Some Extra Afternoon Links

Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012
Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

39 Responses to “Some Extra Afternoon Links”

  1. #1 |  Juice | 

    Off duty cop drunkenly breaks into someone’s home. “Trooper suspended but not yet charged; motive still unknown” “We will conduct an internal investigation to determine if any State Police rules or regulations have been violated…”

    WTF? Anyone else would be sitting in the slammer, probably tazed and pepper sprayed on the way for good measure.

  2. #2 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    “Nevada’s three-month old ban on texting while driving will get tougher, with tickets replacing the warnings that police have issued since the ban took effect Oct. 1. In Pennsylvania, police are preparing to enforce that state’s recently enacted ban on texting…”

    I’m reasonably sure that if people had any common sense we
    would only need about a dozen laws, maybe something chiseled in stone, resembling the Ten Commandments.

  3. #3 |  SJE | 

    From the drunk trooper article: cop not only broke and entered the place, but assaulted the home owner. Cop not yet even disciplined.

    ” think we’re just cautiously going through this whole thing,” Williams said, when asked if Miller’s police employment had anything to do with why he hasn’t yet been charged. “We just want to make sure that we do everything appropriately here, and we’re not treating this any differently than we would if he wasn’t a trooper.”

    Yeah RIGHT

  4. #4 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Bizarre lawsuit of the day.

    “The State Police are very concerned about allegations such as these, and we’ve taken administrative action where we’ve suspended Trooper Miller,” state police Troop D Capt. Frank Coots said Sunday. “We will conduct an internal investigation to determine if any State Police rules or regulations have been violated, and we will ensure that the State Police cooperate with the Utica Police Department in their criminal investigation.”

    I’m so relieved they are conducting an internal investigation. we all know how objective those are. At least they didn’t declare him innocent at the same time as they announced the intent to investigate.

    And of course, Juice is right. If it were anyone else, he would already be in the slammer facing charges (which is just another indicator of how objective the investigation is likely to be).

  5. #5 |  Scooby | 

    At least the homeowner wasn’t arrested for aggravated assault on a peace officer.

  6. #6 |  Bob | 

    “We just want to make sure that we do everything appropriately here, and we’re not treating this any differently than we would if he wasn’t a trooper.”

    How the fuck can ANYONE say that with a straight face?

  7. #7 |  omar | 

    “We just want to make sure that we do everything appropriately here, and we’re not treating this any differently than we would if he wasn’t a trooper.”

    This line stuck out at me as well. Oh, so it’s safe to assume Mr Miller was arrested, spent the night behind bars, charged with a crime and had bail set? Because the article doesn’t really specify.

  8. #8 |  MassHole | 

    That cop is damn lucky he didn’t catch a bullet instead of hammer.

  9. #9 |  Dave Krueger | 

    40,000 new laws to take effect in the U.S. this year.

    This, along with a crushing debt is what we’re leaving our children and grand children. Hopefully we’ll all be dead before they figure out how bad we fucked then over.

  10. #10 |  Highway | 

    The internal investigation will conclude that because there’s no rule specifically proscribing an off-duty officer from getting blitzed and busting into a random guy’s home and assaulting them, the trooper has not violated any rules of the police department and will not face any further discipline. He will be compensated for the time he was suspended, including normal overtime hours worked.

  11. #11 |  picachu | 

    Speaking of authoritarian douchebags, Rick Santorum’s nephew just endorsed Ron Paul:

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/03/the-trouble-with-my-uncle-rick-santorum/

    I’m thinking its gonna be awkward at the next family gathering.

  12. #12 |  GeneralGarbage | 

    @Scooby – There’s still time for that. They’ll clear their guy first, and once the attention has settled down a little bit, that’s when they charge the homeowner. Probably get him for resisting arrest too, since it is illegal to use force to defend yourself from the police whether their actions are justified or not.

  13. #13 |  Dante | 

    Scooby said:
    “At least the homeowner wasn’t arrested for aggravated assault on a peace officer.”

    All in good time. First, they have to let things cool down. Then, they hit the homeowner with everything you can think of. Oh, and the police begin to drop hints (false, of course) that the homeowner is some kind of pervert or guilty of something. Finally, the SWAT team raids his house and shoots his dogs/kids while the exact same dirty cop goes and does it again to some other innocent citizen and we start all over again.

    Protect & Serve (Themselves!)

  14. #14 |  Difster | 

    Picachu, I told my friend exactly the same thing when he sent me the link.

  15. #15 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    picachu,
    Santorum sure is the poster boy for authoritarian D-bags…and he reminds me a lot of Newt, Obama, Perry, Bachmann, McCain (for old time’s sake) and Mitt.

    Regarding the “hammered” cop, every reader of this site knows the “drill”: no charges filed against the cop and the homeowner will eventually get “nailed”. Why don’t they “level” with us? They “screw” us at every chance. Next they will “low bid to get the job and then escalate costs and schedule while doing shitty work that falls apart.”

    I’m terrible at this.

  16. #16 |  zendingo | 

    @ 5; 12 and 13….
    i was wondering the same thing….

  17. #17 |  Goober | 

    I loved this comment from an obvious badge licker and/or complete moron in the comments section of the linked article about the hammered trooper:

    It was New Years Eve! Just because he is a Trooper doesn’t mean he isn’t human! How many of YOU had a few drinks Saturday night?? I also work in Public Safety & we have many, many people that have a few drinks on this holiday & then end up going to the wrong home. Yes, it isn’t ideal, but criminal? I’m not so sure. I want to believe that he thought he was home & thought the ‘homeowner’ was an intruder! What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    So it is okay to break into someone’s home and physically assault them, but only if you’re drunk and can claim afterwards that you thought it was your house? What country are you from?

    As for your job in public safety, when one of those drunkards tries to go into the wrong home, you don’t arrest them? You don’t charge them when they assault the homeowner? Apparently, you are arguing that in your jurisdiction, being drunk off your ass is a get out of jail free card? Wow, where do you live, because I want to stay as far away from there as possible.

    As for “innocent until proven guilty” I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. He hasn’t been convicted of any crime. Hell, at this point, he hasn’t even been charged! There is nothing to defend him from at this point, other than disemination of the truth. In fact, he is getting better treatment than a typical person because most folks would have been charged by now with a lot less police review than is going into this. The phrase should be more along the lines of “innocent until proven civilian” or “if a cop, innocent until it is proven that the people aren’t going to just forget about it and we have to do something so we’ll just slap him on the wrist and hope like hell that nothing else comes of it”.

  18. #18 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Front page Chicago Tribune story on challenges to the Illinois eavesdropping law.

    It’s usually assumed that the U.S. has a culture of freedom. The fact that the state can defend such laws and not face massive public outrage is proof that there is no such thing as a culture of freedom. What we have is a public that is numb to the concept of freedom.

  19. #19 |  Goober | 

    I’m reasonably sure that if people had any common sense we
    would only need about a dozen laws, maybe something chiseled in stone, resembling the Ten Commandments.

    Yizmo – we wouldn’t even need that many.

    Thou shalt not deprive your fellow man of life, or of liberty, nor shall you harm him physically in any way. (No murder, no assault, no kidnapping)

    Thou shalt not deprive your fellow man of his property in any way. (no theft, vandalism, etc.)

    Thou shalt not act in bad faith when dealing with your fellow man. (No fraud)

    Thoul shalt not by action or omission intentionally risk endangerment of your fellow man’s life, and property. (No reckless endangerment of life or property. This could feasibly fall under the “good faith” law but I chose to clarify it).

    Those laws alone could fulfill all of the needs of any reasonable prosecutor. The thing we need is a book of laws of “Thou shalt nots” for the government. Oh, wait, we already have that. It’s called the Constitution.

    Anything that doesn’t fall under any of the laws listed above should not be a crime, because any action that does not fall under one of those headings harms no one. i defy anyone to come up with an example.

    To nuke to most common responses out fo the water before they start:

    1.) Taking illicit drugs harms no one but the user, himself, and should not be illegal until the taking of those drugs causes a violation of one of the above (ie, stealing to suppor the habit, etc).

    2.) Prostitution hurts no one and is a mutual agreement made by two consenting adults. Why, again, should it be illegal?

  20. #20 |  Goober | 

    Oh, yeah, and this doesn’t cover administrative law, just crimional law. There would still need to be tax codes and traffic laws and so forth, but none of those are criminal matters, even today, until you get to the level of reckless endangerment, which is covered above.

  21. #21 |  Ahcuah | 

    Santorum salad. A creamy dressing, I assume?

  22. #22 |  Aresen | 

    It’s not clear whether the trooper was off duty at the time. As he entered the house alone, I assume he was.

    If he was, the State Troopers are probably most relieved that they can’t be named in the lawsuit.

    He’s certain to be treated more favorably than a “civilian” – he already is, in fact, as he has neither been charged nor had to post bail. There may be too much publicity for him to go unpunished and he may be terminated.

    But don’t worry, the Police Union will see that he gets reinstated with back pay.

  23. #23 |  Dave | 

    Regarding the “hammered” cop, I wonder if he will be charged with DUI also..or did he walk to this house? You know any of us would get hit with that charge (as well as 20 other made up charges)

  24. #24 |  overgoverned | 

    #21, probably creamy, but definitely tossed.

  25. #25 |  FloO | 

    Hammered trooper gets hammered:

    “Williams said they will discuss the case with members of the Oneida County District Attorney’s Office to determine what to charge the homeowner with.”

  26. #26 |  CyniCAl | 

    It is frightening, uncanny and just a little bit satisfying how similar all of our thought patterns were regarding the Utica pig.

  27. #27 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @19 – Stalking

  28. #28 |  supercat | 

    //#19 | Goober | “Yizmo – we wouldn’t even need that many.”

    A simple list like yours sounds good in principle, but some parts are way too vague. For example, you prohibit “bad faith” behavior, but neither define what constitutes “bad faith” behavior, nor indicate how it should be proven, nor what civil remedies or criminal punishments should be imposed when bad-faith behavior (however defined) is proven. For example, to what extent should a person selling something be required to disclose information which might discourage someone from buying it? There are some cases where a seller should probably be required to disclose information, and other cases where a seller should not, but how does one define the boundaries?

  29. #29 |  Robert | 

    “Bizarre lawsuit of the day.”

    I don’t find it so bizarre. The bystander was injured due to negligence of the guy that was hit by the train. It was 100% his fault for not looking where he was running, so therefore his estate is responsible for medical treatment of the physical injuries sustained.

  30. #30 |  Goober | 

    Supercat – My point still stands. I never made the claim that the laws wouldn’t need some defining written into them in subtitles somewhere. I can imagine that one would have to define the term “physical harm” and “bad faith” and “reckless endangerment” and so forth. i didn’t say that the laws would be short. By necessity, they’d probably be very, very long. However, my point still stands that no matter how long the single law is in order to properly define the behavior being restricted, the common citizen would still only have a half dozen basic prinicples to remember instead of the byzantine system we have today where pretty much everything is illegal. I’m probably breaking a law right now now.

    Oh, wait, i did, because I just posted this anonymously.

  31. #31 |  Goober | 

    Robert, I wasn’t brave enough to say it earlier, but i agree totally.

    A person is liable for their actions causing harm. Period. It doesn’t matter if that person’s actions resulted in said person’s death, he is still liable (or his estate is).

    To put it in simple terms, just because the suicide bomber died in the bombing doesn’t mean it absolves him of wrongdoing. This guy ran out in front of a damn train despite the lights and horn and warning, which was a pretty risky thing to do, and carries a lot of liability. because of his stupidity, someone else was hurt. i find it to be immaterial that the guy died. he still hurt someone and that someone should be allowed to seek damages.

    Flame suit on.

  32. #32 |  Rojo | 

    Alert: The kids have been “Toping!” Parents be aware!

    http://www.theonion.com/video/report-finds-troubling-rise-in-teen-uranium-enrich,19175/

  33. #33 |  croaker | 

    NH proposes law to require law enforcement to enforce right to photograph at TSA checkpoints. Officers who fail in this duty will be charged with official oppression.

    http://www.pixiq.com/article/nh-mulling-law-that-would-criminalize-tsa-screeners#comment-56964

  34. #34 |  CyniCAl | 

    Mmm hmm.

    As if the USG would allow a silly little state to usurp its sovereignty.

    It is to laugh.

  35. #35 |  treed | 

    Damn it, Radley, is nothing important to you? Worst Prosecutor needs a playoff system.

  36. #36 |  Donald R Mott III | 

    40,000 new laws to take effect in the U.S. this year.

    The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.

    Paraphrasing Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, ” And now bills were passed, not only for national objects but for individual cases, and laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt.”.

  37. #37 |  Judi | 

    Judge to homeowner: You have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon on an officer of the law by using a hammer. How do you plead?

    Homeowner: Not guilty, your Honor.

    Judge: So tell the court your story.

    Homeowner: Well your Honor, this crazed drunken officer kicked my front door in and charged at me like a wild animal for no apprent reason. I felt eminent danger and the closest thing I had to defend myself and family was a hammer laying nearby. I picked it up and the offivcer just kept smashing his head into my hammer…what can I say? I guess it was HAMMA-TIME!

    Judge: Can’t Touch This! Not guilty!

  38. #38 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    “Miller was hospitalized at St. Elizabeth Medical Center for injuries he suffered after the homeowner struck him in the head with a hammer during the confrontation, police said.”

    This may be the most punishment the trooper will get for his drunken home invasion, so hopefully the homowner swung for the fences. It’s unfortunate, but due to the lack of accountability in law enforcement, this may become a more common response by citizens when faced with misbehaving or corrupt police.

    Be advised folks, tasers and mob mentality are making the police soft. They don’t excel in hand-to-hand combat, at least not anymore. Many aren’t in great shape. If they don’t have quick access to a gun or taser, and they aren’t surrounded by their buddies, then you might be able to take them. And if you have some formal combatives training (not just that MMA shit; that will get you fucked up in the street) you are in a much better position to administer a little street justice. Hey, if it works for them…

  39. #39 |  xysmith | 

    Or maybe:

    “A New York State Trooper is under arrest after breaking into a Utica home on New Year’s Eve and attacking a man who was living there.

    Trooper Jesse Miller, 31, pleaded not guilty in Utica City Court Tuesday afternoon after he was charged with felony third-degree criminal mischief, and criminal trespassing and third-degree assault, both misdemeanors.

    Miller was released on $2,500 bond and is due back in court Friday, Feb. 3. Judge John Balzano issued a temporary order of protection instructing Miller to stay away from the homeowner and the scene of the incident.

    Miller had walked home from a local bar on Genesee Street and was highly intoxicated, Lewis said.

    Miller wasn’t released until Monday from St. Elizabeth Medical Center, where his head wound had to be stapled and where doctors sewed on a portion of his ear that had been torn by the hammer claw, Lewis said.

    Miller is “embarrassed” by what happened, Lewis said, and he was immediately suspended from his duties with the state police while the case is pending. He also had to surrender all of his duty weapons, Miller said in court.”

Leave a Reply