Recommended Posts

 

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Only to realize later that you made the wrong call...

 
If you have made such a mistake..


You seem to be giving ample latitude to the officer’s actions based on the thought process that he simply made a mistake. An error in judgment shouldn’t warrant harsh action in your opinion. I would agree with you in this thought process. 
 

My understanding, however, is that the department admitted that there was overreach. I interpret that as meaning he did not act appropriately given the situation. In other words, he didn’t do what he should have done. He didn’t follow protocol. He broke the rules. 
 

There needs to be a stiff recourse of action towards people in authority who abuse that authority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Making the bigger point about those "following orders."
 

You used a straw man argument though. The idea that everyone just 'knows' the order is wrong.. is nice in theory.. but the reality tends to be less clear on what is really known when.   Generally speaking we want cops and soldiers to protect us from the bad guys...  Sadly the bad guy the bad guys do not wear black capes, handle bar mustaches, and monologue their criminal plans at the drop of the hat.

That means the soldiers need to sometimes act on orders without knowing all the facts and the cops need to investigate (their form of action). All evidence points to the cops investigating (and controlling the situation while they did).  Their investigation cleared the man.  The fact that the clearing came from the leadership clarification shows that it was not clear to the cops before.

Now you can say it should have been clear to the cops before... I will not argue with that point... All I will say such confusion points to leadership failure.  And you can say that such marital law type tactic that many places are imposing are wrong..  I will not disagree with that either.. Sadly as the body count starts to rise such positions become the minority.

14 minutes ago, Colirio said:

 


You seem to be giving ample latitude to the officer’s actions based on the thought process that he simply made a mistake. An error in judgment shouldn’t warrant harsh action in your opinion. I would agree with you in this thought process. 
 

My understanding, however, is that the department admitted that there was overreach. I interpret that as meaning he did not act appropriately given the situation. In other words, he didn’t do what he should have done. He didn’t follow protocol. He broke the rules. 
 

There needs to be a stiff recourse of action towards people in authority who abuse that authority. 

Fair enough. I am going by the mantra of "Innocent until Proven Guilty".  Which means that we should not be howling for his blood based on what we 'think' we know.

Now when the department investigates and they have the facts and proof.  If "overreach" is code for "abused his authority" then the department and whatever oversight organization exist should deal with it as such.  If however "overreach" is code for "made a mistake" then the department and whatever oversight organization exist should deal with it as such. (And yes big mistakes can still get you fired or more).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Fair enough. I am going by the mantra of "Innocent until Proven Guilty".  Which means that we should not be howling for his blood based on what we 'think' we know.

Now when the department investigates and they have the facts and proof. 

 

Howling for his blood? You referred to it as a lynching earlier. Vort referred to it as crucifixion.  🤨 

Adopting the dramatic, liberal ways are we? 


 

Moving on... 


“”While the investigation sorts through the different versions of what took place by witnesses who were at the park, it is evident there was an overreach by our police officers,” the police department said.”

This isn’t what we ‘think’ we know. This is what the police department publicly stated. 


‘Innocent until proven guilty’ applies to the legal system, not my personal judgment of a man’s character. 
 

“Mooney said he refused to provide his identification when officers asked for it because he had not broken any law.

"Well, they didn't like that idea. They then proceeded to make a threat against me saying, 'If you don't give us your identification, if you don't identify yourself, we're going to put you in handcuffs in front of your 6-year-old daughter.'"

Mooney said officers handcuffed him and placed him in a patrol car for about 10 to 15 minutes while they phoned a supervisor for guidance.”

 

What happened to Mooney’s opportunity to be innocent until proven guilty? This is the very issue for which I take exception. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can be briefly detained by police if they have reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

Those of you throwing around "innocent until proven guilty" have a flawed understanding of the justice system.  Your presumption of innocence is applied in the courts and the prosecutor must provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty.

You can say what you want about the incident, but at least know your correct terminology and understand the difference between detention, arrest, reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

You can be briefly detained by police if they have reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

Those of you throwing around "innocent until proven guilty" have a flawed understanding of the justice system.  Your presumption of innocence is applied in the courts and the prosecutor must provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty.

You can say what you want about the incident, but at least know your correct terminology and understand the difference between detention, arrest, reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

 

Spot on.  The issue lies with "reasonable suspicion you committed a crime".  There was no reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed.  The detention appears to be due to the officer's inadequate understanding of the law.  This should NEVER be the case.  The error should always be on the side of individual liberty.  Particularly in cases such as this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Colirio said:

This isn’t what we ‘think’ we know. This is what the police department publicly stated. 

 

Your interpretation of their statement is what you think you know.  I have provided alternative interpretations.

As for the victim being Innocent until Proven Guilty he absolutely is.   But that Proven Guilty part has to be allowed to happen too.  And police are the ones given power to start that process.

This means the police have been granted power related to that investigative process.  Now anyone who pays attention to the scriptures know that people are weak, flawed, prone to error and sin.  And this investigating power is put into flawed human hands. It is inevitable that mistakes, errors and even abuse of this power will happen.  We don't have to like it and we should not like it but until we can change human nature we are stuck with it.  So the question becomes how to we correct it?  This is an example of one of the quickest corrections I have seen.

This is not an example of systemic failure of our law enforcement system. This is a example of our system working as designed to self correct when the expected errors, mistakes and abuses happen.

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

This is not an example of systemic failure of our law enforcement system. This is a example of our system working as designed to self correct when the expected errors, mistakes and abuses happen.

It's absolutely an example of our law enforcement system.  There are some things that are just facts:

1.  The citizen was deprived of liberty.

2.  The citizen was in no way violating the law.

Those two things should never exist together.  What if the citizen had fought his kidnapper?  What if bodily injury had resulted?  The citizen was in the right this time.  The only reason this didn't escalate was because the citizen allowed his rights to be violated under threat of violence.

You may think that is OK, although I don't, but it doesn't change it from being fact.

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As my wife said to me, no one is allowed to be hangry today.
Peace, love and fluffy bunnies.

We love our police officers where we live, they are wonderful individuals who more often than not work extremely hard in a thankless job.
While I'm not in Utah, thank you  @mirkwood

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Spot on.  The issue lies with "reasonable suspicion you committed a crime".  There was no reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed.  The detention appears to be due to the officer's inadequate understanding of the law.  This should NEVER be the case.  The error should always be on the side of individual liberty. 

Oh, with the court system, we've decided err on the side of caution, and let a murderer go free rather than an innocent person go to prison.  When it comes to briefly detaining someone, the cops get to err on the side of "let's hold on to this guy a second while we investigate".

"Inadequate understanding of the law" - important thing to think about.  Do you believe it's possible for any single human to completely understand the entire relevant legal code that we US humans have legislated into existence over centuries?  If so, you may find it enlightening to browse through the legal code in your state, then your county, then your city.  Think for a moment about what it would take to train a human to be well-versed in it, and how it pertains to police work.   Cops aren't lawyers, and even lawyers need to often do research before they can correctly apply the law, only to be found on appeal they missed or misinterpreted something.

Yes, it's very important that cops have an adequate understanding of the law.  And when they don't, which appears to be the case here, it's important to remedy the situation.

Grunt wants to arrest the cop and try him.  I'm ok with an internal investigation and appropriate action, which probably means training, possibly for the entire unit. 

And training is something that needs to happen whenever something changes, like a city council, a county commissioner, or a governor all start passing resolutions and executive orders that change what people can do in parks because of Covid.   What's even more fun, is when the city/county/governor all pass conflicting and contradictory resolutions.  

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oh, with the court system, we've decided err on the side of caution, and let a murderer go free rather than an innocent person go to prison.  When it comes to briefly detaining someone, the cops get to err on the side of "let's hold on to this guy a second while we investigate".

Sure.  If they are suspected of committing a crime.  In THIS case there wasn't even a crime committed to suspect someone of.  You can't randomly detain people and go fishing.  

Quote

"Inadequate understanding of the law" - important thing to think about.  Do you believe it's possible for any single human to completely understand the entire relevant legal code that we US humans have legislated into existence over centuries?  If so, you may find it enlightening to browse through the legal code in your state, then your county, then your city.  Think for a moment about what it would take to train a human to be well-versed in it, and how it pertains to police work.   Cops aren't lawyers, and even lawyers need to often do research before they can correctly apply the law, only to be found on appeal they missed or misinterpreted something.

I don't believe it's possible.  I also don't believe you randomly start depriving people of liberty to research the law.   If you know, then do it.  If you don't, keep walking.  PARTICULARLY when the suspected crime was playing catch with your daughter.

Quote

 

Yes, it's very important that cops have an adequate understanding of the law.  And when they don't, which appears to be the case here, it's important to remedy the situation.

Grunt wants to arrest the cop and try him.  I'm ok with an internal investigation and appropriate action, which probably means training, possibly for the entire unit. 

And training is something that needs to happen whenever something changes, like a city council, a county commissioner, or a governor all start passing resolutions and executive orders that change what people can do in parks because of Covid.   What's even more fun, is when the city/county/governor all pass conflicting and contradictory resolutions.  

 

Yep.  Because of you can't do your job without violating my civil liberties then you aren't qualified to do your job, period.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Grunt said:

You may think that is OK, although I don't, but it doesn't change it from being fact.

I am so tired you deliberately lying, distorting, and twisting my words to to fit your hobby horse.  I have never said it was OK ever.. ever... ever...  If you truly believe that is what i said then quote it. Otherwise apologize.. because I see no reason to try to discuss things with someone that behaving in such a fundamentally dishonest manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I am so tired you deliberately lying, distorting, and twisting my words to to fit your hobby horse.  I have never said it was OK ever.. ever... ever...  If you truly believe that is what i said then quote it. Otherwise apologize.. because I see no reason to try to discuss things with someone that behaving in such a fundamentally dishonest manner.

Be tired all you'd like.  You should be more tired of misrepresenting what I said.  I was quite clear, and your inability to understand, or intentionally misrepresenting it, doesn't make it OK to call me a liar.  Odd to see a staff member here do that.  The escalation is unnecessary and uncalled for.  It's insulting.

I very clearly, and intentionally, said you MAY think that is OK.  I can't pretend to know what you think.  AND I DID quote where I believe you said that.  Here, I'll do it again.

 

Quote

This is not an example of systemic failure of our law enforcement system. This is a example of our system working as designed to self correct when the expected errors, mistakes and abuses happen.

You very plainly said that you believe this is how the system should work.  The carried implication is that you think these "small" transgressions are acceptable provided they are investigated and the officer trained.  

Again, I very plainly said you MAY think that is OK.  You certainly seem to suggest it is.  I also very plainly stated I disagree with you.  I don't think that is OK.  

So it is YOU who is either deliberately misrepresenting what I plainly typed or are having trouble understanding what is written,  I don't believe you to be an ignorant person, so I'm leaning towards dishonest.  

I'll wait for that apology you mentioned, or hope that you hold fast to leaving the conversation.

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oh, with the court system, we've decided err on the side of caution, and let a murderer go free rather than an innocent person go to prison.  When it comes to briefly detaining someone, the cops get to err on the side of "let's hold on to this guy a second while we investigate".

"Inadequate understanding of the law" - important thing to think about.  Do you believe it's possible for any single human to completely understand the entire relevant legal code that we US humans have legislated into existence over centuries?  If so, you may find it enlightening to browse through the legal code in your state, then your county, then your city.  Think for a moment about what it would take to train a human to be well-versed in it, and how it pertains to police work.   Cops aren't lawyers, and even lawyers need to often do research before they can correctly apply the law, only to be found on appeal they missed or misinterpreted something.

Yes, it's very important that cops have an adequate understanding of the law.  And when they don't, which appears to be the case here, it's important to remedy the situation.

Grunt wants to arrest the cop and try him.  I'm ok with an internal investigation and appropriate action, which probably means training, possibly for the entire unit. 

And training is something that needs to happen whenever something changes, like a city council, a county commissioner, or a governor all start passing resolutions and executive orders that change what people can do in parks because of Covid.   What's even more fun, is when the city/county/governor all pass conflicting and contradictory resolutions.  

They've changed our Covid health rules three times in the last 2-3 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I am so tired you deliberately lying, distorting, and twisting my words to to fit your hobby horse.  I have never said it was OK ever.. ever... ever...  If you truly believe that is what i said then quote it. Otherwise apologize.. because I see no reason to try to discuss things with someone that behaving in such a fundamentally dishonest manner.

 

11 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Which means that we should not be howling for his blood based on what we 'think' we know.


Apology pre-accepted. 🙂 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Grunt said:
43 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oh, with the court system, we've decided err on the side of caution, and let a murderer go free rather than an innocent person go to prison.  When it comes to briefly detaining someone, the cops get to err on the side of "let's hold on to this guy a second while we investigate".

Sure.  If they are suspected of committing a crime.  In THIS case there wasn't even a crime committed to suspect someone of.  You can't randomly detain people and go fishing.  

Correct - you can't randomly detain people and go fishing.  And (I'm open to correction here), cops can't usually arrest someone for a misdemeanor.  Aaaaand, it sounds like there wasn't even a misdemeanor here, just a misunderstanding by the cop about what was legal and what wasn't. 

So yes, cop shouldn't have.  And cop did, and that's not good.  We're just arguing about the kind of bad it was.   Was dood ever arrested, or just detained and then released without citation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

Correct - you can't randomly detain people and go fishing.  And (I'm open to correction here), cops can't usually arrest someone for a misdemeanor.  Aaaaand, it sounds like there wasn't even a misdemeanor here, just a misunderstanding by the cop about what was legal and what wasn't. 

So yes, cop shouldn't have.  And cop did, and that's not good.  We're just arguing about the kind of bad it was.   Was dood ever arrested, or just detained and then released without citation?

Just detained.  To be fair, I believe he was detained because he refused to identify himself.  I read that in one report, and if true that would give the police reason to detain.  
 

This goes to my earlier point of escalation based on a false belief on behalf of the officer.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Colirio said:

 


Apology pre-accepted. 🙂 

 

When one demands justice without due process it is known as vigilantism. (Which howling for blood is).

A cop has special powers as part of a due process investigation. Thus is not a vigilante when performing his or her duties.

A cop accused of violating the trust place in them is a horrible thing, but they are also entitled to due process and not being subject to vigilantism.

The claims made in the news articles and video is not due process.  In as much as they represent facts they are evidence, which is gathered as a part of due process.

Now the department investigation is due process and their findings are not vigilantism.

Now you have taken the departments statement as a result of due process.  If this is true (which it possibly is) then you need to accept the full statement and not just cherry pick what you want to hear.  Yes the statement called it "overreach" which you selectively take out and call for the punishment of the officer.  You selectively ignore the corrective actions included in the statement which would be part of the due process finding (assuming it is a due process report).  The statement does not list any punishment of the officer but rather corrective actions of for the department.

When you are selectively ignoring the facts that do not fit and taking other facts and twisting them out of context to support your prerendered conclusion, that is not due process that is vigilantism and the label fits.

It is also possible that the department statement is not a due process statement but a PR piece in which case its not really relevant at all. 

And then there is the possibility of the families lawsuit which would trigger yet another investigative look.. This one being independent of the department and that would also fit as being due process.

The simple fact is that the consequence of the officers actions are probably not fully played out yet.  The fact that is it still playing out is a positive sign that our system is working flaws and all.  One being happy that they system is working, does not equate to one being happy at the event that required the system to work in the first place.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand, some jurisdictions have "stop and identify" laws, where law enforcement does not need a reason to demand ID, and refusing is breaking the law.  In other jurisdictions, they need reasonable suspicion that a crime/misdemeanor has been committed, is in the process of being committed, or is about to be committed, before they can demand ID.  Of course, asking is free, but absent a crime, there's no law saying someone must identify if they don't want to.

I have no clue about colorado state law, or the law in that town, or which one trumps the other.

The copblock/copwatcher jerks get lots of kicks out of looking suspicious, and then refusing to identify.  "What's your reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime is afoot? "Looks suspicious" - is that a misdemeanor or a felony?" they sneer out, wearing their punisher mask and standing on a public street open carrying their rifle.  If they get lucky, a cop arrests them, then they can pursue legal remedy.  It's how some of them stay funded.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

The copblock/copwatcher jerks get lots of kicks out of looking suspicious, and then refusing to identify.  "What's your reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime is afoot? "Looks suspicious" - is that a misdemeanor or a felony?" they sneer out, wearing their punisher mask and standing on a public street open carrying their rifle.  If they get lucky, a cop arrests them, then they can pursue legal remedy.  It's how some of them stay funded.

I fully support their fight against tyranny.   What I see here is people willing to sacrifice liberty.  
 

I'm not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Grunt said:

 What I see here is people willing to sacrifice liberty.  

I missed half a dozen posts, but who do you see here willing to sacrifice liberty?

From what I can tell, my disagreement with you is over punishment for the cop, and nothing else.  You want him arrested and tried, I'm ok with whatever the internal investigation decides is appropriate.

Is there anyone here saying "the cop did nothing wrong"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I missed half a dozen posts, but who do you see here willing to sacrifice liberty?

From what I can tell, my disagreement with you is over punishment for the cop, and nothing else.  You want him arrested and tried, I'm ok with whatever the internal investigation decides is appropriate.

Is there anyone here saying "the cop did nothing wrong"?

Indeed.  I see no one willing to sacrifice liberty.

I do see many who value it so much that we are happy that it is being protected at a systematic level.

In this case someone liberty was violated and the system stepped in and corrected.  And it corrected it so quickly for the individual that we didn't even know we need to break our our V for vendetta masks or Punisher gear, before he was freed.

Realistically the only way it could go better, would be to change human nature... And we as a church are working on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I missed half a dozen posts, but who do you see here willing to sacrifice liberty?

From what I can tell, my disagreement with you is over punishment for the cop, and nothing else.  You want him arrested and tried, I'm ok with whatever the internal investigation decides is appropriate.

Is there anyone here saying "the cop did nothing wrong"?

It's splitting hairs, really. Perhaps I'm making assumptions based on what I perceive to be your position.  Let me ask a few clarifying questions:

If it is determined that the police violated that persons civil liberty and detained him without cause, what do you think should happen to the officer?

What do you think should be the status of the officer while the investigation is ongoing?

If the citizen told the officer to pound sand and walked away from him and was injured in the detention, does that change your answer to either question above?

If based on the last question he was also charged with assaulting a police officer while defending his detention, should that charge stand?

What if he were killed resisting the detention?

What if you were walking across my lawn and I handcuffed you, put you in my car, then drove you off my property?  What would you expect to happen to me?  What if I falsely believed I had that authority because you were on my property?

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

 

When one demands justice without due process it is known as vigilantism. (Which howling for blood is).

A cop has special powers as part of a due process investigation. Thus is not a vigilante when performing his or her duties.

A cop accused of violating the trust place in them is a horrible thing, but they are also entitled to due process and not being subject to vigilantism.

The claims made in the news articles and video is not due process.  In as much as they represent facts they are evidence, which is gathered as a part of due process.

Now the department investigation is due process and their findings are not vigilantism.

Now you have taken the departments statement as a result of due process.  If this is true (which it possibly is) then you need to accept the full statement and not just cherry pick what you want to hear.  Yes the statement called it "overreach" which you selectively take out and call for the punishment of the officer.  You selectively ignore the corrective actions included in the statement which would be part of the due process finding (assuming it is a due process report).  The statement does not list any punishment of the officer but rather corrective actions of for the department.

When you are selectively ignoring the facts that do not fit and taking other facts and twisting them out of context to support your prerendered conclusion, that is not due process that is vigilantism and the label fits.

It is also possible that the department statement is not a due process statement but a PR piece in which case its not really relevant at all. 

And then there is the possibility of the families lawsuit which would trigger yet another investigative look.. This one being independent of the department and that would also fit as being due process.

The simple fact is that the consequence of the officers actions are probably not fully played out yet.  The fact that is it still playing out is a positive sign that our system is working flaws and all.  One being happy that they system is working, does not equate to one being happy at the event that required the system to work in the first place.

 

 

 


You misspelled “I-m s-o-r-r-y.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.