Deputy threatens to FEED resident to the alligators (Gets paid vacation)

A veteran Broward Sheriff's deputy threatened to feed a resident to the alligators and "beat the piss" out of him, according to an internal affairs report released to the Sun Sentinel.

Weston Deputy Alan Dubinski received a written reprimand for threatening resident Jessie Merchant and screaming profanities at him. Dubinski was suspended with pay July 26 and returned to full duty Nov. 14.

So here we have another Florida officer threatening to beat the piss out a citizen. The citizen was already being questioned by other officers when this "officer of the law" arrived on the scene to cause a scene of his very own.

Then Dubinski allegedly began yelling at Merchant saying, "Your f---ing ass is going home or I'm going to beat the f---ing piss out of you. I see your f---ing ass again tonight I'm going to f---ing split your f---ing skull (unintelligible) with my flashlight."

Later, Dubinski told Merchant, "I'm going to feed you to the f---ing 'gators," according to the report.

What is it with the coppers and flashlights?

Then Capt. Robert Wargin, the former director of internal affairs says about the hero of the story:

"A 22-year employee with a couple pages of charges — you have to question where he works, and if he's had any other intervention done,"

A couple of pages of charges? Never criminally charged for his crimes? What in the world is going on?

Sgt. Holly Greene, who conducted the investigation, asked Dubinski if his conduct was professional and our hero replies with this closing argument:

"In the eyes of the public, it's probably not, but … every situation is different, sometimes you have to be harsh with some people to get your point across."

Then again, if you and I become "harsh" with an officer to get our "point" across we would get a slew of charges!

Hey Slave! Imma Feed You To The Alligators!

reply to post by YapTalk

Dubinski was suspended with pay July 26 and returned to full duty Nov. 14.

Damn, that just about covers his vacations for the next 4 yrs. I would think.........3 1/2 mos. off with pay.
Wow is all I can say about this.....just crazy insane WOW

The story is pretty one-sided.

Why did this guy have the police called on him several times that day?

EDIT:

The report says Dubinski told the troopers he was familiar with Merchant and that "he has had numerous contacts with Merchant in the past [including] a Baker Act, issued him trespass warnings, and several disturbances throughout the neighborhood."

Sounds like Mr. Merchant isn't some innocent little thing.

The problem with all this law enforcement craziness that is going on is that the cops have a "law enforcement bill of rights".

This is a set of "rights" that they hide behind which is also enforced unlike "our" bill of rights. Their LEO bill of rights is actually enforced behind closed doors.

I had a copy of it at one time and for the life of me I cannot remember what I did with it. A family member is a county sheriff which is how I came across this document.

Now, think about this....

A special bill of rights for them which is actually enforced behind closed doors and a bill of rights which is listed in the US Constitution that gets laughed out of court.

That my friend, is scary as hell.

Originally posted by DaTroof
The story is pretty one-sided.

Why did this guy have the police called on him several times that day?

Here we go again troof...
Where in that story does it say that the law was called several times that day?

What it does say is that this officer CLAIMS to have dealt with this guy before.

AND, if the guy was committing a crime, he surely would have been arrested by your LEO hero. Dontcha think?

PLUS, if the officer was in the right, why did HE get suspended?

reply to post by YapTalk


Sorry, misread the prior calls as happening the same day.

Internal Affairs didn't fire him. He got paid leave, which is common when officers are determined to be psychologically compromised. I still see that with all these priors, Mr. Merchant will continue to be a problem for that community.

The sheer amount of anger from these officers is simply unacceptable,
they are allowing emotions to rule over law and not even paying the
proper price for it......

This whole anger guided cop thing has got to stop, it will only ever
lead to much worse abuse of authority......

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by YapTalk

 

Sorry, misread the prior calls as happening the same day.

Internal Affairs didn't fire him. He got paid leave, which is common when officers are determined to be psychologically compromised. I still see that with all these priors, Mr. Merchant will continue to be a problem for that community.

I agree with you that Mr. merchant is probably a drunk asswipe like every community has. I also agree with you that he will probably still be a problem for the community.

Now back to your hero

No where in the story does it says that he was fired, simply that he got 4 1/2 months paid vacation (suspension). You say "which is common when officers are determined to be psychologically compromised".

If the hero of this story is crazy, he does not deserve a 4.5 months vacation. He deserves to be baker acted himself!

Not to mention that he threatened to KILL Mr. Merchant and feed him to the alligators!

reply to post by YapTalk


Did you watch the video though? He wasn't exactly screaming so much as he was giving a stern talking-to. I've raised my voice louder than that and would hardly call it "screaming". He just said some harsh stuff to get it through to this whackjob Merchant that he's tired of responding to calls involving him.

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by YapTalk

 

Did you watch the video though? He wasn't exactly screaming so much as he was giving a stern talking-to. I've raised my voice louder than that and would hardly call it "screaming". He just said some harsh stuff to get it through to this whackjob Merchant that he's tired of responding to calls involving him.

Yet the officer was suspended. Not to mention that he as "a couple of pages" of charges according to internal affairs.

A couple of pages of CHARGES.

Now, do you think that if he didn't have a badge he would not have been charged criminally for those couple of pages of charges?

I think we should be more scared of this officer than the town drunk.

So, how did it ever get started that police get to investigate themselves? Seems like a great deal. I think everyone ought to be able to do that. "Well, Tom, was I speeding?" "No, Tom, we weren't" "Ok, officer, sorry, but my investigation reveals no wrongdoing, fark off"

Wouldn't that be nice?

Can you say "conflict of interest"? And a massive, blatant one at that.

How about...the DOJ does all the police investigations instead, and subsumes all the IA departments. And the investigators are given an incentive to find the cops guilty, sort of on a bonus system. So many convictions, a trip to Hawaii. THAT would be real nice too.

reply to post by DaTroof


Excuse me if I am wrong but, I was under the impression that it was or it is their job to respond to ANY calls that they get. Whether or not he likes it. Its kinda like a fast food server saying "here is your food, if you ever come back here for another hamburger, I will shove this apple pie in your face till you suffocate". Why should they be so pissed off?

reply to post by YapTalk

A couple of pages of charges? Never criminally charged for his crimes? What in the world is going on?

Exactly what criminal charges would you have placed against the officer?

In his 22-year career with BSO, Dubinski has been investigated 20 times and received eight disciplinary actions, including counseling and a written reprimand. He was accused of being absent from work without leave, of being disrespectful to residents and improperly searching a prisoner.

It says he has been investigated 20 times. Everytime someone lodges a complaint against an officer, the officer is investigated. Being investigated does not neccessarily mean the officer was guilty of misconduct.

Just as you are afforded a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, so are police officers.

The officer was charged with being absent from work without leave, disrespectful to residents and improperly seraching a prisoner. There are no criminal charges that apply to these infractions.

Then again, if you and I become "harsh" with an officer to get our "point" across we would get a slew of charges!

Not necessarily. You have the right to say anything you like to a police officer without being charged with a crime. It is freedom of speech.

The officer also had the right to say whatever he liked to the citizen. Where the officer went wrong is what he said was unprofessional and against departmental policy to be so discourteous to a member of the public.

Unprofessional and conduct unbecoming an officer? Yes.

Criminal? That is a little far fetched.

reply to post by snarky412

Damn, that just about covers his vacations for the next 4 yrs. I would think.........3 1/2 mos. off with pay.
Wow is all I can say about this.....just crazy insane WOW

Officers who are suspended with pay are not "on vacation."

The term suspended refers to the suspension of his/her police powers i.e. powers of arrest.

The officer was not sitting at home eating cheetos. The officer is placed on administrative duty pending the finding of the investigation. The officer still has to come to work.

reply to post by YapTalk
Interesting, though I suppose I can't comment on this with a clear conscience. I too have threatened to beat the piss out of various people and feed them to the alligators- which kind of makes my opinion biased.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by snarky412

 

Damn, that just about covers his vacations for the next 4 yrs. I would think.........3 1/2 mos. off with pay.
Wow is all I can say about this.....just crazy insane WOW

Officers who are suspended with pay are not "on vacation."

The term suspended refers to the suspension of his/her police powers i.e. powers of arrest.

The officer was not sitting at home eating cheetos. The officer is placed on administrative duty pending the finding of the investigation. The officer still has to come to work.

That would be a negative. Suspended means suspended, not desk duty.

reply to post by YapTalk

The problem with all this law enforcement craziness that is going on is that the cops have a "law enforcement bill of rights".

This is a set of "rights" that they hide behind which is also enforced unlike "our" bill of rights. Their LEO bill of rights is actually enforced behind closed doors.

You are grossly misinformed about the Law Enforcement Officer's Bill of Rights.

The LEOBR does not afford police officers any special rights or considerations. Police officers do not "hide" behind the LEOBR nor is it "enforced" behind closed doors.

The LEOBR simply takes the rights that everyone is afforded under the constitution and interperates them as they pertain to Law Enforcement. It ensures police officers are afforded the exact same rights as everyone else.

For example, because a Law Enforcement Organization is a "Paramilitary" organization, police officers can be ordered by supervisors to provide testimony on incidents they are involved in. Occasionally, as a result of police action, police officers are accused of departmental misconduct or even charged with a crime.

A supervisor ordering a police officer to talk about an incident, for which said officer was criminally charged, is a clear violation of the 5th amendment, the protection against self incrimination.

You are afforded your protection against self incrimination because no one can "order" or force you to testify and incriminate yourself. The LEOBR simply specifies a police officers same protections under the constitution.

I had a copy of it at one time and for the life of me I cannot remember what I did with it. A family member is a county sheriff which is how I came across this document.

Convenietly, I found the LEOBR online after searching for it for about 3 seconds.

Now, think about this....

A special bill of rights for them which is actually enforced behind closed doors and a bill of rights which is listed in the US Constitution that gets laughed out of court.

That my friend, is scary as hell.

Again, you are grossly misinformed about the LEOBR.

It does not grant police officers ANY special rights or privileges. It simply ensures police officers are afforded the same rights as everyone else.

reply to post by YapTalk

What it does say is that this officer CLAIMS to have dealt with this guy before.

Based on the officer's reaction, I am sure the guy is a real pain in the side.

The guy is probably as equally annoying to his neighbors as he is to the police officer. His neighbors probably called the police on him in the first place.

So after dealing with the same idiot time after time, the officer probably, understandably, lost his temper.

AND, if the guy was committing a crime, he surely would have been arrested by your LEO hero. Dontcha think?

Maybe, maybe not. The officer may have decided he would try yelling at the guy before arresting him and wasting several hours dealing with that.

PLUS, if the officer was in the right, why did HE get suspended?

The officer was not right. Actually he went a little over-board. The department recognized that and suspended his police powers for the duration of the investigation or as punishment.

reply to post by DaTroof

He got paid leave, which is common when officers are determined to be psychologically compromised.

The suspension of a police officer does not mean they were "psychologically compromised."

The suspension is a result of the nature of the charges, or as punishment.

I still see that with all these priors, Mr. Merchant will continue to be a problem for that community.

You are probably 100% right about that.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by YapTalk

 

The problem with all this law enforcement craziness that is going on is that the cops have a "law enforcement bill of rights".

This is a set of "rights" that they hide behind which is also enforced unlike "our" bill of rights. Their LEO bill of rights is actually enforced behind closed doors.

You are grossly misinformed about the Law Enforcement Officer's Bill of Rights.

The LEOBR does not afford police officers any special rights or considerations. Police officers do not "hide" behind the LEOBR nor is it "enforced" behind closed doors.

The LEOBR simply takes the rights that everyone is afforded under the constitution and interperates them as they pertain to Law Enforcement. It ensures police officers are afforded the exact same rights as everyone else.

For example, because a Law Enforcement Organization is a "Paramilitary" organization, police officers can be ordered by supervisors to provide testimony on incidents they are involved in. Occasionally, as a result of police action, police officers are accused of departmental misconduct or even charged with a crime.

A supervisor ordering a police officer to talk about an incident, for which said officer was criminally charged, is a clear violation of the 5th amendment, the protection against self incrimination.

You are afforded your protection against self incrimination because no one can "order" or force you to testify and incriminate yourself. The LEOBR simply specifies a police officers same protections under the constitution.

I had a copy of it at one time and for the life of me I cannot remember what I did with it. A family member is a county sheriff which is how I came across this document.

Convenietly, I found the LEOBR online after searching for it for about 3 seconds.

Now, think about this....

A special bill of rights for them which is actually enforced behind closed doors and a bill of rights which is listed in the US Constitution that gets laughed out of court.

That my friend, is scary as hell.

Again, you are grossly misinformed about the LEOBR.

It does not grant police officers ANY special rights or privileges. It simply ensures police officers are afforded the same rights as everyone else.

Why would law enforcement even need a seperate Bill of Rights? They are American, right?