Southern_Man 0 #1 August 8, 2014 http://fox6now.com/2014/05/01/sober-driver-arrested-for-owi-when-deputy-crashes-into-her/ What properly should happen to this deputy?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NowAndLater 0 #2 August 8, 2014 According to the law or opinion? The law, $20,000 fine and 10 years in prison. Deprivation of rights and deprivation of rights under color of law, USC 18 241, 242. Opinion... treason. Btw, this is old news and has happened a couple more times since then.Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #3 August 8, 2014 Quote What properly should happen to this deputy? Make him be a cop in Milwaukee! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #4 August 8, 2014 Southern_Manhttp://fox6now.com/2014/05/01/sober-driver-arrested-for-owi-when-deputy-crashes-into-her/ What properly should happen to this deputy? The abuse of police powers in a militarized police state are a given. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #5 August 8, 2014 Quote“One asked if I had anything to drink that night,” she said. “And I told them a few sips from a friend’s drink.” A deputy noted a light odor of alcohol on her breath. He said her speech was slurred. And her eyes looked red and glassy. “I explained to him my eyes were red and glassy because I was crying,” she said. When asked about her use of prescription drugs, Weyker says she told the truth. “I just got my wisdom teeth pulled out, so they gave me Vicodin for that. I told them it was little over a week since I took the Vicodin,” Weyker said. The saying "Don't talk to the police" goes double when one just ran a stop sign, put you into a tree, and broke your neck. As far as what should happen, how about just a good old fashioned firing? So long "treated and released" injury and disability pay. So long pension. I know I'm really aiming for the stars, but however we get there from here, we need to restore the ability to fire police who do things like this. It may be exceptional and it may be more commonplace than sees the light of day, but I don't see why that would change my opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 August 8, 2014 this part was telling, as well: "Deputy Quiles has not worked in more than a year since the crash. He has exhausted his injury pay and has now filed for permanent duty disability for injuries he suffered in the crash he caused." Despite being released from the hospital on same day for 'minor injuries.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #7 August 8, 2014 kelpdiverthis part was telling, as well: "Deputy Quiles has not worked in more than a year since the crash. He has exhausted his injury pay and has now filed for permanent duty disability for injuries he suffered in the crash he caused." Despite being released from the hospital on same day for 'minor injuries.' Damn good thing the girl was not shot because the Officer was traumatized and feared for his life Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aarco 0 #8 August 9, 2014 You guys see the homeless guy shot to death out by his rock camp? And then the nypd foot stomped a guy just about passedout on the street? Having something never beats doing (>|<) Iam building things - Iam working on my mind- I am going to change this world - its what I came here 4- - - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #9 August 11, 2014 Iago***http://fox6now.com/2014/05/01/sober-driver-arrested-for-owi-when-deputy-crashes-into-her/ What properly should happen to this deputy? Well, IMHO (who is NOT an attorney) DWI would require some sort of hard evidence to back it up, such as BAC which would be run at the station or the jail. Hauling in a driver for DWI and having nothing would be a great argument for dismissal, as the State has no evidence. However, by default the driver gets a six month suspension and all the other nonsense. DWAI, OTOH, is at officer's discretion that the driver is 'ability impaired.' That can be just about anything. Another case proving that 'I am not answering questions or making statements' is probably a good way to go in these cases. How about perjury punishable by up to five years? Perhaps not a DUI, but they could have easily convinced her to plead to a "wet & reckless" that would have still devastated her life. The older I get, the less respect I have for police, while not all police are "corrupt" the vast majority will lie to protect a fellow cop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #10 August 12, 2014 I always love these posts. Everyone loves to bitch about bad cops, but ask them to enact any reforms to get rid of them and you get blank stares. It's not like any liberals would be willing to do it anyway."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #11 August 12, 2014 jgoose71I always love these posts. Everyone loves to bitch about bad cops, but ask them to enact any reforms to get rid of them and you get blank stares. It's not like any liberals would be willing to do it anyway. For a variety of reasons I am a huge fan of video monitoring of ALL law enforcement activities. If a cop is on the up and up, it is entirely to his benefit. If a cop wishes to have a customized account of events, there is a dispassionate record that limits prevarication. Under oath law enforcement gets a pass. In theory they are subject to draconian sanctions for perjury, in practice not so much. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #12 August 12, 2014 jgoose71I always love these posts. Everyone loves to bitch about bad cops, but ask them to enact any reforms to get rid of them and you get blank stares. It's not like any liberals would be willing to do it anyway. So we will put you down as supporting the police state in America with LAW Enforcement ONLY for those on THOSE PEOPLE on the other side of that Blue Line. ITs a tough job but they are making it harder and harder with the "Its us against Them" mentality where they see everyone who is not a cop as criminals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,121 #13 August 12, 2014 winsor***I always love these posts. Everyone loves to bitch about bad cops, but ask them to enact any reforms to get rid of them and you get blank stares. It's not like any liberals would be willing to do it anyway. For a variety of reasons I am a huge fan of video monitoring of ALL law enforcement activities. If a cop is on the up and up, it is entirely to his benefit. If a cop wishes to have a customized account of events, there is a dispassionate record that limits prevarication. Under oath law enforcement gets a pass. In theory they are subject to draconian sanctions for perjury, in practice not so much. BSBD, Winsor This! times 1,000,000 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #14 August 12, 2014 SkyDekkerThis! times 1,000,000 agreed - now up to 1,000,001 good cops should demand it they shouldn't have to have it enabled 100% of the time, only during direct interactions, ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,395 #15 August 12, 2014 >they shouldn't have to have it enabled 100% of the time, only during direct interactions Then cops would decide that "direct interactions" would involve pulling over white people. Give cops a way to hide their misdeeds and they will take it, as this and many other incidents demonstrate. It's a small percentage of cops that do this, but that small percentage of cops are the very cops who will decide that the camera doesn't need to be on all the time. (And will have most excellent excuses, and will experience the most interesting malfunctions and unintentional oversights.) With memory and camera prices so low the cost of recording everything is very close to zero, and the benefit is large. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 256 #16 August 12, 2014 billvonWith memory and camera prices so low the cost of recording everything is very close to zero [digression] although look how much it costs after having to go through a couple of RFP cycles [/digression]Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #17 August 13, 2014 billvon>they shouldn't have to have it enabled 100% of the time, only during direct interactions Then cops would decide that "direct interactions" would involve pulling over white people. Give cops a way to hide their misdeeds and they will take it, as this and many other incidents demonstrate. It's a small percentage of cops that do this, but that small percentage of cops are the very cops who will decide that the camera doesn't need to be on all the time. (And will have most excellent excuses, and will experience the most interesting malfunctions and unintentional oversights.) With memory and camera prices so low the cost of recording everything is very close to zero, and the benefit is large. strawman BV strikes again - of course you wouldn't automate any of it would you. by your argument, they could just cover the camera or break it at will with no consequences ideas are always easy, implementation is where the rubber meets the road So you think it's a great idea for employers to do that for all jobs? teaching, doctors, your job, etc? we can make pro and con arguments for just about all fields ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #18 August 13, 2014 rehmwa***>they shouldn't have to have it enabled 100% of the time, only during direct interactions Then cops would decide that "direct interactions" would involve pulling over white people. Give cops a way to hide their misdeeds and they will take it, as this and many other incidents demonstrate. It's a small percentage of cops that do this, but that small percentage of cops are the very cops who will decide that the camera doesn't need to be on all the time. (And will have most excellent excuses, and will experience the most interesting malfunctions and unintentional oversights.) With memory and camera prices so low the cost of recording everything is very close to zero, and the benefit is large. strawman BV strikes again - of course you wouldn't automate any of it would you. by your argument, they could just cover the camera or break it at will with no consequences ideas are always easy, implementation is where the rubber meets the road So you think it's a great idea for employers to do that for all jobs? teaching, doctors, your job, etc? we can make pro and con arguments for just about all fields It is already being done for many jobs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites