simpleman Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 Maybe I missed something in this case. The "complaints" were private citizens hanging out drinking at a bar. They got into a bar brawl. They were off duty, not acting as public police officers at the time. How does the an organization that is subsidized by the taxpayers (at a minimum from a manpower standpoint ) have the legal right to act as lawyers for private citizens who were not acting as police officers at the time of the incident. Wouldn't the "complainants" as private individuals be the ones who have a standing to file a legal request? This seems a misuse of the system set up to protect police officers while pursuing their legally assigned duties. Something definitely does not pass the smell test, and it is not the DA's office. This is not, and should not be about anyone being a police officer. It is about two groups of civilians who got into a bar brawl.
3rdand12 Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 Or he just knows the responsibility of the office, and won't compromise on them. That is what we all should hope. Be refreshing. Oh, that too, but the exact choice of words and usage reeks of ego IMHO. A year or so ago St Louis was reading statements from our county prosecutor about a delay in a high-profile case, a man who also knows the responsibilities of the office and won't compromise on them, and the tone and word choice were very different. I'm not saying that's a bad thing BTW; McNesby obviously has a healthy and flourishing ego of his own. But it is a thing that will fuel a confrontational atmosphere. Did you read the entire statement? You wouldn't want your DA to do anything else, or to convey a different meaning, but he could say it differently. It's a very reactive statement, with a lot of "I" in it and a lot of firing back at McNesby. I took as he wont be influenced, and that is what he perceives is going on. Agree Hopeful, his strong stance is most likely a reaction. For me? I find it telling in regard to what may be going on behind the scenes. Maybe I missed something in this case. The "complaints" were private citizens hanging out drinking at a bar. They got into a bar brawl. They were off duty, not acting as public police officers at the time. How does the an organization that is subsidized by the taxpayers (at a minimum from a manpower standpoint ) have the legal right to act as lawyers for private citizens who were not acting as police officers at the time of the incident. Wouldn't the "complainants" as private individuals be the ones who have a standing to file a legal request? This seems a misuse of the system set up to protect police officers while pursuing their legally assigned duties. Something definitely does not pass the smell test, and it is not the DA's office. This is not, and should not be about anyone being a police officer. It is about two groups of civilians who got into a bar brawl. not to make it overly simple, but i think Police are sworn to being vigilant and act accordingly 24/7. Even off duty. Whether they truly adhere to that oath is another story. But i believe this not a civilian on civilian crime scene. I am more than willing to be corrected on this matter.
Go Kiko go Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 Thanks again, GKG! As posted elsewhere, I somehow think the state's AG has other stuff on her mind - just a guess, heh heh. So from what you've written above, is this all pretty much "sabre rattling" by McNesby to try to pressure the DA into proceeding with charges? Yes. If the DA declines to pursue aggravated assault charges (or any other charges), the officers would essentially have to show that the DA's decision not to prosecute was an abuse of the DA's prosecutorial discretion , which, under these circumstances, I doubt they could do. Maybe I missed something in this case. The "complaints" were private citizens hanging out drinking at a bar. They got into a bar brawl. They were off duty, not acting as public police officers at the time. How does the an organization that is subsidized by the taxpayers (at a minimum from a manpower standpoint ) have the legal right to act as lawyers for private citizens who were not acting as police officers at the time of the incident. Wouldn't the "complainants" as private individuals be the ones who have a standing to file a legal request? This seems a misuse of the system set up to protect police officers while pursuing their legally assigned duties. Something definitely does not pass the smell test, and it is not the DA's office. This is not, and should not be about anyone being a police officer. It is about two groups of civilians who got into a bar brawl. By "organization," are you referring to the FOP? If the officers were to pursue private criminal complaints, presumably the officers would be the nominal complainants, not the FOP.
reddogblitz Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 Maybe I missed something in this case. The "complaints" were private citizens hanging out drinking at a bar. They got into a bar brawl. They were off duty, not acting as public police officers at the time. How does the an organization that is subsidized by the taxpayers (at a minimum from a manpower standpoint ) have the legal right to act as lawyers for private citizens who were not acting as police officers at the time of the incident. Wouldn't the "complainants" as private individuals be the ones who have a standing to file a legal request? This seems a misuse of the system set up to protect police officers while pursuing their legally assigned duties. Something definitely does not pass the smell test, and it is not the DA's office. This is not, and should not be about anyone being a police officer. It is about two groups of civilians who got into a bar brawl. Have you ever heard of the term "Thin Blue Line"? That's what's at work here IMHO.
Nanker Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 I'm thinkin' they're busy makin' some back-door deals with NFL Films for a new series: "Shady in Philadelphia". Millionaire athletes Crime in the city Pol's on the take Journalist with an agenda to prove a hunch Good Cop/Bad Cop... or no Cop at all Sex! Lust! Violence! Bad things man... bad things Tune in for the series premier starting March 15th at 11 on NFL Network!
John from Riverside Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 Stealing this from another board....but interesting http://www.scout.com/nfl/bills/story...stigated-fight
simpleman Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) That is what we all should hope. Be refreshing. I took as he wont be influenced, and that is what he perceives is going on. Agree Hopeful, his strong stance is most likely a reaction. For me? I find it telling in regard to what may be going on behind the scenes. not to make it overly simple, but i think Police are sworn to being vigilant and act accordingly 24/7. Even off duty. Whether they truly adhere to that oath is another story. But i believe this not a civilian on civilian crime scene. I am more than willing to be corrected on this matter. From federal law case books: “When off-duty officers act for purely personal motivations, courts have held that they are not acting as law enforcement.” “The mere fact that a person is employed by a police agency does not transform actions that they carry out which are of the nature that any private person might perform into law enforcement actions, even if they relate to charging a person with a crime or initiating a prosecution.” The individuals involved in this fight were clearly not acting "under the color of state law” and were acting as a “private person” Edited February 21, 2016 by simpleman
3rdand12 Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 From federal law case books: “When off-duty officers act for purely personal motivations, courts have held that they are not acting as law enforcement.” “The mere fact that a person is employed by a police agency does not transform actions that they carry out which are of the nature that any private person might perform into law enforcement actions, even if they relate to charging a person with a crime or initiating a prosecution.” The individuals involved in this fight were clearly not acting "under the color of state law” and were acting as a “private person” I had to read that 3 times. I don't think that means what you think it means. But like i said i read it 3 times though. This looks more like a defensive loophole so the agency is not held accountable for personal action. My understanding was when taking the oath the officer was to alway represent the ethics and morals of the what the shield represents to the community at large. I appreciate your tenacity. and respect your opinion good Sir just a generalization http://www.iacp.org/What-is-the-Law-Enforcement-Oath-of-Honor
YoloinOhio Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 Stealing this from another board....but interesting http://www.scout.com/nfl/bills/story...stigated-fight interesting. He "missed." I wonder if it can be proven than the cop had his arms around Porter's neck (or of there are any other witnesses)
3rdand12 Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 here is another Police Officer's OathThe widely used oath embraced by the International Association of Chiefs of Police reads, "On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always uphold the Constitution, my community, and the agency I serve." i could continue. but i am just putting forth my opinion, not facts
3rdand12 Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 http://www.slideshare.net/DiscoverPolicing/law-enforcement-oath-of-honor That was a ton of reading. I have searched and searched. I think i may be wrong. It is assumed that and Off duty Police officer will uphold the values he does when in uniform and carrying a weapon. I learned a ton. i have a headache interesting. He "missed." I wonder if it can be proven than the cop had his arms around Porter's neck (or of there are any other witnesses) It is a defense, but will it matter with witnesses trying to recall what happened one starry evening in Philly? I cannot imagine much of anything can be "proven" except medical records.
John from Riverside Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 http://www.slideshare.net/DiscoverPolicing/law-enforcement-oath-of-honor That was a ton of reading. I have searched and searched. I think i may be wrong. It is assumed that and Off duty Police officer will uphold the values he does when in uniform and carrying a weapon. I learned a ton. i have a headache It is a defense, but will it matter with witnesses trying to recall what happened one starry evening in Philly? I cannot imagine much of anything can be "proven" except medical records. Unless someone can actually verify that police officer walked up to their table and removed the bottle? That is instigating....that is instigating by a off duty police officer Im telling you something stinks out loud about this
simpleman Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 here is another Police Officer's OathThe widely used oath embraced by the International Association of Chiefs of Police reads, "On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always uphold the Constitution, my community, and the agency I serve." i could continue. but i am just putting forth my opinion, not facts Sorry, but you seem hung up on the oaths. The legal ramifications of the oath are more like a doctor's Hippocratic Oath, more of a moral, rather than a legal issue. I referred to case law, which is not just a moral issue, but a legal set of precedents and guidelines. The oath you quote reminds me somewhat of a boy scout oath. Nice sounding and all, but not binding in criminal law. Actually it sounds like the participants in the bar fight actually violated the morals of the oath by their drunken and disorderly bar brawling. It actually makes their actions look even worse, rather than making them seem less suspicious. Again, I'm not defending Shady here, just saying bringing the off duty police angle into this seems like smokescreen to protect the individuals .I see this as ultimately more of a possible reasonable civil law case, rather than criminal law case. As a criminal law case it seems weak at best, and I can understand the DA not wanting to play with such a weak hand, attempting to win in a trial could be a very risky gamble to his reputation and his record.
YoloinOhio Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 Full story from Carucci, including where everyone was before they got to Recess. Shockingly, women are involved. And the Recess wasn't the first place they were all (cops, players, women) together http://bills.buffalonews.com/2016/02/19/philly-union-chief-slams-da-for-slow-pace-of-mccoy-probe/
Maury Ballstein Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) Drunken cop who realizes he can't afford to spoil the girls like Shady can melts down and starts choking one of Mccoy's crew. Or he had a past with one of the girls and was salty she was partying with the big dogs. Funny. Edited February 21, 2016 by Ryan L Billz
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) interesting. He "missed." I wonder if it can be proven than the cop had his arms around Porter's neck (or of there are any other witnesses) I expect there are other witnesses and that's the basis for the delay. Guess: the prosecutor's office came up with or was given a very different story than told in the officer's complaint and by any witnesses they may have named. The picture is further muddled by the failure to call 911 and report what is alleged to be a felony assault in a timely way. At this point the prosecutor senses an attempted railroad job by the police and the police union, and says "not so fast, boys". I'm not sure "missed" (as in Shady swung and missed) is significant? If there's a finding of intent to seriously injure, one can miss but still have that intent. This reminds me of the Ferguson shooting 18 mos ago. The victim's family and the press were aflame with a story about how the "gentle giant" was shot, some said in the back, some said as he had his arms raised trying to surrender, some said both. "Hands up don't shoot" became a meme. The police officer's account was held to be unbelievable in the face of the eyewitness testimony including the victim's friend who was with him that morning. The prosecutor chose to take the case to a grand jury, who heard from 60 witnesses, many of whom did not come forward and speak to the press. So the press (and protesters) continued to focus on one story repeatedly recounted in the press. Meanwhile the grand jury concluded that many witness statements (including the friend's!) flat out did not match the physical evidence, and a different story, which did match the physical evidence and was recounted by a number of different witnesses, was most credible. An independent Justice Department Investigation featuring 40 FBI agents who went door to door looking for witnesses, reached the same general conclusion. So with regard to the Recess fight, flip the roles: we have the police loudly asserting a specific story, and witnesses (one with an admitted "dog in the fight") backing them up, but we really have no idea if that's the real story or not. It's entirely possible there are witnesses who saw a different scenario but who do not want to appear in the media or to draw police attention upon themselves. I, personally, find it more credible that Shady & party had a $350 bottle of champagne which a drunken officer mistook for his and started a fight over, than that one of Shady's friends, completely unprovoked, tried to take a bottle of champagne from a drunken officer. Of course I could be shown receipts or time-stamped orders or server testimony or other evidence which would change my mind, but if there's 12 of me sitting in a jury box the "really, there we were, minding our own business and Mr. Millionaire Shady McCoy and his gang walked up, stole our champagne, and started beating us" has an uphill battle for credibility compared with the $350 bottle sitting on Shady's table and the officer mistaking it for his. Likewise, that the officer had some part in starting the fight. Edited February 22, 2016 by Hopeful
3rdand12 Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 Sorry, but you seem hung up on the oaths. The legal ramifications of the oath are more like a doctor's Hippocratic Oath, more of a moral, rather than a legal issue. I referred to case law, which is not just a moral issue, but a legal set of precedents and guidelines. The oath you quote reminds me somewhat of a boy scout oath. Nice sounding and all, but not binding in criminal law. Actually it sounds like the participants in the bar fight actually violated the morals of the oath by their drunken and disorderly bar brawling. It actually makes their actions look even worse, rather than making them seem less suspicious. Again, I'm not defending Shady here, just saying bringing the off duty police angle into this seems like smokescreen to protect the individuals .I see this as ultimately more of a possible reasonable civil law case, rather than criminal law case. As a criminal law case it seems weak at best, and I can understand the DA not wanting to play with such a weak hand, attempting to win in a trial could be a very risky gamble to his reputation and his record. I do respect your opinion. I am indeed hung up about my expectations of civil servants. Which Doctors are not. Your perspective is well received by me. I try to be open minded and willing to learn. You are quite correct in suggesting it is more boy scout like, as to what i presented. shame on me. i think i have made it clear i do have a bias. and i still think Shady should be home in bed asleep at 239 in the morning.
LB3 Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 I'm thinkin' they're busy makin' some back-door deals with NFL Films for a new series: "Shady in Philadelphia". Millionaire athletes Crime in the city Pol's on the take Journalist with an agenda to prove a hunch Good Cop/Bad Cop... or no Cop at all Sex! Lust! Violence! Bad things man... bad things Tune in for the series premier starting March 15th at 11 on NFL Network! I heard the "In a world..." while reading that.
simpleman Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 I do respect your opinion. I am indeed hung up about my expectations of civil servants. Which Doctors are not. Your perspective is well received by me. I try to be open minded and willing to learn. You are quite correct in suggesting it is more boy scout like, as to what i presented. shame on me. i think i have made it clear i do have a bias. and i still think Shady should be home in bed asleep at 239 in the morning. I understand you want to believe that all police, politicians, civil servants are good and just. Many are, but like all people, they are just humans. There are good and bad people, and when drinking to excess, the controlled side of us can be suppressed, and we do things we would not normally do. (speaking from personal experience). And I fully agree Shady was not innocent in all this. And he will have to pay the price for his bad judgement. Just saying it does not appear the others were very innocent either. To me it is a drunken bar brawl, and the fact that the other parties were employed by the police department when they were on the job should not give them any kind of pass for their actions that night. This should more be a civil case for injuries, if in fact the facts show Shady actually caused them injuries in a reckless behavior while they were defenseless. All police are not saints, all police are not sinners. All police are just regular people, hopefully trying to be the best they can be, even though they might not always succeed. You can be the optimist and be happy. I am the realist and see the good and the bad. We both are who we are. So, back to our regular programming Rex is ........ LOL
Recommended Posts