Posted on 04/11/2012 9:53:16 AM PDT by marktwain
See post #34.
What is your goal, here?
ASt. Cloud police officer was shot in the finger by a fellow officer during a SWAT raid on Thursday, the Police Department said in a statement.
Officials said a St. CloudSWAT team was helping Kissimmee police serve a pair of search warrants at a home on Tarpon Street about 2:10 p.m.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-05/news/os-officer-shot-finger-st-cloud-police-20120405_1_swat-raid-officer-shot-fellow-officer
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/03/30/police-officer-shot-wounded-in-north-minneapolis/
Do we see any pattern here? Is there a theme to this?
If I could figure out what your opinion was from what you wrote then I could either agree with it or disagree with it. If it's "If the university takes any action that defames or otherwise affects the student negatively, they should be subject to a civil lawsuit." then I agree.
if it's "The cops in this case, presumably working under the premise of an activist with a gun, should have detained, investigated, apologized and immediately released the student." then I partially agree and partially disagree. He had an empty holster, not a gun. They were working under a false premise. Further he was detained after they clearly knew that all he had was a holster. Although I agree that he should have been immediately released and apologized to. (Does an apology constitute adequate compensation for false arrest?)
Ill tell you what When the cops show up and you pull your phone out of a holster, have your family tell me where to send the flowers.
LOL. When you’re sure call me.
At this point in time, you cannot be certain of that. Conduct unbecoming in the line of duty for police officers can have adverse consequences:
"The Canton Repositoryis reporting that notorious Canton Police Officer Daniel Harless, who was fired after being caught on his own police dash cam video last June verbally assaulting a concealed carry license holder and threatening to “execute” him, is trying to get his job back.
http://www.ammoland.com/2012/04/03/canton-officer-who-threatened-to-execute-concealed-carry-holder-trying-to-get-job-back/#axzz1rkopjKIJ
Even if the college President and the Police Chief support the officers, they can still be successfully sued as individuals for violating someone's civil rights. When an officer knowlingly does something outside the scope of his duties he can be successfully sued and/or prosecuted.
Wrong. More than one.
I was faced with a few choices. One of which was “maybe he doesn’t know what deserve means” and the other was “maybe he’s the type of jackboot licking usefull idiot who will gloss over murder by saying that a perfectly legal action somehow deserves the death penalty”. I chose the former but you seem intent on proving the latter.
My goal is to clear away the overblow rhetoric that always flies out when the police are criticized. Police getting killed in the line of duty is a rare occurrence. Police work usually doesn’t make it into the top ten of dangerous professions although it came in at #9 in 2010 with a total of 133 fatalities nationwide most of which were traffic related. For someone to have known more than one officer who died in the line of duty is stretching the odds even if you look over a long period of time. Truck drivers, garbage men, roofers, commercial fishermen, etc. all have much more dangerous jobs. I’ve known a fair collection of the aforementioned over the years, including police, and the only one in all of the categories I knew who died on the job was a construction worker who fell backwards off a stepladder and hit his head.
College campuses have become nothing but havens for pu**ies. Flush ‘em all. They’re utterly useless now.
Of course I can't be certain of the future, no one can. But if I were offering odds based on overwhelming evidence from previous abuses around the country, I'd say the smart money would bet on their getting away without any personal negative consequences.
My Presumption not reported: Police were called to act on a report of a man with a gun. Or they saw the holster and presumed a gun was either on the person or near by (fallen out of holster?).
Why do I presume so? I first give the benefit of the doubt for action being taken for most people (not just LEO). Otherwise, I have to believe in a sort of activist conspiracy that drove the officers to act on their own with the intent of “making and example” or “infringing on the rights” of someone to “teach them a lesson.” If this is the case, the police should be arrested.
My opinion is that the officers likely had a reason (maybe not a good or reliable one) to investigate the man with the holster as a violation of the law could be in progress. Detaining the student briefly to make sure he did not break the law would have been in order under the premise he had a gun. Following a quick search and taking a statement from the student that he wore the holster without a gun as a form of protest should have prompted the return of all his belongings and immediate release.
The police were wrong for detaining him any longer than that. Anything more is infringement on the students rights and the LEOs overstepped their authority. The University is wrong for even taking a position against free speech.
I'm confused in the story about the police turning a report over to the university. No crime was committed. What are they reporting to the university and why does the university care. Thus a case for a civil lawsuit is justified in my opinion. I don't think the police involved should be hung or shot without a trial. But they should certainly be investigated.
Hmmmm....
I wonder what I would be charged with if they searched me and found:
the empty holster on my hip, my CCW license, and my .380 in my back pocket?
It’s a good thing he hadn’t sketched a picture of a gun & put in the holster, then he’d be in BIG trouble.
Their actions indicate to me that they clearly understand that the University wants these people to be intimidated, that it wants the protests/exercise of free speech suppressed.
At the site, it is reported that the student now faces possible charges of academic misconduct.
That is not the same as actual charges... we need to see what the University does at this point.
When a plastic eating knife in a packed lunch violates the school zero tolerance of “weapons” on school grounds, what can one expect will follow?
Their actions indicate to me that they clearly understand that the University wants these people to be intimidated, that it wants the protests/exercise of free speech suppressed.
If this is the case and the officers knew of the excersise of free speech in this manner before acting, their actions are criminal. It would never stick as a criminal charge because of "reasonable doubt." But it would certainly make for a strong civil lawsuit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.