Questions raised after off-duty Louisville cop pulls woman over in Radcliff - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Questions raised after off-duty Louisville cop pulls woman over in Radcliff (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 7/19/2008 10:45:07 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

he may have the right to make a citizen’s arrest.

from the stuff I have read a citizen's arrest are for felony crimes only, not misdemeanors. If this is true then unlawful detainment, lawsuit is in order

Depends on the state.

In CA, a private person has the right to make a privat eprson's arrest if it is a misdemeanor committed in their presence, or a felony not committed in their presence.

WRONG...they cannot arrest for a felony only be a witness. LE is the only ones who can arrest for a felony (CA).

This guy is a dumbass. Why didn't he just use his cell phone and call the local PD...common sense to me. I am not pulling anyone over while off duty. He is part of the problem not all of it but he cause some of this by pulling her over...illegally. He stopped her from continueing on her way by using vehilce to impead her passage(felony in CA).

Finally, why are you wearing your uniform home in your POV?

Posted: 7/19/2008 10:46:50 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Shooting somebody for cursing and yelling? Pathetic.

I dunno, I can see instances where I might. Someone advancing towards me, while screaming, cursing, and making threats? That might get you ventilated.

Saying it is pathetic is silly.

Do you draw down and shoot everybody you get into a bar brawl or argument with? ZThis, of curse, is a moot point if he has any type of weapon (bat, bottle,knife, gun, etc.)

strawmen arent attractive.

Thanks for trying though.

Posted: 7/19/2008 10:46:59 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

he may have the right to make a citizen’s arrest.

from the stuff I have read a citizen's arrest are for felony crimes only, not misdemeanors. If this is true then unlawful detainment, lawsuit is in order

Depends on the state.

In CA, a private person has the right to make a privat eprson's arrest if it is a misdemeanor committed in their presence, or a felony not committed in their presence.

WRONG...they cannot arrest for a felony only be a witness. LE is the only ones who can arrest for a felony (CA).

This guy is a dumbass. Why didn't he just use his cell phone and call the local PD...common sense to me. I am not pulling anyone over while off duty. He is part of the problem not all of it but he cause some of this by pulling her over...illegally. He stopped her from continueing on her way by using vehilce to impead her passage(felony in CA).

Finally, why are you wearing your uniform home in your POV?

Why should he have to get changed to drive home?

Posted: 7/19/2008 10:48:18 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Update

Off-duty officer's family releases statement about incident in Radcliff

04:41 PM EDT on Friday, July 18, 2008

Statement from the Officer's Family:

Ms. Bentley has misrepresented the events on the night of 7/13. It's our understanding that Ms. Bentley almost hit the officer head-on, in his lane, at the intersection of KY144 and S. Wilson road forcing the officer into an adjacent parking lot where he ran over a parking block, almost hit a parked vehicle and a building. He was not speeding, and the light was green. At least two other drivers witnessed the event and followed Ms. Bentley attempting to get her to stop because they believed she fled the scene of an accident. The officer was waved on by these witnesses to her location where he did flash his headlights, honked his horn and pulled along side, not cutting in front of her, to get her to stop. He believed his vehicle was damaged and wanted her information. An active duty soldier in a Ford truck arrived behind Ms. Bentley first, and he and the officer approached her. He admits that he was upset and was yelling but at no time did he tell her that she was going to jail or make any threats. Ms. Bentley said she felt intimidated, and she was calling 911 at which time the officer told her she could roll up her windows and lock her doors. He then moved his vehicle away from Ms. Bentley and waited for Radcliff Police Department to respond. He voluntarily gave Ms. Bentley his information and immediately contacted his command concerning the matter. The officer acted as any other citizen would have had they been run off the road facing another vehicle head-on, had he been in civilian attire Ms. Bentley would never have known he was an LMPD officer, and this would not be an issue.

WOW! Goes to show you how one should never make assumptions based on only one side of the story. The fact that the LEO claims he has witnesses attesting to his version makes it all the more interesting.

There you go I fixed your statement for accuracy.

Posted: 7/19/2008 10:49:13 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
If the off duty cop was innocent and not LYING in his response. They would have released the 911 tapes.

They did not. That speaks volumes.

First, 911 tapes do not miraculously appear immediately after the incident. They get released once the investigation is complete.

Second, did you read the update? There were witnesses to the incident, including a soldier who also stopped and approached the woman with the LEO.... They tell a completely different story...

One woman's version vs. that of an LEO, a soldier and several other witnesses....

Assuming the update is factual (yet to be determined) I'm leaning heavily on the side that that the woman was involved in a hit and run, tried to flee the scene and got caught...

Posted: 7/19/2008 10:50:55 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If the off duty cop was innocent and not LYING in his response. They would have released the 911 tapes.

They did not. That speaks volumes.

First, 911 tapes do not miraculously appear immediately after the incident. They get released once the investigation is complete.

Second, did you read the update? There were witnesses to the incident, including a soldier who also stopped and approached the woman with the LEO.... They tell a completely different story...

One woman's version vs. that of an LEO, a soldier and several other witnesses....

Assuming the update is factual (yet to be determined) I'm leaning heavily on the side that that the woman was involved in a hit and run, tried to flee the scene and got caught...

Do tapes become ineligable for freedom of information requests once an investigation begins?

Posted: 7/19/2008 10:51:59 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

he may have the right to make a citizen’s arrest.

from the stuff I have read a citizen's arrest are for felony crimes only, not misdemeanors. If this is true then unlawful detainment, lawsuit is in order

Depends on the state.

In CA, a private person has the right to make a privat eprson's arrest if it is a misdemeanor committed in their presence, or a felony not committed in their presence.

WRONG...they cannot arrest for a felony only be a witness. LE is the only ones who can arrest for a felony (CA).

This guy is a dumbass. Why didn't he just use his cell phone and call the local PD...common sense to me. I am not pulling anyone over while off duty. He is part of the problem not all of it but he cause some of this by pulling her over...illegally. He stopped her from continueing on her way by using vehilce to impead her passage(felony in CA).

Finally, why are you wearing your uniform home in your POV?

Why should he have to get changed to drive home?

Personal preference, but it does not seem too smart to me. When off duty act like an off duty cop not one who goes around and tries to be copman all the time. I at least took off my shirt and vest and went home in my pants boots and t-shirt.

Posted: 7/19/2008 10:53:20 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

he may have the right to make a citizen’s arrest.

from the stuff I have read a citizen's arrest are for felony crimes only, not misdemeanors. If this is true then unlawful detainment, lawsuit is in order

Depends on the state.

In CA, a private person has the right to make a privat eprson's arrest if it is a misdemeanor committed in their presence, or a felony not committed in their presence.

WRONG...they cannot arrest for a felony only be a witness. LE is the only ones who can arrest for a felony (CA).

This guy is a dumbass. Why didn't he just use his cell phone and call the local PD...common sense to me. I am not pulling anyone over while off duty. He is part of the problem not all of it but he cause some of this by pulling her over...illegally. He stopped her from continueing on her way by using vehilce to impead her passage(felony in CA).

Finally, why are you wearing your uniform home in your POV?

Why should he have to get changed to drive home?

Personal preference, but it does not seem too smart to me. When off duty act like an off duty cop not one who goes around and tries to be copman all the time. I at least took off my shirt and vest and went home in my pants boots and t-shirt.

There's a whole lot of things in this world to get worked up about. An officer wearing their uniform during the commute is not one of them for me.

Posted: 7/19/2008 10:54:16 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If the off duty cop was innocent and not LYING in his response. They would have released the 911 tapes.

They did not. That speaks volumes.

First, 911 tapes do not miraculously appear immediately after the incident. They get released once the investigation is complete.

Second, did you read the update? There were witnesses to the incident, including a soldier who also stopped and approached the woman with the LEO.... They tell a completely different story...

One woman's version vs. that of an LEO, a soldier and several other witnesses....

Assuming the update is factual (yet to be determined) I'm leaning heavily on the side that that the woman was involved in a hit and run, tried to flee the scene and got caught...

Do tapes become ineligable for freedom of information requests once an investigation begins?

No, but like the investigation itself a FOIA request takes time to get and process. Things don't happen overnight..

I'm looking forward to the witness statements. They'll tell the story..

Posted: 7/19/2008 10:57:57 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

he may have the right to make a citizen’s arrest.

from the stuff I have read a citizen's arrest are for felony crimes only, not misdemeanors. If this is true then unlawful detainment, lawsuit is in order

Depends on the state.

In CA, a private person has the right to make a privat eprson's arrest if it is a misdemeanor committed in their presence, or a felony not committed in their presence.

WRONG...they cannot arrest for a felony only be a witness. LE is the only ones who can arrest for a felony (CA).

This guy is a dumbass. Why didn't he just use his cell phone and call the local PD...common sense to me. I am not pulling anyone over while off duty. He is part of the problem not all of it but he cause some of this by pulling her over...illegally. He stopped her from continueing on her way by using vehilce to impead her passage(felony in CA).

Finally, why are you wearing your uniform home in your POV?

Why should he have to get changed to drive home?

Personal preference, but it does not seem too smart to me. When off duty act like an off duty cop not one who goes around and tries to be copman all the time. I at least took off my shirt and vest and went home in my pants boots and t-shirt.

There's a whole lot of things in this world to get worked up about. An officer wearing their uniform during the commute is not one of them for me.

Not really gettin worked up about it, just thinks it stupid. I had a friend who was driving to an interview and had his hanging in the back window. Two rounds struck his rear quarter panel while on the freeway in LA. If you choose to go ahead, that is what is great about choice. Personally I think it is stupid.

Posted: 7/19/2008 11:01:57 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If the off duty cop was innocent and not LYING in his response. They would have released the 911 tapes.

They did not. That speaks volumes.

First, 911 tapes do not miraculously appear immediately after the incident. They get released once the investigation is complete.

Second, did you read the update? There were witnesses to the incident, including a soldier who also stopped and approached the woman with the LEO.... They tell a completely different story...

One woman's version vs. that of an LEO, a soldier and several other witnesses....

Assuming the update is factual (yet to be determined) I'm leaning heavily on the side that that the woman was involved in a hit and run, tried to flee the scene and got caught...

Evidently, I read something different from you. There was no collision. Just the cop running over a curb. Hit and Run require a collision, or we inventing stuff here to back the buddy in blue.

I don't believe the update. The story didn't name the witnesses for one and it was just a quote from his family not any witnesses. That's "hearsay" 3rd hand knowledge at best. That's like me saying "My wife saw Elvis last week and it was witnessed by Dick Chenny". Dick Chenny is an irreruftable sorce ya know.

Posted: 7/19/2008 11:09:59 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If the off duty cop was innocent and not LYING in his response. They would have released the 911 tapes.

They did not. That speaks volumes.

First, 911 tapes do not miraculously appear immediately after the incident. They get released once the investigation is complete.

Second, did you read the update? There were witnesses to the incident, including a soldier who also stopped and approached the woman with the LEO.... They tell a completely different story...

One woman's version vs. that of an LEO, a soldier and several other witnesses....

Assuming the update is factual (yet to be determined) I'm leaning heavily on the side that that the woman was involved in a hit and run, tried to flee the scene and got caught...

Evidently, I read something different from you. There was no collision. Just the cop running over a curb. Hit and Run require a collision, or we inventing stuff here to back the buddy in blue.

Semantics. At the very least its reckless driving if she was in the opposite lane and causes an accident... I don't know their State specific laws in order to comment further on what additional charges she may face if the LEOs version is proven true.

I don't believe the update.

Your prerogative. I never stated i believed the LEOs version, either..I clearly stated "Assuming the update is factual." Also stated in a later post that I'm awaiting witness statements as they'll tell the story....

The story didn't name the witnesses for one and they was just a quote from his family not any witnesses. That's "hearsay" 3rd hand knowledge at best. That's like me saying "My wife saw Elvis last week and it was witnessed by Dick Chenny".

Witness names and statements will come out in the ensuing police report and investigation, which I am waiting for before making a decision. Unlike you, who has already discounted any version other than the woman's....Biased are we?

Posted: 7/19/2008 11:31:18 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If the off duty cop was innocent and not LYING in his response. They would have released the 911 tapes.

They did not. That speaks volumes.

First, 911 tapes do not miraculously appear immediately after the incident. They get released once the investigation is complete.

Second, did you read the update? There were witnesses to the incident, including a soldier who also stopped and approached the woman with the LEO.... They tell a completely different story...

One woman's version vs. that of an LEO, a soldier and several other witnesses....

Assuming the update is factual (yet to be determined) I'm leaning heavily on the side that that the woman was involved in a hit and run, tried to flee the scene and got caught...

Evidently, I read something different from you. There was no collision. Just the cop running over a curb. Hit and Run require a collision, or we inventing stuff here to back the buddy in blue.

I don't believe the update. The story didn't name the witnesses for one and it was just a quote from his family not any witnesses. That's "hearsay" 3rd hand knowledge at best. That's like me saying "My wife saw Elvis last week and it was witnessed by Dick Chenny". Dick Chenny is an irreruftable sorce ya know.

You are incorrect.

A no-contact vehicle can be found at fault for damages that occur to another vehicle in a situation like this.

Posted: 7/19/2008 11:33:43 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

he may have the right to make a citizen’s arrest.

from the stuff I have read a citizen's arrest are for felony crimes only, not misdemeanors. If this is true then unlawful detainment, lawsuit is in order

Depends on the state.

In CA, a private person has the right to make a privat eprson's arrest if it is a misdemeanor committed in their presence, or a felony not committed in their presence.

WRONG...they cannot arrest for a felony only be a witness. LE is the only ones who can arrest for a felony (CA).

This guy is a dumbass. Why didn't he just use his cell phone and call the local PD...common sense to me. I am not pulling anyone over while off duty. He is part of the problem not all of it but he cause some of this by pulling her over...illegally. He stopped her from continueing on her way by using vehilce to impead her passage(felony in CA).

Finally, why are you wearing your uniform home in your POV?

Lets make it clear not everybody from CA is totally ignorant about the laws here.

Penal Code

834. An arrest is taking a person into custody, in a case and in
the manner authorized by law. An arrest may be made by a peace
officer or by a private person.

835. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person, or by
submission to the custody of an officer. The person arrested may be
subjected to such restraint as is reasonable for his arrest and
detention.

837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not
in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable
cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

838. A magistrate may orally order a peace officer or private
person to arrest any one committing or attempting to commit a public
offense in the presence of such magistrate.

CA has close to, if not the least restrictive laws regarding private person/citizens arrest in the country.

And lots of LEO wear their uniforms to and from work.

Posted: 7/19/2008 11:36:24 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

he may have the right to make a citizen’s arrest.

from the stuff I have read a citizen's arrest are for felony crimes only, not misdemeanors. If this is true then unlawful detainment, lawsuit is in order

Depends on the state.

In CA, a private person has the right to make a privat eprson's arrest if it is a misdemeanor committed in their presence, or a felony not committed in their presence.

WRONG...they cannot arrest for a felony only be a witness. LE is the only ones who can arrest for a felony (CA).

This guy is a dumbass. Why didn't he just use his cell phone and call the local PD...common sense to me. I am not pulling anyone over while off duty. He is part of the problem not all of it but he cause some of this by pulling her over...illegally. He stopped her from continueing on her way by using vehilce to impead her passage(felony in CA).

Finally, why are you wearing your uniform home in your POV?

Why should he have to get changed to drive home?

Personal preference, but it does not seem too smart to me. When off duty act like an off duty cop not one who goes around and tries to be copman all the time. I at least took off my shirt and vest and went home in my pants boots and t-shirt.

You sure messed up on learning the laws in CA regarding private persons arrest, you sure you were an LEO? or just a mall ninja? that's a pretty basic thing, what do you do as an LEO if a private person makes an arrest?

Posted: 7/19/2008 11:43:39 AM EDT

[#16]

You guys crack me up.

Just because the tapes are not released the next day does not mean their is any type of cover up. They have these things called investigations. It will eventually be released. I'm leaning towards they are looking at charges against the female.

Oh, I wear my full uniform during my commute to work and back. I also get out at the local stop and rob in uniform.

Posted: 7/19/2008 11:45:44 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

WRONG...they cannot arrest for a felony only be a witness. LE is the only ones who can arrest for a felony (CA).

This guy is a dumbass. Why didn't he just use his cell phone and call the local PD...common sense to me. I am not pulling anyone over while off duty. He is part of the problem not all of it but he cause some of this by pulling her over...illegally. He stopped her from continueing on her way by using vehilce to impead her passage(felony in CA).

Finally, why are you wearing your uniform home in your POV?

Your post is full of fail. Private persons can and do make arrests for felonies committed in their presence. I direct you to sections 830 and further of the Ca Penal Code. Might want to focus on the 835-836 sections.

Posted: 7/19/2008 11:48:32 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
You guys crack me up.

Just because the tapes are not released the next day does not mean their is any type of cover up. They have these things called investigations. It will eventually be released. I'm leaning towards they are looking at charges against the female.

Add to that the fact that the tapes will only prove what both parties have already stated, that the LEO was pissed and yelling at her (I would be too if she ran me off the road), and it doesn't prove anything.

The witness statements, especially those of the soldier that also stopped the woman with the LEO, is what will tell the story of what happened.

Posted: 7/19/2008 11:54:50 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

The witness statements, especially those of the soldier that also stopped the woman with the LEO, is what will tell the story of what happened.

Assuming they exist. So far they only exist as Hearsay from a 3rd party source blood related to the accused (the cop).

Posted: 7/19/2008 12:02:51 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The witness statements, especially those of the soldier that also stopped the woman with the LEO, is what will tell the story of what happened.

Assuming they exist. So far they only exist as Hearsay from a 3rd party source blood related to the accused (the cop).

And so far, we have the unverified account of a person making a claim.

Posted: 7/19/2008 12:08:32 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The witness statements, especially those of the soldier that also stopped the woman with the LEO, is what will tell the story of what happened.

Assuming they exist. So far they only exist as Hearsay from a 3rd party source blood related to the accused (the cop).

Both stories are self serving at this point.

Posted: 7/19/2008 12:09:12 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The witness statements, especially those of the soldier that also stopped the woman with the LEO, is what will tell the story of what happened.

Assuming they exist. So far they only exist as Hearsay from a 3rd party source blood related to the accused (the cop).

And so far, we have the unverified account of a person making a claim.

If they would only release the tape......... Everytime I've seen something on the news about a regular citizen doing bad things and there is a 911 tape, it's aired that day on the news......hmmm double standard maybe ???

Posted: 7/19/2008 12:18:00 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The witness statements, especially those of the soldier that also stopped the woman with the LEO, is what will tell the story of what happened.

Assuming they exist. So far they only exist as Hearsay from a 3rd party source blood related to the accused (the cop).

And so far, we have the unverified account of a person making a claim.

If they would only release the tape......... Everytime I've seen something on the news about a regular citizen doing bad things and there is a 911 tape, it's aired that day on the news......hmmm double standard maybe ???

Selective memory?

There are plenty of cases both ways. Some release bad cop videos right away, some release bad citizens right away.

Posted: 7/19/2008 12:19:35 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The witness statements, especially those of the soldier that also stopped the woman with the LEO, is what will tell the story of what happened.

Assuming they exist. So far they only exist as Hearsay from a 3rd party source blood related to the accused (the cop).

And so far, we have the unverified account of a person making a claim.

If they would only release the tape......... Everytime I've seen something on the news about a regular citizen doing bad things and there is a 911 tape, it's aired that day on the news......hmmm double standard maybe ???

OMFG! The tape won't prove anything that both parties haven't already admitted to.

Its what happened before the LEO initiated the stop that will prove whether it was justified or not...Ergo the witness statements, and they won't be released until the inestigation is complete.

Posted: 7/19/2008 12:59:35 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

he may have the right to make a citizen’s arrest.

from the stuff I have read a citizen's arrest are for felony crimes only, not misdemeanors. If this is true then unlawful detainment, lawsuit is in order

Depends on the state.

In CA, a private person has the right to make a privat eprson's arrest if it is a misdemeanor committed in their presence, or a felony not committed in their presence.

WRONG...they cannot arrest for a felony only be a witness. LE is the only ones who can arrest for a felony (CA).

This guy is a dumbass. Why didn't he just use his cell phone and call the local PD...common sense to me. I am not pulling anyone over while off duty. He is part of the problem not all of it but he cause some of this by pulling her over...illegally. He stopped her from continueing on her way by using vehilce to impead her passage(felony in CA).

Finally, why are you wearing your uniform home in your POV?

Why should he have to get changed to drive home?

Personal preference, but it does not seem too smart to me. When off duty act like an off duty cop not one who goes around and tries to be copman all the time. I at least took off my shirt and vest and went home in my pants boots and t-shirt.

You sure messed up on learning the laws in CA regarding private persons arrest, you sure you were an LEO? or just a mall ninja? that's a pretty basic thing, what do you do as an LEO if a private person makes an arrest?

Yes you are correct. My dept policy is that we do not accept felony private person arrest....we REARREST for the felony. My bad, Sorry for gettiing your panties in a bunch!

Posted: 7/19/2008 1:22:23 PM EDT

[#26]

She should have called 911 before pulling over.
Edited: read the update.
IF it is accurate, she is a dumbass.

Posted: 7/19/2008 1:23:30 PM EDT

[#27]

Update
Statement from the Officer's Family:

It doesn't get any more accurate than that.

Posted: 7/19/2008 1:33:40 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The witness statements, especially those of the soldier that also stopped the woman with the LEO, is what will tell the story of what happened.

Assuming they exist. So far they only exist as Hearsay from a 3rd party source blood related to the accused (the cop).

And so far, we have the unverified account of a person making a claim.

If they would only release the tape......... Everytime I've seen something on the news about a regular citizen doing bad things and there is a 911 tape, it's aired that day on the news......hmmm double standard maybe ???

OMFG! The tape won't prove anything that both parties haven't already admitted to.

Its what happened before the LEO initiated the stop that will prove whether it was justified or not...Ergo the witness statements, and they won't be released until the inestigation is complete.

Forget it, guys, Baldmonk obviously has intel and experience we don't:

A cop was involved, therefore there's a cover up.

Any of us who defend the cop - even if we simply say "wait for the tape / investigation results" are called__________________

Any failure to release the 9-1-1 tapes isn't due to procedure - Baldmonk knows this through his watching of the news.

We concede, your omnipotence. You caught us again, blindly backing a brother cop based on incomplete intel from news reports instead of making an informed decision after an official inquiry was complete.

OOPS.. our "bad".

Posted: 7/20/2008 3:25:24 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Yes you are correct. My dept policy is that we do not accept felony private person arrest....we REARREST for the felony. My bad, Sorry for gettiing your panties in a bunch!

How does that work? Seems like you are setting up the private person/CA for wrongful arrest suits - I'm thinking of shoplifting/burglary arrests from LP folks in particular.

Brian

Posted: 7/20/2008 3:58:00 PM EDT

[#30]

Cops should NEVER pull someone over unless in a marked car and in uniform and in their own jurisdiction.

When I was a kid someone was blocking the road and I went around him and flicked him off. He then did a 3 point turn and flew up to me and at the stop sign pulled in front of me in the middle of the intersection and ran out of his car. He then screamed for my license and never produced a badge. I was scared that this guy was gonna kill me when he got out of his car. Later I told my dad and he chewed me out for even stopping. If that happend now things would go down a little differnt.

Im gonna be called a dunbass for this but it was nearly 15 years ago and I was a dumbass kid and wasnt thinking.

Posted: 7/20/2008 4:22:02 PM EDT

[#31]

Oh....oh parts of the tape are starting to leak out and the Police Chief is now investigating instead of defending like before. Can't wait till it comes out.

I bet the officer wishes he was never recorded now.

linky

Posted: 7/20/2008 4:30:38 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Oh....oh parts of the tape are starting to leak out and the Police Chief is now investigating instead of defending like before. Can't wait till it comes out.

I bet the officer wishes he was never recorded now.

linky

I looked but where is the link for the audio?

Posted: 7/20/2008 6:07:54 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Cops should NEVER pull someone over unless in a marked car and in uniform and in their own jurisdiction.

You forgot they need to be wearing their hat also

Posted: 7/20/2008 6:14:00 PM EDT

[#34]

i have nothing to add other than the last time i was in radcliffe i saw an abnormal mullet to normal hairdo ratio.

Posted: 7/20/2008 6:19:09 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Oh....oh parts of the tape are starting to leak out and the Police Chief is now investigating instead of defending like before. Can't wait till it comes out.

I bet the officer wishes he was never recorded now.

linky

I looked but where is the link for the audio?

Kinda crappy quality on this
www.whas11.com/news/local/stories/whas11_topstory_080718_followup_cop.6abe4923.html

Posted: 7/20/2008 7:53:34 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Yes you are correct. My dept policy is that we do not accept felony private person arrest....we REARREST for the felony. My bad, Sorry for gettiing your panties in a bunch!

How does that work? Seems like you are setting up the private person/CA for wrongful arrest suits - I'm thinking of shoplifting/burglary arrests from LP folks in particular.

Brian

Department Policy is usually supplemental to the law. Policy doesn't necessarily make it right make it right.

Posted: 7/20/2008 8:02:26 PM EDT

[#37]

I was always told that if someone drives crazy and seems like they are coming into your lane, that you are suppose to hit them. Because if you drive off the road into a ditch or another car you insurance sees it as your fault, especially if the other person, doesn't stop.

Posted: 7/20/2008 8:06:08 PM EDT

[#38]

while the officer may have had poor judgment in his actions and reacted

harshly to the situation, he may very well have been justified to make the stop,

if memory serves me correctly in the state of kentucky an officer of a class 5 city

or larger has state wide jurisdiction. so he may have made a stupid call but acted with

in the law

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Questions raised after off-duty Louisville cop pulls woman over in Radcliff (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us