It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Off Duty Cop Kills Man In Bar

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by stirling

The answer is its dependent on state laws. Just beause a ccw law says no doesnt mean that's what it means. Some ccw laws allow the property owner to allow ccw holders woth weapon on their property. Again laws very. Even if law allows cops to have their find in bars agency policy will usually prohibit posession while drinking.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:44 PM

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
reply to post by Xcathdra

Here's a link to the original source of the article.

Cop Allegedly Killed Unarmed 'Peacemaker'

A man whom officials believe was fatally shot by an off-duty sheriff's deputy in a bar was unarmed and was trying to break up a fight, an official says.

Originally posted by FoxStriker
so he'll be let go on full pension with early retirement?

Hardly. He's currently in jail, charged with murder and his bail is set at $1M

Dayle William Long, 42, formerly a sheriff's deputy, stands in a courtroom at the Southwest Justice Center during an arraignment hearing.

edit on 12/29/2011 by 12m8keall2c because: fixed image link

Lets hope since he is a cop he isn't offered a plea deal for manslaughter and do only 5 years in prison.


posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:48 PM
Aw crap thats not far from me at all...

Normally its Andy Dick Molesting somebody at Buffalo Wild Wings, now its cops shooting people...

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:01 PM
Im so tired of cops and the power corruption.
an Off-Duty police officer should not have the same legal protection as when they are On-Duty because your not a cop at that moment,your a civilian :/

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:14 PM

Originally posted by ArtOfTrance
an Off-Duty police officer should not have the same legal protection as when they are On-Duty

He doesn't. Nor has he been shown such.

He's in jail for the charge of Murder, his bail is currently set at $1M

... apparently ... rightfully so, too

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:24 PM
Good then!I have seen many cases of off duty cops walking away simply because at work they are a Cop.Cops are not above the Law.I guess that officer was correct,he can do anything he wants,but not without reprocussions

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:35 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 09:59 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:16 PM

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by ArtOfTrance
an Off-Duty police officer should not have the same legal protection as when they are On-Duty

He doesn't. Nor has he been shown such.

He's in jail for the charge of Murder, his bail is currently set at $1M

... apparently ... rightfully so, too


I would go further to say,those in Law enforcement should be held to higher standards,and tougher Laws. The only way for that to happen is to change the current ones,to reflect the status quo. I am tired of people being angry,since they are unwilling to have their representatives change the laws,to better equip the average citizen out there. Imagine the everyday citizen getting 20 years for murder,and a LEO getting 50. Might make a difference in how a LEO goes about handling a call. Just MHO..........

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:21 PM

Originally posted by chudek
News Source

Kielar said the suspected shooter told the bar's manager to call the police before firing three or four rounds at Vanettes. The off-duty officer "called the manager over and told him to go call 9-1-1," Kielar said. "The manager said why, then (the deputy) pulled the gun out, and (the manager) went to do it saw the look in the guy's eyes." "That's when he shot him."

you can't bring a gun into a bar, when you are a customer. Period.
says so right on the cops CCW.
Guns cannot be carried, even with a CCW, when drinking. period.
Only people allowed to have a gun in a bar is the owner, and only when he is not drinking, or an ON DUTY cop who is present, and in official capacity.

Doing otherwise is a Felony. plain and simple, black and white.

Possession of firearm, during a felony ( carrying said firearm into bar when drinking) + shooting/death = A very looong time learning "how the other half lives"..

Let's see how they weasle the cops way out of this one.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:32 AM
reply to post by USarmyFL

Why would he not be offered the same thing everyone else would be offered. This notion that there are different laws for cops is as stupid as it is insulting. If a person, whether its a cop or a 19 year old thug, or member of the military on leave or insert anyone here, the incident is looked at. The crime is looked at. The elements of that crime are looked at, and based on those elements, the crime is narrowed down.

Its the responsibility of the PA, NOT the police, the file charges, and what those charges will be. When law enforcement is involved, in addition to be subject to the EXACT SAME criminal justice system as everyone else is, we are also subject to Federal Law, specifically 42 USC 1983, which NOT everyone else is subject to, specifically civilians.

Throw in any sustained violation of departmental policy or state law, minus criminal adjudication in a court of law, and law enforcement is not protected under civil immunity. It allows the department as well as the city / county to disassociate themselves from the officer and his actions, meaning that officer is solely responsible for any civil actions brought, including paying for his own defense. All before criminal action even makes it out of the gate.

Factor in chain of command and the fact law enforcement can be ordered to answer guilt seeking questions, which is where garrity rights come into play. If law enforcement refuses to answer under orders, that action can be used against them in any internal disciplinary hearing. Police are not innocent until proven guilty in internal affairs, and there is no presumption of innocence. If the officer answers the questions, any guilt information uncovered cannot be used in criminal court, but again it s used against them in disciplinary hearings.

The notion the police are above the law is about as ignorant as some of the comment I see about the law protecting police and treating them differently than civilians.

The decision of a prosecuting attorney in Clearwater Florida to not prosecute a moronic cop does not mean
* - all cops are the same.
* - all cops are above the law
* - different laws apply

If we used that logic then the moronic crack dealer who kills a guy in South Central Tippecanoe Indiana because he stole drugs from him means every single criminal should be treated as the crack dealer who killed the guy in South Central Tippecanoe Indiana, regardless of facts or location and applicable laws.

What it DOES mean is
* - the prosecuting attorney is an idiot for not prosecuting if their is ample sustainable evidence a crime occurred.
* - People must demand a better education and actually learn while in school so they know there is a difference in law from one location to another, and one state to another. They must learn that the Federal Government is not the only government there is, and on a daily basis people come into contact with local and state laws way more than they do federal. People must learn that if a crime occurs in California, its a California crime and is not under the laws or jurisdiction of the State of Florida.

People must learn that when a state / local law is challenged in court, and makes it to the state supreme court, their ruling is binding on the entire state. If the ruling has grounds and is challenged to the federal level, any ruling the federal appeals court makes only applies to the states within that federal appeals circuit. If it makes its the the US Supreme Court, their ruling will apply to all local, state / Federal entities as well as any commonwealths / territories of the United States.

A cop being a moron and killing a guy in a bar in California does not mean all cops are like that no more than it means a junkie / jaded ex girlfriend who goes on a seven state shooting spree is indicative of everyone else.

In short - quit stereotyping and for God sake people learn the damn law and how it works.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:49 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

There you go again with your delusions that cops face the same justice as civillians...

Cops will do all they can to protect a brother, by lying, fabricating evidence, filing false reports, all to sway the "PA". Cops are rarely arrested for what average citizens would be arrested for, and they usually just get a paid vacation while the internal investigation goes on. Lets be real here...

In this case, it appears that there may be some form of justice, but we'll see how it plays out.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:56 AM
reply to post by AngryAlien

And there you go with your ignorance of the system.

Cops do not file charges, the PA does.
Cops do not decide if charges will go forward, resulting in a prosecution, the PA does.
The cops work for the executive branch.
The PA works for the judicial branch.

The laws are the exact same, contrary to your ignorance on those laws and your claims they are not.

CPC 187 - Homicide
please point out where it states it does not apply to the police and civilians the same.

CPC 217.1 - attempted murder
please point out where it states it does not apply to the police and the civilians the same.

Please show us where it specifically exempts law enforcement from these laws?

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:59 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

No, I know how the system works. Maybe you didn't read what I said (which seems to be the case)...

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:03 AM

Originally posted by AngryAlien
reply to post by Xcathdra

No, I know how the system works. Maybe you didn't read what I said (which seems to be the case)...

No I did, in this thread and every other one you spit your I hate the cops mentality in.

As I stated, I gave you the links to murder and attempted murder in California, where this incident occurred. Please show me where the laws states it will apply differently to police, which you continually claim. The tired obfuscation game you play when confronted with facts where you cant support your claim gets old.

Answer the question and support your claim or admit your wrong and move on.
edit on 30-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by BadNinja68

you can't bring a gun into a bar, when you are a customer. Period.

This isn't necessarily true. Here in Florida, this used to be the case. They just recently changed the laws so anyone with a CW permit can carry into a bar as well as City Hall and other places.

Here are other instances where you can now carry into a bar:
"Ohio Now Allows Concealed Carry of Firearms in Bars"

"More States Allowing Guns in Bars"

State Representative Curry Todd, a Republican who first introduced the guns-in-bars bill here, said that carrying a gun inside a tavern was never the law’s primary intention. Rather, he said, the law lets people defend themselves while walking to and from restaurants.

I encourage everyone to check their state's laws about the specifics because the laws surrounding firearms are changing quickly.

Regarding the officer who shot the man in the bar, he should be held to a higher standard. He's supposed to be more knowledgable about defusing situations due to his extensive training. While anyone familiar with guns should know that a firearm should never be used to settle a verbal argument, officers are more than aware of how to use other tactics. This officer (and I use this term lightly) is a loose cannon and deserves everything that's coming to him. I hope the court spares no pity nor brings any mercy upon him.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:04 AM
reply to post by Afterthought

I couldn't agree more.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

Listen, guy... I never spout off hate about cops, never have. I comment on what I know of the brotherhood of law enforcement. You keep bringing up laws and asking me to show you where it says a cop is exempt (you know I can't).

Legally, laws apply to everyone. In the real world, alot cops feel they are above the law, and will do all they can to protect themselves or their fellow officers from prosecution. They will lie, fabricate evidence, file false reports, and submit their false findings to the "PA", who will not file charges BASED ON THE FALSE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Cops have a job to do, but need to be held to the same or higher standards, which I think they are not.

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:35 AM
Reply to post by Xcathdra

As in your "what rights have we lost" thread I think your being too literal.

Of course there isn't a difference on paper how the law is to be applied. In practice though certain people get treated differently whether it's a cop, military man, celebrity or politician.

Thats the reality of it.

To say cops aren't treated differently because there isn't text in a book somewhere stating so is pretty disingenuous or outrageously naive.

My navy buddy got stopped piss drunk and hauled in in cuffs. Somebody from the navy came and got him and it all magically went away. If he hadn't been in the navy he'd have been screwed.

Preferential treatment happens everyday to the preferred class.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:47 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

I'm afraid you're correct. There is an invisible bond between those in certain careers and/or brotherhoods.

There was an instance not too long ago in my state where the chief of police (lowercase used on purpose) who forced the investigation of a suspected child molester to be dropped because he was friends with the guy. Not only this, but he was also found guilty of selling guns to criminals. What was his sentence? One year in jail and three years probation. Truly a dispicable sentence. I'm swayed to believe that if he were any Joe Blow who was found lying to cover for a suspected child molester, that he would've been slapped with all sorts of charges and at least sentenced to three years in jail and five years probation. (This is my opinion without the gun sale charges considered.) Alas, one can only speculate.

Regarding the case against his friend, much hard evidence was discovered about his interest in children and he will be going on trial. I'll be interested to see if the former chief will be testifying against him.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in