• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paw print</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've read many times that the average cop in America, will not fire their weapon in the line of duty (not at the range etc.) during their entire career as a LEO. Is this a myth? How can we get the truth out? </div></div>

From all I have heard this is true. It depends largely on the area the officer works. I have never had to fire at this point but I have been very close to the hammer fallng multiple times and the person did something that saved them from being shot.
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Has there been something in these articles I missed? Where does it say that he is not getting charged?!?!

Is this an assumption because it ws not mentioned in the article? Its always assumed that there is going to be a department cover-up, but those are becoming a lot less frequent than they use to be. </div></div>

There is likely nothing for him to be charged with just like any other person would not have any charge anyone could face unless there is a city ordinance against discharging a firearm. There has to be intent or an injury or damage for a criminal charge so if he accidentally did it and there was no injury then there can not be a crime. If there had been someone hurt then he could have been charged with (diffrent areas will have diffrent verbage) negligence or reckless endangerment. He will like be charge departmentally (which most anyone else could not face) but other wise there is nothing he can be charged with on a legal stand point.
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Somehow I dont see this thread lasting much longer. <span style="font-weight: bold">But I do have one question in regards to the statement made by Wisconsin Carry, Inc.</span> They stated that the officer was "unfortuneately given a free pass". Is there some info not printed in the articles? Last I saw, he was currently under investigation. A ND is a lot worse for a cop than it is for a civillian. The civillian may get cited/arrested, pay fines or whatever the law of the state says. The officer can/should not only have to get that but deal with anything from time on the beach to termination. If terminated it is unlikely he will ever work for another agency again. Being this took place in an area populated by the general public and the media attention, they may just have to make an example out of him, just so the department can maintain a fair and unbiased image.


On that last note, perhaps that would be a good thing. I hate to see officers lose their jobs, but if they do, its usually for good reason. If he gets to keep his job, good for him, this is a very hard life lesson, one I hope he never repeats. In the few short years I have been in LE I have seen way too much firearm safety violations occur among other officers. They should be held to a higher standard and, while most are, should be held no less accountable for their neglect than anyone else. </div></div>

I think the statement Nik Clark made was while he was highly frustrated as this happened one day after the new law went into effect, after years of hard work. Nik is a good guy and Wi Carry was probably the most instrumental outfit in the game in getting this done, although it's not quite to their liking as they wanted constitutional carry.

We're in a frenzy right now due to all the BS going on as far as private businesses as to who will and will not allow carry on their premises along with city and county owned property. You know, all the hype over nothing. And this happens.

That's the first time I saw a pic of that guy and jeezuz, he looks like an old time pro wrestler.
grin.gif


Like Graham said, we'll just have to wait and see.
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bnoland</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Has there been something in these articles I missed? Where does it say that he is not getting charged?!?!

Is this an assumption because it ws not mentioned in the article? Its always assumed that there is going to be a department cover-up, but those are becoming a lot less frequent than they use to be. </div></div>

There is likely nothing for him to be charged with just like any other person would not have any charge anyone could face unless there is a city ordinance against discharging a firearm. There has to be intent or an injury or damage for a criminal charge so if he accidentally did it and there was no injury then there can not be a crime. If there had been someone hurt then he could have been charged with (diffrent areas will have diffrent verbage) negligence or reckless endangerment. He will like be charge departmentally (which most anyone else could not face) but other wise there is nothing he can be charged with on a legal stand point. </div></div>

Citizens who have had negligent discharges have been charged with a crime under similar circumstances.

Here is a recent case.

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110115/ARTICLES/110119585

There does not have to be an injury for a charge to be made.
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bgbill</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bnoland</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Has there been something in these articles I missed? Where does it say that he is not getting charged?!?!

Is this an assumption because it ws not mentioned in the article? Its always assumed that there is going to be a department cover-up, but those are becoming a lot less frequent than they use to be. </div></div>

There is likely nothing for him to be charged with just like any other person would not have any charge anyone could face unless there is a city ordinance against discharging a firearm. There has to be intent or an injury or damage for a criminal charge so if he accidentally did it and there was no injury then there can not be a crime. If there had been someone hurt then he could have been charged with (diffrent areas will have diffrent verbage) negligence or reckless endangerment. He will like be charge departmentally (which most anyone else could not face) but other wise there is nothing he can be charged with on a legal stand point. </div></div>

Citizens who have had negligent discharges have been charged with a crime under similar circumstances.

Here is a recent case.

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110115/ARTICLES/110119585

There does not have to be an injury for a charge to be made. </div></div>

Or damage... There is almost always damage from a firearm going off. The other side is the person who was hurt or property damaged has to want to press charges about it. I had a scene I made where husband tried to stab his wife and step son. I tagged the knife he used to attempt it which was covered in his blood from him breaking into the house and cutting himself. All charges were dropped because the wife decided he still loved her and he would never do it again and she did not want to go forward with the case.
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

...but you'll get charged for "discharging a firearm within city limits" any day of the week. Interesting.
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bgbill</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bnoland</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Has there been something in these articles I missed? Where does it say that he is not getting charged?!?!

Is this an assumption because it ws not mentioned in the article? Its always assumed that there is going to be a department cover-up, but those are becoming a lot less frequent than they use to be. </div></div>

There is likely nothing for him to be charged with just like any other person would not have any charge anyone could face unless there is a city ordinance against discharging a firearm. There has to be intent or an injury or damage for a criminal charge so if he accidentally did it and there was no injury then there can not be a crime. If there had been someone hurt then he could have been charged with (diffrent areas will have diffrent verbage) negligence or reckless endangerment. He will like be charge departmentally (which most anyone else could not face) but other wise there is nothing he can be charged with on a legal stand point. </div></div>

Citizens who have had negligent discharges have been charged with a crime under similar circumstances.

Here is a recent case.

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110115/ARTICLES/110119585

There does not have to be an injury for a charge to be made. </div></div>

And here is one where the citizen wasn't charged..... so your point is what?

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11451417
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smokshwn</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bgbill</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bnoland</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Has there been something in these articles I missed? Where does it say that he is not getting charged?!?!

Is this an assumption because it ws not mentioned in the article? Its always assumed that there is going to be a department cover-up, but those are becoming a lot less frequent than they use to be. </div></div>

There is likely nothing for him to be charged with just like any other person would not have any charge anyone could face unless there is a city ordinance against discharging a firearm. There has to be intent or an injury or damage for a criminal charge so if he accidentally did it and there was no injury then there can not be a crime. If there had been someone hurt then he could have been charged with (diffrent areas will have diffrent verbage) negligence or reckless endangerment. He will like be charge departmentally (which most anyone else could not face) but other wise there is nothing he can be charged with on a legal stand point. </div></div>

Citizens who have had negligent discharges have been charged with a crime under similar circumstances.

Here is a recent case.

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110115/ARTICLES/110119585

There does not have to be an injury for a charge to be made. </div></div>

And here is one where the citizen wasn't charged..... so your point is what?

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11451417 </div></div>

My point was that citizens have been charged with a crime with a N.D.

I think that far more citizens will get charged with N.D. than police officers, i seriously doubt a police officer has ever been charged for a N.D. in similar circumstances to the one I posted, I would be surprised if a police officer has EVER been charged criminally for a N.D.
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

This guy will never stop hearing it from the guys on the force. I'm sure he also violated policy and will probably get some days off without pay. Even if he did get charged it would probably be a misdemeanor. It's a C misd. Here in Texas. If he was captured on tv he will also hear it from the public when he makes is calls for service when they recognize him.
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Vaq</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">This guy will never stop hearing it from the guys on the force</span>. I'm sure he also violated policy and will probably get some days off without pay. Even if he did get charged it would probably be a misdemeanor. It's a C misd. Here in Texas. If he was captured on tv he will also hear it from the public when he makes is calls for service when they recognize him. </div></div>

That is called the stupid tax, you do something stooopid, you pay the stooopid tax.
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bgbill</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Vaq</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">This guy will never stop hearing it from the guys on the force</span>. I'm sure he also violated policy and will probably get some days off without pay. Even if he did get charged it would probably be a misdemeanor. It's a C misd. Here in Texas. If he was captured on tv he will also hear it from the public when he makes is calls for service when they recognize him. </div></div>

That is called the stupid tax, you do something stooopid, you pay the stooopid tax.
</div></div>

Lol, I agree 100%. If he was a guy I worked with he would NEVER hear the end of it!
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My point is: I am exposed to the all the attendant risks of construction sites: the dropped pipes, tools, stacks of drywall, steel, lumber, kettles of hot roofing tar, extreme noise, dust, fumes, fires, large machines operating, ladders, open electrical panels, heights, holes, dumb asses and all the other many hazards associated with construction sites.

There's more danger in my business than just a risk of back injury. Especially since I actually perform the services I offer! All of them!

I tend however toward humility and prefer to remain so, especially in the presence of Combat veterans and cops who scrap with shit bags for a living and sometimes screw up. Thus I typically rate my career as 5.75 on the manliness scale where hair dressers are a .00001 and SEALs are in the 9.89 range.

I place most cops higher than 5.75 and Most of the GCs I know are considerably less than that though often decent and honorable people!


</div></div>

QQ I agree with your assessment, those goofy Sprinkler guys dropping pipes is an extremely dangerous environment. By the way bro, I made a quick trip to Plant City to see some elderly relatives, instead of flying home from Orlando yesterday. It was spur of the moment. Oh!! and by the way I just happened to be watching Fox NFL Sunday!! I didn't realize the Saints were playing the Bucs
laugh.gif


Oh and bgbill, I'm LE, and am thrilled we haven't had the chance to meet in my excursions to the Plant City area. I bet your family gatherings with all your LE family members are quite the events!!

Oh wait, I have a family member who had a tainted view towards LE like you, until an officer pulled one of his children out of a burning car. Guess what, he is once again invited to all of our family functions with a little different perspective.
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bgbill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My point was that citizens have been charged with a crime with a N.D.

I think that far more citizens will get charged with N.D. than police officers, i seriously doubt a police officer has ever been charged for a N.D. in similar circumstances to the one I posted, I would be surprised if a police officer has EVER been charged criminally for a N.D. </div></div>

So you don't actually KNOW jack shit about the subject you only have "serious" opinions.

YAY INTERNET!
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bgbill</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Vaq</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">This guy will never stop hearing it from the guys on the force</span>. I'm sure he also violated policy and will probably get some days off without pay. Even if he did get charged it would probably be a misdemeanor. It's a C misd. Here in Texas. If he was captured on tv he will also hear it from the public when he makes is calls for service when they recognize him. </div></div>

That is called the stupid tax, you do something stooopid, you pay the stooopid tax.
</div></div>

Speaking as someone who is obviously familiar with this tax.....What are your payments running these days?
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smokshwn</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bgbill</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Vaq</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">This guy will never stop hearing it from the guys on the force</span>. I'm sure he also violated policy and will probably get some days off without pay. Even if he did get charged it would probably be a misdemeanor. It's a C misd. Here in Texas. If he was captured on tv he will also hear it from the public when he makes is calls for service when they recognize him. </div></div>

That is called the stupid tax, you do something stooopid, you pay the stooopid tax.
</div></div>

Speaking as someone who is obviously familiar with this tax.....What are your payments running these days?
</div></div>

laugh.gif


This has all the hallmarks of fine comedy: Ironic, succinct and lacking only a drum roll and cymbal crash!
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/948-2Vzgi3w"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/948-2Vzgi3w" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smokshwn</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bgbill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My point was that citizens have been charged with a crime with a N.D.

I think that far more citizens will get charged with N.D. than police officers, i seriously doubt a police officer has ever been charged for a N.D. in similar circumstances to the one I posted, I would be surprised if a police officer has EVER been charged criminally for a N.D. </div></div>

So you don't actually KNOW jack shit about the subject you only have "serious" opinions.

YAY INTERNET! </div></div>

Can you show me 1 case of where a police officer has ever been charged for a N.D.?

I am betting you can't, you willing to prove me wrong or are you just going to flap your jaw behind a keyboard?
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smokshwn</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bgbill</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Vaq</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">This guy will never stop hearing it from the guys on the force</span>. I'm sure he also violated policy and will probably get some days off without pay. Even if he did get charged it would probably be a misdemeanor. It's a C misd. Here in Texas. If he was captured on tv he will also hear it from the public when he makes is calls for service when they recognize him. </div></div>

That is called the stupid tax, you do something stooopid, you pay the stooopid tax.
</div></div>

Speaking as someone who is obviously familiar with this tax.....What are your payments running these days?
</div></div>

ask queequeeg the type of jobs I do, I am not some "operator' wannabee that wears bdu's to work.

He saw a multimillion dollar project I built, its in his neighborhood.
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

practice, practice, practice. As for this thread....it is spiraling into new directions
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bnoland</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Has there been something in these articles I missed? Where does it say that he is not getting charged?!?!

Is this an assumption because it ws not mentioned in the article? Its always assumed that there is going to be a department cover-up, but those are becoming a lot less frequent than they use to be. </div></div>

There is likely nothing for him to be charged with just like any other person would not have any charge anyone could face unless there is a city ordinance against discharging a firearm. There has to be intent or an injury or damage for a criminal charge so if he accidentally did it and there was no injury then there can not be a crime. If there had been someone hurt then he could have been charged with (diffrent areas will have diffrent verbage) negligence or reckless endangerment. He will like be charge departmentally (which most anyone else could not face) but other wise there is nothing he can be charged with on a legal stand point. </div></div>

He won't need to be charged, because the officers will give him a ribbing for 5 years and he will NEVER live it down - I know how depts work....In one ear out the rubber!
smile.gif
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bgbill</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smokshwn</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bgbill</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Vaq</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">This guy will never stop hearing it from the guys on the force</span>. I'm sure he also violated policy and will probably get some days off without pay. Even if he did get charged it would probably be a misdemeanor. It's a C misd. Here in Texas. If he was captured on tv he will also hear it from the public when he makes is calls for service when they recognize him. </div></div>

That is called the stupid tax, you do something stooopid, you pay the stooopid tax.
</div></div>

Speaking as someone who is obviously familiar with this tax.....What are your payments running these days?
</div></div>

ask queequeeg the type of jobs I do, I am not some "operator' wannabee that wears bdu's to work.

He saw a multimillion dollar project I built, its in his neighborhood. </div></div>

What an incredibly cogent reply. Please explain what queequeeg's knowledge of your work habits has to do with how much "stoopid" tax you pay.....

As to whether or not there has been an officer charged or not I am sure that there have been a few and just like the civilian I highlighted there have probably been many who weren't. As is often the case with AD's that do not result in bodily harm there is rarely criminal charges attached.

I would do more research but work today is actually hopping. Lot's of wannabeeing to be done in my BDU's.
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bgbill</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smokshwn</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bgbill</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Vaq</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">This guy will never stop hearing it from the guys on the force</span>. I'm sure he also violated policy and will probably get some days off without pay. Even if he did get charged it would probably be a misdemeanor. It's a C misd. Here in Texas. If he was captured on tv he will also hear it from the public when he makes is calls for service when they recognize him. </div></div>

That is called the stupid tax, you do something stooopid, you pay the stooopid tax.
</div></div>

Speaking as someone who is obviously familiar with this tax.....What are your payments running these days?
</div></div>

ask queequeeg the type of jobs I do, I am not some "operator' wannabee that wears bdu's to work.

He saw a multimillion dollar project I built, its in his neighborhood. </div></div>

I drive by it most days on my way to or from work, wearing my BDUs!
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

I dont know if this is just a Nevada law or not. But here, a PO cant charge a person a misdemeanor crime unless it occured in their presence. Most violations regarding Nevada's firearm laws usually result in it being a misdemeanor, with a few exceptions. I think this may fall under, what in this state would consider, a misdemeanor. That means, should the owner of this buisness wish that he be charged with a crime, then he would have to sign a cite/ criminal complaint against the officer, and would be required to make a statement, in court if the officer chose to fight it.

This is not an uncommon occurance. Most states are like this. Its the same principal as you phoning in a reckless driver, but by the time the cop gets there, the driver is no longer breaking the law. You, as the witness and complaintant, would be the only person that can testify to have seen the crime. This is also why you see more civilian reported crimes that get dismissed or dropped. Once the reporting party finds out that the responsibility relies on them, they become less interested and less motivated to follow though.

Lastly, most of this states laws, and several others, start most of the firearm laws with "If a person willfully or malicously.....". To charge someone criminaly, you must establish there was intent to do harm. In some instances, yes, negligence can be charged as a crime as well. But its much harder to stretch that one and find intent to have a successul criminal charge. For first offenders, the majority get the charged dropped to a warning.
Yes I know, there is a video here and an article there that cites the opposite, but, as it does with everything, there will always be excpetions to the rule.
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

That is an interesting post. In these days of security cameras (I'll assume this mall was in the 21st century) this still applies, a LEO must be an "as it happend-eyewitness" or no charges will apply (unless a third party presses charges)? I know in some states-a camera can issue tickets! Not even a real human! I was thinking about the movie "Alice's restaurant", where a LEO professional found litter, with the litterer's name and address on it-he was charged with littering etc." I guess in Nevada this wouldn't happen, unless of course a LEO professional caught the guy dumping his trash in a place that he shouldn't be dumping it. IMHO, Nevada should look at that law, as I can think of a lot of cases where not having an LEO EYE witness could end up having a lot crimes going on, with no reason for an investigation because even if the LE discovered the wrong doer, he/she could not be charged.
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paw print</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is an interesting post. In these days of security cameras (I'll assume this mall was in the 21st century) this still applies, a LEO must be an "as it happend-eyewitness" or no charges will apply (unless a third party presses charges)? I know in some states-a camera can issue tickets! Not even a real human! I was thinking about the movie "Alice's restaurant", where a LEO professional found litter, with the litterer's name and address on it-he was charged with littering etc." I guess in Nevada this wouldn't happen, unless of course a LEO professional caught the guy dumping his trash in a place that he shouldn't be dumping it. IMHO, Nevada should look at that law, as I can think of a lot of cases where not having an LEO EYE witness could end up having a lot crimes going on, with no reason for an investigation because even if the LE discovered the wrong doer, he/she could not be charged. </div></div>

That concept hadnt occured to me. I am think that method is applicable here. But the traffic-cams that they use cannot be used to issue a ticket. Most of the time the cams can catch the vehicle but no positive driver ID. Kind of hard to convict when you dont have a face. Then again, depending how the law is written, you may still have to establish intent to commit a crime as well, in this situation.

See, this is exactly how and why the courts are tied up like they are now. Without clear-cut, black or white details, this is not as easy a decision. I am not saying this officer should be let off, he is still responsible and should face the same penalties as everyone else, but, one of the most irritating things I hear said to a LEO just doing their job, "Isn't there REAL criminals you could be going after?" Shit, or get off the pot and move on. Its not the actual police officers that get caught up in these cases. Its the court system, and they need to perform a triage and decide what cases should take a priority. Which is why, in many, cases, charges are dropped.

I am curious, of all these cases that have been posted where charges were issued, how many of those charges resulted in a conviction and was it plead down?
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

Interesting note, we have an LE that was selling guns on teh side, 400+ counts.

They charged him with 1 count, he plead and will PROBABLY not get any prison time - not sure - because the gun he sold was used to kill a fellow cop.

So there is lopsided justice, had that been me I'd be in a federal penn the rest of my life.
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArcticLight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting note, we have an LE that was selling guns on teh side, 400+ counts.

They charged him with 1 count, he plead and will PROBABLY not get any prison time - not sure - because the gun he sold was used to kill a fellow cop.

So there is lopsided justice, had that been me I'd be in a federal penn the rest of my life. </div></div>
I haven't heard about this, is he being charged Fed or State, I understand he can be charged both ways, isn't the Fed charges MANDATORY prison time? You may be right, if the "average joe" did something like this, my guess is he would be seeing a lot of prison time, by that I mean A LOT of prison time. I hope this was just part of the Justice Dept's gun running deal, and this cop was just doing what he was told. It really makes me wonder, if this guy did 400+, as you have posted, what other crimes was he doing, who knew about it, are they any people in prison-because he lied(if he'd sell guns to kill cops, no telling what kind of lies he may have told)? What else was he "selling", etc., I hope a full investigation is done, as it should be, I'm sure all the honest LE would like to expose this wrong doing, as they don't want this type of scum in their ranks.
 
Re: Off-duty officer accidentally fires shot at mall

looks like he got his annual desk pop.
looks like his superiors need to replace his service weapon with a wooden one... it worked out well when i saw that happen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
3 dead in Indiana mall shooting; witness kills gunman
Replies
1
Views
407
JMGlasgow
JMGlasgow
Blue Sky Country
Alberta OFFICIALLY takes firm stance refusing to comply with Trudeau gun ban. Constitutional jurisdiction enforced by provincial lawmakers.
Replies
4
Views
678
LMTMWS
L
DIBBS
A win for the good guys and gals...
Replies
12
Views
1K
BullGear
BullGear
Hobo Hilton
Montana, Legislative Referendum 130
Replies
3
Views
559
Choid
Choid
K
The First Annual Badger Trekker Run-n-Gun, 9/2/23, Oconomowoc, WI (near Milwaukee)
Replies
18
Views
1K
Kevin 149
K
Top Bottom
Back