It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police Arrest Woman For Videotaping Them From Her Front Yard: (Wait till you see this tape!)

page: 51
143
<< 48  49  50    52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437
reply to post by Kitilani
 


No.


Odd that you wrote that then. So you are just posting random nonsense whether you believe it or not?


They would have secured the scene and one would have headed down to the Magistrate to swear out a warrant for arrest for leaving the scene of an MVA.

Then they would have returned and knocked again. Entering a home for an arrest warrant without an attachment for forced entry is a no-no, so if he refused to answer there is nothing they can legally do.

Depending on the officers on scene, they could have made the case for exigent circumstances in this case (the possibility of subject being injured from the MVA) and they could have forced entry. This has to stand up to judicial review however, and based on the subject's prior actions (running off with a bumper) they'd have been screwed after the fact.

Entry into a residence without a warrant and no justifiable exigent circumstances, as well as forced entry for a property crime, will get any officers involved sued and fired.




That sure is a lot of shoulda woulda coulda. How familiar are you with "didna."


In this case I'd assume (I know ASS-U-ME :lol
a warrant was sworn out and whatever legal representation the drunk knucklehead had arranged for his surrender. Happens all the time with civilians- nothing out of the ordinary for a simple property crime.

ETA: This is exactly the way it went down: Cop Pleads in Bizarre Crash
edit on 5-7-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)


No, that does not happen all the time. Do you know how alcohol works? The only reason cops let a suspected drunk driver turn himself in later is to purposely give him time to not blow over the limit. Just like this cop here could no so easily fight just how bad his drunk driving accident was since there is no proof he was drunk.

Just ask this hero of the people you are trying to make look good here.

In at least one case where Baker followed a suspected drunken driver to his home, the incident was handled much differently than when he was under investigation. That case, involving a Rock County farmer named Tim Kimmel, eventually resulted in a federal lawsuit being filed against Baker.

The lawsuit, which was eventually dismissed, accused Baker of violating the civil rights of Tim Kimmel’s father, Kim Kimmel, while Baker was a deputy with Rock County. The case had not been resolved before Baker was hired by the city of Mankato.

According to the lawsuit, Baker followed Tim Kimmel home after receiving a report that Kimmel had been driving erratically. He followed Tim Kimmel onto the property of Kim Kimmel’s farm and into Kim Kimmel’s garage.

When Kim Kimmel came out of the house and into the garage, barefoot and wearing only pajamas, he was ordered to the floor of the garage. Kimmel claimed he complied but was hit in the head by Baker’s fist or a police baton. Kimmel said he was handcuffed and Baker’s police dog, Tarzan, was biting him on the neck, head and shoulder when he regained consciousness.


When a civilian is suspected of driving drunk, this same cop follows him home and beats him in his own garage.

You were saying.


That incident happened on July 14, 2007, and the lawsuit was filed by Kim Kimmel in April 2009. Baker left Rock County after being hired by the Mankato Department of Public Safety in November 2009. The case was settled through a “stipulation for dismissal” that was filed by attorneys for both sides a month after Baker left Rock County. Kimmel’s attorney for the case, Lawrence Crosby, said he couldn’t comment on the terms of the settlement.

Baker’s attorney for the Mankato hit-and-run case, Deborah Ellis of St. Paul, said Baker declined to comment for this story.

“That matter is still under investigation by the department, so he won’t be making any comment,” Ellis said.


Thank you for giving me a link to a story about what a complete scumbag this drunk driving cop is and for linking me to a story that blasts your defense of this man right out of the water.
edit on 5-7-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
Odd that you wrote that then. So you are just posting random nonsense whether you believe it or not?


Why is it odd I responded to a direct question directed at me by you?

To refresh your memory the question was:


Originally posted by Kitilani
You expect people to believe that you believe that had that been a civilian, the cops would still have knocked a few times and then just given up?


To answer I said no.

I would think odd would be NOT responding to a direct question but to each their own..... I guess you've got to invent issues to keep occupied.


Originally posted by Kitilani
That sure is a lot of shoulda woulda coulda. How familiar are you with "didna."


In this case they did. The officers responding went and secured a warrant- just as I said they would do. No woulda, coulda, shoulda or didna.



Originally posted by Kitilani
No, that does not happen all the time. Do you know how alcohol works? The only reason cops let a suspected drunk driver turn himself in later is to purposely give him time to not blow over the limit. Just like this cop here could no so easily fight just how bad his drunk driving accident was since there is no proof he was drunk.


Yes it does. Since you're a fan of google type in "Suspect surrenders with attorney" and let me know how many responses there are. Here's what I got: About 541,000 results (0.16 seconds)

The reason they did not arrest him is called the 4th Amendment- one you seemed to be so insistent be adhered to. Why should it not attach in this case?


Originally posted by Kitilani
Just ask this hero of the people you are trying to make look good here.

In at least one case where Baker followed a suspected drunken driver to his home, the incident was handled much differently than when he was under investigation. That case, involving a Rock County farmer named Tim Kimmel, eventually resulted in a federal lawsuit being filed against Baker.

The lawsuit, which was eventually dismissed, accused Baker of violating the civil rights of Tim Kimmel’s father, Kim Kimmel, while Baker was a deputy with Rock County. The case had not been resolved before Baker was hired by the city of Mankato.

According to the lawsuit, Baker followed Tim Kimmel home after receiving a report that Kimmel had been driving erratically. He followed Tim Kimmel onto the property of Kim Kimmel’s farm and into Kim Kimmel’s garage.

When Kim Kimmel came out of the house and into the garage, barefoot and wearing only pajamas, he was ordered to the floor of the garage. Kimmel claimed he complied but was hit in the head by Baker’s fist or a police baton. Kimmel said he was handcuffed and Baker’s police dog, Tarzan, was biting him on the neck, head and shoulder when he regained consciousness.


When a civilian is suspected of driving drunk, this same cop follows him home and beats him in his own garage.

You were saying.


That incident happened on July 14, 2007, and the lawsuit was filed by Kim Kimmel in April 2009. Baker left Rock County after being hired by the Mankato Department of Public Safety in November 2009. The case was settled through a “stipulation for dismissal” that was filed by attorneys for both sides a month after Baker left Rock County. Kimmel’s attorney for the case, Lawrence Crosby, said he couldn’t comment on the terms of the settlement.

Baker’s attorney for the Mankato hit-and-run case, Deborah Ellis of St. Paul, said Baker declined to comment for this story.

“That matter is still under investigation by the department, so he won’t be making any comment,” Ellis said.


The topic of discussion was the actions of the officer's outside Baker's residence- not Baker's actions. What Baker did is not up for debate. He was involved in an MVA with property damage and was most likely intoxicated at the time.

The purpose of pointing out that Baker is a PoS, which every single poster here including me agrees with is....... I have no idea other than to invent things to argue about which have zero bearing on the topic at hand.


Originally posted by Kitilani
Thank you for giving me a link to a story about what a complete scumbag this drunk driving cop is and for linking me to a story that blasts your defense of this man right out of the water.
edit on 5-7-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)


I did not at any time defend Baker. I did defend the officers seeking to arrest Baker by pointing out they did not make an illegal entry into the residence.

I simply stated that correct procedure in the case of entry into a residence to arrest with no exigent circumstances is to get a warrant and that warrantless entry is illegal in that case.

Regardless- Baker would not be swearing out a warrant on himself FFS. Every one of my posts have been explaining why the other officers- NOT THE OFFENDER BAKER- could not kick in the door and drag him out. If they had then Baker would have sued them for that just as he is being sued for doing it to others.

Also in the article you posted: Baker actively followed someone home in continuous pursuit. In the article I posted the officers arrived several minutes after Baker entered his residence.

Neither matters though- you can't whine about rights being violated when officers make illegal entries into homes then demand other officers do the same. Well.... you just did but you make no sense in advocating the practice.
edit on 5-7-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


Your post makes the 1000th!!!! for this thread.

Good job everyone.

Great reading from beginning to end. The sides of the arguments presented very nicely and much appreciated.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437
Why is it odd I responded to a direct question directed at me by you?


I never suggested it was odd that you responded.
It was how you responded.

Try again. Read my post this time as your response will be far more fruitful.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I know the birthers are no just hardcore Republicans or racists. They keep saying as much.
I want to know why not one GOP candidate has been asked to produce their birth certificate though.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by SFA437
Why is it odd I responded to a direct question directed at me by you?


I never suggested it was odd that you responded.
It was how you responded.

Try again. Read my post this time as your response will be far more fruitful.


Hmmm..


Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by SFA437
 


You expect people to believe that you believe that had that been a civilian, the cops would still have knocked a few times and then just given up?


Orginally posted by Kitilani in reply to a posting by SFA437...

You expect people to believe that you believe that had that been a civilian, the cops would still have knocked a few times and then just given up?

So the use of the word "you" in a direct question in reply to my posting which you referred to did not mean me?



Nice try.

You've also failed to answer the reasoning behind posting illegal behavior by an officer resulting in his being sued civilly and asked to resign from his department as being an example of the lawful actions of completely different officers responding to another incident of illegal activity by the first.
edit on 5-7-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
I was the detox charge nurse on the 11pm to 7am shift in Mankato for 3 years. I could give you dozens of examples where the police did just that, and never got in any trouble.


Please do. I prefer case numbers so they can be verified however dates will suffice.

I'll be waiting.


If you have a half a brain you know that could mean the loss of my nursing license, so I'll assume you are not a total retard and were joking.

But I'll give you an example that stands out for the headaches it caused for me (leaving out any patient information of course). I got a page at around 2 am to go to the ER to do an intake eval. I came down to a swarm of LEO's standing around a very pissed off naked man restrained to a bed with handcuffs. I had been working detox for over 2 years at this point and knew every officer on the force on a first name basis. I asked for the bullet and before the attending could speak the arresting officer jumps in and states "Chuckles here had a few too many at his work christmas party". I asked why he was naked and they said they had to drag him out of bed. He hit a parked car next door to his trailer house and just locked the car up and went home to bed.

This guy was hard to forget, 6'5" and 260 pounds with about 2% body fat. I remember because even the fatboy pj's on the unit were like doll clothes on him so we had to give him scrubs. He was also a martial arts enthusiast, so on the advice of the LEO's we used high level precautions until he could blow .00.

Detox holds are routinely released well before the 72 hours we are allowed. Once their BAC's are down we usually kick them to the curb. But not this guy, the PD refused to sign off on it and took it one step farther by doing something very rare, they refused to count the weekend hours meaning his time didn't start until 7am on Monday.

So I got to know this guy over the 4 days, as did my coworkers and the detox physician. Despite all the PD warnings he never gave us any trouble. Said he was in bed sound asleep with his door locked when he was woken up by 6 LEO's dragging him out of bed he reacted like most people would and started swinging. He didn't even realized they were cops until they had him spread out on his lawn.

He was convicted of hit and run, DUI and assaulting a police officer. Couldn't afford an attorney.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
If you have a half a brain you know that could mean the loss of my nursing license, so I'll assume you are not a total retard and were joking.


Incident reports are public record and can be had both at the clerk of court's office (assuming case has gone through the DA's office) as well as the local police department and have nothing to do with your nursing license.

Actually I'd like to know how the two relate.

In the above case how do you know that they did not have a warrant that specified they could force entry? I am not saying that the warrant was necessarily justified in any way- just that this possibility exists as does the possibility that it does not as I do not know the circumstances surrounding it.

Police officers are not above articulating something into something it is not. Flat out lying is hard to get away with- too much review- but careful wording has been used to justify some excessive things.

In the case of our drunken officer- he knew what officers can & can not do. Forcing an illegal entry would have bitten them on the butt. It would also be illegal and an abuse of power- which is what this thread was about.

That is why I find it funny that certain individuals are saying the officers should have committed illegal acts and abused their power in the case of the hit & run drunk cop.
edit on 5-7-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-7-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


I will also add that if one asks a yes or no question they should expect a yes or no answer.

In the post you refer to I answered no.

I then explained the no and the reasons why I answered no.

How is that odd?



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 


Because I asked you about something you said. You then went on to say "no" and explain why you now believe the exact opposite of what you said. If you did not believe it, I am confused as to why you said it.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by SFA437
 


Because I asked you about something you said. You then went on to say "no" and explain why you now believe the exact opposite of what you said. If you did not believe it, I am confused as to why you said it.


The discussion I was having with another party went as follows:

Me: When police get warrants and kick in doors they are wrong. (Refer to every 3rd thread in this forum)

When police do not get warrants and do not kick in doors they are also wrong.

AGWSkeptic: If that hed been a civilian they'd have taken that door down.

Me: If they had they'd be investigated and have lost their jobs as no exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless entry for a MVA with PD only.


You then asked "You expect people to believe that you believe that had that been a civilian, the cops would still have knocked a few times and then just given up? "

This is a yes or no question. I answered no and explained further that:

They would have secured the scene and one would have headed down to the Magistrate to swear out a warrant for arrest for leaving the scene of an MVA.

Then they would have returned and knocked again. Entering a home for an arrest warrant without an attachment for forced entry is a no-no, so if he refused to answer there is nothing they can legally do.


Which is both true and an accurate account of what happened according to published reports.

I further explained that:

Depending on the officers on scene, they could have made the case for exigent circumstances in this case (the possibility of subject being injured from the MVA) and they could have forced entry. This has to stand up to judicial review however, and based on the subject's prior actions (running off with a bumper) they'd have been screwed after the fact.

Which means in order to force entry they would have to lie on the warrant application which is NOT what they did. They played by the book.

Then you accused me of defending Baker's actions despite me never doing so and posted an article where Baker engaged in violence against the father of a drunken driver suspect he had followed in continuous pursuit into his garage years before Baker's hit & run while he was with a completely different department but which contained zero mention of the officers who responded to Baker's hit & run.

That last bit I find odder than me answering your question.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 





I am not going to file a complaint,


Then don't complain about cops that you feel are abusing power. The department can't do anything about the problem untill they are made aware. If citizens would stop sitting around complaining to people that can't help them they might get some where. There is a process for filing a complaint. If you want change make change.

I have recently filed a complaint against a cop that works in a different jurisdiction. He lied and told me that refusing to consent to a search constituted probable cause. He then said that he was going to search my whole car.

Well, in a traffic stop you can not search anything but the passenger compartment unless you have PC. Probable cause is not granted by a refusal to consent to a search. There was no evidence of any other crime besides the traffic vilation. There was no other crime. It was a direct result of me admitting to having a concealed carry permit and a loaded weapon. As he aproached I told him where the gun was and he asked me to step out so that he could retrieve it for his safety.

His next statement was, "I need to search your car to make sure there is nothing illegal in here. Are you going to consent? Failure to consent will be seen as probable cause to issue a warant. Save us both some time and consent."

I refused consent and told him that he could inspect the passenger compartment as is legal. He was explicitly told the rest of the car was off limits. He then called in for a K-9 unit. His reason was that "you gun toting country boys make me nervous." I then told him that I work with a police department. I told him what the position was and explained it all very plainly. He cancelled the K-9 unit and sent me on my way.

At the first gas station I pulled in and called 911. I asked to be transfered to the local department. I then asked to speak to the Shift Commander. I placed a verbal complaint and got the information on how to file a formal complaint. I typed my formal complaint the next morning and submitted it.

Complain about the bad cops. I do it and anybody with integrity should do it. If there was a true violation of law or civil rights let someone know. I do it and most cops I know will do it.


edit on 6-7-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81



. . .

told me that refusing to consent to a search constituted probable cause. He then said that he was going to search my whole car.



. . .



Funny enough, that was eluded to in the Academy, and one of my FTO's actually told me that.

I argues with him, and he told me I was just green.




Good on you. I do the same thing.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
The thread title is a lie, the woman repeatedly lied in the video, and the cops were being civil and humane.

You guys are really trying to poo poo the cops in this thread.

I'm all for calling out police brutality and whatnot, but this isn't a case I'd stand up for.

Reportedly lied? WTF did you watch? Only lieing I saw was the cop telling the woman he didn't feel comfortable with her standing behind them. Only problem with that is the cop was facing her the entire time.

This is another pig on a power trip. Simple as that. Not sure how weak and frail you are, but what the hell makes you think that cop, and his two buddies were scared of a 110lb woman in sweatpants standing in her yard by herself? Maybe you are, and that's why you think him arresting her for that reason is valid. The rest of us simply aren't, and know this is bull# through and through.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   
That video makes me feel sick to my stomach. I'm not around for a couple weeks, come back, and what do you know, there's another story about cops abusing their power. I haven't read all 51 pages, but did any media report on this? Something that would help would be if local news outlets made a point to report more frequently when police abuse their rights, which should lead to local citizens speaking up and putting pressure on police departments to correct the problem.

There's also a huge issue in what appears to be bond similar to a fraternity between cops. What the hell were the other two cops doing while this jackass went on his power trip? They basically just stood there, with their hands in their pants looking stupid. Didn't say a word to the cop who arrested her because he and his two buds were apparently afraid this 110lb woman in pajamas was going to jump all three of them, tie them up, and set the guy they pulled over free.

Seriously, there needs to be citizen outrage over this, and news stations, along with the media in general needs to report this. We pay the salaries of these power-abusing pigs. This is wrong in so many way, but on top of everything else, it's also a waste of tax dollars. In cannot be acceptable for cops to run around doing this kind of thing without consequence.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Read the thread please. It has been covered. Her charges have been dropped. The community that wanted to support her were harrassed by the local cops etc. All kinds of juicy bits there.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81

Then don't complain about cops that you feel are abusing power. The department can't do anything about the problem untill they are made aware. If citizens would stop sitting around complaining to people that can't help them they might get some where. There is a process for filing a complaint. If you want change make change.


I have my reasons for not filing a complaint. Just because I don't file a complaint doesn't take away my right to relate what happened here or any where I choose.

As I stated in my previous post. My family takes priority. I appreciate your comments regarding the steps needed to fix problems like this, and in a perfect world we would see swift and proper action when something like this happens. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world and I do not need to take the chance of retaliation against me or my family.
Plus I did not get his name, vehicle number or any pictures, so it would just be his word against mine. What this deputy did was minor in comparison to the abuses of power discussed here, I just wanted to highlight the "above the law" attitude I have so often experienced with law enforcement officers.

I'm glad you filed a complaint. If good cops stopped defending bad ones, we would have a lot fewer cases of police abusing their power. We would also see the public gaining more respect for cops.

edit on 7/6/2011 by Sparky63 because: added comment



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TribeOfManyColours
 


In Finland, i've had few encounters with police and they use intimidation to have a go with you for any reason, example if you refuse to identify yourself, they will pick you up and we have a nice time solving my ID numbers and names at the police station.. democracy my a##



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by 2012king
 



You mean you see a problem with a member of the public filming a public official doing their public duty in public ?
What part of the above is 'Private',or 'classified' ? I mean, they don't LOOK like Secret Policemen to me (But I suppose you never can tell, eh?)
The records of any arrest and subsequent prosecution are in the public domain, and the rules and guidelines for police behaviour are also in the public domain.
The only reason I can see for a Police Officer not wanting to be filmed, is that they fear prosecution for wrong doing.

After all, what was it they've been saying to us ?
oh yes, that's it 'If you're doing nothing wrong - you've got nothing to fear'.!

Oh the irony.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Nupster
 


Fyi that's the law around here. You have to ID yourself if you're involved or suspected of something. I dont have any problems with that.




top topics



 
143
<< 48  49  50    52 >>

log in

join