New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,672 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
740 Posts
Appeal my ass, he deserves to have lost his job. That cop doesnt deserve to be wearing a badge, you cant go around telling people youll execute them or put "lumps" on them. Way out of line. The guy should have charges pressed for the threats, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,238 Posts
I know cops go through a lot of schit on the streets but this guy has some obvious anger management issues. If he gets mad and looses his objectiveness so easily in what it looks a routine situation, then imagine in a complex situation.
I am not sure what a counsel would say but I think the driver couldd sue him and the state. Maybe this will help to get some traction to to get that BS arbitrary law changed.

as soon as you get pulled over you need to start screaming out loud " I HAVE A CCW PERMIT!!!" ... lol!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,535 Posts
Based upon media reports and other accounts I've heard, I agree that he probably shouldn't be a cop. However, he deserves due process just as everyone else does.

If a firefighter in a union shop gets canned for being a jackwagon, he usually has the right to appeal. If a teacher in a union shop gets canned for being an idiot, they too usually have the right to appeal.

The department signed an agreement with the union that determines how these things are handled. The fact that his own union speaks volumes. At this point, it's really only a matter of formality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,238 Posts
I agree with you. Everyone has rights. Also the driver has the right to sue him. He threatened him with "execution" words from his position as representative of the law. I think he was beyond stupid comments, threatening anyone like that. That's what the gestapo used to do, I think we can do way better than that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,952 Posts
The appeal won't get him anywhere, it will just prolong the whole process. Even private corporations (non-unionized) have an appeal process, but there is usually a set of criteria used to determine whether or not an appeal can proceed. I agree that additional charges should have been pressed on the LEO from Canton, he crossed a number of legal boundaries as shown in that video.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,766 Posts
However, he deserves due process just as everyone else does.
Indeed he does. He deserves due process... to account for the crimes he committed.

He's not getting it though, as no charges were filed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,535 Posts
Indeed he does. He deserves due process... to account for the crimes he committed.

He's not getting it though, as no charges were filed.
because the "victim" never filed the charges. Ohio doesn't allow a police officer to file misdemeanor charges unless the event was witnessed by said police officer. Since the police officer in question and his partner were a party to the incident, the "victim" is the only person left.

And since he was "having a roadside conversation" with a known prostitute and a known drug dealer, that's probably a can of worms he didn't want to open.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,238 Posts
Ohio doesn't allow a police officer to file misdemeanor charges unless the event was witnessed by said police officer
?????

The events were witnessed half way around the world already. ... you tube alone says: 887,206

The Equal Justice Foundation believes:
• Citizens should not be torn from their homes and children in the middle of the night based on nothing more than hearsay.
• Men and women should not be presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.
• A secret tribunal should not have the power to force a man from his home without notice or hearing.
• Police should not have the right to enter and search a citizen's home without a warrant.
• Citizens should not be imprisoned based only on hearsay.
• Citizens should not be more afraid of the police than they are of criminals.
• A legal system that tolerates perjury and the subornation of perjury can not produce justice.
• Men should not be censured by public officials for crimes they have not committed.
• Men and women should not be made to work as indentured servants or held in thrall to others for acts they have not committed.

We should remind any servants of the law about joining a pledge and to remind any others of the oath they took.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,535 Posts
?????

The events were witnessed half way around the world already. ... you tube alone says: 887,206
And if the "victim" were to file a misdemeanor complaint, the YouTube video probably would have helped him be victorious in court.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,238 Posts
And if the "victim" were to file a misdemeanor complaint, the YouTube video probably would have helped him be victorious in court.
I know cops go though a lot of schit with all the thugs, crackheads and criminals roaming around but in this case I have to say the cop clearly abused his position. The driver didn't look that brigth to be honest but he kept his cool during the entire deal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,535 Posts
I know cops go though a lot of **** but in this one I have to say the cop abused his position. The guy didn't look that brigth to be honest but he kept his cool during the entire deal.
I won't for a second dispute that the cop was out of line. Nor will I dispute that he MAY have committed a criminal offense. Nor will I dispute that he probably doesn't have the proper demeanor for the job. I don't know Ohio's laws well, and I don't know what was going on in the guy's head.

But in order for him to face criminal charges, the victim in the case would have had to initiate the process. For whatever reason, he failed to do so. To blame the police for not holding the police accountable is completely incorrect in this case. It was clearly the citizen's obligation to hold the police accountable.

And since the satute of limitations has expired, it's a moot point anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,238 Posts
The victim probably doesn't know what the statute of limitations is, his basic rights as a citizen or the difference between misdemeanor and misbehavior for that matter. He didn't look that bright to me but maybe is one of those that just say 'oh I just do not one any trouble' and let others piss all over the constitution.
I agree with you. Case closed!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,445 Posts
If this was a "he said / she said" type of thing, sure - give the ex-officer his day in court. But given the audio/video evidence from the dash cam recording system - it's not looking good for the officer. I have the utmost respect for cops, but guys like this have no business "protecting and serving" the public. Respect is a two-way street, and unfortunately for law enforcement, they have to give respect first if they want to get respect back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,766 Posts
because the "victim" never filed the charges. Ohio doesn't allow a police officer to file misdemeanor charges unless the event was witnessed by said police officer. Since the police officer in question and his partner were a party to the incident, the "victim" is the only person left.
This is what Canton wants you to think.

Per Ohio law, police officers cannot file misdemeanor charges unless they personally observed the incident. There are many exceptions to this, the biggest exception being "Offenses of Violence as defined in 2901.01 of the Ohio Revised Code."

2901.01 General provisions definitions.

(9) "Offense of violence" means any of the following: (a) A violation of section 2903.01, 2903.02, 2903.03, 2903.04, 2903.11, 2903.12, 2903.13, 2903.15, 2903.21, 2903.211, 2903.22, 2905.01, 2905.02, 2905.11, 2905.32, 2907.02, 2907.03, 2907.05, 2909.02, 2909.03, 2909.24, 2911.01, 2911.02, 2911.11, 2917.01, 2917.02, 2917.03, 2917.31, 2919.25, 2921.03, 2921.04, 2921.34, or 2923.161, of division (A)(1), (2), or (3) of section 2911.12, or of division (B)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of section 2919.22 of the Revised Code or felonious sexual penetration in violation of former section 2907.12 of the Revised Code;
2903.21 Aggravated menacing.
(A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person's unborn, or a member of the other person's immediate family.
And since the statute of limitations has expired, it's a moot point anyway.
The incident occurred on June 8th, 2011. Statute of limitations has not expired.

2903.21 Aggravated menacing.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated menacing. Except as otherwise provided in this division, aggravated menacing is a misdemeanor of the first degree.
2901.13 Statute of limitations for criminal offenses.
(A)(1) Except as provided in division (A)(2) or (3) of this section or as otherwise provided in this section, a prosecution shall be barred unless it is commenced within the following periods after an offense is committed:

(a) For a felony, six years;

(b) For a misdemeanor other than a minor misdemeanor, two years;

(c) For a minor misdemeanor, six months.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,535 Posts
You know what, OTR? You're right. You're always right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,766 Posts
You know what, OTR? You're right. You're always right.
I'm sorry that you feel the need to take this personally - my response was neither insulting or condescending.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
283 Posts
i didnt find your post insulting at all, I think it may have been right so in return some others were wrong and dont seem to like it.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top