CHARGES DISMISSED: State trooper- 100mph; kills one woman; injures another; child through windshield

page: 2
45
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Cops can get away with murder.

Any other person would get vehicular homicide.




posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Cops can get away with murder.

Any other person would get vehicular homicide.


If it was a cop's wife or family, you can be sure the perpetrator would be executed on the street or in his home. Failing that, probably the harshest sentence available, and would likely never receive parole.. serving full sentence.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Im confused as to why the Prosecuting Attorney felt it did not rise to that level of a crime. Without lights and sirens, we are subject to the same traffic laws everyone else is. Even when running code to burden of responsibility falls to the officer and not the public.

Why another troop / other agency was not assigned to do the investigation is baffeling as well.

Based on the info in the article, I would have to agree the justice system failed - spectacularly - on this one. The only good news is the fact he was never charged with a higher levl crime. It means that is still a possibility. Something that should be reviewed by the AG for Florida.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I think "failed spectacularly" is an understatement. The situation risks a vindictive family member trying to get justice, among other things, least of which is spitting on the law itself.

What are your thoughts on the fellow officer refusing to testify?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
The courtroom video is just as outrageous as the accident itself.

Unbelievable.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
If you or I were summoned as a witness for the state and we decided to just not show up what would happen to us?
What happened to the cop who just didn`t show up to testify against his fellow officer?





posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 


He had a medical excuse.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
For anyone who has not already done so (assuming you can handle your anger in a reasonable manner), click on the source link in the OP, and watch the video.

The entire court laughs while the charges are dropped.

*Loose Transcription I wrote up*


Defense Attorney: Do you agree to a dismissal?
Representing Cpl.: Why not, I'm easy to please.
*Laughing*
Judge: I'm sorry, did you say dismissal. I was writing but didn't hear if that's what you said.
Defense Attorney: No one here is objecting, there is no objection.
*Pause* *Laughter fills the courtroom* *Laughing*
Judge: *Laughing* Oh come on, you all Candid Camer'in" me?
Representing Cpl.: I was not at the scene, I can't represent the Cpl that was there, your honor. Do as you wish, your honor.
Defense Attorney: Agreed. I'm moving to dismissal. No one is here, if no one is going to show up, I'll move to dismissal.
Judge: *Quietly* Make your request.
Defense Attorney: Move to dismiss. No one on behalf of the agency is here to represent in respect to the citations. My belief if the agency is not here to represent then they don't feel strongly about these citations.
*Courtroom erupts in Laughter*
Judge: *Giggles* I will go on and hear your request, that no one here objects, and go ahead to dismiss the citations.
*END*


If that was my family. Everyone in that courtroom would be dead. Dead and gone, in a hurry.
edit on 17-2-2013 by guymontag because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher
I understand what you are saying but it is still an accident. If someone is getting murdered then it is ok to drive 100mph? He was responding to a serious call.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

While it is sometimes okay for officers to go to a call “dark” (no emergency lights), this is an FHP trooper we are talking about. FHP does not usually respond to “emergencies”, and the real police down here don't even want them at the scene because they typically don't know how to fill out the correct paperwork.

I have sat through endless complaining from Sheriff officers about the exact same issue with FHP officers taking “off duty jobs”, because they have to call the “real” local police or sheriff office in when there is an incident, which makes it pointless for them to take those jobs from the officers that can actually preform them correctly.

FHP is essentially just traffic cops, and that's all they are equipped to deal with.

The problem is that police, who are not "real" road officers, be it transit cops, DOT, airport police, corrections deputies, etc... are the WORST at overexerting their “authority” because they want the same respect as the actual road officers get. Its like an overcompensation thing.

Oh, and believe me, it was intentional that the officer didn't bother to show up to court...
Officers here typically get into trouble for no showing a court case. This was a deal made between him and his “brothers” in blue, to cut him a break (probably involving the local PBA rep).

You want to start seeing fewer “bad” cops being defended?
Stop supporting groups like the PBA...
99.9% of what they exist for, is to get bad cops, who break laws themselves, off the hook. One of my friends is a PBA rep for DOC, and he was specifically chosen because of his knowledge of the loopholes in procedures, and his ability to protect officers when they cross the line of either the law or department policy.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   

The trooper who issued the citations has been exonerated — FHP found he had a legitimate reason to miss court


This part troubles me more that the criminally negligent cop who caused the crash. Who dropped the ball on this one? Was it the DA? Why was this coward not subpoenaed to testify? Who allowed him to skip testimony because he was "too busy"? Whoever it was should be charged with obstruction of justice.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by LeatherNLace
 


It's interesting the court would defer to FHP's determination that the citing officer's absence was excused.




posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by Sly1one

Originally posted by Malcher
If police take too long to respond people complain then too, it was an accident and he was on duty. . I dont see how it shows them to be above the law since they are allowed to go above the speed limit when responding to a call.


that is not an excuse...

I'm pretty sure the damage done by going 100mph on the road killing one person injuring others did far more damage than the crime that officer was on his way to address...

regardless the officer still didn't make it to the original call that inspired him to be Dale Earnhardt...so not only did the danger from that call STILL no get addressed...he killed and injured others on top of it...

and these people are supposed to be the societal epitome of "good decision makers"...tiz why we give them such a ridiculous amount of power and authority...




edit on 17-2-2013 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)


Let's not forget:

Accelerating with no emergency lights


But more importantly is the fact that he just couldn't make it to a court appearance that may have had dire consequences on his life, freedom, career etc. Why wasn't a warrant issued for his arrest when he didn't appear? Many other cops were there but he couldn't be?

It was planned to end this way I believe.

Peace


I couldn't agree more...it was indeed planned to end this way...and THAT is what I was referring to when I was saying the "brotherhood" protects itself...


I hope you don't think I was disagreeing with your statement.

Not at all.


Peace



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Don't forget to put some blame on the DA's office. When there is a scheduling conflict to get the arresting officer into court, it is their job to get the trial rescheduled. If the DA knew about this,vote them out of office next election!



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by LeatherNLace
 


It's interesting the court would defer to FHP's determination that the citing officer's absence was excused.



Without a doubt! Why is it that each individual police force has their own internal investigation department/process; should the independent investigators be ordinary citizens that have no skin in the game? I suppose that would make too much sense. That madness is maddening.
edit on 17-2-2013 by LeatherNLace because: speling bea jenius



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by guymontag
To be honest, the fellow cop who failed to testify should be brought up on serious charges. Failing to testify as a bystander witness, in my opinion.




In some traffic courts, the ticket writers will not "show" if the defendant has a lawyer in court. The judge simply drops the charges. I believe it has something to do with the lawyer demanding an expensive jury trial. These kangaroo traffic courts simply work to maximize profit with minimum effort. Corruption to the core.

In this instance, it sounds like this gang-banger failed to show as to get the charges dropped for another that wears the colors.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

The state is going to come down on these guys because of the obvious and embarrassing court display that they put on.

Besides firing the officer involved in the crash, they have also fired the Troops commanding officer, and demoted the Sargent, who should have covered the court hearing, to a trooper. Six other officers are under investigation relating the what happened in the courtroom.

It might still work out that justice is served, but it shows that you cannot trust these departments to conduct investigations on themselves.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
It might still work out that justice is served


For most folks, justice will not be served until the day comes that there is no cover-up. Plain and simple, honest, forthcoming, voluntary testimony would go a long way towards healing the disconnect between what LEO claims to be and what the general public perceives them to be.


but it shows that you cannot trust these departments to conduct investigations on themselves.


It makes you wonder....why does LEO have exclusive rights on internal investigations? Heck, why do they have any rights to internal investigations at all? Should that not be the responsibility of an independent citizen council; void of any LEO influence? We should demand such.
edit on 17-2-2013 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Get so tired of these cops having different rules applied to them.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
It makes you wonder....why does LEO have exclusive rights on internal investigations? Heck, why do they have any rights to internal investigations at all? Should that not be the responsibility of an independent citizen council; void of any LEO influence? We should demand such.

Because its a job that is rife with “gray areas” and “life or death” judgment calls based on incomplete or unreliable information. The “bad” guy never feels that he is at fault, or has done anything wrong, and the cop is always the one who violated the criminals rights. The public often do not understand how the law or rights REALLY work, and tend to believe what they see on TV. The job can only be truly appreciated by people who have actually experienced it for themselves. Besides this, the state will always control these investigations because it in turn controls the public’s ability to sue them.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


First you write:


Besides firing the officer involved in the crash, they have also fired the Troops commanding officer, and demoted the Sargent, who should have covered the court hearing, to a trooper. Six other officers are under investigation relating the what happened in the courtroom.


Then you write:

It might still work out that justice is served, but it shows that you cannot trust these departments to conduct investigations on themselves.


It seems the investigation is working if these actions have been taken...right?





new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join