"I don't play. ... I don't play." LEO gone wild

Since you want to know when being disrespectful to a cop is ilegal, how about when it's impeding an investigation. It's called obstructing an investigation. She knew why he was there, she knew who threw the ball, she didn't say who threw the ball, so she obstructed.

Also, I never in one post said the cops were always right, I just think in this one he was right and she was wrong.
 
hahahaha no it's not

It wasn't an "investigation" and there was no obstruction. All she did was stand up and say that she didn't do it. Maybe one of the other kids said that he was going to blame it on her and she got scared. You don't know what she did or didn't know.

I doubt you'd be singing the same tune if it was your daughter. Just another cop with small "badge" syndrome.
 
Last edited:
Why is the title of this thread: "I don't play. ... I don't play." LEO's gone wild

plural?
confused.gif
 
Redworm
"It wasn't an "investigation" and there was no obstruction. All she did was stand up and say that she didn't do it. Maybe one of the other kids said that he was going to blame it on her and she got scared. You don't know what she did or didn't know."


Wrong, he was trying to find the person who threw the ball. That is an investigation.

investigation

n 1: an inquiry into unfamiliar or questionable activities


I've raised two girls and no, I do not defend their stupid actions. We talk about it, correct the situation and go on with life.
Click to expand...
 
"Perhaps those prone to knee-jerk apologias for JBTs and rote denunciations of teens can address the foregoing........"

Perhaps those prone to knee-jerk apologias for idiots and rote denunciations of cops can address the foregoing......."

:)

JBT
 
Nice try, but......

"Since you want to know when being disrespectful to a cop is ilegal [sic], how about when it's impeding an investigation."

Your "investigation" consists largely of his FALSE ACCUSATION. The inquiry - to the extent there was one - ended when he stopped asking questions and began making false assertions.

Moreover, as the accused, she was under NO OBLIGATION to answer. I don't know how things are in the Cockroach State, but where I am, it is ILLEGAL to interrogate a minor w/o the parents or counsel being present.

So what's your NEXT pathetic excuse? :rolleyes:
 
It IS nice to know that St Petersburg PD caters to the employment needs of the mentally handicapped, but to actually let them have guns? A bit ridiculous. The guy obviously has a really weak constitution and can't handle the rigors of the job. WAY too emotional. Too much estrogen flowing through them veins.
 
Wrong, he was trying to find the person who threw the ball. That is an investigation.
Click to expand...


mmm, nossir

Whe we're talking about cops, an "investigation" is an open case. There was no case, no file, investigation. He was trying to find out who threw something out of a window. The girl stood up and said she didn't do it. That's not obstruction of justice in any courtroom in the country.

With all due respect I feel bad for the girls of a man who wouldn't defend them when a bad cop manhandles them for no good reason.
 
Sorry guys, but I am a cop, and this cat was way, way wrong. On many levels. Guys liek thi smake it tough to do our jobs without constant scrutinization. Whats sad is, he will probably get a promotion out of it.
 
If I'm wrong then I apologize but I highly doubt a cop saying "Who threw that?" is considered an investigation. From my understanding an investigation means that the department is investigation a crime, not a single cop trying to find out who hit his car.

Either way, what she did wasn't "obstruction" in any way.
 
...Two lynchmobs...both misdirected towards the wrong parties..swatting at the leaves of the problem tree with no one going for the root of the problem.

TBO is correct in his non plural point. This should not be a reflection of LE in general...Point well taken.

BUT! The Administration is turning these guys out and training them. (to the guy who wanted to charge the bus driver and everyone else...How bout the Captain, Training officer, and maybe the Mayor also? They trained the guy and psyche screened him and released him upon the city.)

The LEO's are in the middle. They have the administration above them, and the citizenry below (?!) them. They react like their trained, plain & simple. They are trained for worst case scenarios. The guy probably heard horror stories of the south american 'Pirahna' gangs (kids) who swarm upon tourists, shops and whoever...boarded the bus and was 'surrounded by condition orange' so reacted as he was trained. The poor guy prolly had to wipe after leaving the bus. Sad state of mind to be trained so well that he couldn't think outside the box and see the difference between the SA Pirahna and American kids on a schoolbus. Our kids are already being indoctrinated to be good little sheeple, but my God man, how sheeple do they want them to be?! To go full prone begging foe mercy at the first sign of a cop? OMFG.

LEO's have a life too. Theey are bound by the law to obey and enforce the letter of the law. If they do, they are rewarded, promoted, and have a nice carrear. If not, then no brownies.

So the administration holds a measure of responsibility for what happened. How long until an LEO goes Mai-Lai on some kids because of their highly specialized training? Yo, point at the administration. And the individual officer also of course. If you LEO's cannot rock the boat for fear of crashing your carrear, at least police yourselves and say "HEY" to those of you who overstep reasonable boundries.

(BTW..."HEY DON!") Too far buddy.:(
 
Lilisdad and Edward429451, have hit the nail on the head.

The immediate fault lies with the individual officer, who while investigating the incident, could not or would not tolerate any behavior that was not completely subservient.

The more problematic fault lies with the administration that did indeed train this officer to expect such behavior and to retaliate if it was not given.

In such zeal to decry this incident and to denounce this officer in particular, note should be given that not all police act in this manner.

Further, note should be given that we don't know all the facts. The paper has not printed anything more than what will sell papers. The paper has not released to the public any more of the video than a small snippit, that tends to support their story. We don't know what the officer said when he first boarded the bus. The video we were allowed to view, doesn't show this. Nor does it show what happens immediately following the "grab" by the officer, the handcuffing, nor the "lecture."

If I was on a jury and shown nothing more than this small portion of the tape, I simply could not conclude anything more than an officer seemingly taking a suspect into custody. The audio portion is poor, plus the voiceover by the announcer cuts out most of what was said. As a juror however, I would have to have viewed the entire tape, and not that snippet shown by the news. Else it all boils down to, "he said, she said."

To be sure, the school reviewed the entire video and found no fault with the girl. This seems to substantiate the allegations of officer misconduct. That gives some credibility to the charges against the officer. Yet again, a portion of any blame, to my mind, would be the training the officer received and the administration that approved this training... But that's just my opinion, based upon interaction with police in my area. YMMV

To sum then: Blame the individual, but don't blame the entire group.

As an aside: LEO: Singular. LEOs: Plural. LEO's: Contraction, singular possessive; LEO has. (damnable English language...)

As a further aside: Yes, this was an investigation.
 
Any time an officer is attempting to solve a crime or resolve a situation, there is an investigation. It does not matter whether its a patrol officer asking "whats going on", or a full scale, detective led fiasco.
 
Roger that. But that still doesn't mean that her saying "I didn't do it" should be considered obstruction nor that the cop was in any position to manhandle a child.
 
Calm down, dude. If you will read a little further up, I advised the officer was way, way out of line.

A child under the age of sixteen cannot be questioned in any way without a guardian present. Period. Obstruction requires that one be Willfully and Maliciously attempting to impede the officer's attempts to solve a crime, or render charges. This girl did neither.

The officer is simply a douchebag. Him having a badge is honestly irrelevant. He would be a douchebag if he was serving french fries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top