Posted on 09/22/2007 8:03:54 AM PDT by beltfed308
ST. GEORGE — A police officer who was recorded berating a motorist earlier this month has lost his job.
The board of aldermen voted 5-0, with one member absent, to fire Sgt. James Kuehnlein on Monday. The vote was cast in a session closed to the public and wasn't announced until Wednesday, when a notice was posted at the City Hall of this tiny south St. Louis County community.
In a video that got wide viewership on the Internet, Kuehnlein taunts and threatens motorist Brett Darrow, 20, sometimes shouting and using profanity, after questioning him in a commuter lot near Interstate 55. Darrow posted the footage of the Sept. 7 incident on the web.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
elkfersupper - I was quoting a police officer from a message board (article link provided). It wasn't me saying that, it was him.
He doesn't need a reason to be in that lot at that time. If it's open to the public he's allowed to be there and doesn't have to explain why.
Hmmmm. That wasn't what I asked the other poster. Or even close. I asked,"Does Occam's Razor support his reason for being in that lot at that time?"
Now, if you're going to respond to questions not even asked, perhaps you can address your post to others so I don't have to do this every time?
"She" meaning "his girlfriend". His girlfriend backed him up.
Well, I guess we can take that to the bank, huh?
"Per Brett ..."
And we can believe what he says, also, Mr. "I'm transmitting to a secure source".
Well, there was sort of an implied "the question is irrelevant" there. The answer doesn't matter because he didn't need a reason. Likewise, whether the girlfriend backed him up or not doesn't matter, nor does the fact that it is his girlfriend. He's allowed to be there without explaining why, period. This isn't debatable.
If the cop can articulate reasons he had a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed or was going to be committed, then he had a right to question the kid to the extent necessary to determine nothing was wrong. By threatening to make up reasons he essentially admitted that there were no valid reasons.
Moreover as everyoine should understand by now, Brett did not need to give a reason and the perp knew that, but chose to grossly over react to a perceived slight, which is why he was fired and is purportedly under investigation. Clearly a desirable result
In addition (as I mentioned earlier), every future employer of this officer needs to be made aware of the video and the transcript. This should follow the guy forever. After his threats to ruin the kid's future the whole idea is dripping with irony.
The cop went over the line, and this Brett kid was looking for trouble.
The cop should've known better. Dumb move by him.
I understand why the cop lost his job: from now on, any time he gets a perp, the lawyers would call into question his veracity based on this alone.
Sad, but true.
Even worse: there are millions who still think Bill Clinton tells the truth.
There is a HUGE difference between "Looking for trouble" and being "READY for trouble". Luck favors the prepared. He was sitting in a parking lot minding his own business, how in Odin's Beard can you come to the conclusion that that is "looking for trouble"????? Sheesh.
I think you need some more recovering.
He did have every right to be there, but unless someone can show me otherwise, it appears to me Brett was there pretty much to catch a cop losing his cool.
I am reminded of the people who "just happened" to get Newt Gingrich's phone conversation on tape...nothing necessarily illegal, but it was no accident.
No, as he’s posted right here in this very thread, he was there to meet his girlfriend so that he could get his cell phone that he had left at her house and needed the next day as it is his work cell phone for his painting business. Can’t run a business without your phone. He just happened to have the bad luck to cross paths with an egregious example of a jack booted thug.
And he just happened to have a video camera rolling. :)
Riiight.
Hey, look, good for him. The cop clearly went over the line. But to say he wasn't jonesing for a confrontation is a bit naïve .
Riiight."
Well also posted by Brett Darrow, who is a FR member by the way, he had an encounter sometime back where he was issued a citation for something that he says he did not do, but it was a case of his word against the cop's. So to make sure that situation never repeated itself, he installed a video camera and says that he has it rolling all the time that he is in his car and driving. Seems to have come in quite handy in this situation. Without seeing the evidence for yourself, would you have ever believed his version of these events???
He was there to make a cop AND catch a cop losing his cool. Take away his cameras and I doubt he would talk to a cop that way.
Reading the script is like watching my wife cook -- turn up the heat, water starts to boil and spill over, turn down the heat. Things cool down. Turn up the heat, boiling again, turn it down.
The punk's real good at pushing buttons, I'll give him that. Have you read his previous encounter at the DUI checkpoint? Same stuff -- Officer, I don't have to tell you where I'm going.
Hah! Then he posts the encounter and whines about "Poor me. I'm being abused."
“Officer, I don’t have to tell you where I’m going.”
That’s the whole point. He doesn’t. Why is that so difficult to understand?
WRONG AGAIN. You just have a pathological disposition to flat out lying. His response to the DUI checkpoint cop was: “I don’t wish to discuss my personal life with you Officer”. When asked where he had been and where he was going. THAT’S NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. You don’t have to have a “by” or “leave” from the crown to move about in this country.
B-Chan,
Nice to actually respond to you on a non religion thread. I don’t think you under stand or poor misunderstood robertpaulsen.
He is a fine gentleman that earned a great living until those that appreciate freedom deprived him of it.
He got started young as a Hitler youth, but those damn allies took away his power.
He then went to work for the KGB, but the Soviets got overturned and the people demanded more liberty.
He quickly headed over to Romania, but when his pal Cecescu was executed he read the writing on the wall, stopped torturing prisoners and fled to Iraq.
In Iraq everything was cool. He worked directly for Saddam and got to exercise the rights that every govt agent should have. The right to intimidate, the right to put people in plastic shredders, the right to ... well you know the type of things that he just enjoys. Well along came the second gulf war and again he was without a job.
He’s now in his retirement years and lamenting the liberties that people choose to take against the police that know better.
It’s a hard decision trying to decide if he should stay in retirement harassing people on the internet, or seek employment again. Should he go to Iran and work for the mad mullahs, or up to N. Korea (way to close to me this week as I’m finishing up a week in the South - where liberty is recognized) and enforce the wisdom of Chia-head.
You need to have sympathy for him as it’s hard to enter your twilight years with everyone criticizing the great job he did in suppressing people that didn’t understand the police and govt are always right.
I hope you can find it in yourself to apologize to robertpaulsen. Not everyone can see the wisdom, courage and benefits of totalitarianism.
You're right. The Dallas Police Department, for example, is corrupt as hell, but when a DPD officer stops you, you don't have to worry about him going off on you or pistol-whipping you into cringing submission. Even if you become verbally abusive, he'll probably just blow it off. Big city cops who spend their time dealing with real criminals can usually be relied on to more or less play things by the book when shaking down a traffic violator on behalf of the City. The DPD may be an evidence-faking, kickback-taking blue army of occupation, but as long as you are not a drug dealer who's holding out on them or a comic-book shop owner, you're OK.
On the other hand, there's a certain small, wealthy suburb nearby (we'll call it "X City") that is well-known locally for its unique brand of law enforcement. It seems that the millionaire members of the Hair Club for Men and their trophy wives who live in X City do not appreciate the presence of certain types of people in their town, and have quietly instructed their police to keep an eye on such people, even if they are obviously just passing through. DWF (driving while female), DWB (driving while black) and DUV (driving used vehicle) stops are common in X City, forcing local folks who don't fit the X City profile to sometimes drive for miles to avoid it. A "suspicious" driver stopped in X City is lucky if he or she is only given a ticket; the XCPD's creative use of off-the-record "enforcement" activities (such as forcing female "suspects" to have sex with the cop or go to jail) is an open secret in North Texas.
Big city cops with a penchant for abuse have to worry abut TV cameras, newspaper reporters, and curious passers-by ruining their fun. The small-time cops don't.
Hick cops and suburban commandos scare me. Andy of Mayberry retired years ago. I'll take my chances with big city cops any time.
I understand perfectly. He's trying to antagonize the cop. What's not to understand?
He wants to record the cop losing it, and he'll keep pushing until he does. Completely understandable.
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.