Just more proof that the police are untrustworthy.
I must have missed something. Seems they treated him much like any other.
Fixed it for ya.Seems they treated him much like any other cop.
If we were in that truck, they would have tasered us for resisting.
He was only arrested because the cameras kept the officers honest. Listen to the dialog.Ultimately he was arrested. I find that encouraging considering how corrupt people CAN be.
Bull. That had special treatment written all over it. They basically admitted that if it weren’t for the cameras and their LT mandating they go by the book, they would have let him go, or probably gotten that 3rd bearded guy to drive him home. They weren’t going to cuff him and almost let him sit in the front seat on his way to the station. They weren’t going to impound his truck, until they had no choice. They would have never been anywhere as passive with his “resisting” if it wasn’t their boss. They even commented that hopefully it’s like other times where it just goes away and they come right back to work. (Now there’s a scary thought). Anyone who thinks that’s how they would have treated a common subject has a distorted view of reality.Seems they treated him much like any other.
Do you think you would have ever seen the video if they had let him go?He was only arrested because the cameras kept the officers honest. Listen to the dialog.
Not really.I must have missed something. Seems they treated him much like any other.
Particularly NJ. Has among the highest levels of public corruption.Ultimately he was arrested. I find that encouraging considering how corrupt people CAN be.
Bull. That had special treatment written all over it. They basically admitted that if it weren’t for the cameras and their LT mandating they go by the book, they would have let him go, or probably gotten that 3rd bearded guy to drive him home. They weren’t going to cuff him and almost let him sit in the front seat on his way to the station. They weren’t going to impound his truck, until they had no choice. They would have never been anywhere as passive with his “resisting” if it wasn’t their boss. They even commented that hopefully it’s like other times where it just goes away and they come right back to work. (Now there’s a scary thought). Anyone who thinks that’s how they would have treated a common subject has a distorted view of reality.
They were more concerned with protecting their buddy on their side of that damned blue line than they were about getting a dangerous driver off the road. That’s how the video reads.
That wasn’t the first time for Lt.
He was well composed for a .036 early in the morning.
didn’t want to make it any harder than it had to be.
Great observation And advice for life.it never hurts to clear some space as you move up the ladder.
Wow. Talk about begging to be cooperated with. I have never been asked that many times to be handcuffed. Imagine if the cameras were not there. Funny how they acted about the cameras also.
Yes there was the one point early in the video the arresting officer says” can we turn these off for a conference”. It’s clear as day only reason it went down that way was due to body cams. If wasn’t for them they would have followed him home and said “good day”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I saw this as a problemthey have to specifically be told that they can’t extend him any courtesies.
The obvious (and perhaps even likely) explanation is that they were protecting one of their own. But there might be a different explanation. The patrolmen would have known that this was going to be on the news and viewed thousands of times. Cognizant of that, maybe they wanted to ensure that everything was handled correctly and in a way that didn't further embarrass the department and the community, or even end his own career. One of the patrolmen at one point says something about keeping their jobs.List of issues.
1. You can tell that the officer that made the phone call was only calling into his LT because it was another LT/officer. Would he have made that same call if it was a non officer.
The paperwork states that once the LT was in the car the smell of alcohol was obvious, so I agree with you, #2 was probably trying to find any way he could to just make this go away.2. Officer number 2 says he doesn't smell alcohol, now he may not, but man did he sure seem hesitant to answer and at .36 I would think you could smell it.
I have two friends that are cops, and one thing I've come to appreciate from being around them is the importance of deescalating a bad situation. I was also present at the arrest of a friend's son, and the Sargent told my friend "the law says 'shall' arrest, we don't have any choice here". I later grabbed the BLET manual from my cop buddy and read that chapter and it clearly stated "may" arrest. So the Sargent lied to my friend, which caused my friend to back off from confronting the officers and it deescalated the situation. Was that a good thing or a bad thing? I'll let you make your own decision, but I think it shows they are trained make restoration of order a priority (above telling the truth, apparently).3. The LT is not wanting to comply with commands, and the statement is made, you know things are recorded now so we HAVE to do this. Implying that if the cameras weren't there they didnt have to.
I read that as "we've had officers get a DWI before and it wasn't the end of their career, they were able to get it together and resume their career". I understand if you saw it differently.6. States around the 24:00 mark that " there's nothing we can do, trust me I would have, he's my first sergeant.
The last one rings true the most along with the statement" we have had guys get these before and go back to work"
I looked at BAC charts and none go that high. .017 for a 200lb man is @ 9 drinks. Looks like he shotgunned a fifth.Yeah most people that blow a .36 should be at a hospital.
I looked at BAC charts and none go that high. .017 for a 200lb man is @ 9 drinks. Looks like he shotgunned a fifth.
I’d be shocked if it’s not dept policy to call in any officer involved incident.The obvious (and perhaps even likely) explanation is that they were protecting one of their own. But there might be a different explanation
There is a 30 minute observation required before any test is given by law.Plus over 30 min, they hoped to let him get under the limit but
had no idea how bad he was over.
If a Chief, Sheriff or even a supervisor learns about an arrest of one of their own from reading the daily reports there's likely going to be more than one head rolling down the hall.I’d be shocked if it’s not dept policy to call in any officer involved incident.
20 minutes by the docs in the video... 20 min that started long after he was arrestedThere is a 30 minute observation required before any test is given by law.