Illinois State Police Trooper Matt Mitchell may you rot in hell

The BBQ Pit
41

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Really? You’ve called me a troll twice now, so I’m curious – what does it mean, exactly?
[/QUOTE]

Some people splash the term “troll” around rather recklessly, even using it to cover anyone that they disagree with. And while I don’t agree with all that Bricker has said in this thread, and I note that he’s lashed out with insults that don’t match his otherwise reasonable arguments, there’s nothing at all troll-like in what he’s said. It’s possible that Bricker doesn’t really believe in all his arguments, but if that’s so, he’s playing a devil’s advocate – and that’s a useful role when people come with what may be a half-baked pitting.

Myself, I suspect that Trooper Mitchell probably did drive over-recklessly, but like all of us, he does deserve an impartial investigation, and a fair trial if it comes to prosecution.

42

[QUOTE=ThisSpaceForRent]
From the Illinois State Police Website
**Vision **
We will strive for excellence in all we do – seeking to be one of the premier policing agencies in the country.
**Mission **
The Illinois State Police will promote public safety to improve the quality of life in Illinois.
**Values **
Integrity - Trust and dependability to act responsibly
Service - Contribute to the welfare of others
Pride - Respect for self, others and the organization

IMHO…(Bricker do I need to tell you what that means?) Officer Mitchell DID NOT:

  1. promote public safety or improve quality of life
  2. act responsibly
  3. have respect for others including those that were on the roadway at the time.

[/QUOTE]
Ok, I wasn’t going to dip a toe into this clusterfuck, because it is a tragedy; it was unfortunate, and if he violated some official policies then the situation needs to be dealt with…but are you seriously citing the department’s fucking mission statement as some sort of evidence of wrongdoing?

[GOB]Come on![/GOB]

43

[QUOTE=ThisSpaceForRent]
and FTR I feel your continued name calling of me supports my position that you are “Trollish”.
[/QUOTE]
FYI, Troll/Trollish is not the same as, for example, Jew/Jewish. It’s more like Fat/Fattish. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Or the Jew thing either.

If you are calling him a troll, have the stones to stand by it.

For the record, I am in fact fat, and I once had sex with a Jew/(Jewess.) Just sayin’.

44

Giles etal, I will admit that i was out of line using the T word, though i still believe **Bricker’s **name calling is a tad troll like.

Thank you for at least giving my rant a half baked status…LOL

tsfr

45

[QUOTE=ThisSpaceForRent]
Your the “Einstein” Bricker, figure it out yourself…

And please, point out where said Officer Mitchell was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, guilty…I did state that I thought, IMO that he committed several errors of judgment and abuses of power, both physical and legal. Reading is fun, learn to do it…

and FTR I feel your continued name calling of me supports my position that you are “Trollish”.

tsfr

tsfr
[/QUOTE]

So you do not, in fact, know what a troll is. Thanks for clearing that up.

For the record, it does not mean, “People who call me names,” nor does it mean, “People who don’t agree with everything I say.”

46

On the information we’ve gotten so far, it seems as if it would be prudent (to me) agreeing with TSFR. Why? To recap, the facts in existence appear to be: Officer Mitchell previously had two incidents totaling more that 1.7 million dollars of cost to the Illinois taxpayers. He was rushing to the scene without his siren on, but with his lights running hot. This was on Black Friday, supposedly one of the most congested traffic days here in the US (if anyone has statistics on that, I’d appreciate it because my Google Fu is weak), and in an area that is under heavy reconstruction (per the OP). There is no question as to his speed being excessive and his path of travel on the shoulder. Finally, the whole occurrence surrounded a non-emergency accident with more police already on hand and there are conflicting eye witness reports, although I believe that the majority (was it 2 to 1?) support the general thesis of TSFR.

So the questions that remain are… did Mitchell know that call wasn’t an emergency? Did he know other responders had already arrived on the scene? In his department, is it accepted protocol to drive the way he did in light of the circumstances if he did indeed know all of the above? And, what sort of connection could be linked with his past problems and the current predicament? Since we don’t have all the answers yet and some may be slower than one would like in forthcoming, in my humble opinion, it would appear that the evidence does a bit more than lean towards the conclusion put forth. I’d feel that in-depth training regarding vehicle operation in high stress situations and six years on-the-job experience should’ve produced different results.

That said, I don’t think this qualifies as “recreational outrage,” nor do is it one of those things that should qualify for law level objections, certainly not here in the Pit. Great Debates, yes. Because I think many people feel incredibly outraged at what can, and sometimes is, perceived as an abuse of power. At the very least, the Officer should undergo some major repeating of how to perform his basic duties, especially in regards to driving and correct thought processes in dire events. Of course, that’s probably just my wish and there’s no realistic way of implementing the latter. :frowning: Sadly though, nothing will bring back those two young people regardless. May you rest in peace Jessica and Kelli.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is no more mishaps from this particular LEO.

47

[QUOTE=Miller]
So you do not, in fact, know what a troll is. Thanks for clearing that up.

For the record, it does not mean, “People who call me names,” nor does it mean, “People who don’t agree with everything I say.”
[/QUOTE]

I do know what Troll means. Please scroll up and read the early dialog w/ TomnDeb I think Tom disagreed with me. but I don’t think he had to make his point by name calling or baiting. I have provided in this thread the facts that are out there currently. I have searched Illinois Vehicle code but cannot find (yet) statutes governing the ISP or their regulations on responding to an accident.

I am quite capable of stating my case w/o name calling (other than the OP) and have somewhat apologized for the misuse of the T word.

I do not seek support of my opinion, just the right to express it in a somewhat civil manor. What some of you think of my intellectual abilities is about as important to me as squat…

tsfr

48

[QUOTE=Bricker]
That’s not a remotely fair statement.

Was the cop acting recklessly? If he was not, then the deaths, while obviously tragic and perhaps “unncessary,” by strict definition, were simply an accident, in the same way that being struck by lightning produces an “unncessary” death, but one in which no one is to blame.
[/QUOTE]

Talking about not fair. Comparing a random act of nature to someone who chose to drive too fast out of the designated lanes of traffic. Can I prove that he “technically” did not break department rules? No. Did he act recklessly? Yes, and two people died because of it.

I don’t need department policy guidelines to know that.

49

[QUOTE=ThisSpaceForRent]
I do know what Troll means.
[/QUOTE]

That’s funny; you’ve insisted three times that you know what it means. Many people in your position would put the matter to rest by saying, “A troll is …” and thereby proving you knew what it meant.

50

I think Bricker’s basic point is that we should obtain evidence before we condemn - or exonerate - the trooper. (Why he has chosen to make this valid point in such a confrontational way is a bit of a mystery.)

There is certainly more to be known. The OP’s link has this:

It’s hard to say what is meant by “it’s preliminary information.” Is more data from other sources expected? Which ones?

Many are likely to feel that when a car doing 90 to 100mph on a busy road crashes killing two, the driver inherently carries a significant measure of responsibility, regardless of where he was headed, the actions of other vehicles, or the guidelines of his employer. It may be analogous to a case where you slam into the rear of another vehicle: if you wish to deflect responsibility, the burden of proof will be on you.

51

[QUOTE=Don’t fight the hypothetical]
Talking about not fair. Comparing a random act of nature to someone who chose to drive too fast out of the designated lanes of traffic. Can I prove that he “technically” did not break department rules? No. Did he act recklessly? Yes, and two people died because of it.

I don’t need department policy guidelines to know that.
[/QUOTE]

You need something beyond your mere opinion to offer it up as support for the OP’s desire that the officer get “…solid time in our state correctional facilities.” That’s a specific, factual claim – recklessness that is criminally punishable.

If the officer can point to departmental policy that permitted his actions, it will be difficult to say he was criminally reckless – he was doing what his department had authorized. That’s kind of a big bar to overcome if you’re trying to prove recklessness; it’s not a “technical” nitpick.

52

[QUOTE=ThisSpaceForRent]

I do not seek support of my opinion, just the right to express it in a somewhat civil manor. What some of you think of my intellectual abilities is about as important to me as squat…

tsfr
[/QUOTE]
May I have directions to the civil manor? Would Dockers and a nice shirt be considered appropriate dress, or is black tie in order?

53

[QUOTE=danceswithcats]
May I have directions to the civil manor? Would Dockers and a nice shirt be considered appropriate dress, or is black tie in order?
[/QUOTE]

It’s just down the road from Stately Wayne Manor, across the street from To The Manor Born.

54

[QUOTE=ThisSpaceForRent]
I do know what Troll means.
[/quote]

Well, I’d need to see some evidence before I take that statement at face value.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I didn’t see any insults from Bricker until you started calling him a troll. If you can point out where he insulted you prior to post 25, I’ll cheerfully retract that.

You “somewhat” apologized? Is that like being a little bit pregnant?

And you have that right, although it appears you have not chosen to exercise it in this thread. Of course, the right to express an opinion is not the same thing as the right to be free from criticism for said opinion.

I’ve not expressed any sort of an opinion on your intellectual abilities in this thread, although it is good to know that there’s no need to be careful of your sensibilities, should I feel it necessary to express such an opinion in the future.

55

[QUOTE=Bricker]
So Joe Average is entitled to the presumption of innocence when accused of a crime.

But his brother, John Average, is not, merely by virtue of being Officer John Average?

Lacking trust in the justice system is not the same thing as immediately assuming guilt. The person lacking trust in the system would say, “The sad thing is, even if this officer is guilty, he won’t get convicted or punished, because the cops protect their own.”

The OP simply says he’s guilty.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with both you and TSFR.

I agree with you on that we don’t have all the facts, and we should decide guilt or innocence based on those facts.

However, the facts, are readily available, and yet, the police chief, the supervisor of the officer in question, the supervisor who allowed this officer to continue driving when he has had accidents, is the one who will examine the evidence and then ‘get back to us’ on whether or not there is evidence of wrong doing by his employee.

I’m not saying that the officer is automatically guilty, I’m saying the ‘investigation’, performed by any police department on one of its own members is automatically questionable as to how vigorously and fairly the evidence will be examined.

In short, they are going to cover their asses. Do you really think this department will perform a thorough investigation and proceed to with a trial if it is found that he was in violation of department rules and regulations?

56

[QUOTE=Bricker]
You need something beyond your mere opinion to offer it up as support for the OP’s desire that the officer get “…solid time in our state correctional facilities.” That’s a specific, factual claim – recklessness that is criminally punishable.
[/quote]

I was addressing your contention that the officer did not act recklessly.

I never specified “criminally” reckless. If the cop was driving in such a manner that he was unable to control his vehicle, he was being reckless. Are you missing the part where his asshat behavior killed two innocent people?

57

Miller…

Would you like a 250 word essay on the word troll and its contemporary vs historical usage? or would a dictionary.com definition work? just askin’?

Yes…my apology was quite indignant…and I apologize for the apology…for that matter, your right, I did start the name calling by using the t words, for that i sincerely apologize…

as to the other the other two quotes you posted…point well taken… :wink:

Fuck as long as I can be all sappy, I’ll admit I don’t hope The OP officer “rots in hell”…What I do hope for is a thorough investigation and a reasonable amount of justice. I guess thats what Bricker helped me see…thanks Bricker.

so…where do we go from here?

FTR…I am more of a levies 501 and an old tye dye kinda guy

tsfr

58

[QUOTE=ThisSpaceForRent]
Miller…

Would you like a 250 word essay on the word troll and its contemporary vs historical usage?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, and I expect to see a full bibliography. Wether you use footnotes or endnotes is, of course, up to you.

59

[QUOTE=Bricker]
And did he know that he was responding to a non-violent non-emergency? YOU know that, now, after the fact. What did the dispatcher tell him?

If you say, “I don’t know,” then you can hardly continue saying that he was responding to a non-emergency, unless the state police webiste quoted above by ThisSpaceForRent also promised clairvoyance from their troopers. The question is not what the incident actually was – the question is what did trooper Mitchell reasonably believe the incident was?
[/quote]

That information would be standard. 911 dispatch asks for everything they need from the caller or respondant. While it’s not totally impossible for it to happen otherwise, such as event would be quite rare. And they would have dispatched a lot more vehicles if that had been the case.

His department’s policy is irrelevant. If he was not capable of driving safely, then no matter how dire the emergency, he cannot and should not drive in that manner. Driving 85 (and we may be talking as much as 100 mph) on the shoulder is so far out of bounds that it does not even merit the discussion. The only possible excuse I can even conceive of for driving in that manner would be if Usama ibn Laden himself were to be letting loose a nuclear weapon uin the immediate vicinity.

60

[QUOTE=Don’t fight the hypothetical]
I was addressing your contention that the officer did not act recklessly.
I never specified “criminally” reckless. If the cop was driving in such a manner that he was unable to control his vehicle, he was being reckless. Are you missing the part where his asshat behavior killed two innocent people?
[/QUOTE]

Well, the subject of the thread is traditionally laid out in the OP, so I assumed we were all discussing the OP’s proposed fate: “I certainly hope at LEAST you spend some solid time in our state correctional facilities…”

Which, to me, certainly seems to indicate an allegation of criminal recklessness, unless the OP was wish that the officer would take time to visit inmates he had previously arrested.