Cop urges drivers on FB to hit BLM protestors

[5thofjuly]

Good God. What an asshole!

[StrawberryBlondie]

I wish this surprised me.

[josieposy]

I was just reading about this. The dude really thought shortening his name was going to help him?

[YeahSure]

Jan 18, 2016 18:45:48 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I wish this surprised me.

^ This. 

[NewOrleans]

Ok, so the run them over thing *could* just be a dumbass jerk quip. Not ok, but not a threat. Annnnd then you get this: "Here is the deal, you continue to drive and if you hit someone make sure you call 911 to report the accident and meet the cops a block or two away and you can justify stopping further away because you feared for your safety since in the past people in this group has shown a propensity towards violence. Since they are trying to block the street and/or cross where there is no crossing you should not be charged with anything. Now, these idiots could try and sue in civil court, but remember that it will be jury trial and so most likely it will come out in your favor." He was using his knowledge of the law to counsel people on how to do intentional bodily harm in a non-self-defense situation. That should be a fireable offense.

I think the propensity for violence must be referring to when snipers fired on the BLM protestors, of course, yes, dickhead?

[marriedfilingjoint]

Disgusting.

[StrawberryBlondie]

I wish I had good things to say about St. Paul pd. I'm sure they have some stellar cops. My professional interactions were great, but that was mostly with sheriffs deputies. My personal interactions have been awful. The only times I have eve r been pulled over by them, I've had a brown person in my car. Their questions went far beyond what's standard - is this your car - where are you going - where are you coming from - where is home - do you have insurance - what are you doing in this neighborhood - are you OK.

It was when I was in college and law school, so the answers to things like "where are you coming from" were "physics study group" or "criminal procedure" etc.

[aurora]

"Chief Smith and I are committed to building strong, trusting relationships with the communities we serve," Coleman continued. "There is no room in the St. Paul Police Department for employees who threaten members of the public. If the allegation is true, we will take the strongest possible action allowed under law."

So what is the "strongest possible action" for something like this?

[NewOrleans]

Jan 18, 2016 21:30:42 GMT -5 aurora said:

"Chief Smith and I are committed to building strong, trusting relationships with the communities we serve," Coleman continued. "There is no room in the St. Paul Police Department for employees who threaten members of the public. If the allegation is true, we will take the strongest possible action allowed under law."

So what is the "strongest possible action" for something like this?

Grand Jury. YWIA

[WOT?*]

Jan 18, 2016 21:30:42 GMT -5 aurora said:

"Chief Smith and I are committed to building strong, trusting relationships with the communities we serve," Coleman continued. "There is no room in the St. Paul Police Department for employees who threaten members of the public. If the allegation is true, we will take the strongest possible action allowed under law."

So what is the "strongest possible action" for something like this?

Leave with pay while IA investigates. Then sanctions that will be appealed by the union. So, not a lot.

[mrsukyankee]

That is beyond horrifying. They should be stripped of their job for life. I don't want a police officer around who condones the potential murder of someone like that.

[jojoandleo]

Jan 18, 2016 19:08:37 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Ok, so the run them over thing *could* just be a dumbass jerk quip. Not ok, but not a threat. Annnnd then you get this: "Here is the deal, you continue to drive and if you hit someone make sure you call 911 to report the accident and meet the cops a block or two away and you can justify stopping further away because you feared for your safety since in the past people in this group has shown a propensity towards violence. Since they are trying to block the street and/or cross where there is no crossing you should not be charged with anything. Now, these idiots could try and sue in civil court, but remember that it will be jury trial and so most likely it will come out in your favor." He was using his knowledge of the law to counsel people on how to do intentional bodily harm in a non-self-defense situation. That should be a fireable offense.

I think the propensity for violence must be referring to when snipers fired on the BLM protestors, of course, yes, dickhead?

And his law is wrong.  Just because someone crosses where they are not supposed to doesn't mean you can legally hit them.  That's not how this works.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jan 18, 2016 21:35:14 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Jan 18, 2016 21:30:42 GMT -5 aurora said:

"Chief Smith and I are committed to building strong, trusting relationships with the communities we serve," Coleman continued. "There is no room in the St. Paul Police Department for employees who threaten members of the public. If the allegation is true, we will take the strongest possible action allowed under law."

So what is the "strongest possible action" for something like this?

Grand Jury. YWIA

We pretty much never do those here. If a prosecutor empaneled a grand jury for something like this, it really wouldn't look good.

ETA: I'm probably a little biased. know a lot of St. Paul prosecutors personally.

[underwaterrhymes]

Jan 19, 2016 10:07:37 GMT -5 jojoandleo said:

Jan 18, 2016 19:08:37 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Ok, so the run them over thing *could* just be a dumbass jerk quip. Not ok, but not a threat. Annnnd then you get this: "Here is the deal, you continue to drive and if you hit someone make sure you call 911 to report the accident and meet the cops a block or two away and you can justify stopping further away because you feared for your safety since in the past people in this group has shown a propensity towards violence. Since they are trying to block the street and/or cross where there is no crossing you should not be charged with anything. Now, these idiots could try and sue in civil court, but remember that it will be jury trial and so most likely it will come out in your favor." He was using his knowledge of the law to counsel people on how to do intentional bodily harm in a non-self-defense situation. That should be a fireable offense.

I think the propensity for violence must be referring to when snipers fired on the BLM protestors, of course, yes, dickhead?

And his law is wrong.  Just because someone crosses where they are not supposed to doesn't mean you can legally hit them.  That's not how this works.

I think he was less posting with knowledge on how the law works and more posting with the knowledge of how the law works when the victim is black and the perpetrator is white.

[jojoandleo]

Jan 19, 2016 10:57:10 GMT -5 underwaterrhymes said:

Jan 19, 2016 10:07:37 GMT -5 jojoandleo said:

And his law is wrong.  Just because someone crosses where they are not supposed to doesn't mean you can legally hit them.  That's not how this works.

I think he was less posting with knowledge on how the law works and more posting with the knowledge of how the law works when the victim is black and the perpetrator is white.

Touché.

I still think he is stupid.  And I hate him.

[downtoearth]

This is disgusting - glad someone reported him to his work and that they have taken action.

I thought of the same thing as @smo about the dad just waiting in a business hall for his kids to get out of school and thought it was St. Paul.

[NitaX]

Jan 19, 2016 10:07:37 GMT -5 jojoandleo said:

Jan 18, 2016 19:08:37 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Ok, so the run them over thing *could* just be a dumbass jerk quip. Not ok, but not a threat. Annnnd then you get this: "Here is the deal, you continue to drive and if you hit someone make sure you call 911 to report the accident and meet the cops a block or two away and you can justify stopping further away because you feared for your safety since in the past people in this group has shown a propensity towards violence. Since they are trying to block the street and/or cross where there is no crossing you should not be charged with anything. Now, these idiots could try and sue in civil court, but remember that it will be jury trial and so most likely it will come out in your favor." He was using his knowledge of the law to counsel people on how to do intentional bodily harm in a non-self-defense situation. That should be a fireable offense.

I think the propensity for violence must be referring to when snipers fired on the BLM protestors, of course, yes, dickhead?

And his law is wrong.  Just because someone crosses where they are not supposed to doesn't mean you can legally hit them.  That's not how this works.

Ahem. One seems to forget that the application of the law doesn't apply to black folks or others who advocate on their behalf. See 1960.