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 ...
“.....then you say the cop was just doing his job”
“Yep again. There were crimes being committed in the area. The kid pulls in at 2am (for no reason). The cop asks a few questions and the kid acts as though he has something to hide.”
How do you know the kid didn’t have a good reason? Or does the cop get to decided why somebody can pull into a parking lot?
“then you say the cop should be fired?”
“He got caught. There’s no other option.”
So the only problem you have with this is that the cop got caught? Otherwise everything would be just fine, cops shaking down citizens is just one of the jobs perks?
Then you have very low expectations of police officers. Heck, according to you cops are so undisciplined the only response one can expect is for them to take actions that lead to their termination.
I suspect you're projecting. Good thing for all of us most cops have a little more discipline than you.
The same Dateline the rigged rocket engines to pickup gas tanks? And the same 60 Minutes that had the Bush Texas National Guard "scandal"? I know stopped clocks can be right sometimes but with your broad brush I am sure you can find better sources.
Speculation: As part of the settlement of the Duke Lax lawsuit against Durham, he will be director of Internal Affairs for Durham PD!
Defending authoritarian positions is the name of the game being played, and should not be confused with the need to make rational points.
The actual point being made is that a community should be able to use the authority of law if community standards are threatened.
-- Catch 22, - the authorities have the power to set the standards, and are only limited by majority rule.
no matter how many times i say that this cop did wrong, you people will always find one more thing you don't like about my comment and focus on that. meanwhile, my posts usually begin with acknowledging a point of yours in the affirmative. it's called being repsectful to others and engaging in a dialogue.
now, as far as looking for an equipment violation, what is wrong with that? aren't cops supposed to do their jobs? unsafe vehicles should be allowed on the roads? cops don't write law, they enforce it.
my only implication for this story (and please let it die) is that other officer's will take this to heart. and it will only embolden those in society who aim to do harm.
Actually, yes. My friends, as well as myself, were taught and given responsibilities, responsibilities that we take seriously. None of my friends have ever been ticketed. We are not drug users...we are non-smokers...we are non-alcohol consumers. Contrary to what "Dateline" or "60 Minutes" may put on the air the majority of today's youth are responsible. (Wasn't it "Dateline" that faked the Chevy Truck explosion years back?)
Can I assume that you feel it's OK of Dateline to lie to the public just as the mentioned LEO did?
he had every right to approach the car and question the driver. and then all of this happens.
In the video, the cop CLEARY escalates very early into the exchange...almost like HE was looking for a fight. He also sounds like a little girl having a hissy fit.
I know A LOT of cops. . .good ones. And they never would have escalated like that in response to the kid’s questions.
Brings back a memory of Fast Times at Ridgemont High, it happens.
LOL!
Very similiar as it is just a change of uniforms whether in the movies or reality. :>)
I think this is baloney... Now there is a balance but the Officer did not actually follow thru and try to arrest the guy on false charges..
I disagree with the policy that says the police can lie and use subtrifuge to obtain statements.. However that is the current state if the Law and from my perspective that’s what he was doing...
Firing him for that which is legal (Thou I think it should not be) is wrong..
He should not have been fired for this incident..He was doing nothing more than that which detectives do all the time in interrogations.
I hope he is reinstated and the policy is revisited across the board.
W
You ever consider that he [or others] had been 'messed with' before?
-- Cops that mess with people are on the way out, thanks to recorders, and the 'agitators' they enable. -- And rational people won't miss that type of police work.
Congratulations. Since the purge, you are biggest fool on FR.
You realize this ex-cop deliberately destroyed his dashcam video tape from this incident, and just this incident, and then claimed that his dashcam was malfunctioning? The dashcam was tested, it was in proper working order.
The cop could face Federal felony charges on that. He is lucky he was just fired and not arrested. His actions also show premeditation for a cover up and his knowledge he committed acts that needed to be covered up.
This town will be seeing dozens of ambulance chasing lawyers filing falsified arrests and citations lawsuits against the town. This cop is a huge liability, he deserves what he got, and if more evidence presents itself of a long term pattern of abuse order color of authority, this ex-cop and town are going to be in a world of judicial hurt.
Why are you address the real issue..
It is Legal for LEO to lie to use subtrifuge that means the Officer was no doing anything but being offensive to our sense of right and wrong.. He was not breaking any law..
Address that problem and you can get to the root of things.
Firing the guy who did not falsely charge the kid is wrong.
All it will do is result is Officers being more slick.. Placing more people in “Protective Custody” or use other more aggressive techniques to gain compliance..
So the next kid that does not answer will get pulled out of the car thumped and arrested for X...
It is easy to triumph up a cause for arrest..
At the same time we want Officers to be vigilant and to be inquisitive.. The other possible result is for Officers to just ignore anything but gunshots and bloody screams..
Firing this LEO was wrong because he did nothing wrong as the law is currently written.
I don’t see the value in his removal..
W
My apologies for the grammatical disaster, I was editing and double clicked the wrong button.
Why are you not addressing the real issue?
It is Legal for LEO to lie, to use subtrifuge in trying to obtain information from a suspect or potential suspect (which is everybody of course).
That means the Officer was not doing anything wrong. Other than being offensive to our sense of right and wrong..
He was not breaking any law..
He was not saying “I will arrest you unless you give me $20”
Address that problem and you can get to the root of things.
Firing the LEO who did not falsely charge the kid is wrong.
All it will do is result is Officers being more slick.. Placing more people in “Protective Custody” or using other more aggressive but technically correct techniques to gain compliance..
So the next kid that does not answer will get pulled out of the car thumped and arrested for X & X & X.
It is easy to triumph up a cause for arrest..
At the same time we want Officers to be vigilant and to be inquisitive..
The other possible result is for Officers to just ignore anything but gunshots and bloody screams..
Firing this LEO was wrong because he did nothing wrong as the law is currently written.
I don’t see the value in his removal..
W
Ive been giving this some thought. That cop needed to be off the streets so this is good it has been bothering me as to why I just don’t like what the kid is doing.
I’m picturing myself at 2 in the morning pulling up on somebody in a car in a commuter lot. Cops in general have a pretty dangerous time of it at 2 AM and I don’t much appreciate some kid jacking with them, purposely trying to piss them off while wasting their time, my money and others’ safety, with his you-tube stunts. As it began, the cop had legitimate questions and the kid was just non-cooperative. One could argue that this may not have happened if the kid had been cooperative and looked at it from the cop’s perspective for a moment.
Granted, this was a bad cop, IMO. Still, I don’t like what the kid is doing.
You got to love the irony.
“The cop acted exactly the way I would expect any cop to act when spoken to that way.”
So, let’s get this straight: you are saying it’s okay for LEOs to charge people with offenses that they did not commit just because that person gives them an attitude?
I can’t wait to see your response to this — if you are willing to respond.
“Firing this LEO was wrong because he did nothing wrong as the law is currently written.
I don’t see the value in his removal..”
One does not have to break the law to be fired from his job. I would be interested to see what department policy says about this, though. You may be right, he may have broken no laws or rules. Not something I had considered.
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.