mojo84 wrote:Should the penalty be sixty days wages for anyone that commits sexual molestation?
According to the grand jury she did meet the elements of committing sexual molestation .... that is our system. Personally I have issue with the fact that she did that type of search regardless if she was told to or not. If it is illegal or violates policy you say no. Now I can see if she was a rookie she might have been scared too, but then she could have gone to a supervisor. For all we know she might have as we are not privy to the internal investigation. There is no policy that states you have to refuse an unlawful order. Had they used some common sense and wanted her prosecuted there would have been more applicable charges. Instead, like the GZ case, they went on public emotion and they tried to file charges they could not prove. I am sure the other fired trooper will state he did not tell her to do the cavity search. He might have he might not have. Again we are not privy to the full internal investigation.
TJ, the above further promotes the US vs. Them mentality, If I had done this during a perimeter or point security operation I would be in the stockade for 25 to life at hard labor in Ft Leavenworth, or if while I was on an ambulance I would be in the state jail and my paramedic license along with the rest of my licenses would be gone forever. The thin blue line lives and flourishes with this decision. Also the excuse I was just following orders is never an excuse just ask those serving time from Abu Graihb detention center and other actions during war.
mamabearCali wrote:Nice....so they can digitally rape citizens and no one goes to jail? Gives me great confidence.
The whole thing is very sad, not only for the women groped on the side of the highway, but also the other employees of a law enforcement agency that used to be widely respected.
mojo84 wrote:Should the penalty be sixty days wages for anyone that commits sexual molestation?
According to the grand jury she did meet the elements of committing sexual molestation .... that is our system. Personally I have issue with the fact that she did that type of search regardless if she was told to or not. If it is illegal or violates policy you say no. Now I can see if she was a rookie she might have been scared too, but then she could have gone to a supervisor. For all we know she might have as we are not privy to the internal investigation. There is no policy that states you have to refuse an unlawful order. Had they used some common sense and wanted her prosecuted there would have been more applicable charges. Instead, like the GZ case, they went on public emotion and they tried to file charges they could not prove. I am sure the other fired trooper will state he did not tell her to do the cavity search. He might have he might not have. Again we are not privy to the full internal investigation.
TJ, the above further promotes the US vs. Them mentality, If I had done this during a perimeter or point security operation I would be in the stockade for 25 to life at hard labor in Ft Leavenworth, or if while I was on an ambulance I would be in the state jail and my paramedic license along with the rest of my licenses would be gone forever. The thin blue line lives and flourishes with this decision. Also the excuse I was just following orders is never an excuse just ask those serving time from Abu Graihb detention center and other actions during war.
How did the alleged "thin blue line" have anything to do with this? DPS tried to prosecute her and the grand jury said no because they apparently couldn't prove enough for an indictment. Blame the grand jury and don't try and make this an US vs. them mentality as it wasn't. The inspector generals office did their case and she was fired. Blame the attorneys that got her the job back. It was also attorneys that stopped the grand jury indictment. That is the system.
mojo84 wrote:Should the penalty be sixty days wages for anyone that commits sexual molestation?
According to the grand jury she did meet the elements of committing sexual molestation .... that is our system. Personally I have issue with the fact that she did that type of search regardless if she was told to or not. If it is illegal or violates policy you say no. Now I can see if she was a rookie she might have been scared too, but then she could have gone to a supervisor. For all we know she might have as we are not privy to the internal investigation. There is no policy that states you have to refuse an unlawful order. Had they used some common sense and wanted her prosecuted there would have been more applicable charges. Instead, like the GZ case, they went on public emotion and they tried to file charges they could not prove. I am sure the other fired trooper will state he did not tell her to do the cavity search. He might have he might not have. Again we are not privy to the full internal investigation.
TJ, the above further promotes the US vs. Them mentality, If I had done this during a perimeter or point security operation I would be in the stockade for 25 to life at hard labor in Ft Leavenworth, or if while I was on an ambulance I would be in the state jail and my paramedic license along with the rest of my licenses would be gone forever. The thin blue line lives and flourishes with this decision. Also the excuse I was just following orders is never an excuse just ask those serving time from Abu Graihb detention center and other actions during war.
How did the alleged "thin blue line" have anything to do with this? DPS tried to prosecute her and the grand jury said no because they apparently couldn't prove enough for an indictment. Blame the grand jury and don't try and make this an US vs. them mentality as it wasn't. The inspector generals office did their case and she was fired. Blame the attorneys that got her the job back. It was also attorneys that stopped the grand jury indictment. That is the system.
Didn't say nor imply that the lawyers were not responsible, but people generally won't see it that way, they see another cop does something illegal and gets away with it, the us vs. them mentality is furthered by the fact that a cop claimed something that no one else can claim(Stoopid look on face " I was only following orders") and get away with it and people see that the prosecuting attorney set the bar on the charges high enough that it couldn't be met on purpose and there is the thin blue line, and you know that it exists cops cover for liars all the time, those bad cops give the good ones a bad rap. We do have a legal obligation to refuse unlawful orders we also have a moral obligation to do the same, the law and morals lost this time. One last thing I wasn't hammering on you just answering something you posted, please don't take it personal, so far here you seem to be an upright kinda guy. People make up the grand Jury and when they are told a cop is "exempt" from the law it sticks no matter what any judge tells the jury during instructions, People expect the police to be better than that and they are only human and forget so are cops or should I say merely human.
mojo84 wrote:Should the penalty be sixty days wages for anyone that commits sexual molestation?
According to the grand jury she did meet the elements of committing sexual molestation .... that is our system. Personally I have issue with the fact that she did that type of search regardless if she was told to or not. If it is illegal or violates policy you say no. Now I can see if she was a rookie she might have been scared too, but then she could have gone to a supervisor. For all we know she might have as we are not privy to the internal investigation. There is no policy that states you have to refuse an unlawful order. Had they used some common sense and wanted her prosecuted there would have been more applicable charges. Instead, like the GZ case, they went on public emotion and they tried to file charges they could not prove. I am sure the other fired trooper will state he did not tell her to do the cavity search. He might have he might not have. Again we are not privy to the full internal investigation.
TJ, the above further promotes the US vs. Them mentality, If I had done this during a perimeter or point security operation I would be in the stockade for 25 to life at hard labor in Ft Leavenworth, or if while I was on an ambulance I would be in the state jail and my paramedic license along with the rest of my licenses would be gone forever. The thin blue line lives and flourishes with this decision. Also the excuse I was just following orders is never an excuse just ask those serving time from Abu Graihb detention center and other actions during war.
How did the alleged "thin blue line" have anything to do with this? DPS tried to prosecute her and the grand jury said no because they apparently couldn't prove enough for an indictment. Blame the grand jury and don't try and make this an US vs. them mentality as it wasn't. The inspector generals office did their case and she was fired. Blame the attorneys that got her the job back. It was also attorneys that stopped the grand jury indictment. That is the system.
Didn't say nor imply that the lawyers were not responsible, but people generally won't see it that way, they see another cop does something illegal and gets away with it, the us vs. them mentality is furthered by the fact that a cop claimed something that no one else can claim(Stoopid look on face " I was only following orders") and get away with it and people see that the prosecuting attorney set the bar on the charges high enough that it couldn't be met on purpose and there is the thin blue line, and you know that it exists cops cover for liars all the time, those bad cops give the good ones a bad rap. We do have a legal obligation to refuse unlawful orders we also have a moral obligation to do the same, the law and morals lost this time. One last thing I wasn't hammering on you just answering something you posted, please don't take it personal, so far here you seem to be an upright kinda guy. People make up the grand Jury and when they are told a cop is "exempt" from the law it sticks no matter what any judge tells the jury during instructions, People expect the police to be better than that and they are only human and forget so are cops or should I say merely human.
Nothing personal so we are all good . I know that OIG attempted to get a prosecution and it failed. They also wanted her fired. I would bet there is something we are not hearing about as to why she got her job back. We probably will never know that unless she fought the suspension due to confidentiality. I always read about "lying" cops. When people lie they should be fired (correctly). Where I started we were told day 1, you lie, you are gone. If somebody lied they were true to their word and the hammer came down quickly . All this over trying to find a joint? That is pretty amazing.
mojo84 wrote:Should the penalty be sixty days wages for anyone that commits sexual molestation?
According to the grand jury she did meet the elements of committing sexual molestation .... that is our system. Personally I have issue with the fact that she did that type of search regardless if she was told to or not. If it is illegal or violates policy you say no. Now I can see if she was a rookie she might have been scared too, but then she could have gone to a supervisor. For all we know she might have as we are not privy to the internal investigation. There is no policy that states you have to refuse an unlawful order. Had they used some common sense and wanted her prosecuted there would have been more applicable charges. Instead, like the GZ case, they went on public emotion and they tried to file charges they could not prove. I am sure the other fired trooper will state he did not tell her to do the cavity search. He might have he might not have. Again we are not privy to the full internal investigation.
TJ, the above further promotes the US vs. Them mentality, If I had done this during a perimeter or point security operation I would be in the stockade for 25 to life at hard labor in Ft Leavenworth, or if while I was on an ambulance I would be in the state jail and my paramedic license along with the rest of my licenses would be gone forever. The thin blue line lives and flourishes with this decision. Also the excuse I was just following orders is never an excuse just ask those serving time from Abu Graihb detention center and other actions during war.
How did the alleged "thin blue line" have anything to do with this? DPS tried to prosecute her and the grand jury said no because they apparently couldn't prove enough for an indictment. Blame the grand jury and don't try and make this an US vs. them mentality as it wasn't. The inspector generals office did their case and she was fired. Blame the attorneys that got her the job back. It was also attorneys that stopped the grand jury indictment. That is the system.
Didn't say nor imply that the lawyers were not responsible, but people generally won't see it that way, they see another cop does something illegal and gets away with it, the us vs. them mentality is furthered by the fact that a cop claimed something that no one else can claim(Stoopid look on face " I was only following orders") and get away with it and people see that the prosecuting attorney set the bar on the charges high enough that it couldn't be met on purpose and there is the thin blue line, and you know that it exists cops cover for liars all the time, those bad cops give the good ones a bad rap. We do have a legal obligation to refuse unlawful orders we also have a moral obligation to do the same, the law and morals lost this time. One last thing I wasn't hammering on you just answering something you posted, please don't take it personal, so far here you seem to be an upright kinda guy. People make up the grand Jury and when they are told a cop is "exempt" from the law it sticks no matter what any judge tells the jury during instructions, People expect the police to be better than that and they are only human and forget so are cops or should I say merely human.
Nothing personal so we are all good . I know that OIG attempted to get a prosecution and it failed. They also wanted her fired. I would bet there is something we are not hearing about as to why she got her job back. We probably will never know that unless she fought the suspension due to confidentiality. I always read about "lying" cops. When people lie they should be fired (correctly). Where I started we were told day 1, you lie, you are gone. If somebody lied they were true to their word and the hammer came down quickly . All this over trying to find a joint? That is pretty amazing.
Glad we are good, I really wasn't trying to cause one of them there p matches. I agree we really don't know why she was reinstated, I don't agree with the decision knowing what I know to this point. I do think that the reason of " I was just doing what my senior officer told me to do" was used. I have seen in the news and in person some bad things done by officers while on the bus(ambulance) never said much but didn't ever invite the officer(s) to have any of my donuts after that either. I do think that LEO's same as soldiers should be held to a higher standard for several reasons not the least being we represent in the eyes of the public "the government" be it state city or country. As far as the grand jury case we can get a copy of the court transcript if we want to pay the price and I can almost guarantee that the CR is gonna charge thru the nose for that one.
JM Actually I doubt that this is really over a possible personal use possession of marijuana, we really have no idea of anything else that happened nor do we know the attitude of the actors during this. I really hate to say but it seems almost as a contempt of cop thing, maybe the officer didn't get his coffee or someone made him mad and they were the people he happened to contact next, he may have had a pet peeve over throwing butts out the window and decided to "make someone pay" we just don't know, but from what I was able to see and hear on the video they didn't deserve what occurred, but the sexual assault is NEVER deserved not even in war
texanjoker wrote:All this over trying to find a joint? That is pretty amazing.
If that was really what this was all about wouldn't a drug sniffing dog have been a better search option?
I worked k9s and have my former partner my back yard that is now retired. You do not use a drug dog to search a person.
Have the dog search the car. If he doesn't hit on anything in the car, no need to search the person. My point is the cavity search was unnecessary.
I don't believe this was ever about finding drugs - it was about a guy on a power trip.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
texanjoker wrote:All this over trying to find a joint? That is pretty amazing.
If that was really what this was all about wouldn't a drug sniffing dog have been a better search option?
I worked k9s and have my former partner my back yard that is now retired. You do not use a drug dog to search a person.
Have the dog search the car. If he doesn't hit on anything in the car, no need to search the person. My point is the cavity search was unnecessary.
I don't believe this was ever about finding drugs - it was about a guy on a power trip.
I'll have to disagree on that part. A dog most likely won't alert on the car if the occupant is out of the car and carrying on their person. That is where you ask for consent to search their person. However you DO NOT do a cavity search and any LEO should know that. I've been around a long time and have seen people get over zealous for certain violations and believe that was the case here. There is a term for those sorts of violations but I imagine I will get spanked by the admin if I use the term. He wanted that almighty misdemeanor arrest for possession of marijuana ...spare me. That should be a ticket at best.
. I know that OIG attempted to get a prosecution and it failed. They also wanted her fired. I would bet there is something we are not hearing about as to why she got her job back. We probably will never know that unless she fought the suspension due to confidentiality. I always read about "lying" cops. When people lie they should be fired (correctly). Where I started we were told day 1, you lie, you are gone. If somebody lied they were true to their word and the hammer came down quickly 
. All this over trying to find a joint? That is pretty amazing.
...spare me. That should be a ticket at best.