Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....

Who was in the wrong?

  • Cop

    Votes: 23 20.7%

  • Dude who got shot

    Votes: 33 29.7%

  • I like turtles

    Votes: 55 49.5%
  • Total voters
    111
The buying spree has transformed local police departments into small, army-like forces, and put intimidating equipment into the hands of civilian officers. And that is raising questions about whether the strategy has gone too far, creating a culture and capability that jeopardizes public safety and civil rights while creating an expensive false sense of security.

MORE
 
"It's Chris. I'm that ugly bald Stickney cop who gave you that ticket on Saturday... I have not stopped thinking about you since... I did cost you $132 least I can do is buy you dinner."

What a maroon
 
FullMotoJacket said:
"It's Chris. I'm that ugly bald Stickney cop who gave you that ticket on Saturday... I have not stopped thinking about you since... I did cost you $132 least I can do is buy you dinner."

What a maroon
Click to expand...

I don't think that is a big deal at all. Some uptight woman trying to get a payday is what it seems like. She should have been flattered, said no and moved on.
 
eastcoast_gsx said:
I don't think that is a big deal at all. Some uptight woman trying to get a payday is what it seems like. She should have been flattered, said no and moved on.
Click to expand...

if some one looked up my info to see where i lived and they happened to carry a gun i'd be a little weirded out too. personally i think the cop should be fired but i guess the mechanism is to punish the cop financially in court instead of removing him from the position that gives him access to personal records. either way, he broke the law and as a law enforcement officer he should be held accountable to the law
 
when the cop wrote the ticket he got her address. what made her think that he looked it up. his mistake was asking her for dinner, he should have given her a warning when he pulled her over then asked for dinner.
 
CruisnGrrl said:
if some one looked up my info to see where i lived and they happened to carry a gun i'd be a little weirded out too. personally i think the cop should be fired but i guess the mechanism is to punish the cop financially in court instead of removing him from the position that gives him access to personal records. either way, he broke the law and as a law enforcement officer he should be held accountable to the law
Click to expand...


I would be royally freaked out and bet your *** I would get the non stalking police involved. Agreed he should be fired. He is now using his job to pick up women.
 
Stewart said:
his mistake was asking her for dinner, he should have given her a warning when he pulled her over then asked for dinner.
Click to expand...

Hence the "What a maroon" URL link tag. Giving her a warning then macking on her wouldn't make him any less of a creeper, but ticketing her first definitely shows he came up short in the deductive reasoning department.
 
Stewart said:
when the cop wrote the ticket he got her address. what made her think that he looked it up. his mistake was asking her for dinner, he should have given her a warning when he pulled her over then asked for dinner.
Click to expand...

even then that becomes an abuse of power. one would feel pressured to say yes to avoid a ticket... no matter which way you look at it he's a creep
 
CruisnGrrl said:
if some one looked up my info to see where i lived and they happened to carry a gun i'd be a little weirded out too. personally i think the cop should be fired but i guess the mechanism is to punish the cop financially in court instead of removing him from the position that gives him access to personal records. either way, he broke the law and as a law enforcement officer he should be held accountable to the law
Click to expand...

What does it matter if he "happens to carry a gun"? Is that really the first place your mind went? Its not like he is saying "lets go for dinner. Oh, did you see my gun?". An officer's sidearm is a tool of the job, and its responsible use sacred and respected. Is is a threatening tool? Yes, but only when it is drawn. All cops hope and pray they will never use it in their career (and most never will). Why should you, a (presumably) innocent civilian have any reason to worry about his gun?

Do I personally find this to be cause to FIRE the cop? Absolutely not. What one of us out there has not made a stupid decision because of an interest in someone? Cops are people, and people make mistakes. We should and do hold them to a higher standard, but in this case nobody was hurt. He did not make use of any information in addition to that which he obtained at roadside, so to me there is no evidence he "looked up her records" at all. Your license has your address on it. The cop left a note on her car. This does not constitute stalking (that requires repeated behaviour), and also does not constitute a threatening action.

What I find to be the most bizarre matter in this case, is how the plaintiff has chosen to go public with this, and all her information: Her name is Evangelina Paredes, of Kendall Co, Illinois. Shes a single mom, with "nobody home to protect her". WTF?? They just took a controlled situation (one identifiable cop who made a mistake with some entrusted information), and gave that exact same info to the entire world, including all the creepers and stalkers in Chicago. Ms Paredes and her lawyer have now opened her up to significant threat, especially if she wins this lawsuit with a nice payday.
 
suprPHREAK said:
What does it matter if he "happens to carry a gun"? Is that really the first place your mind went? Its not like he is saying "lets go for dinner. Oh, did you see my gun?". An officer's sidearm is a tool of the job, and its responsible use sacred and respected. Is is a threatening tool? Yes, but only when it is drawn. All cops hope and pray they will never use it in their career (and most never will). Why should you, a (presumably) innocent civilian have any reason to worry about his gun?

Do I personally find this to be cause to FIRE the cop? Absolutely not. What one of us out there has not made a stupid decision because of an interest in someone? Cops are people, and people make mistakes. We should and do hold them to a higher standard, but in this case nobody was hurt. He did not make use of any information in addition to that which he obtained at roadside, so to me there is no evidence he "looked up her records" at all. Your license has your address on it. The cop left a note on her car. This does not constitute stalking (that requires repeated behaviour), and also does not constitute a threatening action.

What I find to be the most bizarre matter in this case, is how the plaintiff has chosen to go public with this, and all her information: Her name is Evangelina Paredes, of Kendall Co, Illinois. Shes a single mom, with "nobody home to protect her". WTF?? They just took a controlled situation (one identifiable cop who made a mistake with some entrusted information), and gave that exact same info to the entire world, including all the creepers and stalkers in Chicago. Ms Paredes and her lawyer have now opened her up to significant threat, especially if she wins this lawsuit with a nice payday.
Click to expand...

+1.

This was all after the fact, I would GUESS that if she said she was not interested that would have been the end of it. If not, then she may have a case (in my mind) but this seems a little desperate to me. $$$$

Is she a 2 year old child? She is a grown woman who I am sure has turned down male advances before....
 
A permanent note in his jacket? Absolutely, because he abused his position. Fired? No, not unless he's got complaints against him for this, or other things, already.
 
suprPHREAK said:
What does it matter if he "happens to carry a gun"? Is that really the first place your mind went? Its not like he is saying "lets go for dinner. Oh, did you see my gun?". An officer's sidearm is a tool of the job, and its responsible use sacred and respected. Is is a threatening tool? Yes, but only when it is drawn. All cops hope and pray they will never use it in their career (and most never will). Why should you, a (presumably) innocent civilian have any reason to worry about his gun?

Do I personally find this to be cause to FIRE the cop? Absolutely not. What one of us out there has not made a stupid decision because of an interest in someone? Cops are people, and people make mistakes. We should and do hold them to a higher standard, but in this case nobody was hurt. He did not make use of any information in addition to that which he obtained at roadside, so to me there is no evidence he "looked up her records" at all. Your license has your address on it. The cop left a note on her car. This does not constitute stalking (that requires repeated behaviour), and also does not constitute a threatening action.

What I find to be the most bizarre matter in this case, is how the plaintiff has chosen to go public with this, and all her information: Her name is Evangelina Paredes, of Kendall Co, Illinois. Shes a single mom, with "nobody home to protect her". WTF?? They just took a controlled situation (one identifiable cop who made a mistake with some entrusted information), and gave that exact same info to the entire world, including all the creepers and stalkers in Chicago. Ms Paredes and her lawyer have now opened her up to significant threat, especially if she wins this lawsuit with a nice payday.
Click to expand...

The point is that he kept her private information for his personal use days later, stating "I haven't stopped thinking of you since" after only giving her a ticket. Maybe it doesn't meet the definition of stalking but it's stalkerish. Creepy for sure.

Of course he could just be a lonely sap who experienced a lapse of judgement but there have to be equal consequences for all such transgressions, regardless of how pitiful the guy is.

As for her personal information, I believe that becomes public as a result of the suit. "News" outlets rummage through these public documents for something titillating that will attract readership. Seems to work.
 
As much as we all would like to think that our information is "private" that is simply not the case anymore, and unfortunately people will simply have to get used to that idea.

I always laugh at the folks who say things like "well, I don't want the government having access to all my personal information"... well, who exactly do you think the CRA is? Yes, there should be (and are) many rules that dictate how this information can be used. But most don't even understand their own rights to access and challenge this information.

And the younger generation has even LESS of an expectation of privacy.
 
eastcoast_gsx said:
As much as we all would like to think that our information is "private" that is simply not the case anymore, and unfortunately people will simply have to get used to that idea.

I always laugh at the folks who say things like "well, I don't want the government having access to all my personal information"... well, who exactly do you think the CRA is?

And the younger generation has even LESS of an expectation of privacy.
Click to expand...

In terms of the government having your info, I would rather have the CRA have it than any other government agency.
From a privacy perspective they have some of the strongest confidentiality rules I have ever seen.
 
OpenGambit said:
In terms of the government having your info, I would rather have the CRA have it than any other government agency.
From a privacy perspective they have some of the strongest confidentiality rules I have ever seen.
Click to expand...

^^ I edited my original post to reflect this.

Yes they do, but ANY legit operation has to respect (in Canada) the strong privacy laws in place. There is big $$$ to be made in compliance.

http://www.priv.gc.ca/index_e.cfm

http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/Home-Page/
 
fastar1 said:
The point is that he kept her private information for his personal use days later, stating "I haven't stopped thinking of you since" after only giving her a ticket. Maybe it doesn't meet the definition of stalking but it's stalkerish. Creepy for sure.
Click to expand...

A cop is legally required to maintain detailed notes. This can (and should) include all identifying details of the offender. As long as he was doing his job, he would have to have her details in his private notes. Its not really a matter of intentionally keeping it for attempted dating purposes later. Just saying, he did his job correctly, was overwhelmed by the thought of this lady (anyone seen a pic? I want to know what she looks like...), and then broke his code of ethics by going back to his notes for personal interest.
 
suprPHREAK said:
A cop is legally required to maintain detailed notes. This can (and should) include all identifying details of the offender.
Click to expand...

That sounds excessive if that's the case. They should record only the minimum info they need to be able to identify the person if they need to. D/L number, or even just tel no. is enough for them to locate someone if they have to review a traffic stop.

Anyways, I wasn't saying so much the motive for him keeping the information, but that he kept it for personal use. He "used" it for personal use just sounded redundant.
 
Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

To me, (if this is a true story) it shows an utter disregard for the laws that are put in place to do some good.

http://www.wheels.ca/columns/article/802030

A HTA ticket for cell phones in a drive-thru. Absurd. Either he DOESN'T know the law (scary), or he willfully overlooked it to "teach someone a lesson" (even scarier).

Now about that law, seems that it may be having the opposite affect of what was intended.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion...ans+haven+made+roads+safer/5954979/story.html

According to the U.S. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), while actual hand-held cellphone usage declined in states that enacted bans, accident rates did not. Indeed, according to a study by the U.S. Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), texting bans have actually increased accident rates. The HLDI compared each state's accident rate before and after the texting bans as well as with neighbouring jurisdictions without any texting restrictions and, according to Adrian Lund, president of the HLDI as well as the IIHS, "Texting bans haven't reduced crashes at all. In a perverse twist, crashes increased in three of the four states we studied after bans were enacted."
Click to expand...

One cannot escape the law of Unintended Consequences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom