Umm.. Heinous crimes? Several of those are reckless driving arrests, one is an on duty arrest while operating a marked unit in full uniform.

Also a few are drug arrests. So don't think you're going to weasel out of this by stating they're all ridiculously heinous issues that couldn't be swept under the rug like murder or molestation.

ETA: Three were On duty arrests.

I just went through a couple of those. There was one where the Miami Police officer fled the Fla trooper and was charged with a misdemeanor dangerous driving. Do most people that flee and are stopped at gunpoint get charged with dangerous driving or is there a more serious charge for refusing to stop and then driving away at speeds in excess of 120 mph?

He wasn't fleeing. He assumed she was attempting to get around him. Cops aren't used to being traffic stopped in marked units. I've done it twice in my career with the same results both times, the cops move over 2 or 3 times on the assumption you're attempting to go around them before stopping. I've had non LEOs do the same to me, it's not a crime. Her claim is that she thought the patrol car was stolen, that's the reasoning behind the gun. What rationale she used to come to that conclusion I don't know, but I'm sure it will come out in the investigation. There is no harsher crime he can be charged with, if you don't believe me review FL traffic law. He doesn't meet the requirements for any felony charge.

As I understand this, she attempted to charge him with fleeing because she made several attempts to contact him via radio to stop him, which apparently failed. This does not meet the requirements for a legal "Stop". When she caught up with him he was going approximately 78 mph and she activated her emergency lights, at which point he moved over a few lanes and then stopped.

Bump for DBJ!

I already stated if they weren't in the way of anything the cops should have let them be. Read posts much?

I agree. Let's see if there are any charges filed.

I just found it interesting that you didn't care to say "okay, I was wrong" after Chips' post!

There was nothing more to comment on. The comment or "stink" I made was about a statement that they were herded into a line like Jews by Nazis (against their will) to get their daily dose of pepper spray, which was a complete fabrication. Obviously they weren't in the way of anything, so the cops involved were out of line to be spraying them. I stated as much before Chips ever posted the map. The posting of the map did not change anything regarding my statement, so I felt no need to address it. My statement still stands, everyone (but you apparently) participating in this discussion can look at the photo,can read my post and go "guess DBJ is against the cops on this one" and move on.
That clarify all the confusion for you goofy?

Thanks!

Sure thing.

It would seem that her belief that the car was stolen was based on the he appeared to be fleeing. He didn't state he was trying to get over, he stated he didn't see the blue lights. Unless there is more to see, this certainly looks like he got a pass based on being a police officer.

Meh. Based on the facts stated ITT, it seems pretty similar to what happened to a friend of mine in High School (so age might have been an issue, but other than a regular car vs. police car that's the only significant difference in facts) but he was only charged with misdemeanors--pretty equivalent to what the officer in this case was charged with.

So you could have a gut reaction that 'he should be charged with more', but do you have any reason to actually believe that? For me, I have a lot of reason to *not* believe that.

This is a traffic infraction, not a homicide investigation. When one ends up in handcuffs due to a traffic infraction, pretty sure that individual did not, in fact "get a pass based on being a police officer."

Had he gotten a pass for being a police officer, there would have been no traffic stop period, let alone a traffic stop and an arrest.
Out of curiosity, what would you charge him with were you in her shoes?

I am not in law enforcement. It just appears that the statements made at the time support that he was fleeing. I am pretty sure that is against the law. If the facts of this case were the same, but making him a civilian in a civilian car, do you think they would have charged him differently and then let the lawyers sort it out?

It appears (not just this case) that a separate set of rules apply to law enforcement officers, not in that they get to ignore the law, but that they get the benefit of the doubt and get charged "fairly" rather than being over-charged so "it will be pled down."

So now anti-police people ITT are complaining about police charging others fairly???? Wow.

Hey, they treated the cop that committed a crime fairly! OMG!!!!

Please point out where he was "wrong."

What you are referring to is charging people with the most serious charge you believe they are technically guilty of. Based upon the circumstances of this case, I cannot charge ANYONE with fleeing.

In this case you CANNOT prove this particular element of the crime, regardless of whether we're talking about a Miami police officer or Tony Soprano. Remember, to hold someone for Fleeing (A felony) I must get a judge to sign an arrest warrant. No judge is going to sign that warrant based on this particular set of facts. Everything about this case is absolutely fair.

No one is making the argument that there should not be police.

Sheesh, you know what I mean. Thought it would be obvious that meant AK, RR, and the like.

Yeah, you're typecasting your opposition as something they are not. Classic political move.

What? OK. Keep up with the paranoia.

What am I paranoid about?

What percentage of arrests do you believe are made by officers that can't prove a thing? Not how many they are supposed to be able to prove, but how many they actually can prove?

That a one-off label used for convenience is some huge conspiracy worth exposing (or something like that).

Just in case you can't interpret that to the situation, it means you read in a ton more into a simple word/phrase than you should have.

Extremely slim. As I've stated, these are typically the arrests you hear about when someone gets let out within hours of being booked in, typically because if you do this, the judge can't sign the warrant, the jail won't hold your suspect without a warrant, your suspect is free to go, and your case is DOA.

Quite often the police can prove a hell of a lot more than they typically do in cases that make it to trial and the suspect is found not guilty. These are typically cases where some overzealous cop didn't play by the rules and got important evidence thrown out. Maintaining your evidence is part of the skill-set of a good cop IMO. Too many cops are of the mentality that they do "their" job and let the Prosecuting Attorneys do their part. I disagree. When I arrest someone, I see it as my job to collect all necessary evidence through all proper channels to ensure a successful conviction. If my evidence is tossed out, I see that as a personal failure.