Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/2/2005 11:16:17 AM EDT
A Mount Dora police search led to the loss of the remains of a man's daughter.

By Robert Sargent | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted August 2, 2005


TAVARES -- A father who accused a Mount Dora policeman last year of dumping out his infant daughter's cremated remains sued the city and the officer Monday.

Filed in Lake Circuit Court, the lawsuit accuses the city and Officer Brad Cline of illegally stopping and searching Jason Burnham, 34, as he was walking home after Hurricane Charley.

During the stop, Burnham's suit says, Cline emptied the ashes from a cross-shaped pendant worn by Burnham, suspecting it contained cocaine.

"This is probably the most mean-spirited violation of a person's civil rights that I have seen in many years," said Winter Park lawyer Howard Marks, one of Burnham's attorneys. "That conduct is not acceptable -- it's not warranted."

Mount Dora Mayor James Yatsuk would not comment on the case, saying the city's insurance company likely would select the attorney to represent the city.

The seven-count lawsuit accuses the city of false arrest/false imprisonment and detention of Burnham, and violation of his right to privacy. It accuses the city and Cline of invasion of privacy and violation of Burnham's civil rights. Finally, it accuses Cline of intentional infliction of emotional distress on Burnham.

It asks for damages in excess of $15,000 each from the city and the officer.

"Burnham was illegally patted down, illegally searched and illegally detained, all without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that Burnham had committed a crime," the suit states.

Cline, who could not be reached for comment, resigned from the department three months ago, said Jane Green of the city's Human Resources Department. She said he was not disciplined in the Burnham incident.

Police Department spokesman Lt. Roger Chilton said Cline resigned to run a mortgage-brokering business but still works for the department as a reserve officer doing undercover or drug work when necessary.

Chilton said the department stands by its internal investigation that determined it was Cline's word against Burnham's.

"We did an investigation and determined that we couldn't prove or disprove that these allegations were true," Chilton said. "Both parties admit being with each other . . . and to having the necklace. But that's where one says he dumped it out, and the other says he didn't."

Cline was on patrol Aug. 14 in the aftermath of Hurricane Charley when he said he saw Burnham walking on Highland Street about 2:30 a.m. According to the police report, Cline said Burnham "appeared to be intoxicated."

The officer questioned Burnham about "a variety of issues, including illegal drug use," according to the lawsuit.

Burnham said he had a prescription for Xanax that he was taking because he was depressed over his daughter's death.

After examining the pills, Cline questioned Burnham about the pendant, the lawsuit says. It contained the ashes of Carli Miracle Burnham, who died at the age of 9 months in 2002. She was napping with her father when he mistakenly rolled on top of her, suffocating her. The death was ruled accidental, and no charges were filed.

Taking the pendant from Burnham, the officer broke its seal and dumped the ashes on the hood of his patrol car, the suit says.

"Defendant Cline, after seeing that the ashes were not cocaine, wiped Plaintiff Burnham's daughter's ashes to the ground," the suit says.

The suit also notes that Cline "failed to follow the city's policy in that he failed to turn on his lights and or his camera during the stop."

Burnham was not charged and was allowed to continue on his way.

"Cline's conduct was outrageous beyond all bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized society," Burnham's lawyers wrote in the suit.

The suit claims that Burnham has endured "mental suffering, embarrassment, humiliation, disgrace and injury to his feelings and reputation."

Burnham, who lived in Tangerine at the time of the incident, now lives with his mother-in-law in Marion County.

He loads trucks for a trucking company. He said he lost the empty pendant when it fell off his necklace afterward.

"It's been real stressful," he said. "It really bothers me a lot. I'm scared to go anywhere now."

He said he wanted the Police Department to discipline the officer.

"He knows what he did."

Erin Cox of the Sentinel staff contributed to this report. Robert Sargent can be reached at rsargent@orlandosentinel.com or 352-742-5909.


Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:18:37 AM EDT
Desecration of human remains?
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:23:05 AM EDT
If, I say, if the story is true that man showed remarkable restraint by only filing a lawsuit.

Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:25:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By timoshea:
A Mount Dora police search led to the loss of the remains of a man's daughter.

It contained the ashes of Carli Miracle Burnham, who died at the age of 9 months in 2002. She was napping with her father when he mistakenly rolled on top of her, suffocating her.




hm...
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:25:35 AM EDT

"Defendant Cline, after seeing that the ashes were not cocaine, wiped Plaintiff Burnham's daughter's ashes to the ground,"


What a piece of shit.

What about article 4?

At least he went home safe...
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:26:32 AM EDT
rolled over on his daughter.....
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:27:17 AM EDT
Let's see. 2:30 am, pendant that no longer exists, on Xanax, lives with Mother-in-law,(where's mom in all this?) killed his own baby, suing for all of 15K each.

Just how much of a cremated baby can you get in a pendant anyway? Where is the rest of her?

Yeah, I believe this.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:28:04 AM EDT
Can't have folks ingesting or possessing substances not approved by the government. Stern measures are sometimes necessary.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:30:12 AM EDT

Let's see. 2:30 am, pendant that no longer exists, on Xanax, lives with Mother-in-law,(where's mom in all this?) killed his own baby, suing for all of 15K each.

Just how much of a cremated baby can you get in a pendant anyway? Where is the rest of her?

Yeah, I believe this.




There you go injecting logic and fact into a perfectly good thread with the potential for some quality cop bashing.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:30:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cleatus:
rolled over on his daughter.....



Thats not that uncommonm actually.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:31:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cleatus:
rolled over on his daughter.....

Yep. That's why the crib was invented, to keep adults from suffocating infants in the same bed. Still, I wouldn't crucify the father based solely on this article. I've fallen asleep many times with my own kids when they're sick. However, when I do wake up, I always move eith them or myself to a different bed.

I have a very dear friend who delivered a preemie 5 weeks ago. That little angel has been fighting for life with every breath since she was born. I cannot even begin to imagine the unbelievable pain of losing an infant child.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:33:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cleatus:
rolled over on his daughter.....


Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:34:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TxLawDog:

Let's see. 2:30 am, pendant that no longer exists, on Xanax, lives with Mother-in-law,(where's mom in all this?) killed his own baby, suing for all of 15K each.

Just how much of a cremated baby can you get in a pendant anyway? Where is the rest of her?

Yeah, I believe this.




There you go injecting logic and fact into a perfectly good thread with the potential for some quality cop bashing.



The original post was cop bashing according to some. If its critical of one persons actions, its bashing to others.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:36:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
Let's see. 2:30 am, pendant that no longer exists, on Xanax, lives with Mother-in-law,(where's mom in all this?) killed his own baby, suing for all of 15K each.

Just how much of a cremated baby can you get in a pendant anyway? Where is the rest of her?

Yeah, I believe this.



man, you just can't say the cop did anything wrong huh
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:37:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
Let's see. 2:30 am, pendant that no longer exists, on Xanax, lives with Mother-in-law,(where's mom in all this?) killed his own baby, suing for all of 15K each.

Just how much of a cremated baby can you get in a pendant anyway? Where is the rest of her?

Yeah, I believe this.



Would it help you at all to know that under Florida law $15k is the amount of damages which must be alleged in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court, and that other allegations as to the amount of damages are improper, and may be stricken on the motion of the defendant? Huh? Would that help, or would it kill your smugbuzz?

Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:38:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jmoffatt:

Originally Posted By Cleatus:
rolled over on his daughter.....





It happens more often than you'd think. It results in dead babies and seriously disturbed parents.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:40:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
Let's see. 2:30 am, pendant that no longer exists, on Xanax, lives with Mother-in-law,(where's mom in all this?) killed his own baby, suing for all of 15K each.

Just how much of a cremated baby can you get in a pendant anyway? Where is the rest of her?

Yeah, I believe this.




I try to be careful about forming opinions of people based on internet boards, but I think I'm going to go ahead on this one.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:42:17 AM EDT
Xanax is pretty powerful stuff. If the "suspect" (if that's the right term) was looking pretty spaced out, the officer probably was within his rights to search the guy. Now, if the account of events is accurate, I still sympathize with the guy for the loss of his daughter even though its pretty bizarre circumstances. You'd think there would be a more "sensitive" way for the officer to proceed, but I suspect he just thought the dude was a drug addict and was impatient. Who knows...
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:42:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 11:50:42 AM EDT by Johninaustin]

Originally Posted By MuRDoC:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
Let's see. 2:30 am, pendant that no longer exists, on Xanax, lives with Mother-in-law,(where's mom in all this?) killed his own baby, suing for all of 15K each.

Just how much of a cremated baby can you get in a pendant anyway? Where is the rest of her?

Yeah, I believe this.



man, you just can't say the cop did anything wrong huh



Not in a case where your prime accuser is a depressed guy that's on Xanax, killed his own daughter, is living with his MIL, loads trucks for a living, claims civil rights violations where none exist, and brings no proof whatsoever to the table.

Try it yourself. Can you say ANYTHING in the officer's defense?

BTW: I've called the actions of police wrong in three threads in the past 10 days or so. But go ahead and believe whatever your bigotry calls for.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:47:39 AM EDT
If it meant that much to him the necklace should have been soldered closed.


Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:50:23 AM EDT
There is not enough info here for me to form an opinion. If what Burhnam says is true than that is some seriously fucked up shit. All of this brought to us with by the War on Drugs.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:50:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By MuRDoC:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
Let's see. 2:30 am, pendant that no longer exists, on Xanax, lives with Mother-in-law,(where's mom in all this?) killed his own baby, suing for all of 15K each.

Just how much of a cremated baby can you get in a pendant anyway? Where is the rest of her?

Yeah, I believe this.



man, you just can't say the cop did anything wrong huh



Not in a case where your prime accuser is a depressed guy that's on Xanax, killed his own daughter, is living with his MIL, loads trucks for a living, claims civil rights violations where none exist, and brings no proof whatsoever to the table.

Try it yourself. Can you say ANYTHING in the officer's defense?



We can say without the camera, that the cop could have had rolling had he wished, that we have he said he said. I'm sure the existance of the pendant can be attested to by someone. He's going to have an uphill case, and I don't know if he can prove it. I'd sure be curious why the officer turned off or did not use the camera though.

You on the other hand can't seem to fathom that people do, sometimes in spite of the risk, sleep with an infant when they are ill or need comfort too nap. Im sure a man could become depressed knowing he rolled over and suffocated his child in his sleep.

Outside of the stories here your attitude comes shinning through plain as day.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:50:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 11:50:56 AM EDT by FLAL1A]

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If it meant that much to him the necklace should have been soldered closed.





Maybe it was.


Taking the pendant from Burnham, the officer broke its seal and dumped the ashes on the hood of his patrol car, the suit says.


And since when is the rule "Unless you want a cop to destroy your treasured possessions, secure them"? The 4th Amendment should have been solder enough.

Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:51:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 11:52:27 AM EDT by DzlBenz]

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
Not in a case where your prime accuser is a depressed guy that's on Xanax,

Guess he didn't get his "lead treatment" yet. Don't worry. He's still a TANGO out there somewhere ...

killed his own daughter,
Gee, you think there's any connection between this and the previous crimial defect you illustrate?

is living with his MIL,
And this makes him more suspect in what way exactly?

loads trucks for a living,
And this makes him more suspect in what way exactly? (Hmm ... It's like deja' vu all over again...)

claims civil rights violations where none exist,
Sez you and FoP, I expect.

and brings no proof whatsoever to the table.
Except his story. Why don't we let the court decide, mmm-kay?


Try it yourself. Can you say ANYTHING in the officer's defense?
No dogs were killed (that we know of) in the making of this article.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:53:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By General_Tso:
Xanax is pretty powerful stuff. If the "suspect" (if that's the right term) was looking pretty spaced out, the officer probably was within his rights to search the guy. Now, if the account of events is accurate, I still sympathize with the guy for the loss of his daughter even though its pretty bizarre circumstances. You'd think there would be a more "sensitive" way for the officer to proceed, but I suspect he just thought the dude was a drug addict and was impatient. Who knows...



Probably so. Still, if he just wiped them off the hood after finding them not to be coke.... well I don't have much to say I guess. Can't understand abject cruel behaviour.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:54:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If it meant that much to him the necklace should have been soldered closed.





Maybe it was.


Taking the pendant from Burnham, the officer broke its seal and dumped the ashes on the hood of his patrol car, the suit says.


And since when is the rule "Unless you want a cop to destroy your treasured possessions, secure them"? The 4th Amendment should have been solder enough.




According to him. But it's a he said vs he said.

With nothing more than what's here. I'll take the offficers word first.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 12:15:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
and brings no proof whatsoever to the table.

Except his story. Why don't we let the court decide, mmm-kay?



Stories are not proof, and are not going to be admissible as evidence. How in the hell is he going to back up his story? It's strictly he said/I say.

The reality is more than likely this:

Guy has found a bottom feeding lawyer, who took this case betting on the fact the city would probably go the cheap route and settle out of court. We have several lawyers here that have made a CAREER out of this sort of thing. One in particular has NEVER gone to a jury trial in 22 years.

It's happened to me twice in my career. Once I was accused of being racist (along with the concurrent "civil rights violations") by a man whose skin color was the same as mine. He stated that since I TREATED him as a black man, (arrested him) obviously his civil rights were violated. Every cop is familiar with this stuff, There is always some sob story and medication involved.

It's total bull in 99.9% of cases. As for letting the court decide, several persons here could take that advice to heart. Unfortunately, there wouldn't be any more cop threads.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 12:19:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 12:20:04 PM EDT by DzlBenz]

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
Stories are not proof, and are not going to be admissible as evidence.

First-person testimony is not admissible as evidence?

How in the hell is he going to back up his story? It's strictly he said/I say.

The reality is more than likely this:

Guy has found a bottom feeding lawyer, who took this case betting on the fact the city would probably go the cheap route and settle out of court. We have several lawyers here that have made a CAREER out of this sort of thing. One in particular has NEVER gone to a jury trial in 22 years.

It's happened to me twice in my career. Once I was accused of being racist (along with the concurrent "civil rights violations") by a man whose skin color was the same as mine. He stated that since I TREATED him as a black man, (arrested him) obviously his civil rights were violated. Every cop is familiar with this stuff, There is always some sob story and medication involved.

It's total bull in 99.9% of cases. As for letting the court decide, several persons here could take that advice to heart. Unfortunately, there wouldn't be any more cop threads.

Maybe. So what happened to his daughter's ashes, then? you seem to have 99.9% certainty of the facts of the case, so you must know.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 12:20:13 PM EDT
If the actual events happened as the guy says, the cop and the department are in deep shit.

And if anyone is suprised by johninaustin's remarks, you haven't been reading his posts.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 12:45:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:

Originally Posted By Cleatus:
rolled over on his daughter.....



Thats not that uncommonm actually.



so,... he just like many of the guys on this forum....
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 1:06:20 PM EDT
I have three young children (5, 3, 1 years old, respectively). At various times my wife and I have slept in the same bed with any one of them. Rolling over on our child has always, I repeat always been a grave concern.

There's no way to make an informed decision on this story, but one thing is for sure: Somewhere, somehow, I hope JohninAustin obtains a healthy respect for people who don't wear badges. Maybe it'll come in the form of healthy ass-kicking from some country boy or meeting the right woman, I don't know. Maybe it'll come from having children.

If the ass-kicking, the woman, and the children have already arrived, maybe he's beyond help.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 1:56:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 1:59:35 PM EDT by Johninaustin]

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
Stories are not proof, and are not going to be admissible as evidence.

First-person testimony is not admissible as evidence?



There is the rub you see. This story ISN'T first person testimony. What it actually is, is the press release from the attorney, (the guy paid to make things look good) to a reporter (or reporters, you have no idea how many people this has filtered thru)

I suppose you believed Johnny Cochran too.

The guys actual testimony is still to be heard, but It's a pretty good bet that it will be different from the story above.

I'd like to point out, you have not heard the officer's testimony either.

That's okay, this thing will never see trial. Either the city will roll over for a modest sum, or the lawyer will drop the case if the city insists on a trial. (Which they should do in my opinion.)

Please note some things convienently left out of the lawyer's account. All critical to the case.

Client's intoxication level.
Actual proof of a deceased daughter or the presence of her ashes.
Specifically, which rights were violated? You have to list them in the suit, so it's not like he does not know.
What kind of search? Was there consent given?
Final disposition? Was he arrested for PI? Let go? Arrested for something else? Released to his mother in law? Was it an actual arrest/detention or a field interview where he was free to leave?
What was the conversation between the officer and the guy he stopped? Where do they get "intentionally inflicted emotional distress"?

The "lights on" and such is a smoke screen. None of that bears on the legality of the stop. You might as well ask if the officer was wearing his hat.

I actually wish the officer HAD video taped it. Then Arfcom would be out a nonsense cop thread, and the city wouldn't be wasting tax money on a horsecrap lawsuit.

You guys fall into two categories really, those that are biased against police, and those that are so gullible a real estate agent could sell you radioactive farmland in Chernobyl.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 1:59:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
Stories are not proof, and are not going to be admissible as evidence.

First-person testimony is not admissible as evidence?



There is the rub you see. This story ISN'T first person testimony. What it actually is, is the press release from the attorney, (the guy paid to make things look good) to a reporter (or reporters, you have no idea how many people this has filtered thru)

I suppose you believed Johnny Cochran too.

The guys actual testimony is still to be heard, but It's a pretty good bet that it will be different from the story above.

I'd like to point out, you have not heard the officer's testimony either.

That's okay, this thing will never see trial. Either the city will roll over for a modest sum, or the lawyer will drop the case if the city insists on a trial. (Which they should do in my opinion.)

Please note some things convienently left out of the lawyer's account. All critical to the case.

Client's intoxication level.
Actual proof of a deceased daughter or the presence of her ashes.
Specifically, which rights were violated? You have to list them in the suit, so it's not like he does not know.
What kind of search? Was there consent given?
Final disposition? Was he arrested for PI? Let go? Arrested for something else? Released to his mother in law? Was it an actual arrest/detention or a field interview where he was free to leave?
What was the conversation between the officer and the guy he stopped? Where do they get "intentionally inflicted emotional distress"?

The "lights on" and such is a smoke screen. None of that bears on the legality of the stop. You might as well ask if the officer was wearing his hat.

I actually wish the officer HAD video taped it. Then Arfcom would be out a nonsense cop thread, and the city wouldn't be wasting tax money on a horsecrap lawsuit.



Quit.

All cops are guilty till proven innocent.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 2:01:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 2:09:13 PM EDT by Johninaustin]

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
Stories are not proof, and are not going to be admissible as evidence.

First-person testimony is not admissible as evidence?



There is the rub you see. This story ISN'T first person testimony. What it actually is, is the press release from the attorney, (the guy paid to make things look good) to a reporter (or reporters, you have no idea how many people this has filtered thru)

I suppose you believed Johnny Cochran too.

The guys actual testimony is still to be heard, but It's a pretty good bet that it will be different from the story above.

I'd like to point out, you have not heard the officer's testimony either.

That's okay, this thing will never see trial. Either the city will roll over for a modest sum, or the lawyer will drop the case if the city insists on a trial. (Which they should do in my opinion.)

Please note some things convienently left out of the lawyer's account. All critical to the case.

Client's intoxication level.
Actual proof of a deceased daughter or the presence of her ashes.
Specifically, which rights were violated? You have to list them in the suit, so it's not like he does not know.
What kind of search? Was there consent given?
Final disposition? Was he arrested for PI? Let go? Arrested for something else? Released to his mother in law? Was it an actual arrest/detention or a field interview where he was free to leave?
What was the conversation between the officer and the guy he stopped? Where do they get "intentionally inflicted emotional distress"?

The "lights on" and such is a smoke screen. None of that bears on the legality of the stop. You might as well ask if the officer was wearing his hat.

I actually wish the officer HAD video taped it. Then Arfcom would be out a nonsense cop thread, and the city wouldn't be wasting tax money on a horsecrap lawsuit.



Quit.

All cops are guilty till proven innocent.



Can't really quit. You see, it's sort of like being addicted to video games. Think of it as a twisted version of Whack-A-Mole. Murdoc is already IM'ing me nastygrams.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 2:01:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 2:07:17 PM EDT by Grunteled]

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Quit.

All cops are guilty till proven innocent.



. nevermind.

ETA: On second thought there's no point.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 2:07:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Quit.

All cops are guilty till proven innocent.



No, some just have less...... nevermind.



Many cops are above the law, we know and they know it. No sense bullshitting ourselves. The blue wall exists. Not faulting them for covering their collective asses, thats just the way it works.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 2:11:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Quit.

All cops are guilty till proven innocent.



No, some just have less...... nevermind.



Many cops are above the law, we know and they know it. No sense bullshitting ourselves. The blue wall exists. Not faulting them for covering their collective asses, thats just the way it works.



Ah. Good to see you join us.

Tell me Mr Clean, what proof do you see in the story that the officer did wrong?
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 2:13:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
Stories are not proof, and are not going to be admissible as evidence.

First-person testimony is not admissible as evidence?



There is the rub you see. This story ISN'T first person testimony. <snip>

The story I was referring to was his own story, not the newspaper article. I will agree with you completely that the article itself is generally devoid of facts. Your question was (and I am paraphrasing), "what does the guy have left?" Well, he does have his story, his first-person account of the subject event.

You could very well be right. This case could be a clear case of hucksterism and a certain amount of pandering to the sentiments of the general public. However, that's not to say that such an event could not have occurred precisely as claimed by the plaintiff.


Please note some things convienently left out of the lawyer's account. All critical to the case.
Significant to what? Since when must the ordinary press read like the transcript from the court reporter? Perhaps all of the information you require to form any opinion whatsoever actually WAS in the lawyer's statement, and was edited by the City Editor at the paper. Perhaps the attorney is trying to protect the integrity of his case by not revealing his entire strategy.

Why are you so quick to accept the internal investigation of Cline, but refuse to accept the investigation that ruled the daughter's deat was an accident? Is it because of your deep-seeded belief that we filthy "civilians" (said in sneering tone) must all be guilty of something, and that the only reason we're not all in prison is because you, Barney and Matlock haven't caught us yet?

Yes, by all means. Accept the word of a part-time mortgage broker over a guy who actually works for a living.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 2:13:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Quit.

All cops are guilty till proven innocent.



No, some just have less...... nevermind.



Many cops are above the law, we know and they know it. No sense bullshitting ourselves. The blue wall exists. Not faulting them for covering their collective asses, thats just the way it works.



I had several complaints filed against me. All were proven unfounded. Did teach me a lesson though. I bought a pocket tape recorder. I recorded all verbal transactions with the public. I was actually able to have two prosecuted for false reporting.

People you bump into on the street will file false accusatitons on police officers, just because they can and they think they can get MONEY.

If a cop does do something wrong I have no problem with them getting in trouble for it.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 2:15:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Quit.

All cops are guilty till proven innocent.



No, some just have less...... nevermind.



Many cops are above the law, we know and they know it. No sense bullshitting ourselves. The blue wall exists. Not faulting them for covering their collective asses, thats just the way it works.



Ah. Good to see you join us.

Tell me Mr Clean, what proof do you see in the story that the officer did wrong?



What proof do you have that he didn't? He obviously has more to lose therefore more to cover up than the other guy? I also noticed he is only sueing for 15k, kinda light for a sue happy lawyer as he was described. Sounds like he had no right to search him either. Can you just search someone without probable cause? Did the man tell him what was in the cross? Did the cop care or not? Too many tangables to go either way. I would have to give creedence to the man and not the cop. Cop has many reasons to lie, man has few.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 2:17:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Quit.

All cops are guilty till proven innocent.



No, some just have less...... nevermind.



Many cops are above the law, we know and they know it. No sense bullshitting ourselves. The blue wall exists. Not faulting them for covering their collective asses, thats just the way it works.



I had several complaints filed against me. All were proven unfounded. Did teach me a lesson though. I bought a pocket tape recorder. I recorded all verbal transactions with the public. I was actually able to have two prosecuted for false reporting.

People you bump into on the street will file false accusatitons on police officers, just because they can and they think they can get MONEY.

If a cop does do something wrong I have no problem with them getting in trouble for it.



I agree completely, crooks on both sides of the law. This isn't mayberry nor is it training day at all precincts.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 2:18:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Quit.

All cops are guilty till proven innocent.



No, some just have less...... nevermind.



Many cops are above the law, we know and they know it. No sense bullshitting ourselves. The blue wall exists. Not faulting them for covering their collective asses, thats just the way it works.



Oh, and I don't think cops are above the law. Do some cops do things and get away with it? Yes, they do. Just like other criminals do. And cops should be prosecuted if they get caught just like anybody else.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 2:20:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
Stories are not proof, and are not going to be admissible as evidence.

First-person testimony is not admissible as evidence?



There is the rub you see. This story ISN'T first person testimony. What it actually is, is the press release from the attorney, (the guy paid to make things look good) to a reporter (or reporters, you have no idea how many people this has filtered thru)

I suppose you believed Johnny Cochran too.

The guys actual testimony is still to be heard, but It's a pretty good bet that it will be different from the story above.

I'd like to point out, you have not heard the officer's testimony either.

That's okay, this thing will never see trial. Either the city will roll over for a modest sum, or the lawyer will drop the case if the city insists on a trial. (Which they should do in my opinion.)

Please note some things convienently left out of the lawyer's account. All critical to the case.

Client's intoxication level.
Actual proof of a deceased daughter or the presence of her ashes.
Specifically, which rights were violated? You have to list them in the suit, so it's not like he does not know.
What kind of search? Was there consent given?
Final disposition? Was he arrested for PI? Let go? Arrested for something else? Released to his mother in law? Was it an actual arrest/detention or a field interview where he was free to leave?
What was the conversation between the officer and the guy he stopped? Where do they get "intentionally inflicted emotional distress"?

The "lights on" and such is a smoke screen. None of that bears on the legality of the stop. You might as well ask if the officer was wearing his hat.

I actually wish the officer HAD video taped it. Then Arfcom would be out a nonsense cop thread, and the city wouldn't be wasting tax money on a horsecrap lawsuit.

You guys fall into two categories really, those that are biased against police, and those that are so gullible a real estate agent could sell you radioactive farmland in Chernobyl.



Oookay...

The emotional distress would come from dumping out the ashes of his daughter.

Is this guy a loser? Probably. I feel bad for him if he lives with his MIL and accidentally killed his daughter.

Does that mean he has less rights?

Do some people lie so they can get money out of a municipality through a trial? Yes

Are some cops bullies and punks? Yes

We don't have all the facts on this one, so all we can do is speculate on the very little information given through this article. The story written this way recieves a lot of media attention, written differently with different facts submitted or omitted, would probably get a different result.

The thing that makes me suspicious is that A) no video evidence, and B) the cop resigned. If I knew I hadn't done anything wrong, there's no way I would have resigned. The cop could have just wanted to try to keep the attention off him. Understandable.

The other thing that makes me suspicious is that the guy lost the pendant. Shit, if it was that important to him you think he might have held onto it.

My analysis of the situation? The dude was wearing it in bed and rolled over onto it and broke it and wanted to make some money off the deal.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 2:25:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
Stories are not proof, and are not going to be admissible as evidence.

First-person testimony is not admissible as evidence?



There is the rub you see. This story ISN'T first person testimony. <snip>

Your question was (and I am paraphrasing), "what does the guy have left?" Well, he does have his story, his first-person account of the subject event. That's just it. No ONE here has his first person account. You are not going to win in court with "Just" a story in any case, and his lawyer knows that.

However, that's not to say that such an event could not have occurred precisely as claimed by the plaintiff. Certainly it could have. How will anyone ever know? Why condemm someone over an unprovable assumption?


Please note some things convienently left out of the lawyer's account. All critical to the case.
Significant to what? Since when must the ordinary press read like the transcript from the court reporter? Perhaps all of the information you require to form any opinion whatsoever actually WAS in the lawyer's statement, and was edited by the City Editor at the paper. Perhaps the attorney is trying to protect the integrity of his case by not revealing his entire strategy. His entire strategy is already laid out. He's alleging civil rights violations arising from a single incident. It would be pertinent to inquire WHAT civil rights. What he DID is leak his story to probably pressure the city into settling. Why ELSE would he contact a reporter?

Why are you so quick to accept the internal investigation of Cline, I didn't. There are no findings to accept. It's inconclusive but refuse to accept the investigation that ruled the daughter's deat was an accident? I have not considered the death of the daughter one way or the other. It's irrevelant. Is it because of your deep-seeded belief that we filthy "civilians" (said in sneering tone) must all be guilty of something, and that the only reason we're not all in prison is because you, Barney and Matlock haven't caught us yet?

Yes, by all means. Accept the word of a part-time mortgage broker over a guy who actually works for a living. Duly deposited in the trash with the rest of the insults.

Link Posted: 8/2/2005 2:35:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Daytona955i:

Oookay...

The emotional distress would come from dumping out the ashes of his daughter.

Is this guy a loser? Probably. I feel bad for him if he lives with his MIL and accidentally killed his daughter.

Does that mean he has less rights?

Do some people lie so they can get money out of a municipality through a trial? Yes

Are some cops bullies and punks? Yes

We don't have all the facts on this one, so all we can do is speculate on the very little information given through this article. The story written this way recieves a lot of media attention, written differently with different facts submitted or omitted, would probably get a different result.

The thing that makes me suspicious is that A) no video evidence, and B) the cop resigned. If I knew I hadn't done anything wrong, there's no way I would have resigned. The cop could have just wanted to try to keep the attention off him. Understandable.

The other thing that makes me suspicious is that the guy lost the pendant. Shit, if it was that important to him you think he might have held onto it.

My analysis of the situation? The dude was wearing it in bed and rolled over onto it and broke it and wanted to make some money off the deal.



Not good at quoting so forgive me.

No video. So what? He may have just pulled up on the guy and did not have time or think about activating it.

Resigned. So what? He's still on the department. Just not a fulltime officer. Cops don't make squat.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 3:02:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
There is not enough info here for me to form an opinion. If what Burhnam says is true than that is some seriously fucked up shit. All of this brought to us with by the War on Drugs.



+ infinity, exactly what I was going to say.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 3:16:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If it meant that much to him the necklace should have been soldered closed.





That's the stupidest thing I can imagine anyone ever saying, even on the Internet. He should have seen this coming, of course. Any reasonable person would have known that some asshole cop would find a need to search a fucking NECKLACE.

And then wipe the ashes on the GROUND.

Yeah.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 3:29:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 3:40:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Upstat:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If it meant that much to him the necklace should have been soldered closed.





That's the stupidest thing I can imagine anyone ever saying, even on the Internet. He should have seen this coming, of course. Any reasonable person would have known that some asshole cop would find a need to search a fucking NECKLACE.

And then wipe the ashes on the GROUND.

Yeah.



Stick around. You will see more.
Top Top