Brett Darrow, now infamous for his run-in with St. George Police Sgt. James Kuehnlein two weeks ago, was back on my KMOX show this afternoon for an update about another police encounter.
This one involved a female officer who accused him of making an illegal u-turn in the city of St. Louis. Brett had his video camera rolling that night, too, and took the evidence to court, ready for trial. Unfortunately, the officer didn't show up to face that (for the second time), so the judge dismissed the case.
I also asked Brett about posts on some online bulletin boards either about him or by him. On at least one CopTalk board, there have been some very ugly things said about Brett, allegedly by members of the law enforcement community (many have been removed by the moderators). On the other hand, some of them claim that Brett has made some very negative comments about certain officers, including the late Norvelle Brown. Brett admits posting on CopWatch.net, but denies saying those things about Officer Brown.
Listen.
Moments after this conversation, word came down that Sgt. Kuehnlein has been given a letter of termination by the city of St. George.
31 comments:
Paul,
You and the young gentleman made one very serious error on your show this afternoon. I was driving and it is now 4 hours later, but to paraphrase, you stated that the posters on COPTALK were St. Louis City cops. That is a public forum. You or I could have posted that questionable material, if in fact it did exist. To blindly say that it was a cop was just wrong. No I am not an officer, but this was just inaccurate reporting.
I'm glad to see Sgt Kuehnlein is gone; honest Police do not need hot-heads like him on the force.
Well, I guess he got what he wanted. The sargeant is now out of a job. Doesn't matter that he might have a family to support. Brett does not like being yelled at, so the world has to move over.
At first I thought this is simply a misguided kid, but the more I learn the more dfficult it is to excuse him. Paul, are you going to keep on digging? I am begining to have a very bad feeling about this. Aside from the net you and others in the media have given him a helping hand. He has temporary fame and taken a man's job. The next thing will have to be bigger and better. The Munchausen Syndrome is used in medical terms, but I think there is a parallel here, since it refers to an almost organic need for attention.
I am sure his head is as big as a blimp right now. After all, he has crossed the law (more than once) and won. Are your reders and those on the net helping rcreate something that will get out of hand?
All of those supporters have created a false sense of power and you know what they say about power corrupting.
Where does he go from here? He is not an atorney. He cannot go before the supreme Court. If he were and could what would be the argunment--"I don't like to be yelled at?" Perhaps this man-child was destined to end up in prison, but if he does, I think many of his supporters can take credit for pushing him over the top. When a kids throw temper tantrums, you do not egg them on, you call time out and stand them in the corner.
I hope Mr. Brett knows how to lead a straightr arrow life because those boys in blue are going to be looking for the slightest infraction by him (he had better think of the detectives and undercover guys too, who don't wear uniforms). They do not have to set him up, sooner of later his ego will do that.
Wes...
That's why I used the word "allegedly" above.
From a previous post: “I hope Mr. Brett knows how to lead a straightr arrow life because those boys in blue are going to be looking for the slightest infraction by him....”
Is this really what the public wants...Police that are out to get someone? Is this really the public image the Police want for that matter...being out to get people vs “protect and serve”?
Sgt. Kuehnlein was fired, in the end, for abuse of power. Add to this dishonesty on someone’s part by erasing the tape from his cruiser, simply a black eye the Police that do a honest job do not need.
Paul,
Thanks, you did "allegedly" above, but NOT on your broadcast which is heard by more than this blog. The blog was responsible, the broadcast was not. Sorry. I do enjoy your show.
I don't agree that Mr. Darrow got the man fired. He supplied the tape, but the officer's actions resulted in him gtetting fired. Either way the Dept. would have handled this(fire him or other discipine) I would not have cared. It was a personnel issue. No a constitutional rights issue. What bothered me about this is that Mr. Darrow was held up as a hero. He did nothing heroic. He went looking for a confrontation and got one. He lies about why he was there and he continues to lie now. In the small view he got what he wanted. I hope that we don't end up with more cop baiters wasting officers time to try to get theire fifteen minutes of fame and an officer fired. Mr. Darrow fifteen minutes is up and was long ago except for those who contiue to act as if he saved a life, risked his own or did something noble. Seeking out confrontation and getting it is not heroic. Remember he was telled at for about 12 minutes that is it. By the way did PH ask Mr. Darrow why he had different versions of why he was at the commuter lot(I know it does not matter why he was there all he has to say is his name. Well Mr. Darrow waived his right to being silent when he told different media outlets different versions of events. Where is the digging on that. Why not expose his lies and ask him, "Look you sought this out, you want to stop bad police behavior why not admit your true intentions?" Well, I guess some behavior (lying) is accepted and some(yelling) is not.
Yes, I asked Brett about why he was in that lot during our second interview, which you can listen to here: http://paulharrisonline.blogspot.com/2007/09/cop-gone-wild-follow-up.html
I have a great idea for Mr. Darrow's next sting operation.
He aught to take his little camera into north St. Louis and antagonize some of the gang members on the street corners. Then he'd really capture some injustice - if he survives.
There are two items I would like to address: one is the CopWtch Blog and the other is videotaping. sorry but it may be rather long.
There was a time when people were put to death on the word of an "eye witnes." then there are "still" photos. Add to that vdeos. I do not know how many of you do much in photography of any kind, but the camers does NOT see any better than the human eye. In many aspects it does not see as accurately. My camers and I have been doing business for quite some time, and among the things I have done in my past is the setting up of professional photos.
If all of you would go through your albums and your tapes you would see that much of those images are in shadow. Why do you think lighting is so imortant on a set for a "shoot?" The simple truth is, ther is no such thing as accuracy. Cameras mounted in a car shooting after dark are not exactly theater quality (professional scenes being retaken mulltiple times).
When you are looking at a scene, even with night vision capabilities you are still depending on interpertation. If you shoot a film in near or total drkness (or some ambient lighting) and there is sound, your brain fuses the two together. Ie, when you watch AND listen you are not actually "seeing." I could go on but I think you get the idea. Turn off the video and what do you hear?
Mr Brett does not come through very clearly. He is talking in a muffled voice and is saying more than you think as others did hear. Speaking in very low tones in a confrontation automatically makes the other person get louder. It is as though the one is truing to balance the acoustics. Turn off the sound and what do you really see?
About Copwatch, I have gone there a number of times. No, I did not join, just perused. I did map out the arangement of the headings and the entire setup. I would say that this is one sophisticated site.
I will try to explain this in a few words. The arrangement of the headings are pure genius in it's presentation. If the site were all negative it would be a turn off to many, but it gives just enough positive catagories to make it apper "fair.". On the surface it sems to present a balanced forum, but if you look deeper, you will see the true nature of the site and to whom it is addressed. The site is too sophisticated for the uneducaed. It is aimed toward the young, educated, adult from 17 to 20 something.
You may not see the connecton at first but together with the constant referal to constitutional rights being violated in the Brett affair, a psychological profile begins to appear.
This is the kind of psychological ploy that a "militia" group would use. It's format is absolutely perfect. Using the Constitution is at the center of their propaganda.
There was some mention of some insulting words used about the young officer who was murdered.
If I wanted to destroy a place, Country,City,or Town etc. I would first attack it's instutions. The police would be first. Yes, we do have some cops who should be tossed out on their ears, but the implication is that the police are bad. When there is not more recruits and the job too much of a hastle, there will be no more police and then who will we call to protect us? Our Country will be like the frontier town of the old west. It will be quite easy for another country to take over. It is our instutions as well as our sacred documents that keep us as we are.
For those of you in college, Why don't you run this site by your psyche professor with the question of whether he sees what I see.
This is not just a local issue any longer. If your analytical abilities are good, you try it. Try joining the site and see what you can learn ( undercover). Are they begining to sway you to their camp?
Hope this is not too much psychology in one bite.
Paul, you cannot be seriously comparing this man's actions to using the net to catch predtors!
I hope you did not mean that.
I do have some Questions.
Was he looking to entrap that particular oficer?
Was he out looking for anything or anyone he could find in uniform? Does he have an axe to grind with the police? Why? How sophisticated was his equipment? Even modest equipment of that kind is not inexpensive. I know my son could not afford it.
Did he have help obtainng it? Was, or is, it his?
How did he know an officer would show up at that time of night? If he knew this,and knew it would be this particular officer, then he had been STALKING the officer. He is not member of the police force, so he cannot call it "a stake out.
What made this man so determined?
Where did he get all that stuff about his "rights?" Looks to me like he went out fully prepared to do exactly what he did, and was, totally, prepared for it.
How else could anyone explain the fact that he knew there would be an oficer there to confront him?
How did he know that it would be one with a short fuse unless he did a lot of recon in advance?
why did he go directly to the net with the story and film?
Sounds to me like he was prepared to do exactly what he did.
Like many of you, I think the police force should do a better job of policing their officers, but I don't want to ive in a world where we have National guard patroling out streets.
I have bothered to ask about the starting pay of police and it is very meager.
It takes a long time to climb in the ranks. I wouldn't work for that little and have that amount of responsiblility and danger.
Most trained oficers coulD always join "Blackwater" and pull down a huge amount.
Why do they stay? Cant't be for the safety of the job or the regular hours. or the famly friendly aspects of the
job.
If no one is going to stand up for the good officre then you do not deserve anything but troops in your streets.
Why cannot we give those DESERVING men the respect and thanks that is their due.
Why does no one ever ask all the right questions when something like this comes up?
Like one of the other entries said, I have been asking how many of the people I know have deserved the tickets and stops they got. All admitted to deserving the tickets and were thankful when stoped to notify them of a real oR potential problem.
Much of this copping to the constitutional rights is people, mostly kids I suspect, who are trying to put the blame for their breaking of the rules on someone else.
We have rules so we can live together. Try having no trafic rules at all and see how the death and injury rate climbs. We could possibly kill off half of the city's population. If we did not do it with the autos, we certainly would do so with ROAD RAGE.
I think most of the officers do it because they believe they make a difference. Belivve me, without them, even the ones who yell we would be in one hell of a mess.
the Constitution they quote would not be worth the paper it was printed on without the other rules we live by. The CONSTITUTION
is a set of rules. Please remember , those cops you are landing on is the only thing we have to keep out world in some kind of order.
Don't let a couple of bad eggs destroy your faith in those who protect those rights and certainly not a boy, just turned man scramble your brains.
Alex
I see that this story continues to hang around so here is the story from my family's experience.
Decades ago we lived off Reavis Barracks Road which is the main drag of St. George. It did not take long to notice that there almost always was a police car waiting for the unsuspecting motorist. If you look at a map of the city you will see that there is really only one road going through and there is no pedestrian traffic because there are no schools and few stores. We moved a few miles away and as my sons grew and started driving I taught them to be overly cautious when passing through.
This event took place over a decade ago but I think it shows the mindset of St. George. My twenty year old son was the youth minister at our church and would organize basketball games for the boys. He, too, would play and usually take home a car full of boys. Having once had his wallet stolen while playing ball, he started placing his wallet under the driver's seat.
It is ten p.m. and he has dropped off the last kid in Affton and is headed home on Reavis Barracks in my Honda Civic. Suddenly he is lit up by a St. George officer. The cop comes to the car window and asks for my son's license. My son replies that he will have to get out of the car so that he can reach under the seat. The cop says no to that. My son invites the policeman to reach in and, of course, the officer refuses. Are we at a stalemate? No, a ticket is written for driving without a license and a court appearance is set.
My son inquires of the Highway Patrol as to what should have been done and is told it is a difficult call and, under the circumstances, the ticket will be dismissed when he appears with his license.
Here is my favorite part: he shows up for court night along with twenty others. The first case called by the judge involves a girl ticketed for speeding. The judge asks, "But you live in St. George, don't you?"
She replies in the affirmative and the judge says, "You should have told the officer since St. George residents do not get St. George tickets. Case dismissed."
When it is my son's turn he relates his story and his conversation with the Highway Patrol. The judge looks at the license and dismisses the case.
Eight cops for 1,000 citizens? Sounds about right, doesn't it?
Wow, PH did ask him about the different versions. Well not really. The first version Darrow said, "Darrow was to meet a friend who was working late and was going to pick him up." No mention of a phone. When PH asks about the phone Darrow says oh it is both. But he is not picking someone up from work. He is meeting a girl, just a friend from college at 2:00 am to get a cell phone.
I hate to say this, but I have seen that move before- Hey, honey I left my _____ lets meet to get it- maybe in this comuter parking lot where no one is at 2:00 am in the morning. PH, would you tell your daughter, even when she is an adult, that this is a good idea? I've seen a guy leave his phone with my sister and then say he wants to come back to get it. You should see the look o n the guys face when I hand it to him and close the door. Maybe the officer was breaking up something. Here is PH's follow up after this explanation-"Well that clears that up." Clears it up? His first claim was he was going to be picked upped. No mention of a him picking up a phone. Then that story changes. If Mr. darrow files suit, I would love to subpoena his phone records, his moms, the friend's the friend work records get the address to see if this is between them or if there was a public place(someplace with other peopel around at 2:00 am) that the pick-up/exchange would be made. I'm also subpoenaing the video form Darrow's car. I bet Mr. Darrow will have to change the sotry to fit the facts yet again if that happens. If all the hard evidence fits the changing story, I'll would eat my hat. which is a Rams hat that I'm disgusted to wear right now anyway.
This is from another"video tape" form Mr. Darrow. Watch how he is allowed to leave, but wants someone to pay for problems he knows he will have with his clutch because the officer stalls his car.
10:10
(Officer #1 comes back and hands me my license and insurance card)
Officer #1: Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your time.
Brett: Why exactly was I detained and why did you get me out of the car?
Officer #1: You didn't want to answer my questions.(unsure of the rest of his comment)
Brett: Where does me having to go have anything to do with a DWI checkpoint. I don't have the right--
Officer #1: I was trying to have a conversation.
Brett: I didn't want to have a conversation. You stopped me officer in the middle of the road.
Officer #1: I was trying to have a conversation with you (unsure of the rest of his comment)
Brett: Do you stop everybody and get everybody out of the car? Or you did that just to me?
Officer #1: (unsure of audio)
Brett: Is St. Louis County Police going to pay for a new clutch, after he just killed it here and burnt up my clutch.
Officer #1: Would you like to talk to a supervisor?
Brett: Yes I would.
(Officer #1 goes across the street to get the supervisor.
12:43
(Supervisor comes over)
Supervisor: How you doin?
Brett: Hi.
Supervisor: I'm sergeant (unsure of his name)
Brett: I'm Brett Darrow
Supervisor: Brent?
Brett: Brett.
Supervisor: What's the problem tonight?
Brett: I have a problem because I was stopped here and uhh I offered to move my vehicle. The officer said I could not move my vehicle to park it. He told me to leave my keys in the car. I got out. Locked the door. He took my keys. Uhh. And they attempted to move my car here. They stalled it a couple of times. Burnt up the clutch. I mean it's all on tape and video. Now I'm going to have problems with my clutch. Who's going to pay for that?
Brett is a true american patriot, the days of cops settig people up is over. not so funny with the shoe on the other foot it is?
No one ever questioned whether Mr. Darrow supports his country, as that is the definition of paritot. Mr. Darrow, I assume support his contry as do the vast majority of people. What Mr. Darrow is not is a hero. In a nut shell this is what he has done and in my opinion the problem with it.
1) He set out to confront the police. Problem: he is intentionally creating policing situations which take the officers away from what could be real situtaion.
2) He vidio taped it. No. Problem
3) He lied about his intentions. Lying is just wrong. He should state that he set out to catch police acting badly and did so.
4) He is doing this for economic gain. You can see that when he(as quoted above)wants payment for mechanical breakdown that he "knows will happen in the future". He has not inspected teh clutch(assumign he has the expertise to do so) what does he want paid for and how much. This is typical of a shaedown artist. Also, he has contacted an attorney who says he has a case. A Case of what? He has stated, if they have to pay civilly they will.
Problem-seeking confrontation just for a pay off is wrong. I can go into a bar, have a buddy video tape me. If I sit next to a guy and keep calling his mother a ________, when he hits me I can sue.
I doubt Mr. Darrow will sue now given how many people have pointed out the problems he will face.
1) He was yelled at for 12 minutes and that is it.
2) He lied about why he was there.
3) The records will show he lied.
For all the peopel that thingk Mr. Darrow will be a great attorney(must be the name). Knowing a few rules about traffic stops does not make someone a good attorney. One thing that no one likes in an attorney is a sneaky liar. As a lawyer, those are the type of people we don't want in the profession. Now let Mr. Darrow go back to community college, his tricked out '97 Maxima, and cruising commuter lots at 2:00 am.
Of course Brett is a hero. he stands alone against overwhelming odds for us all. ths is not about weather he lied but him uncovering abuseive thugs with a badge.
"Doug said...
I have a great idea for Mr. Darrow's next sting operation.
He aught to take his little camera into north St. Louis and antagonize some of the gang members on the street corners. Then he'd really capture some injustice - if he survives."
Well, if the cops did their jobs, he wouldn't need to, now would he?
Ooh, that's a burn.
This kid's a real stand up guy, no doubt about it. Only reason people get mad and scared over what he does is because they're scared it won't be business as usual.
We need more citizens like him to police the police, because even if it's just 1 in 1000 that go overboard and bust an innocent civilian's head like an egg, that's 1 too many, and everytime he gets away with it he's showing the others that they can too.
I love the law, but just like with God, too often is it invoked for selfish and evil deeds.
Brett is a scam artist looking for a pay off- Plan and simple. Look at the way he wants someone to pay for a "burnt clutch" when he had not even driven the car to detemrine if there was any mechanical problem. It is about him lying. He acts as if he did not seek this out. He did. He wanted to be pulled over. He wanted the reaction he got. Anybody who wants to make this into abuse is a wuss. He was yelled at for a few minutes and let go. Even if he did not lie, he is not a hero. He does not stand alone. the vast majority of people agree that the officer should have been more polite as the officers were in the "you bunrt my clutch out" case.
Makr my words Brett won't seek his payout this time because he knows he has problmes with the lawsuit. 1) no constiutional violations 2) the officer did not break the law 3) Darrow suffered no injury or damage
4) Darrow lied about why he is there, what he was doing
Look at the poster noted above the argument can be made that Darrow was trying to get a girl alone at the commuter lot. At best he is rude,"I forgot my phone at your house, get up and drive to a commuter lot at 2:00 am to give it to me-at worse he wants to get her alone in a dark secluded lot. Either could be the case given the stories Darrow has given us.
There are good officers and there are bad officers. There are officers who facilitate drug pushing, who make use of a "working girl's services," who turn favors for fellow brother craftsmen that are "on the level," and who serve as the muscle for "connected" political figures. Who is Kuehnlein? Well, he apparently has a criminal history and problems of his own. So why was he allowed to be a police officer? Who looked the other way and why? That's the real story here. Yeah, maybe Darrow was looking for trouble but so what. In the words of Travis Bickle, "Some day a real rain will come along and wash all the garbage off the street."One piece has been removed so far. And what about their attempts to intimidate him? Again, who are these "officers" working for? Themselves and not the people.
Rarely do I post comments in forums such as this. However, given the subject I feel compelled.
Brett Darrow is a young man who believed he had been treated unfairly by law enforcement. Those who complain the loudest about being arrested or cited are generally people who have difficulty accepting responsibility for their actions. I believe Darrow fits into this category.
Darrow is known to local law enforcement as someone who is solely interested in drawing the attention of a policeman in an effort to instigate a problem. The incident between he and the St. George officer illustrates this.
Darrow saw the St. George officer, drove past him, and then directly into the generally vacant commuter parking lot nearby. There was no legitmate reason for Darrow's presence at that location. He was just out on a mission to find a policeman and, hopefully, make him angry enough to behave unprofessionally.
Mission accomplished.
Unfortunately, the St. George officer fell for Darrow's unreasonable behavior and alowed himself to behave even more unreasonably. There is no doubt that Kuehnlein behaved in an unprofessional manner. Had Darrow complied with Kuehnlein's directive to "move along", like most reasonable people would, nothing would have happened.
Were it me, Darrow would have simply been arrested for Failure to Comply. Had it been me, I would have set the case in Circuit Court (not St. George's muni court) so Darrow could explain to a Circuit Court Judge (who hate having their time wasted) why he failed to comply with the reasonable request of a police officer re: exiting the commuter parking lot.
Darrow is not a hero. He is not at all concerned about the preservation of Constitutional Rights. He is not concerned about professional law enforcement. He is solely concerned with making officers look bad.
The Brett Darrow is doing something I wish I had started. He gets ignorant cops fired. How many billions in tickets are written each year? How many people are in jail because of ignorant cops like this? How many people don't need this kind of crap in their life? The hell with this bastard. He was a thief and had committed other crimes. His records were sealed. There was a time you couldn't have a criminal record and be a cop. It's not against the law to have a camera in your car. If cops don't like the camera, then just do their job legally and there will be no problem. If I was Brett I would travel all over the country and bait cops everywhere. The state troopers in Delware are cocksuckers. I would like to see Brett come her and get some of these bastards. There is a cop Kunicki Delware state trooper who is about 5'5" tall. There was a time when cops had to be 5'10" at least. If people were smart they would all get cameras. I would have gotten off of two tickets the past 8 years if I had a camera.
Every single person in every single state knows state troopers who are bad cops. Sure this cop might not have gotten mad if Brett didn't have a camera and he said, oh officer I'm sorry for pulling in here. I'll leave right now there would have been no problem, but the guy has a camera because cops tried to screw him years earlier. If I was as smart as him I would have gotten a camera 8 years ago. A state trooper had someone pulled over. The person pulled out and I passed them. When I passed the person the state trooper was over a quarter of a mile behind us. Here he came hauling ass. I was just in front of the other car. The cop caught up with us and passed me within three miles. The cop said I was going 70 to catch you so you had to be going 70. How fast would someone have to go to catch someone who had a quarter of a mile head start? I would say about 90 miles an hour. If I had a camera no ticket.
Darrow is a hero. Not only that but if cops keep fricking with him he'll be rich before long. But only if he leaves the St. Louis area. All you got to do is pull into a parking lot and when a cop comes just say I don't want to discuss my personal business with you and the cop will get mad. What people should do is have business cards made up that say This is my current address. If I have to answer anymore questions I want a lawyer.
You see how crooked this cop was. He just couldn't produce the video from his car. I believe it was destroyed. So if this was the only evidence to prove Brett Darrow's innocence it would have vanished. Do you see why everyone should get a camera?
This uniformed sociopath had a blemished record but somehow was able to remain a member of the (dishonorable) profession of law enforcement. Why? There can be little doubt the "good cops" knew he was a discredit to the profession but remained silent. This matter clearly illustrates two other problems common to law enforcement nationwide which establishes the profession lacks integrity, the disappearing video tape and the fact supervisors where not held accountable. Law enforcement has a tendency to dismiss these situations by labeling the offender as a "bad apple" when in fact their failure to rid the ranks of these headcases is a indictment of the profession. Members of this dishonorable profession do not refute the fact the Blue Code of Silence exists, which is primarily responsible for allowing these bad apples to thrive, until incidents like this surface and the resulting publicity requires them to save face. This encounter was analyzed by a shrink from Chicago who is well acquainted with cops. Google "Dr X Brett Darrow" to review his comments; 1) Among those who have power there is a tendency to abuse it, while the defensive tendency to identify with the aggressor is one significant factor behind excessive public tolerance of police misconduct. Deferential glorification of aggressors provides a sense of safety from aggression, but it also emboldens the aggressor. 2)"The normal person" doesn't respond this way to a police officer. Normal persons are usually afraid to assert their legal right to privacy while alone in an empty parking lot with a police officer who is challenging that right. That's why Kuehnlein blew up. Darrow did not show the fearful deference to which Sergeant Kuehnlein is accustomed when he demands that a citizen forfeit his legal rights upon Kuehnlein's demand that he do so. 3) Police routinely go off on citizens who assert their rights and they routinely arrest citizens on false charges. Sergeant Kuenhlein's verbally abusive, illegal threatening behavior in the Brett Darrow videotape was not atypical. It is commonplace.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Upon spending a few minutes researching the players in this scandal (the Chief of Police and the cop who was eventually fired) the following information was presented at wikipedia, at the St. George, Missouri page. 1) The press later revealed that Sgt. Kuehnlein had been previously arrested for assault and stealing, and in late September, he was fired by the city's Board of Aldermen in a 5-0 vote 2) In 2000, St. George Police Chief Scott Uhrig, while serving as an Arnold, MO patrol officer, was accused of sexually harassing a 17 year old girl during a traffic stop. The State Administrative Hearing Commission found that Scott Uhrig called the teenager "beautiful, hot and tempting." Uhrig also allegedly asked the teen to come to his car for sex. Although Uhrig maintained his innocence, the Commission believed Uhrig acted outside the law. They said his unwarranted sexual advances showed he could not enforce the law and was cause for discipline. Uhrig was suspended for weeks without pay and put on probation. Several years later he took the helm at the St. George Police Department
Geez,
Glad I don't live anywhere near you people. It does not matter why he was in the parking lot - he is an american citizen and the cops were wrong. And apparently from the stupid comments made about it, the rest of you nazis agree with the cops.
This is AMERICA not AMERIKA
Bring on the storm troopers to kick in your doors - but don't worry - those in authority are always right, and it's just your freedoms and rights you're losing - no big deal huh.
Oh, My, my, my, my, my, my! What a fine bunch of frisky fascists we have hopping around here! Genuine Storm Troopers who think their pretty badges gives them the right to demand "Respect" (read that as yield to my "Godhood")
We even have one guy on here that says if a cop asks you a question, then you better answer it, because you have no civil rights while standing in the righteous glow of his pretty gold badge!
Another even goes as far as to call Darrow a liar! A cop calling Darrow a liar? That's like being called ugly by a wart hog!
Look, people, the police are not "your friends"! They don't "defend your rights"! Their job is to enforce the law, protect their power, and keep the prison system, and County coffers full! That's their job!
Now! since that's taken care of, let's get to the little manner of Brett "Baiting" Sergeant "Plant and Plug". There's this funny little thing called "The Bill of Rights" and if you don't stand up for them to the likes of the good sergeant, you will find them gone! The first one of those rights says you have the FREEDOM OF SPEECH! That means you can say whatever you want, as long as it's not slanderous, libelous, or dangerous to others, (like yelling FIRE!" in a crowded theater)!
A lot of police don't like these rights, because they make their jobs complicated! They just want to kick your door down, and drag you off whenever they get the notion to! Then they can lock you in a room with three or four of them, and scream whatever lies they want at you for hours, and hours with no food, water, or bathroom breaks to get you to admit to something whether you did it or not! Don't think so? Google "The Innocence Project"!
They can also batter down your door, in the middle of the night, shoot your dogs, and children, and say "Oops! Wrong house!" Don't think so? Google "Wrong Door Police Raids"!
The second amendment, and "Make My Day" laws in certain states, has brought a lot of these "Wrong Door Raids" to a stand still! Cops don't like to kick in a door at three in the morning, and find an armed citizen ready to stand up for his, or her rights! Makes for messy paperwork when it comes out the search warrants were either based on incredible evidence, or outright lies! That "Blue Wall of Silence" can only hold back so much!
So here's the drill Officers Friendly! Want respect? EARN IT! Clean up your own house! See officers breaking the law? BUST THEM! See officer behaving like "Sergeant Plant and Plug"? BUST THEM!
I don't have a case of the red ass at all cops! I actually have police officers as friends! But when the men and women who enforce the law, don't abide by the law, then there is no law! there's nothing but "The Blue Wall of Silence", and dead people on both sides of the street!
The "police" have cameras to record misbehaving civilians, so the civilians need cameras to capture misbehaving "officers." :) Police officers are exponentially more dangerous than street criminals.
Post a Comment