 
#8,771
#8,771
DancingOutlaw said:
How is the guy driving twice the speed limit also not an “idiot who put himself and others at risk”?
Click to expand...
He shouldn’t speed but that wasn’t the cause of the accident. Now if they had said, the other driver was driving down the road and this ranger had speed so recklessly he had last control and hit him and killed him then I would agree with you. But that’s not what happened
 
#8,773
#8,773
Nasty case, bad law:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/12/04/17-17492.pdf

Victim was at her cousin’s house on the evening of May 2, 2013. When boyfriend arrived at the house, he became physically abusive. She hides from him. Calls police. Gets a cab to her residence where boyfriend and police are there. Boyfriend tells her not to talk to them. Police officers ask her to repeat her accusation, in front of the boyfriend, without separating her from the abuser. She recants and goes inside. The officers stay outside talking to him saying “why are you dating someone like that?” He goes back inside and roughs her up some more.

A month later he beats her so bad one of the neighbors calls 911. “Yambupah [responding officer] had received domestic violence training. She noticed that Martinez had injuries consistent with those of a victim of physical abuse, including a red cheek, scrapes on her knees, a manicured fingernail that was broken and bleeding, a torn shirt, and bruising on her arms. She photographed Martinez’s injuries. Although Yambupah later acknowledged that separating Martinez and Pennington was important because of the possibility of intimidation, Martinez testified that they were not separated by more than seven feet when she and Yambupah spoke. Martinez, believing that Pennington was within earshot, whispered to Yambupah that the injuries had been inflicted by Pennington, that Pennington had tried to smother her with a pillow, and that he had attempted to choke her.” Yambupah tells her supervisor she’s going to make an arrest (which is mandatory under California law) and the Supervisor tells her to refer it to the district attorney instead. They eventually leave. They don’t inform her of her right to make a citizens arrest and they don’t provide her with any of the educational materials for domestic assault victims. He beats her some more.

Eventually he gets arrested and convicted.

Oh btw, the abusive boyfriend was a police officer on administrative leave for domestic assault against another woman. He was friends with one of the first officers and the supervisor who overruled the arrest was friends with his father.

9th circuit rules that the officers involved have qualified immunity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#8,774
#8,774
RockyTop85 said:
Nasty case, bad law:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/12/04/17-17492.pdf

Victim was at her cousin’s house on the evening of May 2, 2013. When boyfriend arrived at the house, he became physically abusive. She hides from him. Calls police. Gets a cab to her residence where boyfriend and police are there. Boyfriend tells her not to talk to them. Police officers ask her to repeat her accusation, in front of the boyfriend, without separating her from the abuser. She recants and goes inside. The officers stay outside talking to him saying “why are you dating someone like that?” He goes back inside and roughs her up some more.

A month later he beats her so bad one of the neighbors calls 911. “Yambupah [responding officer] had received domestic violence training. She noticed that Martinez had injuries consistent with those of a victim of physical abuse, including a red cheek, scrapes on her knees, a manicured fingernail that was broken and bleeding, a torn shirt, and bruising on her arms. She photographed Martinez’s injuries. Although Yambupah later acknowledged that separating Martinez and Pennington was important because of the possibility of intimidation, Martinez testified that they were not separated by more than seven feet when she and Yambupah spoke. Martinez, believing that Pennington was within earshot, whispered to Yambupah that the injuries had been inflicted by Pennington, that Pennington had tried to smother her with a pillow, and that he had attempted to choke her.” Yambupah tells her supervisor she’s going to make an arrest (which is mandatory under California law) and the Supervisor tells her to refer it to the district attorney instead. They eventually leave. They don’t inform her of her right to make a citizens arrest and they don’t provide her with any of the educational materials for domestic assault victims. He beats her some more.

Eventually he gets arrested and convicted.

Oh btw, the abusive boyfriend was a police officer on administrative leave for domestic assault against another woman. He was friends with one of the first officers and the supervisor who overruled the arrest was friends with his father.

9th circuit rules that the officers involved have qualified immunity.
Click to expand...


I agree the police were in the wrong here on multiple levels, evidence of Domestic assault leads to automatic arrests, no "asking your supervisor" bullcrap...and not separating the two subjects is just terrible police work....the police DO have qualified immunity here, but should definitely have lost civil suit here
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolFaninFla
#8,775
#8,775
RockyTop85 said:
Nasty case, bad law:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/12/04/17-17492.pdf

Victim was at her cousin’s house on the evening of May 2, 2013. When boyfriend arrived at the house, he became physically abusive. She hides from him. Calls police. Gets a cab to her residence where boyfriend and police are there. Boyfriend tells her not to talk to them. Police officers ask her to repeat her accusation, in front of the boyfriend, without separating her from the abuser. She recants and goes inside. The officers stay outside talking to him saying “why are you dating someone like that?” He goes back inside and roughs her up some more.

A month later he beats her so bad one of the neighbors calls 911. “Yambupah [responding officer] had received domestic violence training. She noticed that Martinez had injuries consistent with those of a victim of physical abuse, including a red cheek, scrapes on her knees, a manicured fingernail that was broken and bleeding, a torn shirt, and bruising on her arms. She photographed Martinez’s injuries. Although Yambupah later acknowledged that separating Martinez and Pennington was important because of the possibility of intimidation, Martinez testified that they were not separated by more than seven feet when she and Yambupah spoke. Martinez, believing that Pennington was within earshot, whispered to Yambupah that the injuries had been inflicted by Pennington, that Pennington had tried to smother her with a pillow, and that he had attempted to choke her.” Yambupah tells her supervisor she’s going to make an arrest (which is mandatory under California law) and the Supervisor tells her to refer it to the district attorney instead. They eventually leave. They don’t inform her of her right to make a citizens arrest and they don’t provide her with any of the educational materials for domestic assault victims. He beats her some more.

Eventually he gets arrested and convicted.

Oh btw, the abusive boyfriend was a police officer on administrative leave for domestic assault against another woman. He was friends with one of the first officers and the supervisor who overruled the arrest was friends with his father.

9th circuit rules that the officers involved have qualified immunity.
Click to expand...
40% spousal abuse rate amongst law enforcement.
National Center For Women and Policing
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top