Originally Posted by dpottz

i doubt society is improved by locking up a spitting drunk for any extended period of time

It most definitley is improved. People that can't handle their alcohol should learn to stay home. Being in jail just might teach him said lesson.

 

Originally Posted by Neeek

nope. no more than spitting on/shoving anyone else in the bar, which is like getting drug out of the bar and kicked to the curb.

I think the guy is an asshole, but I simply don't think this warrants him getting charged with anything related to assualt. The drunk in public is a perfect fit for the "crime," and doesn't constitute a free pass. Everything he did is pretty standard for a dunk asshole. Stick him in the drunk tank, and make him pay whatever fine DIP carries.

lol @ "going to jail for a long time" (OldGrowth) for spitting on/pushing someone while drunk. chill the fuck out, mr. authoritarian.

Come spit on me when you've been drinking then Neeek. See if it's worth it.

 

Originally Posted by MrPinksTip

Yep. Makes perfect sense to spend mega tax payer money on someone who got drunk and acted the fool. Sorry you got spit on OP but this dude is no felon for these actions.

the "spitting" is just the gateway offense. It's leads to pie throwing and then eventually enciting a riot. Come on people...get with it.

Neeek, serious question: Do you think that having more severe penalties for crimes against law enforcement personnel discourages people from committing them?

 

Originally Posted by OneM24

Common sense is not so common, or so it seems. People with the attitude and opinions demonstrated by Neeek in this thread, are the reason the average level of respect and discipline are going downhill in a hurry in this country. It honestly makes me sick to read many of the things posted by him, and others sharing his opinion in this thread.

Sigh, just saw and skimmed entire thread...wish I hadn't...cuz now I feel compelled to respond...no disrespect intended OneM, but one could argue that you getting emotionally invested in this to even wonder about it, let alone vent about it on here, should actually be more worrisome to the average citizen than Neeek's alleged lack of respect.

The reality is cops have become so used to judges signing off and taking as gospel everything cops say, that they are stunned when a judge actually uses discretion and doesn't rubberstamp what cops charged in a pc affidavit or whatever. I am not commenting on this incident, as none of us but you were there. But I'm so sick of cops thinking that they should have the power NOT ONLY to arrest, but then to fucking comment on a judge who doesn't decide the case the way they want. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE COMPLETELY FUCKING UNINVESTED IN THIS SHIT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS AS PETTY AS SOME DRUNKEN IMBECILE SPITTING AT YOU.

But many cops aren't, and it's what leads many of them to fabricate stories, lie in court, plant evidence, and the like. And yes, it happens WAY WAY WAY WAY more than people on here think. I used to see it literally once a week or so, MINIMUM. I hope you don't let this obviously ugly incident where some idiot drank too much affect your ethics.

edit: technically, spitting on someone can be charged as a battery, and since OneM is a cop, it actually COULDA been charged as a battery on LEO (law enforcement officer) which is a felony, punishable by up to 5 yrs prison...but again, I'm sure whoever was in charge used discretion to realize no reasonable jury would convict a drunken fool with battery on a cop for this incident

double edit: lol at characterizing the judge as liberal...this is what I meant above...anytime a judge doesn't rubberstamp a cop's allegations, the judge is a liberal or a softie on crime or an idiot...it is SO offensive to common sense

 

Originally Posted by BigGunX

Agreed.

Honestly, I'm pretty shocked that so many people think it's not really a big deal.

so fucking this..... LOL at anyone thinking that pushing a cop is not assault.

Prosecuting attorney should appeal the dismissal if he/she had any sense.

Neeeek

If a uniformed cop walked up to a citizen and spit at him and then pushed him and was sober at the time, should he be punished at all?

 

Originally Posted by Neeek

Absolutely, of course. I don't think that necessarily means stiffer penalties are warranted, though. IMO, the role of authority is to protect people, not punish them/put them in jail. Because of the immense amount of power that this authority confers upon someone, I think they have an enormous responsibility to be careful about doing just (and only) that. The goal of the officer should not be to punish the guy (like it clearly was for OneM).

I do not think spitting/pushing warrants any more of a penalty than a ticket. I also don't think that will result in people running around spitting on/pushing officers, much like there isn't an epidemic of spitters/pushers in bars given that they typically recieve no punishment other than getting bounced.

this is my ultimate point

I can see your point and I agree with inissint here, too.

I just think that the primary source of power for a police officer is their legitimate power base. If we lump them in with every other citizen, I think we effectively lessen their authority. I just think that has some serious consequences over time.

I've spent most of my time in and around the military, so I probably have a different perspective than most of the people on here. Or, it could be that spitting is such a hot button for me. I find it to be the most disrespectful thing you can do to someone. I don't think that the drunk the OP was talking about should burn in hell or anything, but I do think he should get some community service and a fine, if for nothing else than to remind him that his actions have consequences, even when he's drunk and out of control.

it clearly wasn't pled out, if it was dismissed? I mean, if the prosecuting attorney did a plea deal for D&D then OneM would be out of line for chastising the judge....

yeah we need more information, but how the fuck is pushing and spitting on a cop possibly a scenario in any case for dismissal of assaulting an officer, short of police misconduct in the case?

your comments above are pathetic and reek of defense attorney bias.... cops should accept being spit on as part of the job... you imply that because cops have lied at times in the past that all officers' word should be in question on the stand... get fucking real.

 

Originally Posted by inissint

dude WAT? were you even there? how do you know why the judge decided it the way he/she did? do you even know if it went to trial? did this happen at magistrate court? was the case pled out? how can ANYONE here comment on what the prosecuting attorney should do IN THIS CASE?????????????????
seriously, I used to think there a ton of very smart people in OT, but when the REALLY smart ones are saying things like this resil, I am just baffled

easy brsavage we didnt dismiss the lord :)

 

Originally Posted by Seykota

YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE COMPLETELY FUCKING UNINVESTED IN THIS SHIT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS AS PETTY AS SOME DRUNKEN IMBECILE SPITTING AT YOU.

How is this even possible unless you're a fucking psychopath?

I'd much rather OneM vent and get it out on a message board so he can move on than do something like say, spit on someone.

Now someone as smart as seykota is saying things that make no sense. Full moon I guess.

COPS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO THEIR JOBS AND MOVE ON. This is why you don't see cops attending most sentencings, or trials (other than when called to testify). They are not supposed to stew and vent about the sentence someone gets, and I repeat, ESPECIALLY in a FUCKING drunk and disorderly case. If we extrapolate, imagine how OneM would feel if a rapist or drug dealer he arrested got off because the judge felt he found the evidence illegally. I mean seriously, then all of society will have to worry about what these cops do next. So in short, NO he would not have to be a psychopath to pay NO ATTENTION to the resolution of this case. He would have to be a good professional cop, by moving on and having a good laugh about this incident a few years from now when he is Captain.

The concern is not that he would spit on someone. The legitimate concern is that cops who get this upset about how judges resolve incidents like this, could potentially be more prone to "providing" (see planting/lying/exagerrating) more evidence in future cases. And WE DO NOT WANT COPS TO "provide" MORE EVIDENCE.

 

Originally Posted by resilient

it clearly wasn't pled out, if it was dismissed? I mean, if the prosecuting attorney did a plea deal for D&D then OneM would be out of line for chastising the judge....

yeah we need more information, but how the fuck is pushing and spitting on a cop possibly a scenario in any case for dismissal of assaulting an officer, short of police misconduct in the case?

your comments above are pathetic and reek of defense attorney bias.... cops should accept being spit on as part of the job... you imply that because cops have lied at times in the past that all officers' word should be in question on the stand... get fucking real.

HHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? ok now I am thinking this is a level but ok...I guess I'll respond...

SHOW ME WHERE I SAID "cops should accept being spit on as part of the job"...SHOW ME WHERE I IMPLIED "because cops have lied at times in the past that all officers' word should be in question on the stand"

I HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE AND NEITHER DO YOU. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF ONEM TESTIFIED. OR IF IT WENT TO TRIAL. But just a little legal lesson. Usually, judges don't just "decide" what happened. Judges are finders of LAW, not FACT. So unless this was an unusual trial in front of a judge (which usually happens when the defense knows the case is a fucking joke), or it was pled out, and the judge decided what to convict on (which happens in open pleas), it is unlikely the judge just "decided" what to do. So for you to even ASSUME that the judge just on a whim said "eh, spitting on cops is no big deal" is the FUCKING DUMBEST SHIT I HAVE EVER SEEN. More likely is we didn't quite get the entire story, but I wasn't gonna point that out, since I said the whole time it is IRRELEVANT to the bigger issue.

 

Originally Posted by inissint

SHOW ME WHERE I SAID "cops should accept being spit on as part of the job"...SHOW ME WHERE I IMPLIED "because cops have lied at times in the past that all officers' word should be in question on the stand"

 

Originally Posted by inissint

YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE COMPLETELY FUCKING UNINVESTED IN THIS SHIT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS AS PETTY AS SOME DRUNKEN IMBECILE SPITTING AT YOU.

obviously defense attorneys, or any other citizen for that matter, have the right to tell police officers how they're supposed to feel after being assaulted... and surely, you can conclude that when police have any emotional involvement in the case, that is a clear sign that they are likely to manufacture evidence.... We should presume that police are more likely to be involved in creating lies and false evidence, at the same time that we provide the presumption of innocence to the people (allegedly) commiting crimes.... mmmmmk.

We need to see the transcript to get more information, and maybe OneM can provide that.... but it's pretty clear that the dismissal wasn't part of a plea or he wouldn't have been ragging on the judge.

 

Originally Posted by inissint

The concern is not that he would spit on someone. The legitimate concern is that cops who get this upset about how judges resolve incidents like this, could potentially be more prone to "providing" (see planting/lying/exagerrating) more evidence in future cases. And WE DO NOT WANT COPS TO "provide" MORE EVIDENCE.

if you're not implying in this quote what I described above, then I don't know what to tell you...

I find it funny (sad) that people vent about dealing with assholes every day at work but OneM gets 5 pages of heat over it because he's a cop.

I can only assume that the judge found the spitter guilty of public drunkeness and let the other charges slide because he didnt want to tie up the court time with charges that may have involved more in depth investigation. Just guessing. And ftr, i dont think that makes him a bad judge, but someone who probably sees the value in the court system dealing with more serious cases due to their backlog.

Shitty situation for OneM but unfortunately its part of the job and he knows this already.

I think he is venting about the charges being wrongly dismissed. That seems to be part of his job. Like a boss being a jerk. He perceives that he is doing his job and if he does it correctly, he expects the judge to correctly rule on his work.

If it doesn't, then he has a ventable issue. Getting spit on is as much a part of the job as getting hit or shot or hurt fighting with a suspect, even if he understands the risks, it doesn't mean he has to like if it happens, or even just disregard it. I don't see anything wrong with being pissed about being spit on, LEO or not. If the spitting constitutes assault or whatever he was charged with under the law, then any LEO would be pissed if a judge dismissed it without any basis.

 

Originally Posted by inissint

I am not commenting on this incident, as none of us but you were there. But I'm so sick of cops thinking that they should have the power NOT ONLY to arrest, but then to fucking comment on a judge who doesn't decide the case the way they want. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE COMPLETELY FUCKING UNINVESTED IN THIS SHIT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS AS PETTY AS SOME DRUNKEN IMBECILE SPITTING AT YOU.

But many cops aren't, and it's what leads many of them to fabricate stories, lie in court, plant evidence, and the like. And yes, it happens WAY WAY WAY WAY more than people on here think. I used to see it literally once a week or so, MINIMUM. I hope you don't let this obviously ugly incident where some idiot drank too much affect your ethics.

The concern is not that he would spit on someone. The legitimate concern is that cops who get this upset about how judges resolve incidents like this, could potentially be more prone to "providing" (see planting/lying/exagerrating) more evidence in future cases. And WE DO NOT WANT COPS TO "provide" MORE EVIDENCE.

I'm going to address some of this. Frankly, you don't know me personally. Your comments above, while meant to be of a general nature, are directed at me individually as far as I am concerned. As for bringing into question my integrity going forward, due to this isolated incident, that's uncalled for. I understand there are sworn officers who do things they should not do, and I truly hope they all eventually get what they deserve for giving the rest of us a bad name. I do my best to give every single citizen or soldier the benefit of the doubt, when and if at all possible.

Believe it or not, I am human. I take into account how charging somebody with certain things will affect their lives/careers. Even so, I have a job to do. There are a lot of things which fall into the category of officer discretion, and that is not a duty to be taken lightly. Now, I am not here to interpret the law (although I certainly have my own opinions on many matters) but some things are pretty clear afaiac. When I take the stand and testify, you can be 100% certain that what I am saying is the truth to the best of my recollection and is not fabricated in any way. If I charge somebody with a crime, it's legit. I'm not an attorney, but I do consider whether whatever I am sending to court is going to hold water. Some cases are harder to prove than others, and some crimes have many elements which need to be met in order to constitute commiting said crime. There's absolutely no point in arresting someone if I know there's not a better than average chance of whatever I'm arresting them for sticking. People are creatures of habit, and if you are patient enough, they will give you what you need to put them away. If they don't (and I really hope they don't), then that's even better as they won't be a pest to the general public if they have straightened out.

As for being "completely uninvested in this shit", I think it's a bit naive to think that's even possible. I'll agree most officers, including myself, don't even go to court for sentencing and don't go at all unless required. I don't see the point in being there, unless I may be required to testify. However, if you're going to subpoena me to testify at a hearing (magistrate court, bench trial, grand jury hearings, jury trials, etc...), I'm going to be interested in what the end state of my provided testimony is far as the defendant is concerned. If you can't understand that, then there's not much else I can say.

Also, I have as much of a right to "FUCKING COMMENT on a judge" who dismisses a legitimate charge *edited your statement for truthfullness* as anybody else. I see what I would consider to be light sentencing, and weak judgment on a consistent basis. I generally dismiss those things, as there isn't anything I can do about it. What the judge decides to do is out of my control, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it every time. It does not effect the way I do my job. I'd much rather be helping people, than putting them in the back of a patrol car. That's not always the case, but it would be nice if that were the case more often than not.

As for you saying no disrespect intended OneM, your entire tone was disrespectful IMO.