home

Who is the real cop

The video was hard to watch of the Florida cop and the teenage girl violating curfew. Like Kdog (although probably not as much as Kdog) I have an anti-authoritarian streak and I generally distrust cops. As those charged with preserving the peace, I am 100 percent in support of them and I have great empathy for the jobs and duties they are charged with.

But, I also realize they have a duty to protect the property classes and when push comes to shove, they will follow the orders of those in power. I don't like to see cops at peaceful demonstrations and I feel my safety is at risk when they arrive to demonstrations I have attended.

All that is beside the point. I have been enjoying the discussion with Michael Gass and Patrick. I was clearly in the corner of Michael when the discussion began, but as it progressed it became obvious to me who was the real cop with the most experience, despite my belief that the cop in question in the video was handling the teenage girl too roughly. In the end, Patrick convinced me though, that the cop was responding reasonably in the legal sense of the term. Although Patrick may have been slightly insulting to Michael in his questioning of Michaels credentials, I believe he has done it to protect the image of a police officer. Michaels responses to Patrick's points and rebuttals has appeared to me, however, to be a bit irrational.

But that is just me. So I am just curious what the rest of you all think. Perhaps not the crucial issue of the day in a world of turmoil and on a blog of political discussions. However, a little poll for TL's finest, might just be fun. No offense to Patrick or Michael, since I enjoy both of their perspectives. I am just really curious what everyone else thinks.

Who is the Real Cop?

< A New Kind of Power | How low law enforcement has fallen >

Poll

Who is the Real Cop?
Michael Gass 0%
Patrick 37%
They are both real cops, but Patrick has more experience 50%
They are both real cops, but Michael has more experience 0%
Both are real cops with equal amounts of experience 12%
Neither Michael or Patrick is a real cop 0%

Votes: 8
Results | Other Polls
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What about (none / 0) (#1)
    by roy on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:01:37 PM EST
    "They are both real cops, but Michael shouldn't be"?

    Gass was completely out of his element and (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:11:32 PM EST
    I don't think he is or ever was a cop. Stubborn SOB though...

    I'm skeptical of Gass (none / 0) (#3)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:33:12 PM EST
     because when I first noticed him he was claiming that due to his extensive experience in the Middle East he knew Arab men never dyed their beards which is patently false. When I pointed out to him that not only is it common but that there is religious basis for it which is well documented (along with medical studies focusing on the correlation between the dyes employed and skin conditions), he suggested he must not have seen it because he was always in the boondocks and maybe men there didn't do it.

     

    Parent

    Ah yes, I remember that now. (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:37:20 PM EST
    Methinks we have another internet poseur. For what purpose? It's just a dopey blog for god's sake...

    Parent
    Michael Has Sent Me (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:13:05 PM EST
    his qualifications by e-mail. You can trust he's a former cop with a long term career in various aspects of law enforcement, civilian and military.

    Patrick has been posting here for many years. I think (but don't know for sure) he's a drug cop in California.

    Neither of them should have to out themselves or their jobs to weigh in. That's why I have a notice on TalkLeft that says:

    TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk

    Given that this is a criminal defense site, it's unusual that any members of law enforcement would regularly comment here to do anything other than criticize. Both Patrick and Michael engage in conversation and present their alternative views.

    Let's respect both of them. They disagree on this case. Their different career paths and experiences, while both in law enforcement, have led them to believe different things.

    There's lawyers who comment on TalkLeft I regularly disagree with. Occupation alone isn't a barometer for positions on issues, even those related to one's career.

    Parent

    J, afaik, Patrick is not a "drug" cop, (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:22:39 PM EST
    at least not any more. He is, as he says, a "POD" (plain old deputy).

    Michael Gass, sorry I disbelieved your creds.

    Stay around.

    Parent

    This was not unexpected... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Michael Gass on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:23:15 AM EST
    Which is WHY I sent you the information I did.

    You are 100% correct on many counts, but, I do appreciate your objective thoughts and views.

    Thank you...

    Parent

    Patrick's the real deal.... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:06:45 PM EST
    he's been here for years.  No doubt in my mind.

    Michael's kinda new, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  

    Patrick seemed more knowledgeable of procedure, imo.  I have no doubt any investigation will find the cop acted within protocols...which is even more depressing.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:15:37 PM EST
    the ft pierce police chief already backed up the cop. Sad, but true. But even if he acted according to protocol, that doesn't mean the protocols don't need revising. They do if they allow for the conduct we saw on the tape.

    Parent
    Amen Jeralyn.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:38:13 PM EST
    If what we saw is considered reasonable, there's a problem with the protocols....no doubt about it.  

    Parent
    What our review board finds is the UOF policy (none / 0) (#12)
    by JSN on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:54:18 PM EST
    was followed but in most cases they are not able to follow up and ask if the UOF policy SHOULD have been followed because of statutory limitations and union agreements. In a few cases question about the UOF and other policies have resulted in changes.

    I think the questions should be are they hiring the right officers and training them properly? I also think the DA should play a larger role in improving police-citizen relations.

    Parent

    I believe (none / 0) (#10)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:47:56 PM EST
     the cop used more force than was necessary under all the circumstances which should always be the standard. Obviously though  people can disagree about what was or wasn't necessary and it is different to make your decision sitting at a desk watching a video of others and being involved in an incident with an out of control person in the middle of the night.

      I will also say that while I think the punch was excessive it was a restrained response in the overall scheme of things and it did not appear that his intention was to injure the girl. Were I deciding things, I'd issue the cop a reprimand,  require that he obtain additional training  in subduing persons resisting and advise him any future similar incidents will be cause for far more serious sanction.

    If Jeralyn (none / 0) (#11)
    by Patrick on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:49:04 PM EST
    says Michael was once a cop, I can accept that. And I will drop that line of questioning in the future.  You'll notice I didn't take issue with the many other posters who said virtually the same thing as Mr. Gass.  I took him to task specifically because of his stated experience...Which I know, from experience, doesn't mean much to the usuals who post here, but someone may read his posts and think he speaks with some authority on the matter because of it.  I think I've clearly shown that he doesn't.  I read some of his other posts on other threads, and think he reads too much into things, but I agreed with them so wasn't as critical as I could have been with them.  

    I have to admit, I'm a bit flattered by the fact that this thread even exists, so thanks for that.  I've been a lot of things during my career, dope cop was one of my assignments as was marijuana eradication.  I've been a training officer, swat cop, sergeant, lieutenant, and even an acting chief deputy (Which at that department was the highest rank one could achieve without an election).  I left all that this past April for a chance to start over and have less of a burden on my wife and two young daughters.  I'm currently a plain ole deputy for a mid-sized sheriff's department in Norcal.  I know that sounds strange, making a move like that, but I'm making more money and working less hours, so I get to spend more time with my family.  Plus my retirement benefits are 50% better.  I'd be more than happy to e-mail Jeralyn my 411, I think I can trust her....But maybe I should put her on a retainer, so I'm certain she can't divulge.

    Anyway, I know none of you agree with my points, just because I claim to know something.  I've learned it takes good, sound, reasonable debate to get my point across, and still ideological differences can block mutual agreement.  Again, I appreciate this thread and view it as a vote of confidence.  

     

    Your efforts haven't been for naught.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:00:27 PM EST
    You've made me re-think some things and question my take on things on occasion...I'm sure I'm not the only one.

    The fact that you come to a criminal defense blog to converse with knuckleheads like me says a lot about you brother, and as different as we are you've earned my respect.

    I'm not sure if pigs are flying or if a cold front just swept through hell...but yes, I found an officer of the law I respect:)

    Parent

    In fact, patrick... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Michael Gass on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:31:38 AM EST
    I am a bomb technician by specialty, trained at NAVSCOLEOD with 10 years active duty AF, and I have about 19 years combined experience in it now, both in the military and civilian sectors.  I was active duty when I went to Iraq the first time in 1991 and a civilian contractor doing ordnance work when I went back to Iraq for my second time in 2006.  

    I've also worked four Secret Service Presidential VIP protection missions for three Presidents (Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton), one mission for Pope John Paul II, and for numerous candidates during campaign seasons with the TSD division of the Secret Service while I was active duty.

    Yes, after my 10 years in the AF, I went into law enforcement at "po-dunk pd", and because the department had such a high turnover rate, I made FTO in 2 years and Sergeant in 5 years (which I spent 1 year as Shift Sergeant).  I made Sergeant specifically because with my military background and EOD experience, I had already been placed in hazardous situations having to make those tough decisions that could mean life or death.  

    I was also making $34,000/yr supervising 7 officers when our shift was full, which was almost never.  When I left LE and went back to being a bomb technician, I STARTED at $68,000/yr or double my LE salary as a Sgt. and that was at the ENTRY LEVEL.  When I went back to Iraq in 2006... well... let's just say it was real good money... six figures... just not SO good I was willing to die there.

    But, I am going to take issue with some of your comments, especially given the history of your disparaging remarks towards me, which I tried real hard to ignore.

    I took him to task specifically because of his stated experience...Which I know, from experience, doesn't mean much to the usuals who post here, but someone may read his posts and think he speaks with some authority on the matter because of it.

    Now, let's get something straight.  I graduated the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy in 1996 3rd in my class (a distinguished graduate).  I also won the Clifford A. Moyer Marksmanship Award (or, "top gun" on the range).  I spent 6 years on the road.  2 of those years I was training rookies as an FTO and 1 of those years I was the shift Sergeant, so, yes, I DO speak with some knowledge and authority on matters concerning law enforcement, whether YOU like it or not, believe it or not, or RESPECT IT or not.  

    I have to admit, I'm a bit flattered by the fact that this thread even exists, so thanks for that.  I've been a lot of things during my career, dope cop was one of my assignments as was marijuana eradication.  I've been a training officer, swat cop, sergeant, lieutenant, and even an acting chief deputy (Which at that department was the highest rank one could achieve without an election).  I left all that this past April for a chance to start over and have less of a burden on my wife and two young daughters.  I'm currently a plain ole deputy for a mid-sized sheriff's department in Norcal.

    What you say here may well be true, and I have no reason to doubt it.  I also know that for Sheriff Departments, when a new sheriff is elected, the top brass at the department usually get the ax because he/she wants to bring in their own Lt's and above at LEAST, if not Sgt's as well.  So, you may well have left being Chief Deputy because you wanted to go back to being just a deputy again, or, you could have had a new sheriff elected and really had little choice.  I don't care, personally.  What I DO care about is your continued attitude that simply BECAUSE you have all this experience, you MUST be right and can put "lower people" in their place and disparage them.  Let me explain to you just how well that worked while I was active duty EOD.

    We had an E-8 that was our superintendent and a Captain that was our OIC in charge of our shop at Incirlik AB, Turkey.  Now, a reasonable person might expect that an 18 year Captain and a 20+ year career SMSGT would know their job.  In 1991, Air Force regulation allowed EOD units overseas to do the base fireworks displays.  By 1993, only certified contractors could do the base fireworks display.  Wanna guess why?  Because an E-7, E-6 and myself (an E-4 at that time) told the E-8 that the display one year was a bad op and needed to be aborted, but, he decided for POLITICAL reasons the display would go as planned.  He put four of my buddies in trauma that night WHEN the op went bad, just as we told him it would.  So, merely having the experience doesn't mean that the right decisions are always being made by those individuals.

    You think an officer punching a kid in the face is ok... fine... you do.  I don't.  I also didn't allow my officers to cuss at a suspect or disparage/demean them.  It was uncalled for and unnecessary, and yes, I DID have a rookie who tried it... ONCE... and yes, he almost DID get kicked off the shift because of it on my word.  But, my Lt. was old school and flat told me that as Sergeant it was my shift to run until we ran into something he didn't feel I had the experience to handle.  

    Yes, every report came across my desk before it was submitted and yes many reports were rewritten until I was satisfied that every "i" was dotted and "t" crossed correctly, so yes, I believe I can look at others reports and critique them quite adequately.

    Yes, we did get complaints as well, and I got a LOT of them.  Not for cussing at people, not for excessive force, but because people didn't like my tone of voice and thought I was "rude" to them.

    I'm sure you also know that disorderly conduct and trespass after notice are the two most abused laws on the books.  I know that for a fact and it really doesn't matter what department it is.  When cops have nothing else to charge you with, and they want you in jail, they arrest you for one or the other... mainly its DC.  I got tired of watching it happen and, as I told you before, it almost happened to ME when the deputy showed up to the argument I had with the counter lady at the County Administration office.

    We can disagree on what is reasonable and what isn't, what are good tactics and what aren't, and what constitutes excessive force.  You may have allowed your deputies to pull what I consider to be garbage, but, I didn't put up with it on my shift.  

    I never claimed to know it all... only that I have been there, done it, seen it, and I CAN speak knowledgeably about the subject BECAUSE I have been there, done it, seen it.  Yes, I can also speak with authority on it as well.  I never claimed to have umpteen thousand years of experience, I flat said I spent 6 years in law enforcement.  I have also seen how many officers treat people, ESPECIALLY suspects/subjects, and frankly, I got disgusted with it.  

    The police chief of Fort Pierce, like many others, will stick up for their officers, that doesn't mean what the officer did was right; it just means that I haven't seen many who wouldn't.  What happens behind closed doors is a whole different story, however.

    And it isn't reasonable suspicion to make an arrest... it is probable cause:

    It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984).

    As for the clothes the girl was carrying in the bag:

    In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a "man of reasonable caution" to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992).

    What "facts" did he have?  

    - the clothes still had their tags on them and she  didn't have a receipt on her.

    YOU may believe that would lead a "man of reasonable caution" to believe they were stolen.  I don't.  In my opinion, the seizure was unreasonable since those were the only facts he had.

    Lastly... there may well be more incidents upon which we agree, or some where we disagree, but I'd expect you to leave the attitude and disparagement out of it.

    (side note here for Jeralyn; sorry, but I had enough of it when he couldn't leave it out of even THIS post)

    Parent

    You are persistant, I'll give you that. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Patrick on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 02:07:32 PM EST
    Having served active duty AF for 4 years and another 4 active reserve, I too have participated in Presidential and VIP support missions.   While they sound impressive as to experience, there ain't that much to it.  As an EOD person, I suspect you sat in a van or a 6-pack and "smoked and joked" with the boys while the SP K-9 swept the buildings.   At least that's what EOD did on the missions I was on.  

    I graduated #1 from my academy, and along with a buck and a quarter could get a cup of coffe.  I also graduated #1 in Weaponless Defenese and physical fitness, but was only 8th or so (out of 35)at the range.   Again, I suspect with the proper amount of money we could get a cup of coffee.  

    Perhaps sheriff's departments work the way you describe in S. Carolina, but in California, I was a civil servant and my promotions thru those ranks was "At will."   You say you have no reason to doubt me, but than go on to do just that.  

    My disagreement with you isn't based on the argument that I have more experience, therefore am right(Which I might point out HAS been your argument).  It's based on the FACT that your points to date have been based on assumptions when contradictory facts are readily available.  As you've pointed you people with experience can be wrong, and even people with "authority" sometimes get stuck defending positions because their ego gets in the way.  

    Yes, we did get complaints as well, and I got a LOT of them

    Funny, I don't get a lot of complaints, and sometimes I cuss at people, because I believe it's better to get compliance with a harsh word if possible before resorting to higher levels of force.  

    You may have allowed your deputies to pull what I consider to be garbage, but, I didn't put up with it on my shift.  

    I wouldn't consider the proper use of legal investigatory techniques and properly applied force "garbage" but some may disagree.  

    I don't think I've ever arrested a person for disorderly conduct (Unless public intoxication is the kind of disorderly you're referring to) and am pretty sure there's no such statute available to me in this state that would even come close to giveing me legal grounds to arrest in the scenario you described yourself being involve in.  Tresspassing (At least in California) requires a victim, other than the reporting officer.  So, no I don't agree they are the most abused laws on the books.  Perhaps they are abused in some places.  

    I never claimed to know it all... only that I have been there, done it, seen it, and I CAN speak knowledgeably about the subject BECAUSE I have been there, done it, seen it.

    Isn't "Been there, done it, seen it" used in the same context?  If after 6 years of experience, you've "Been there, done it, seen it," then I'd say you must have had one exceptional, albeit short, career.  Because I still have those moments where I see something, and say, "Who's gonna believe that."  

    And it isn't reasonable suspicion to make an arrest... it is probable cause:

    Of course it is...and may I politely suggest you go back and read the comment about which you are making this statement.  I think once you do, you'll clearly see it's exactly what I was saying.  So...there is something we agree on.  

    As for the clothes the girl was carrying in the bag:.....
    .....What "facts" did he have?
    - the clothes still had their tags on them and she  didn't have a receipt on her.

    Well let's review.  I might add, the courts here have ruled many times that "experience" is crucial to how an officer percieves things.

    He had:

    Clothes, in a bag, with hangers and tags still on them.  The fact the she was wearing new clothes, with at least the tags still on the shoes.  She was carrying a set of old clothes in the bag.  It was 4-5 hours after the closing time of the store where she claimed they came from, has no receipt.  It's 0150-0200 in the morning and she's evasive and untruthful in her answers.   So it's more than just the 2 obvious facts you've stated, and I believe it's more than reasonable to conclude those items "may" be stolen property.  

    Lastly... there may well be more incidents upon which we agree, or some where we disagree, but I'd expect you to leave the attitude and disparagement out of it.

    Based on this discussion and the previous thread, I'd suggest that if we agree in the future, it's more by accident or coincidence.   You have shown yourself to be impulsive and unreasonable while demonstrating a profound lack of reading comprehension.  Characteristics that don't serve cops very well.  

    Here's to hoping I've addressed everything that needed to be addressed and that those who read these comments can discern for themselves what reasonable inferences can be made from the facts.  Mr. Gass, I'd say it's been a pleasure, and maybe it was at the beginning, but now it's gotten excessive and I'm done responding to your absurd comments.  

    Parent

    Should have read (none / 0) (#20)
    by Patrick on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 02:12:05 PM EST
    my promotions through those ranks was not "At will"

    Parent
    If you click the "recommend" button (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:05:23 PM EST
    this diary moves to the top of that section where it will stay for some time.  I'm going to recommend it.

    Thanks Patrick and Michael (none / 0) (#17)
    by Peaches on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 08:10:34 AM EST
    I appreciate that neither of you took this diary and poll as disparaging and I learned more about each of you in your responses. I appreciate that both of you take your jobs seriously and I think you both are (or were) probably good cops for different reasons.

    The reason I posted this diary and poll was to get some feedback about what others were thinking about the discussion between the two of you.

    I just want to reiterate that I think the Florida's cops treatment of the teenager was too rough and I am comforted to know that there are supervisors like Michael who are holding police officers accountable.  

    That said, after listening in to their discussion, I think if I ever found myself in the unfortunate position of being in the wrong place at the wrong time at the scene of a crime where I was completely innocent, but evidence and circumstances pointed to me being questioned and detained, I think I would prefer Patrick to Michael to be the arresting officer for the following reason.

    Michael seems overly irrational and will leap to any evidence at his disposal to prove his first initial conclusions despite evidence to the contrary - something all humans do, but police officers should be trained to avoid. There are many examples in their discussion by I will just focus on there discussion of the time line.

    The officer's report (and this officer, cited in their discussion, appears to write his reports sloppily and unprofessionally which, justifiably so, is unacceptable to Michael) stated he stopped the girl a little after 1:00 am. However, the video shows a time of 7:20 am. Michael makes the conclusion that the officer was holding the girl for 6 1/2 hours before detaining and putting her under arrest. Upon reading this point by Michael, being as I am inexperienced in police investigations, my mind raced to a number of conclusions about what this officer might be doing with a young black woman for 6 and a half hours while calling off his back-up - according to Michael. Fortunately, Patrick responded with the obvious. It was not 7:20 am because it was still dark out and it is not dark out at 7:20 am in July in Florida. Rather than concede this point, and say while giving himself a thump on the forehead, "Silly me, I should have noticed that - you're right, but still this does not make the officers treatment of the girl reasonable, because..." Michael stuck to his first impression and continued to argue that the clock was correct and the Earths rotation must have been wrong, because of a rule in the manual of an officer's responsibility for inspecting his vehicle before beginning his shift which includes checking the accuracy of his clocks (and, the manual was from a Michigan department if I remember correctly).

    There are other examples in the discussion, and I would presume that Michael thinks Patrick begins with an assumption that all officers conduct is justifiable given any circumstance, but I saw no evidence of that. Rather, Patrick argued that although he would have handled the situation differently - suggesting the officer should possibly be reprimanded or sent to get more training - he believed the officer still acted within the range of reasonable to an uncooperative detainee. Then, in his discussion he made reasonable and rational arguments supporting his view, from my perspective.

    Under my scenario of an innocent bystander found at the scene of a crime with evidence pointing to my guilt or suspicion upon any arriving officers first impression when surveying the crime scene, I believe this would lead to the possibility that Patrick might investigate alternative scenarios leading to clearing me as a suspect, before Michael would.

    However, as usual, I could be wrong.

    as I commented in that post (none / 0) (#18)
    by Michael Gass on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 09:01:15 AM EST
    I had a very similar incident that went thus (reader's digest version):

    • Call came in of suspicious person in offices and description.
    • I responded with a second vehicle.
    • I stopped an individual matching that description walking on the sidewalk carrying a vcr while the second unit went to the offices.
    • The office personnel had no idea if anything was missing or not (not even vcr's), nor, did any office personnel agree to do a drive-by to ID the person I stopped as the person they saw in their offices.
    • Given that I had absolutely zero facts to dispute the man's claim that the vcr was his, I had to release the man with the vcr.

    In the days following the incident, I talked to several officers, not just at my department, but other departments as well, and every single one of them stated that there was no way they would have let the guy keep the vcr because it was obviously stolen.  It may have been, but, there was absolutely zero facts I had to support it.

    No, it wasn't that I found this diary "demeaning", as I posted to Jeralyn, I expected at some point that my credentials would be questioned so I sent her as good of evidence of them as I could just so when it did happen, at least she was aware that it wasn't just an internet wannabe who was a cop one day and an astronaut the next.

    As for the discussion and progression of it, I only had to watch the video to see that, in my opinion, it was already excessive force.  But, the discussion turned from that issue alone to other issues.  As the report got released, etc, and more information became available, then even more questions arose for me as to this officers conduct.  I was also looking at it from two standpoints; first as an officer, second as to how a lawyer could rip this officer to shreds in court if the family sued the department and city.  THAT progressed to whose badge was bigger and who might not be because (fill in this part).

    I have no problem defending officers when I see, in my opinion, that they are clearly following acceptable procedures (the Florida student taser case that I have posted to here is a good example).  I also have no problem raking an officer over the coals when he, again in my opinion, clearly is in the wrong (this case of the girl getting punched and THEN sprayed).

    In my eyes, the officer handled the incident as I've seen other officers do; they hone in on the property and everything else be damned... INCLUDING the rights of the person.  I pretty much deduced that the minute I read where there was clothes in a bag with the tags still on it.

    But, bad tactics and approaching the situation with the mindset that everyone gets cuffed all the time simply because you have a badge is exactly why these cases keep occurring.

    The girl was zero threat.  He had no need to cuff her at all during the investigative stop in my opinion, and by NOT doing so, the situation would have likely played out differently.  Also, by Florida law, if it was her first curfew offense, she wasn't even open to arrest, merely a written warning and sent packing home (though, I would have given her a ride home at that time in the morning WITH the clothes).  The FIRST thing the officer should have done is establish who she was, how old she was, why she was there.  THEN, upon learning her age, radioed the department to see if she had any prior warning for curfew violation on file.  If she did and this was her second time, arrest her right then and transport.  THEN if she resists, fine... she does.  But, even his procedure for arresting her and cuffing her was sloppy.  You don't put people over your car or against a wall to cuff them... you are merely giving them purchase to push off of TO resist, which is EXACTLY what happened.  

    Was the officers actions "reasonable"?  Not to me.  It was his own actions that generated the problem.  To ME, THAT is not reasonable at all.  Simply by using different tactics, the incident could have been avoided totally, or at worst, any resistance dealt with in a more professional manner consistent with generally approved use-of-force continuum's (ie, she tries to bite, back off, spray her, regain control... or... iron-wristlock takedown to the ground, cuff).  But punching her THEN spraying her?  Nope.  Totally unreasonable to me.

    What the Police Chief says is suspect right off the bat because 99.9% of the Chief's, Sheriff's, etc, are GOING to back their officers unless it so grossly out there, even THEY can't defend it (notice that the department backed the officers who beat Rodney King).  I've even seen some judges back officers in court all day long as long as their testimony was right (remember the disorderly cases I mention above).  Only ONCE did I watch a judge dress down a deputy in court, but he screwed up so bad even WE couldn't believe it.  

    As to "who is the better cop"... meh... that is for each to decide, but, I'd submit that an argument over the internet about an incident neither of us were on and the people deciding who are deciding were never at isn't really a good way to judge (my opinion).

    Parent

    You're right, I can't resist. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Patrick on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 11:23:22 PM EST
    And, btw, since neither of us were actually there, both of our arguments are based on assumptions given the facts we both have.

    No. I used the officer's own words from his report.

    but, since I left the best two to last, I'll answer these two, then I'll stop to responding to you as well.

    Those were your best two?  An arrest from 1968 and a case where the charges were dropped.  Well color me suprised.  

    27 people were arrested this very night by the San Diego Sheriff Dept. and charged with code 415.

    Well, once again color me surprised that 27 people were arrested for 415 PC in a city of almost 3 million.   You know what, I'm not surprised, because if you look at the section...(Your very own quote) you see that

    415.  Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both such imprisonment and fine:
       (1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or challenges another person in a public place to fight.
       (2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise.
       (3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.

    I highlighted the most common use for the section.  27 people fighting in San Diego County.   Say it isn't so.

    I have some questions for you....What brought down the World Trade Center?  And who is Michael Gass?  More Gass?

    Here under the moniker "Motleypatriot" you post a whole diary about the drug war, but never mention that you have 6 years of LE experience to back up your argument...I find that strange.   In fact, I haven't read all your diaries yet, but of the ones I have, you never mention it.   Oh we get all the EOD stuff, but no LE stuff.  Curious.   Oh I liked the rant about leaving for real.  TTFN.
     

    I stand corrected (none / 0) (#23)
    by Patrick on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 11:33:12 PM EST
    You have so far posted two where you mention you prior experience.  

    Parent
    OMG! You found me out! (none / 0) (#24)
    by Michael Gass on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 01:33:09 AM EST
    I posted on the internet under... (gasp).. a MONIKER!

    OMG... you are such a good cop!!!!

    What was it you said?  That a few coins and you can buy a cup of coffee? (I really am lmao)

    You found me out!  I'm exposed now.  Not only have I posted under my real name... I've actually made posts on the internet under a moniker.  What a cop you are!  Let me buy you a cup of coffee!

    I guess it's now time for me to "bare my soul" since your police work over an internet has exposed me.

    I run the blog The Motley Patriot.  Ooooooo... what a crime THAT is!  I have my own blog!!!!  OMG... I am SOOOO exposed!!!!!  And I never told anyone here... omg... arrest me!

    I have signed up as a 9/11 truther!!!!  OMG... I'm going to Guantanamo!  I'll be in good company though... but... you found me out!  What investigative work THAT was!  I mean, come on... I'm a 19 year bomb tech who only watched WTC 7 drop in its footprint and only said "damn, looked like a controlled demolition to ME!"  Of course, I'm not the ONLY one who has said the commission's report left out holes.  I can bring out ex-administration officials, ex-CIA agents, and others, who have called for a REAL investigation that, like me, want that real investigation.  But you found me out!

    (ok... dying here)

    And... OMG... I even posted on dailykos as motleypatriot... which is the same moniker as my personal blog... I mean... omg... how much worse can you get!!!!

    Except... what did you run to?

    Did you acknowledge that, as a cop, it ISN'T reasonable suspicion that is the litmus test, but, probable cause to arrest?  Oh no... you HAD to "out" me!  Did you acknowledge that there was, in fact, a California law that could be abused, and most likely has been?  A law you claimed, with your 20+ years a Chief Deputy you had ZERO knowledge of even existed?  NOPE.  You had to try, ONCE AGAIN, character assassination.

    Congratulations...

    You have now moved into the realm of not discussing law enforcement... or differences... but the EXACT mode that right-wingers pull; if all else fails, denegrate, assassinate, try to destroy.

    Oh... you are SUCH a good cop... you can do a google on my real name... and actually find where I made posts over the internet... well congratulations.

    Here... you missed this... which is exactly what I sent Jeralyn:

    http://www.hazdevcon.com/

    Yep.  My personal consulting firm.  Not SUCH a good cop you caught THAT one, though.  No, you want to move right to character assassination, and have been trying to do that every step of the way.

    So, congratulations Mr. "I have so much experience in law enforcement that I've done it all but had no clue about a CA penal code (415) that could be abused".

    Yep... you're a great cop.

    Parent

    oh... and we can't forget this... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Michael Gass on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 02:08:53 AM EST
    Do you acknowledge that the very statute I cite DOES... in fact... include exactly what I say? No.  But that statute is there and it says what it says.

    Oh, but, you cry, there are so many people in San Diego!

    That wasn't what I brought out... only YOUR reply to it.  I brought out the statute exists, that the wording of it DOES leave it open to the very abuse I said was there, and you ran to a whole different argument.  Why?  I'll tell you why.

    IF you're an ex-Chief Deputy, you know the abuses that have occurred.  But, can't SAY it can you?  I can.  I will.  I'm tired of LE acting as they have been.  

    But, the main point is there... there IS a statute that leaves it open... and you, supposedly, had NO CLUE of it.  No, not in your 20+ years of law enforcement did you know of THIS statute and its wording.  Right.  

    No... when backed into the corner... you went right to discrediting.  Destroy the man!  You may remember... this is a LIBERAL blog... they've SEEN this very thing time and again by right-wingers.  And... you jumped on it.  Says more than I could... doesn't it.

    20+ years... but... had no clue it was probable cause to arrest.. not merely reasonable suspicion... right.  A rookie knows its probable cause to arrest.

    Now... attack... it's all you do.  It's all you have left.  I'm "exposed" for who I am.  But, I exposed myself... you didn't... I'm already posting here under my own name... you merely brought out when I posted under a moniker.  And, omg, that I'm a 9/11 truther.  How many here are?  I don't know.  Do you?

    But, your own actions have said so much.  Your own lack of knowledge has said so much more.

    Parent

    and... I'll leave you with this... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Michael Gass on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 02:19:29 AM EST
    any academy cadet knows it's probable cause to arrest.  They are drilled that IN the academy.  ANY academy.

    But you didn't.

    YOU said it was reasonable suspicion.

    You can claim to be many things, to have done many things, and that you know many things... but your own words betray you.

    I wasn't even out of the academy when I knew probable cause was the standard.  But, with your 20+ years... you don't?

    Please...

    Parent

    Actually I did... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Patrick on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 11:18:40 AM EST
    Did you acknowledge that, as a cop, it ISN'T reasonable suspicion that is the litmus test, but, probable cause to arrest?  Oh no...

    In the post 0n 10/12/07 at 02:07:32 PM EST...When I said...

    And it isn't reasonable suspicion to make an arrest... it is probable cause:

    Of course it is...and may I politely suggest you go back and read the comment about which you are making this statement.  I think once you do, you'll clearly see it's exactly what I was saying.  So...there is something we agree on.  

    I guess I could have said it more clearly, since the way I wrote it is open to misinterpretation, and considering the providence you've shown for misinterpretation, so here it is....  It takes Probable cause to make an arrest.   Now if you want to, you can go back and research all my comments at this site.  I'm sure you'll find that I have even "admitted" that before.  

    However, since the only proof you've shown the host of this site is your web page, which I've already seen, and doesn't really prove that you were ever a cop, I guess I'm back to my original questions.   The type of "Law Enforcement" experience you have.   Elaborate if you care.  

    Parent

    As you wish... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Michael Gass on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:44:41 PM EST
    However, since the only proof you've shown the host of this site is your web page, which I've already seen, and doesn't really prove that you were ever a cop, I guess I'm back to my original questions.   The type of "Law Enforcement" experience you have.   Elaborate if you care.

    Ms. Jeralyn is now in possession of merely some of my certifications, but, rest assured, they are not debatable.  Will you do the same?

    Parent

    and since you have trouble (none / 0) (#29)
    by Michael Gass on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:52:15 PM EST
    believing the outlandish claims I've made... I'll make another one; I was in the United States Air Force and was awarded an United States Army Achievement Medal.

    And yes, Ms. Jeralyn was also sent those two awards as well.  

    I don't make claims I can't back up.  Have a nice day.

    Parent

    well... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Patrick on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:52:34 PM EST
    dug gone it..An Achievement Medal...I guess my two don't mean nuthin.  (you know, the 1st oak leaf cluster for the second one)  I'll bet your's was even signed by a colonel too. From the Army no less.  

    Actually, that's not at all outlandish, and I don't doubt it for a minute, but then again, I wouldn't go walking around like the cock of the roost over it either.

    And yes, Ms. Jeralyn was also sent those two awards as well.  

    You mention two, but only list one.  I'll tell you what, as an offer of good faith, I'll just take your word for it, but I hope you removed your SSN from the order before you went and sent it out.  ID theft being what it is these days, one can't be too careful.  

    Parent