Title: Cop Pulls Gun, Threatens to Arrest Man After Accusing Him Of Cutting In Line At RedBox Kiosk Source:
Free Thought Project URL Source:http://thefreethoughtproject.com/du ... ing-cutting-line-redbox-kiosk/ Published:Apr 1, 2015 Author:Cassandra Fairbanks Post Date:2015-04-02 08:22:00 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:3366 Comments:33
Sgt. Paul Story of the Knock County Sheriff’s Office will reportedly not be disciplined after pulling his gun and threatening a man while off-duty and in line at a RedBox kiosk. Audio of the incident was captured when he called 9-1-1 to request an on-duty officer’s assistance.
The obscenity-laced exchange began when Sgt. Story accused Timothy Nelson of cutting in line.
When Nelson asked why the officer was doing this, as he brandished his weapon and threatened him with arrest, the officer replied with an abusive rant.
“Because you’re a bitch. You think you’re somebody. You’re not. Just shut the hell up. I’m done talking to you. I want someone else to come out here and talk to your dumb ass. I’m going to put you in jail is what I’m going to do.” Story is heard saying.
After the incident, Nelson threatened to file a $25,000 lawsuit, but ultimately decided to accept a settlement of $2,500 from the department.
That’s right, despite the officer being off-duty at the time of the exchange, the settlement will still be coming from the pockets of the taxpayers. We are apparently not only responsible for footing the bill over their bad behavior when they are on duty, but we are responsible for their reckless antics off the clock as well.
To make this even more troubling, Nelson never filed an official complaint before accepting the settlement. Therefore, no investigation will take place. This means that despite costing the tax payers money, this officer will not be disciplined in any way.
A search for the word settlement on The Free Thought Project will horrify you at what this nation spends while in many cases allowing these nightmare cops to continue to roam the streets.
When will Americans put an end to this and tell the police that we don’t want to continue to pay for their violence and wrongdoing?
Doctors, who are required to carry it, become uninsurable if a company has to shell out too many settlements, this makes bad doctors unemployable.
If officers were responsible for their own actions, instead of taxpayers footing the bills, not only would it free up a whole lot of tax money, but officers may be inclined to protect their wallets and behave a little better.
"To make this even more troubling, Nelson never filed an official complaint before accepting the settlement. Therefore, no investigation will take place."
Too bad. Then the other people in line could have testified that this ignorant, self-important yahoo cut to the front of the line and, when confronted about that, threatened the off-duty cop.
Oops. Picked the wrong guy to bully.
By identifying himself as law enforcement, showing his weapon and immediately calling for back-up, the off-duty cop prevented the situation from escalating into a physical altercation.
The bully is lucky he didn't throw popcorn in the cops face. He'd be a dead man and I, for one, wouldn't shed a tear.
Right - the cop accused the guy of cutting in line.
Must be true if a cop said it.
It comes as no surprise to anyone here that you believe that a cop should be legally allowed to threaten with a gun someone they think has cut ahead of them in a line.
“Because you’re a bitch. You think you’re somebody. You’re not. Just shut the hell up. I’m done talking to you. I want someone else to come out here and talk to your dumb ass. I’m going to put you in jail is what I’m going to do.”
Yeah, the guy has some major anger issues as well as being a megalomaniacal asshole.
It comes as no surprise to anyone here that you believe that a cop should be legally allowed to threaten with a gun someone they think has cut ahead of them in a line.
If a gun was pulled and aimed, the cop should have been ready to give a very convincing explanation of why there was no arrest.
The cop was assaulted. There should have been an arrest. There should have been an investigation, too, but that wasn't done either.
If the cop was assaulted while his weapon was drawn and he had identified himself as a policeman (including off-duty), he should be investigated for failing to make an arrest.
But he wasn't assaulted. So trying to pretend that he was just doesn't cut it.
At the very minimum, it requires some hostile and deliberate physical contact.
I don't think assault charges always require an injury. This may vary across states a bit. In a lot of states, you get charged with assault (and resisting arrest) if you just shove an arresting policeman (uniformed or self-identified).
1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states.
1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states.
It's when you start looking at the statutes of various states that it gets much more thorny.
Some states have special assault categories, like one just for assaulting a police or corrections officer. Or assaulting a pregnant woman, using a dog as a weapon, assaulting a member of an airliner flight crew, hate crime enhancements, etc.
You can find some lists at CriminalDefenseLawyer.com. If you dig, you can find the basic frameworks for each state. And there is considerable variety, something most people don't realize.
Assault is assault but the definitions vary significantly by state.
I posted a link to CriminalDefenseLawyer.com above. I've used it before and checked it against my state's actual statutes. It seemed okay but I wonder if this is an unreliable source or if there is a better similar website available to the public.
