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 ...
It's a tiny town and from the reports of crimes previously committed by both this officer and the chief - it just may be that a lot of citizens have been the victim of this Gestapo behavior.
It isn't a stretch to assume that any complaints would go nowhere, except to probably make them a target for further harassment - teaching the 'populace' to keep their mouths shut and take it.
If this young man 'set' up the thug deliberately or had the cameras to protect himself as he's already had run ins with him - I don't know. But it sounds like maybe this was a bad situation that wasn't going to go away or be looked into any other way.
Added to the above, I think the fact that the cop, illegally, didn't have his dashcam on, tells a tale. He didn't want his behavior on tape.
A good cop would have his tape rolling, for his own protection and because he would have nothing to hide.
I have a feeling there are a lot of relieved people in that little town knowing they wont get pulled over again by this guy...even tho' they still have a chief with a very serious problem - keep your daughters off the road.
This young man may be looked upon as a hero in that little burg - and he took a BIG chance. He could've been shot "resisting" and he could still be a target, given the character of the chief.
This is where I have to disagree with you completely. If he "had nothing on the kid," then his job was done. It is legal to be an a**h***. We expect waitresses and store clerks to put up with jerks because "the customer's always right." That's just good service.
Surely, with all the power we give to cops, we have a right to expect even more tolerance for jerks, and even better judgment in discerning the difference between rude and illegal behavior.
"Protect and serve" means that, until he violates the law, the citizen's always right.
From post #8 -- the trascript of the tape:
"Officer #2- [speaking to officer #1] He’s got a scanner in his car.
Brett: I’ve always got a scanner in my car.
Officer #1: And by the way, that is technically a burglary tool cause you’re scanning us while you’re driving around. You’re trying to see if you’re gonna be detected. [The scanner was off]"
"Same question about multiple cameras and a transmitter/secure recorder."
Same answer.
"If he had walked up to the cop and started trash talking, your claim of a set up or entrapment might have minor merit."
True. Or if he, say, drove into a deserted commuter parking lot in a high crime area at 2am with no reason to be there and, with cameras rolling, proceeded to be antagonistic to a cop asking legitimate questions.
That might be consider entrapment also. Ya think?
Did he have to?
He wasn't doing anything suspicious. Pulling into a empty parking lot is hardly suspicious.He's a free citizen in a free country.
Without a clear reason to suspect something illegal, the cop had no right to conduct an FI the way he did. He could've approached with a "Hi, everything OK?" if he felt the need to approach at all.
People participating in this thread who actually live there and statistics show that this is NOT a high crime area. You should probably get off of that train now, it has derailed.
He was there to meet a friend. It is a public 24 hour lot (also mentioned) so he did have a reason to be there, and he is Constitutionally right to ask why he was being delayed.
You are very choosy in what you read on this thread, it seems. Unfortunately, it is making you look stubborn and hard headed. Perhaps you should simply walk away from this one. You are being rhetorically slaughtered.
APf
Your "client" is not being detained and is free to leave at any time.
However, while he's parked here in this deserted commuter parking lot in this high crime area at 2 in the a.m. I am going to take the opportunity to explore this "reasonably suspicious" behavior by asking your client some very basic questions like "Who are you" and "What are you doing here"?
Your "client" may answer those questions here or at the police station. What do you suggest he do?
I suspect RP's issue is more in line that a civilian bested a bad apple who lost it in less than 2 minutes.
So when the cop said that cars in that lot were being broken into at night by car thieves recently, that's totally impossible and he has to be lying. Is that what you're saying?
I suggest you prove the "high crime" arguement other than relying on the word of the fired officer. Why don't you just face the fact the officer was in the wrong.
I would think that would be up to the state's wiretapping laws.
"A man has been charged in Carlisle, Pennsylvania with filming police officers during a routine traffic stop and faces up to seven years in prison for "wiretapping".
"Brian D. Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent, reports the Patriot News. The criminal case relates to the sound, not the pictures, that his camera picked up."
"But if the kid didn't run the camera, the officer would have gotten away with it."
True. But if the kid didn't run the camera he never would have mouthed off to the cop.
no matter how much of a d!@k another officer is, i'll always trust him more than any citizen on the street. it's just the way it is.
cops will see this more as a departments reaction to public outcry and think that they can get fired for relatively nothing. few will see that this cop was truly in the wrong, which even i don't given the totality of the circumstances.
right or wrong, cops stick together and identify with their own.
How about, "an area where a recent rash of break-ins by car thieves occured to cars parked in that lot"? Are you more comfortable with that, rather than my abbreviated "high crime area"?
Or was the cop lying about the car thieves and had told the dispatcher he was going to park at that specific location just to get some sleep?
Socialists hate the concept that people are free to question authority; -- seeing they fancy themselves to be that authority.
I lived there just over a year ago. My friends moved back there for awhile after I left to prepare the house for sale. That takes us to just about 6 months ago. I doubt the neighborhood has deteriorated that much in six months.
I referenced my friends father-in-law to point out that the neighborhood has been safe for at least 20 years. The officer just straight out lied, and you continue to perpetuate that lie.
I'm wrong? You're saying the cop shouldn't be fired?
Let me also add, that I don’t sleep much, normally only 4 or 5 hours and it was not uncommon for me to be sitting in the kitchen area at night reading. I could see the lot from there and it was usually pretty quiet (not many cars coming in or out). Even at it’s busiest it was hardly more than about 20% full and the cars were normally spaced out to make crime more obvious if it was happening.
You are sworn to protect & defend our Constitution, - and your fellow citizens. -- Your words above cast doubt that you see this as your primary role. Care to explain?
That is no more personal than you suggesting I'm insulting cops. Either limit yourself to addressing the points I'm making (rather than forming opinions about any effect they might have on others) or get a thicker skin.
"My review of the tape indicates he remained calm and levelheaded throughout."
W.C. Fields was a master at being calm, levelheaded and insulting. You're having me believe one precludes the other.
"First, I fail to see where Mr. Darrow "mouthed off" to the cop."
What can I say? That's not my fault.
"Evidently you do believe the cop has to stand there and take it, or you wouldn't claim he should be fired"
Not at all. Unlike you, I said I would expect a cop to react if I acted like a smart a$$. Sure, this cop overreacted but the kid wasn't hurt or arrested on trumped up charges. His ego got bruised.
But, since the cop's overreaction was caught on tape, he left his superiors no choice but to fire him.
After thirty years on the street I don’t have a problem with this guy getting fired. Squared away cops will be glad this clown is gone. The drones will snivel and whine like they do about everything.
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.