Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Page / 51
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 10:22:13 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

I was positive it was our buddy in the St. Louis warzone.  Why would you not think it was him?


Naming the person who I think it was would probably put me way to close to the CoC, and/or get this thread locked. Suffice to say, I don't think it was IFRconditions. I could be wrong, though.


Whoever it was, I will bet they will never be man enough to admit to it here.


I believe there is a screen shot with his user name towards the top of page 86?
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 10:22:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 10:24:26 AM EDT

Quoted:

Missouri: Cop Website Contained Apparent Death Threat Against Video Vigilante
...
I hope this little POS punk bastard tries his little video stunt with me when I pull him over
alone- and I WILL pull him over - because I will see "his gun" and place a hunk of hot
lead right where it belongs.
...

There need to be subpoenas for IP addresses going out to that site ASAP.  Internet dick-waving or not, that poster needs to be identified.


Agreed. I don't mind somebody having the opinion that someone would be better off dead, but to actually make a death threat? Way too fucking far. Arrest his ass.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 10:25:27 AM EDT

Quoted:
4) Granted I'm not a cop (and never have been), but cops in general shouldn't be intimidated by non-leos with cameras. If you're an honest, ethical and professional individual then you don't have anything to really worry about. If someone challenges a traffic stop then, if you do your job correctly, the videos (both leo and non-leo videos alike) should be able to aid your case even in the face of cross-examination in a court room somewhere. if you have something to hide during a stop then I would take that as a gigantic warning sign. Videos don't lie so why hide if you're an honest individual? I'm not arguing that cameras should be everywhere and that we should always have "big brother" watching us. However, during a traffic stop, cameras shouldn't pose a problem and, again, this applies to both leo and non-leo cameras.


Hey, you better get with the program, man. You should know by now how this works. Videotaping citizens going about their personal business anytime and anywhere, and keeping those videos in a private, LEO-only database for cross-referencing forever and ever is just fine (unless of course they show something damaging to the Government, in which case they will be conveniently "lost"), and you shouldn't be worried about it unless you have something to hide. But any videotape of LEOs or other Government officials doing anything by private citizens is terrorism, fascism, communism, and any other -ism we can think of, and anyone known to do such things will be shot on sight.

Kidding.... Sorta
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 10:27:07 AM EDT
I find it ironic he chose the name IFRconditions.  I guess he needs lots of little dials and instruments to see whats going on around him as he obviously can't see whats right in front of him, which would be VFRconditions  Wonder if he flys an Apache around the war torn streets of St. Louisstan
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 10:29:01 AM EDT
Worse yet, imagine what would happen if the officer shot a pit bull and then went home and made chili with beans in it.  


.........and then posted a dinner pic
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 10:46:26 AM EDT

Quoted:
Death threat against Brett Darrow

link




Another CopTalk user referred to a discussion on the online forum AR-15.com by saying:

"I have a discussion going on another board where someone is basicly [sic] calling me a
liar. The retards have even invited Brett to join to tell his side of what he does."



Am I the only one who isn't surprised at all that someone posting on the
St. Louise area police forum is objecting to Brett telling his side of things?




I don't know if you realize this, but you totally PWNED PAGE 87.  

That only happens every so often in arfcom history dude!
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 10:47:55 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
Death threat against Brett Darrow

link




Another CopTalk user referred to a discussion on the online forum AR-15.com by saying:

"I have a discussion going on another board where someone is basicly [sic] calling me a
liar. The retards have even invited Brett to join to tell his side of what he does."



Am I the only one who isn't surprised at all that someone posting on the
St. Louise area police forum is objecting to Brett telling his side of things?




I don't know if you realize this, but you totally PWNED PAGE 87.  

That only happens every so often in arfcom history dude!



Link Posted: 9/14/2007 10:49:39 AM EDT

Quoted:
This story just keeps getting better and better.

Darrow might have killed more than one bad cop with that video's fallout.

1.  Sgt. Jerk.
2.  The fondling chief.
3.  Somebody, possibly a cop, threatening to kill Darrow if he found him.
4.  Other cops threatening to harass Darrow.

This kid might be living large thanks to St. Louis area law enforcement agencies at the rate they are going down there.

John


The way he's going, St. Louis area security guard companies are soon going to be enjoying a large applicant pool.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 10:54:59 AM EDT
I wonder if anyone will try to subpoena IFRcondition's IP address from here?  
Might want to keep it handy just in case.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 10:55:18 AM EDT

Quoted:
Now that there's death threats against Brett, and more cops threatening to harass him, it's time to get the FBI involved.


Bigtime.

Oh wait.... they're just as fucked up... just on a wider scale and with a bigger budget...
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 10:57:19 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
Now that there's death threats against Brett, and more cops threatening to harass him, it's time to get the FBI involved.


Bigtime.

Oh wait.... they're just as fucked up... just on a wider scale and with a bigger budget...


Wouldn't the MO State Police be the next step?  What would make it Federal?
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 10:59:29 AM EDT
His name is BRENT.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 10:59:40 AM EDT

Quoted:
No--if you follow it you will see they specifically mention we did NOT support the officers and their bad conduct.  It was actually a bit complimentary of this place.  I just don't like that kind of exposure.  

Edit:  Here's the link if anyone wants to check it out.

Edit:  Click on "View Thread" about 2/3 of the way down.


Holy hell.

That's ALL we need....
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:00:26 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Now that there's death threats against Brett, and more cops threatening to harass him, it's time to get the FBI involved.


Bigtime.

Oh wait.... they're just as fucked up... just on a wider scale and with a bigger budget...


Wouldn't the MO State Police be the next step?  What would make it Federal?


I'm pretty sure they use federal civil rights laws to get involved in cases of bad cops.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:01:57 AM EDT
IOP87

eta...I'm hoping Brent already had plans to move away from St. Louis...
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:02:38 AM EDT

Quoted:
3.  Somebody, possibly a cop, threatening to kill Darrow if he found him.


Whoever posted that is too f*cking stupid to be in LE.

Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:03:50 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Now that there's death threats against Brett, and more cops threatening to harass him, it's time to get the FBI involved.


Bigtime.

Oh wait.... they're just as fucked up... just on a wider scale and with a bigger budget...


Wouldn't the MO State Police be the next step?  What would make it Federal?


I'm pretty sure they use federal civil rights laws to get involved in cases of bad cops.


Yeah, that's what I am thinking. I am sure MO Atty General would still get involved at the department level because of state certification.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:04:14 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
Now that there's death threats against Brett, and more cops threatening to harass him, it's time to get the FBI involved.


Bigtime.

Oh wait.... they're just as fucked up... just on a wider scale and with a bigger budget...


But this is getting impossible to ignore. I hope the whole St.Louis PD is investigated. Essentially issueing a fatwa against a civilian who's broken no laws among the myriad of other related issues certainly justifies such an effort IMO.

I've been to countries where the police are entirely corrupt and untrusted. It isn't pretty. Any steps needed to keep corrupt cops out of work are steps well worth taking.

An honest man can not be baited, bribed or bought. Nothing to worry about if you're a cop in good standing. For those that aren't good cops, fuck'em.....give them the horns.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:05:31 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
No--if you follow it you will see they specifically mention we did NOT support the officers and their bad conduct.  It was actually a bit complimentary of this place.  I just don't like that kind of exposure.  

Edit:  Here's the link if anyone wants to check it out.

Edit:  Click on "View Thread" about 2/3 of the way down.


Holy hell.

That's ALL we need....


Goatboy should change that link to link to the home page.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:07:36 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Now that there's death threats against Brett, and more cops threatening to harass him, it's time to get the FBI involved.


Bigtime.

Oh wait.... they're just as fucked up... just on a wider scale and with a bigger budget...


Wouldn't the MO State Police be the next step?  What would make it Federal?


I'm pretty sure they use federal civil rights laws to get involved in cases of bad cops.


Yeah, that's what I am thinking. I am sure MO Atty General would still get involved at the department level because of state certification.


Maybe one of the LEOs can give us an answer?
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:08:47 AM EDT
Jesus, this thread keeps on giving. That said, I hope some agency, be it State or Federal, gets involved after all this. This kid has all kind of threats coming his way, on this board and others, via the pack revenge mentality these LEO's are displaying, and it is scary.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:26:57 AM EDT
Just wanted to make sure I got in on page 87.


ETA DAMMIT
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:28:43 AM EDT

Quoted:
Jesus, this thread keeps on giving. That said, I hope some agency, be it State or Federal, gets involved after all this. This kid has all kind of threats coming his way, on this board and others, via the pack revenge mentality these LEO's are displaying, and it is scary.


I don't recall anyone making threats against this kid in this thread.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:29:07 AM EDT

Quoted:
Just wanted to make sure I got in on page 87.


ETA DAMMIT


Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:34:56 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
Just wanted to make sure I got in on page 87.


ETA DAMMIT




Should have been here at the beginning...you think you were posting on page 4, and there you were on page 10
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:35:28 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
3.  Somebody, possibly a cop, threatening to kill Darrow if he found him.


Whoever posted that is too f*cking stupid to be in LE.





I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:37:57 AM EDT
Tagged for out come....

damn I hope this dosn't end up in the trash......
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:40:54 AM EDT
I just couldn't resist tagging a JBT thread on page 88.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:40:55 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Another CopTalk user referred to a discussion on the online forum AR-15.com by saying:

"I have a discussion going on another board where someone is basicly [sic] calling me a
liar. The retards have even invited Brett to join to tell his side of what he does."


Gee, I wonder who said that, and who they were referring to?






He hasn't been back lately, maybe his FSB was overrun by the St Louie insurgents.  


I don't think it was IFRconditions, and I'm pretty sure I'm who the person was complaining about.


Nope, wasn't me.  You and I worked out our little disagreement.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:41:56 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
Jesus, this thread keeps on giving. That said, I hope some agency, be it State or Federal, gets involved after all this. This kid has all kind of threats coming his way, on this board and others, via the pack revenge mentality these LEO's are displaying, and it is scary.


I don't recall anyone making threats against this kid in this thread.


IFRconditions saying that he would exersice his discreation to tow his car and pay fees EVRY time he ran into him isnt a threat..   ?


this isnt a LEO from acroos the country typing from his laptop in the crapper..  

its from a LEO that works the area the kid lives in and is very upset at him..



comeone now.. that is not a threat ?  
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:42:41 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
Death threat against Brett Darrow

link


Missouri: Cop Website Contained Apparent Death Threat Against Video Vigilante
Unofficial website popular with Saint Louis, Missouri police contained a death threat
against Brett Darrow three months before his recent encounter.

When stopped by an out-of-control St. George, Missouri police officer last Friday, motorist
Brett Darrow feared for his life (view story and video). It turns out, he had legitimate
reason for concern. Three months ago, participants in an online forum frequented by
Saint Louis law enforcement personnel threatened to harass -- and even physically harm
-- Darrow.

The messages appeared on St. Louis CopTalk, a site that describes itself as a site "for
the use of law enforcement officers employed by the St. Louis Police Department and
their supporters in the St. Louis Metropolitan area." While it has no official ties to the city,
it does allow officers to log into official police email accounts from the front page. In June
of this year, Darrow had sparked outrage among the forum's members after he
videotaped a disputed traffic stop involving what Darrow argued was a perfectly legal turn
and what a Saint Louis police officer said was not.

In the course of researching the incident, TheNewspaper learned from an inside source
about a CopTalk posting dated June 29, 2007. A user calling himself "STL_FINEST" wrote
the following item, presented unedited and in full:

in reply to "Who is this terd?"
I hope this little POS punk bastard tries his little video stunt with me when I pull him over
alone- and I WILL pull him over - because I will see "his gun" and place a hunk of hot
lead right where it belongs.


We verified the existence of the post which, until some time around July, was publicly
available here. It has been deleted. Because the CopTalk forum allows anonymous
posting, only the site's administrator has the ability to confirm the identity of a poster or
his status as a law enforcement official. When contacted by TheNewspaper this week, the
forum owner had no comment beyond, "Sorry, the posting log I have access to only
contains the most recent 300 messages, and that particular message cycled off some
time ago."

Still, participants did not disavow the posting. Instead, another added, "I'm going to his
house to check for parking violations." We informed Darrow of the existence of the
messages, but withheld publication not wishing to interfere with an expected investigation
into officers' behavior at the well-publicized traffic stops. To our knowledge, no such
investigation was ever made.

CopTalk now bans discussion of Darrow's videos. A message dated September 10 reads:
"We are already very much aware of Mr. Darrow and his antics. There is no need to post
any of his award-winning videography here." Still, discussions of last Friday's St. George
traffic stop made their way onto the site for a few hours before being removed by the
administrator. One poster expressed contempt for Darrow:

"Other than CYA and a heads up why do we give this [expletive] any thought? He lives for
this type of [expletive]."

Another CopTalk user referred to a discussion on the online forum AR-15.com by saying:

"I have a discussion going on another board where someone is basicly [sic] calling me a
liar. The retards have even invited Brett to join to tell his side of what he does."

(I bet I can guess which AR15 poster this is)

The firearms enthusiast forum began discussing Darrow's video on September 10. At least
one other message from a self-identified Saint Louis area police officer appears to
condone official harassment of the twenty-year-old motorist.

"Take the kid to jail... today... tommorrow... the next day... everytime you see him out
and he commits a traffic violation... tow his car and take him to jail... period. No arguing,
no yelling.....nothing but the sound of cash leaving his wallet from impound fees and
fines."
(view thread, view saved image of full post)

Unlike the CopTalk forum, however, neither this user nor any others in a sampling we
made of the nearly 2000 messages posted on the AR-15.com message thread supported
the actions of St. George Police Sergeant James Kuehnlein. A number immediately
condemned the self-identified officer's remarks.

The evidence shows that law enforcement problems extend far beyond the tiny
geographic boundaries of 1300 resident city and that Darrow's video may have
wide-reaching effects. The young driver's encounters with Saint Louis area police began in
March 2005 when an intoxicated, off-duty police officer threatened to kill him. Darrow
escaped only to find himself arrested hours later. The city agreed to drop all charges
against him on the condition that he waive his right to sue over the incident. The following
year, a Saint Louis officer at a DUI roadblock said he would, "find a reason to lock you up
tonight" (view video and story). This is in addition to Sergeant Kuehnlein's videotaped
threat that, "we will ruin your career and life and everything else you have coming before
you."

The videotape from Kuehnlein's police cruiser is currently missing and the sergeant is
currently on unpaid leave. St. George Police Chief Scott Uhrig is also being investigated by
city officials who say he may have failed to inform them that the State of Missouri
Administrative Hearing Commission concluded that, "Uhrig's unwelcome sexual advances
to a teenager, while on duty and under the guise of enforcing the laws, indicate an
especially egregious mental state, show that he cannot enforce the law, and are cause for
discipline."


Brett himself has posted on that very forum.  It is an open forum, no membership required.  The current hot topic is a no confidence vote against the St. Louis City police chief.

In regards to the blue- that cop needs to be found.... he's one who needs to be off the streets too.  He should not be able to get away with such illegal threats.


And in regards to the green, that is NOT condoning harrassment.  RIF.  It says when you're out and about, as an officer of the law, if you see the kid breaking the law, you just don't let him off.  And in fact it says to NOT do what the officer in the video did- no yelling, no arguing, just do your job.  

Every time an officer pulls someone over who is speeding, and lets them off with a warning, it's the officer exercising his or her judgement and discretion.  This kid has gotten enough 'warnings.'  If he breaks the law from here on out, he gets the full punishment.  End of story.  I don't see anywhere in that post where is says to hunt the kid down, follow him around day and night, and try to catch him, OR where it says to make something up about him.  The article is spinning that post to fit its needs, and it is wrong.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:44:30 AM EDT

Quoted:
UT OH,
I believe you have hit a homer here.
He is absolutley correct in his statement.

Nope, he struck out.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:47:08 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:


Edit: "I myself am not a member of the Police union" means the union stuff isn't directed at sherrick13.


I"ve seen police unions protect good cops, but the sad thing is I've seen them try to protect cops that have done worse that Sgt. Badass on the vid.


And with video that was just as, or more, damning. Numerous times. At that point, it's not individual cops, it's politics.


If we are going to go on Bama's premise that the police are a reflection of the community, then I think we can safely say the police union is a reflection of its members.


Do you disagree?


Not for the most part. I think there are some exceptions, but as a general rule, I would agree.

What I was pointing out that if the police don't like the fact the unions help keep bad cops they CAN change things.


Just using what you taught me Bama.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:47:09 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Death threat against Brett Darrow

link


Missouri: Cop Website Contained Apparent Death Threat Against Video Vigilante
Unofficial website popular with Saint Louis, Missouri police contained a death threat
against Brett Darrow three months before his recent encounter.

When stopped by an out-of-control St. George, Missouri police officer last Friday, motorist
Brett Darrow feared for his life (view story and video). It turns out, he had legitimate
reason for concern. Three months ago, participants in an online forum frequented by
Saint Louis law enforcement personnel threatened to harass -- and even physically harm
-- Darrow.

The messages appeared on St. Louis CopTalk, a site that describes itself as a site "for
the use of law enforcement officers employed by the St. Louis Police Department and
their supporters in the St. Louis Metropolitan area." While it has no official ties to the city,
it does allow officers to log into official police email accounts from the front page. In June
of this year, Darrow had sparked outrage among the forum's members after he
videotaped a disputed traffic stop involving what Darrow argued was a perfectly legal turn
and what a Saint Louis police officer said was not.

In the course of researching the incident, TheNewspaper learned from an inside source
about a CopTalk posting dated June 29, 2007. A user calling himself "STL_FINEST" wrote
the following item, presented unedited and in full:

in reply to "Who is this terd?"
I hope this little POS punk bastard tries his little video stunt with me when I pull him over
alone- and I WILL pull him over - because I will see "his gun" and place a hunk of hot
lead right where it belongs.


We verified the existence of the post which, until some time around July, was publicly
available here. It has been deleted. Because the CopTalk forum allows anonymous
posting, only the site's administrator has the ability to confirm the identity of a poster or
his status as a law enforcement official. When contacted by TheNewspaper this week, the
forum owner had no comment beyond, "Sorry, the posting log I have access to only
contains the most recent 300 messages, and that particular message cycled off some
time ago."

Still, participants did not disavow the posting. Instead, another added, "I'm going to his
house to check for parking violations." We informed Darrow of the existence of the
messages, but withheld publication not wishing to interfere with an expected investigation
into officers' behavior at the well-publicized traffic stops. To our knowledge, no such
investigation was ever made.

CopTalk now bans discussion of Darrow's videos. A message dated September 10 reads:
"We are already very much aware of Mr. Darrow and his antics. There is no need to post
any of his award-winning videography here." Still, discussions of last Friday's St. George
traffic stop made their way onto the site for a few hours before being removed by the
administrator. One poster expressed contempt for Darrow:

"Other than CYA and a heads up why do we give this [expletive] any thought? He lives for
this type of [expletive]."

Another CopTalk user referred to a discussion on the online forum AR-15.com by saying:

"I have a discussion going on another board where someone is basicly [sic] calling me a
liar. The retards have even invited Brett to join to tell his side of what he does."

(I bet I can guess which AR15 poster this is)

The firearms enthusiast forum began discussing Darrow's video on September 10. At least
one other message from a self-identified Saint Louis area police officer appears to
condone official harassment of the twenty-year-old motorist.

"Take the kid to jail... today... tommorrow... the next day... everytime you see him out
and he commits a traffic violation... tow his car and take him to jail... period. No arguing,
no yelling.....nothing but the sound of cash leaving his wallet from impound fees and
fines."
(view thread, view saved image of full post)

Unlike the CopTalk forum, however, neither this user nor any others in a sampling we
made of the nearly 2000 messages posted on the AR-15.com message thread supported
the actions of St. George Police Sergeant James Kuehnlein. A number immediately
condemned the self-identified officer's remarks.

The evidence shows that law enforcement problems extend far beyond the tiny
geographic boundaries of 1300 resident city and that Darrow's video may have
wide-reaching effects. The young driver's encounters with Saint Louis area police began in
March 2005 when an intoxicated, off-duty police officer threatened to kill him. Darrow
escaped only to find himself arrested hours later. The city agreed to drop all charges
against him on the condition that he waive his right to sue over the incident. The following
year, a Saint Louis officer at a DUI roadblock said he would, "find a reason to lock you up
tonight" (view video and story). This is in addition to Sergeant Kuehnlein's videotaped
threat that, "we will ruin your career and life and everything else you have coming before
you."

The videotape from Kuehnlein's police cruiser is currently missing and the sergeant is
currently on unpaid leave. St. George Police Chief Scott Uhrig is also being investigated by
city officials who say he may have failed to inform them that the State of Missouri
Administrative Hearing Commission concluded that, "Uhrig's unwelcome sexual advances
to a teenager, while on duty and under the guise of enforcing the laws, indicate an
especially egregious mental state, show that he cannot enforce the law, and are cause for
discipline."


Brett himself has posted on that very forum.  It is an open forum, no membership required.  The current hot topic is a no confidence vote against the St. Louis City police chief.

In regards to the blue- that cop needs to be found.... he's one who needs to be off the streets too.  He should not be able to get away with such illegal threats.


And in regards to the green, that is NOT condoning harrassment.  RIF.  It says when you're out and about, as an officer of the law, if you see the kid breaking the law, you just don't let him off.  And in fact it says to NOT do what the officer in the video did- no yelling, no arguing, just do your job.  

Every time an officer pulls someone over who is speeding, and lets them off with a warning, it's the officer exercising his or her judgement and discretion.  This kid has gotten enough 'warnings.'  If he breaks the law from here on out, he gets the full punishment.  End of story.  I don't see anywhere in that post where is says to hunt the kid down, follow him around day and night, and try to catch him, OR where it says to make something up about him.  The article is spinning that post to fit its needs, and it is wrong.


two issues at work here..
first

 its been proven that the cops will pull him over and MAKE UP charges..   then punish him on the fake charges.. im 100% sure thath what that cop meant ..  


I don't see anywhere in that post where is says to hunt the kid down, follow him around day and night, and try to catch him, OR where it says to make something up about him. thats what happens here and the reason we are here right now..    The article is spinning that post to fit its needs, and it is wrong.

Still, participants did not disavow the posting. Instead, another added, "I'm going to his
house to check for parking violations." We informed Darrow of the existence of the
messages, but withheld publication not wishing to interfere with an expected investigation
into officers' behavior at the well-publicized traffic stops. To our knowledge, no such
investigation was ever made.






and no one said when stoped he gets a "warning" ... he gets a full fledged pocket empting ticket.

but the offier IFRconditions wants to go and ALSO tow his car so he can pay impond fees...    NOT for the public good but so the kid can stop exposing them and teaching him a lesson ..
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:47:51 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

I don't think it was IFRconditions, and I'm pretty sure I'm who the person was complaining about.


Nope, wasn't me.  You and I worked out our little disagreement.


In that case, I apologize.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:49:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:50:42 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

I don't think it was IFRconditions, and I'm pretty sure I'm who the person was complaining about.


Nope, wasn't me.  You and I worked out our little disagreement.


In that case, I apologize.


No problem.  No harm no foul.  I took offense originally at something that you really didn't direct at me.  I am sorry I got a little nasty then.

Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:53:25 AM EDT
height=8
Quoted:
And in regards to the green, that is NOT condoning harrassment.  RIF.  It says when you're out and about, as an officer of the law, if you see the kid breaking the law, you just don't let him off.


Right. It means jail someone and impound his car because of failure to use turn signal. If the law in Missouri allows that, the law in Missouri sucks.

When you use your badge to work out your personal vendettas, you don't deserve a badge, you deserve to be looking out at the world through bars.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:55:01 AM EDT
Two things

1) We don't have any real unions in Missouri for LE.  LE and Fire departments have no collective bargaining rights.  There are Police Associations and the national FOP.  In short, they don't have much power to influence the department leadership or their members.

2)  I don't know if I would truly want real unions due to my experience with the Teamsters years ago.  They did their best to keep some of the most useless people employed.  I know it is their job, but they made it very hard for management to get rid of the dead weight that we had to pick up the slack for.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 11:57:36 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
And in regards to the green, that is NOT condoning harrassment.  RIF.  It says when you're out and about, as an officer of the law, if you see the kid breaking the law, you just don't let him off.


Right. It means jail someone and impound his car because of failure to use turn signal. If the law in Missouri allows that, the law in Missouri sucks.

When you use your badge to work out your personal vendettas, you don't deserve a badge, you deserve to be looking out at the world through bars.


I think its been established that in MO you can arrest and by default tow the car < and inventory it>

this cop wants to use that power to fuck with this kid but not the guy he stoped before or the guy he stops after the guy..    he made it clear why he wants to do that .  


i called that retaliation a few pages back...

somecops defended that action.. saying it was well within the officers rights..

even if he only towed the kids car and no one elses..  


Link Posted: 9/14/2007 12:00:19 PM EDT
I wonder how long it will be before the police union starts lobbying the state legislature to change the law regarding the recording of conversations to require the consent of both individuals.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 12:02:03 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
And in regards to the green, that is NOT condoning harrassment.  RIF.  It says when you're out and about, as an officer of the law, if you see the kid breaking the law, you just don't let him off.


Right. It means jail someone and impound his car because of failure to use turn signal. If the law in Missouri allows that, the law in Missouri sucks.

When you use your badge to work out your personal vendettas, you don't deserve a badge, you deserve to be looking out at the world through bars.


I think its been established that in MO you can arrest and by default tow the car < and inventory it>

this cop wants to use that power to fuck with this kid but not the guy he stope dbefore or after the guy..  


i called that retaliation a few pages back...

somecops defended that action.. saying it was well within the officers rights..

even if if only towed the kids car and no one elses..  




When I worked the civilian side, we only towed cars of people we arrested if it was going to be processed for evidence(think CSI for you TV watchers), would be hazard if left at the scene, contained valuable electronics(stereo system) or other property(had to make sure it was noted on tow slip so it wouldn't walk off at the tow yard) that could be stolen at the scene(I worked the hood) or if the vehicle itself was used during the commission of a crime(non-traffic crime).
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 12:03:48 PM EDT
How can anyone say that the kid did ANYTHING wrong?  First of all, he's not a vigilante.  He merely allowed a cop to act like an asshole and taped it.  It's ALL on the cop.  I'm glad that the cop is in trouble, and it's all due to the kid and his camera.

Now, if the kid had made threatening gestures or something, trying to get the cop to act up, that would be wrong.  But the kid never did that, and furthermore, there is NO excuse for a cop to threaten to make up charges and send someone to jail for no reason.

The kid did good, and I hope he continues to expose bad cops.
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 12:03:57 PM EDT
Wow, I missed a lot but this page

www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1967.asp

with the following quote from UFRconditions:

www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/pix/ifrpost.jpg

Sure started out right but it would seem that someone in law enforcement would be bright enough to shut the hell up before you go so far as to indicate how you can stalk and harrass a civilian that you don't like.  

Sure, you can do it but stupid could really hurt if somone identifies this fool and he loses his job for posting something like this...  

Then again, if this is SOP, perhaps that is not such a bad thing in an officer is out of a job?  Stupid hurts sometimes!
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 12:11:38 PM EDT
So where did it come out that  IFRconditions is one of/ if not the offficer involved??
Did I miss something? I don't recall that part or did this come from the news link
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 12:13:17 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
And in regards to the green, that is NOT condoning harrassment.  RIF.  It says when you're out and about, as an officer of the law, if you see the kid breaking the law, you just don't let him off.


Right. It means jail someone and impound his car because of failure to use turn signal. If the law in Missouri allows that, the law in Missouri sucks.

When you use your badge to work out your personal vendettas, you don't deserve a badge, you deserve to be looking out at the world through bars.

Show me in that post where it says to jail and impound his car because of failure to use the turn signal.

Look, I haven't read every page in this thread- nor have I read all of this particular poster's posts (IFRsomethingorother), but as an average person, reading THAT POST, it does NOT condone harrassment like the newspaper article is spinning it.

And yes, I'm sure there are A LOT of personal hard feelings between everyone in that little town, but that's human nature.  That post did not condone or suggest anything illegal.  The laws are the laws.  There are various ranges for punishments, and it sounds like this kid has been pulled over so many times that he's used up any chances he's had for getting the lower punishments. ***

There's a simple solution for the kid-- DON'T EVER BREAK THE LAW.  THAT is the issue behind this post.

Don't read into his post- he did NOT say to make something up-- obviously it's something that officer video does/has done, but this guy (the poster here on Arfcom) did NOT suggest or condone it.  It's very disingenous for anyone here to suggest that he did (at least in that post- like I said, I have not read all of his postings).


*** Just so you know..... I read a quick post from Bama that insinuated that this town is a 'speed trap' town, and I can't stand that either.  That's a whole different discussion though.






on a side note..... is IFR... even around anymore?  I wonder if he's a troll acct for someone else here.....
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 12:13:19 PM EDT
So, if LE targets one specific person or sub set of persons, those who decide to exercise their rights by recording their conversations with police, would there not be an equal protection argument?

That is, unless they start arresting everyone for traffic tickets, I think they've got problems.


Link Posted: 9/14/2007 12:13:31 PM EDT

Quoted:
So where did it come out that  IFRconditions is one of/ if not the offficer involved??
Did I miss something? I don't recall that part or did this come from the news link



no  IFR made it to the news all by himslef by what he said here,,  

there is no connection <yet .. other then they work the same area...  between officer dumbass and officer friendly..  yet >
Link Posted: 9/14/2007 12:13:38 PM EDT

Quoted:
So where did it come out that  IFRconditions is one of/ if not the offficer involved??
Did I miss something? I don't recall that part or did this come from the news link


I think he's just a local cop.
Page / 51
Top Top