Criminy. There’s no reason that person should have been employed by anyone for anything.
While no involvement by law enforcement, Roger Fortson’s younger brother (16 years old) was just killed:
That poor family. Too many guns in the hands of idiots and criminals.
The sheriff responsible for hiring the deputy who killed Sonya Massey is resigning:
Embattled Illinois sheriff will retire amid criticism over the killing of Sonya Massey
Good!
“Before you get too much into the lie that you’re telling right now, we have three people that watched you guys, specifically you on the bike, light the fire,” said Iverson.
In addition, Iverson said the teen had fled from police, despite officers’ commands to stop**.**
Before the teen could respond that he didn’t know the people shouting at him were police**,** the two officers handcuffed and drove him to the station.
You’ll be shocked to find out that the police were lying.
The body camera footage reveals that none of the witnesses said they saw Islo’s son start the fire, as Iverson claimed, nor did officers identify themselves as law enforcement before commanding Islo’s son to stop — information the teen’s parents hoped to have before his court date.
Islo said if she had access to the footage of her son’s arrest, they would have pleaded not guilty.
There’s body cam footage (though I haven’t watched it) at the link.
Further down in the article, involving the release of body cam footage is this line:
The department is likely arguing that “may” does not mean “must,” Lueders said.
For the kid’s sake, I hope they understand that when it comes to law “may” does not mean must. If they’re going to make that part of a lawsuit, they might not get far. A rule that says the police ‘may release footage to parents’ is different than ‘shall release footage to parents’.
Regardless, how about the city awards the family treble/punitive damages (including the cop doing 3x the community service) and removes this from the kid’s record.
And fire the cop for lying. You want to stop people from treating the cops like shit, start throwing out the bad apples.
Six California police officers paid someone to take college courses for them.
The officers hired someone to complete the courses online, unlocking raises and financial incentives they had not earned, prosecutors said.
That makes me wonder: since beating and/or killing people doesn’t necessarily get a police officer fired let alone criminally charged, just what offenses are considered heinous enough to warrant immediate termination and prosecution? In the above example they committed the unforgivable sin of fraudulently obtaining raises they weren’t qualified for.
Consider who the officers charged with fraud were. The article lists five names (one seems to be missing):
- Morteza Amiri
- Patrick Berhan
- Amanda Theodosy a.k.a. Nash
- Ernesto Mejia-Orozco
- Brauli Rodriguez Jalapa
There is something about those names …
and Samantha Peterson of the Antioch Police Department
So half the names sound immigrant and half don’t.
They care when officers commit a crime against the department.
and what the actual criminal did:
a man wanted for failing to serve a 10-day sentence for driving with a revoked license
Strip them naked, smear them with honey and salmon guts and make them walk from Soldotna to Kenai. In June. What the mosquitoes don’t eat, the bears will.
Assholes like that need to pay.
Couldn’t find the exact image I had in mind but these get the idea across:
Good!
Her family (from American Samoa) had called the police because the girl had threatened other family members with a knife.
Even more troubling, Medina said he “purposefully did not record because he was invoking his 5th Amendment right not to self-incriminate.” Since “he was involved in a traffic collision,” he reasoned, he was “subject to 5th Amendment protections.”
Pretty sure that courts (up to and including SCOTUS [for what it’s worth these days]) have ruled that to successfully assert one’s rights under the Fifth, one has to explicitly say that they’re doing so.
I welcome education/correction.
ETA: Next time I’m in a traffic accident, I’ll try to obtain and destroy all footage from any surveillance cameras in the area. See how that goes.
Related: if I have a dash cam that I’ve installed, am I okay to delete the footage on it if it shows me culpable? What if my employer installed it?
Now you’re talking about destruction of evidence, which is a whole separate issue and will definitely get you into trouble if it can be shown (or if you admit to police) that you’re the one responsible for the destruction of said evidence. That’s completely different from not creating the evidence in the first place.
He’s allowed to do that.
What he shouldn’t be allowed to do is invoke his 5th Amendment rights while doing his job and then keep that job.