Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I would have to call the threat (especially "feeding him to the 'gators") as making a "terrorist threat" as written in the law. "F***ing Jail Time."




posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by YapTalk
 



Now back to your hero

I love how anytime someone tries to look at the totality of the circumstances, you immediately try to put the spotlight back on just the officer's actions.

If you want to look at any incident rationally, you have to take into consideration all circumstances, not just those that lend credibility to your opinion.


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

Again, it was not a "vacation" the officer still would have had to report to work.

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

So what, people threaten to kill police officers everyday without being charged with a crime.

Usually, people are already charged with a crime before threatening an officer's life.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by YapTalk
 



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.

The officer was suspended because it was clearly unprofessional and the department recognized that.

A "couple of pages" says nothing about the amount of DEPARTMENTAL CHARGES in the officer's past.

I think the actual number was 20. In a 22 year career, that is less than one a year.

That also says nothing to if the officer was GUILTY of the alleged misconduct. It simply means that the officer was accused of some form of misconduct 20 times over his 22 year career.


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?

If he didnt have a badge, meaning if he wasnt employed by the department, he could not have been "charged" or accused of any of the misconduct that was listed.


He was accused of being absent from work without leave,...

How can someone be charged criminally for being absent from work?

of being disrespectful to residents...

There is no criminal charge for being disrespectful.

and improperly searching a prisoner.

And there is no criminal charge for improperly searching someone.


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

I think you are getting a little carried away.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



So, how did it ever get started that police get to investigate themselves?

Most investigations done by a department's internal affairs are departmental misconduct accusations.

Anything more serious, like brutality or a shooting, are overseen by the State's Attorney's office specifically to ensure the investigation is done properly.


How about...the DOJ does all the police investigations instead, and subsumes all the IA departments.

Like I said, State's Attorney's office. Plus, the DOJ does not have the manpower or resources to investigate EVERY complaint against a police officer. The DOJ is completely open to the public if they wish to make a complaint against a department. They will review the facts and initiate an investigation if it meets the criteria.


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.

Can you say ridiculous? Massively and blatantly ridiculous.

Providing incentive to find a certain person guilty is a big middle finger to an impartial and fair justice system.

It is extremely hypocritical to enjoy certain inalienable rights but demand they be denied to a certain segement of the population. Shameful.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by poloblack
 



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

That would be a negative. If he was suspended without pay, he would be sitting at home. He was suspended with pay meaning he would be assigned to menial administrative duties.

The suspended part refers to his police powers.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by poloblack
 



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

They are not seperate. It is merely a statement of the interpretation and application of constitutional rights as they apply to Law Enforcement Officers.

The listing and statement of this is merely refered to as "bill of rights."

It grants police officers no more rights then you have and it's essense is drawn directly from the constitution.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 



I would have to call the threat (especially "feeding him to the 'gators") as making a "terrorist threat" as written in the law. "F***ing Jail Time."

It happened in Florida.

Research the criminal law of Florida and show me the exact law where this type of threat is illegal.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   

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.


I meant that as a loose term, not literally, you know like sarcastic.....
It wasn't meant to be taken seriously as you seem to have done.
I was merely noting the time off with paid leave while being investigated.
Just trying to make a joke, not that I should have to explain myself.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by snarky412
 



I meant that as a loose term, not literally, you know like sarcastic.....
It wasn't meant to be taken seriously as you seem to have done.
I was merely noting the time off with paid leave while being investigated.
Just trying to make a joke, not that I should have to explain myself.


It appeared you though because the officer was suspended, he was on paid leave for the duration of the investigation.

When they refer to an officer as "suspended" it refers to the police powers of the officer. The officer is not on a paid vacation. If the officer is "suspended with pay," the officer still has to report to work and is placed on administrative duty.

This is a common misconception. Obviously, it would be bad policy to pay an officer, who is accused of misconduct, to sit at home and do nothing.

I apologize if the sarcasm did not translate through the internet. I am merely contributing to the conversation by making sure everyone is properly informed.

I mean no disrespect and welcome most viewpoints and debate.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 





I apologize if the sarcasm did not translate through the internet. I am merely contributing to the conversation by making sure everyone is properly informed. I mean no disrespect and welcome most viewpoints and debate.


It's quite alright......it's hard via a keyboard to express sarcasm some times unless one puts "sarcasm" at the end.
Now if we were standing around talking, you would definitely know by my expressions/tone how it was supposed to sound......funny/sarcastic.....exaggerated sigh here or there. he-he


I do appreciate your input, as I'm sure others do too, so that we may understand the procedures better.

Much respect~
snarky



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
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.
edit on 18-2-2013 by DaTroof because: (no reason given)


It`s not the officer`s job to scare the guy into not committing more crimes or to try to reform the guy by threatening him, it`s the courts job to try to reform the guy and punish the guy as they see fit.If the guy committed a crime then he should have been arrested, if he didn`t commit a crime then there was no need for the officer to stay there and threaten him with bodily harm and death.

Why are we spending so much tax money to train and pay the police if they are just going to act like the criminals they are arresting? we could go get a bunch of bums off the street corners, give them guns and badges and let them go out and act like thugs while arresting criminals,and we wouldn`t have to even train them or pay them half of what we pay the police.

The reason tax payers pay for the police to receive training is so that we don`t have a bunch of untrained vigilantes running around making threats of bodily harm and death to suspected criminals.
edit on 18-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join