User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 9:31:08 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, his department should discipline him. Lawsuit is stupid as the plaintiff didn't suffer any real damages. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Should be sued. Proselytize on your own time, do your job. ETA: The agency deserves the suit because they should have fired him the first time. It's not something that one needs to be "trained" on. They gave him the opportunity to do it more than once. No, his department should discipline him. Lawsuit is stupid as the plaintiff didn't suffer any real damages. She was detained and proselytized to by an armed agent of the state, in direct violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. She has a valid claim, she does have damages (even if they're not large), and in any event, the purpose of most tort suits (as opposed to contract type stuff) is to punish and deter bad behavior - not compensate the victim,. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 9:32:34 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:  What NY Criminal Statute did he violate Counselor???? Since he didnt learn his lesson from the verbal warning he already had, 30 day suspension.... if he does it again after THAT.. Then he can preach all he wants on the Unemployment Line. But then again we had Progressive Discipline..barring a criminal act you COULDNT fire a guy for something like that, you had to work up to it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Should be in jail What NY Criminal Statute did he violate Counselor???? Since he didnt learn his lesson from the verbal warning he already had, 30 day suspension.... if he does it again after THAT.. Then he can preach all he wants on the Unemployment Line. But then again we had Progressive Discipline..barring a criminal act you COULDNT fire a guy for something like that, you had to work up to it. Unlawful detention, he prolonged the traffic stop to proselytize. Could also be considered a civil rights violation, forcing her to listen to his proselytizing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 9:36:43 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unlawful detention, he prolonged the traffic stop to proselytize. Could also be considered a civil rights violation, forcing her to listen to his proselytizing. That's probably a stretch. There's all sorts of case law about prolonging stops for improper purposes, and none of it involves that action being a crime. Good firing, good lawsuit. Crime ... probably not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 9:38:59 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Never give warnings. He did her a kindness and invited The Man into her life.... 
Naturally she'd repay that kindness by hiring a lawyer and suing him.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 9:41:06 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He did her a kindness and invited The Man into her life....
Naturally she'd repay that kindness by hiring a lawyer and suing him.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Never give warnings. He did her a kindness and invited The Man into her life....
Naturally she'd repay that kindness by hiring a lawyer and suing him.... He invited himself into her life and then called in his Supervisor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 9:42:06 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She was detained and proselytized to by an armed agent of the state, in direct violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. She has a valid claim, she does have damages (even if they're not large), and in any event, the purpose of most tort suits (as opposed to contract type stuff) is to punish and deter bad behavior - not compensate the victim,. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Should be sued. Proselytize on your own time, do your job. ETA: The agency deserves the suit because they should have fired him the first time. It's not something that one needs to be "trained" on. They gave him the opportunity to do it more than once. No, his department should discipline him. Lawsuit is stupid as the plaintiff didn't suffer any real damages. She was detained and proselytized to by an armed agent of the state, in direct violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. She has a valid claim, she does have damages (even if they're not large), and in any event, the purpose of most tort suits (as opposed to contract type stuff) is to punish and deter bad behavior - not compensate the victim,. She was stopped for a traffic violation. He was fired, so his bad behavior was deterred. Lawsuit is bogus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 9:43:22 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup. I'm sure the ARFCOM Bible Brigade will be along shortly to tell us all the reasons why this was OK, but if you're in uniform and acting in an official capacity as an agent of the state ... you have an Establishment Clause problem if you're advocating your religion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Should be sued. Proselytize on your own time, do your job. Yup. I'm sure the ARFCOM Bible Brigade will be along shortly to tell us all the reasons why this was OK, but if you're in uniform and acting in an official capacity as an agent of the state ... you have an Establishment Clause problem if you're advocating your religion. Your reaction is a huge part of what is wrong with our country. And I don't "witness." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 9:47:30 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: She was detained and proselytized to by an armed agent of the state, in direct violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. She has a valid claim, she does have damages (even if they're not large), and in any event, the purpose of most tort suits (as opposed to contract type stuff) is to punish and deter bad behavior - not compensate the victim,. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Should be sued. Proselytize on your own time, do your job. ETA: The agency deserves the suit because they should have fired him the first time. It's not something that one needs to be "trained" on. They gave him the opportunity to do it more than once. No, his department should discipline him. Lawsuit is stupid as the plaintiff didn't suffer any real damages. She was detained and proselytized to by an armed agent of the state, in direct violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. She has a valid claim, she does have damages (even if they're not large), and in any event, the purpose of most tort suits (as opposed to contract type stuff) is to punish and deter bad behavior - not compensate the victim,. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 9:48:19 AM EDT
[#9]
On the other hand, if you make a traffic stop and the person asks for prayer, it's OK.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/indiana-cop-brings-speeding-driver-tears-prayer-ticket/story?id=36142627 I went through school with this trooper's father ,now retired from ISP. His brother is also a ISP trooper at the same post. Good men. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 9:50:19 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: She was stopped for a traffic violation. He was fired, so his bad behavior was deterred. Lawsuit is bogus. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Should be sued. Proselytize on your own time, do your job. ETA: The agency deserves the suit because they should have fired him the first time. It's not something that one needs to be "trained" on. They gave him the opportunity to do it more than once. No, his department should discipline him. Lawsuit is stupid as the plaintiff didn't suffer any real damages. She was detained and proselytized to by an armed agent of the state, in direct violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. She has a valid claim, she does have damages (even if they're not large), and in any event, the purpose of most tort suits (as opposed to contract type stuff) is to punish and deter bad behavior - not compensate the victim,. She was stopped for a traffic violation. He was fired, so his bad behavior was deterred. Lawsuit is bogus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 9:52:36 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unlawful detention, he prolonged the traffic stop to proselytize. Could also be considered a civil rights violation, forcing her to listen to his proselytizing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Should be in jail
What NY Criminal Statute did he violate Counselor???? Since he didnt learn his lesson from the verbal warning he already had, 30 day suspension.... if he does it again after THAT.. Then he can preach all he wants on the Unemployment Line. But then again we had Progressive Discipline..barring a criminal act you COULDNT fire a guy for something like that, you had to work up to it. Unlawful detention, he prolonged the traffic stop to proselytize. Could also be considered a civil rights violation, forcing her to listen to his proselytizing. That would be some Gymnastics there... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 9:55:15 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She was detained and proselytized to by an armed agent of the state, in direct violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. She has a valid claim, she does have damages (even if they're not large), and in any event, the purpose of most tort suits (as opposed to contract type stuff) is to punish and deter bad behavior - not compensate the victim,. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Should be sued. Proselytize on your own time, do your job. ETA: The agency deserves the suit because they should have fired him the first time. It's not something that one needs to be "trained" on. They gave him the opportunity to do it more than once. No, his department should discipline him. Lawsuit is stupid as the plaintiff didn't suffer any real damages. She was detained and proselytized to by an armed agent of the state, in direct violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. She has a valid claim, she does have damages (even if they're not large), and in any event, the purpose of most tort suits (as opposed to contract type stuff) is to punish and deter bad behavior - not compensate the victim,. If the Officer has already been fired...then Mission accomplished.....the Suit is nothing more than looking for a Payday. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 9:56:17 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Apparently, his prior discipline and settled lawsuit didn't do jack shit to deter his behavior this go around. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Should be sued. Proselytize on your own time, do your job. ETA: The agency deserves the suit because they should have fired him the first time. It's not something that one needs to be "trained" on. They gave him the opportunity to do it more than once. No, his department should discipline him. Lawsuit is stupid as the plaintiff didn't suffer any real damages. She was detained and proselytized to by an armed agent of the state, in direct violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. She has a valid claim, she does have damages (even if they're not large), and in any event, the purpose of most tort suits (as opposed to contract type stuff) is to punish and deter bad behavior - not compensate the victim,. She was stopped for a traffic violation. He was fired, so his bad behavior was deterred. Lawsuit is bogus. Which is why his discipline was escalated--he was fired, he lost his job, he lost his benefits, he lost his livelyhood. Looks like that was punitive to me. Of course, it won't line the lawyer's pockets, but there you go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 9:56:20 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Apparently, his prior discipline and settled lawsuit didn't do jack shit to deter his behavior this go around. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Should be sued. Proselytize on your own time, do your job. ETA: The agency deserves the suit because they should have fired him the first time. It's not something that one needs to be "trained" on. They gave him the opportunity to do it more than once. No, his department should discipline him. Lawsuit is stupid as the plaintiff didn't suffer any real damages. She was detained and proselytized to by an armed agent of the state, in direct violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. She has a valid claim, she does have damages (even if they're not large), and in any event, the purpose of most tort suits (as opposed to contract type stuff) is to punish and deter bad behavior - not compensate the victim,. She was stopped for a traffic violation. He was fired, so his bad behavior was deterred. Lawsuit is bogus. Which is why he was FIRED. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 9:57:26 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which is why his discipline was escalated--he was fired, he lost his job, he lost his benefits, he lost his livelyhood. Looks like that was punitive to me. Of course, it won't line the lawyer's pockets, but there you go. Dingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingding |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 9:58:47 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well I would think the not going all preachy on a traffic stop would be common sense so yeah don't give warnings. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Never give warnings. Really? That's your takeaway from this? Well I would think the not going all preachy on a traffic stop would be common sense so yeah don't give warnings. You'd think that ... until you meet some asshole with a hard on for Jesus and badge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 9:59:29 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That was monumentally fucking stupid on his part, warning or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:01:04 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What NY Criminal Statute did he violate Counselor???? Since he didnt learn his lesson from the verbal warning he already had, 30 day suspension.... if he does it again after THAT.. Then he can preach all he wants on the Unemployment Line. But then again we had Progressive Discipline..barring a criminal act you COULDNT fire a guy for something like that, you had to work up to it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Should be in jail What NY Criminal Statute did he violate Counselor???? Since he didnt learn his lesson from the verbal warning he already had, 30 day suspension.... if he does it again after THAT.. Then he can preach all he wants on the Unemployment Line. But then again we had Progressive Discipline..barring a criminal act you COULDNT fire a guy for something like that, you had to work up to it. Sure there's some misdemeanor public officer law, etc |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:01:34 AM EDT
[#19]
My job as a Police Officer is to enforce the law or inform people about it when they break it. I am not payed to preach religious beliefs to people. The separation of church and state. Go see a pastor for religious stuff.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:03:24 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I used to tell one of my partners that constantly but he never listened. Skip the lecture and just write the ticket. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Preach your flavor of bullshit on your own time and on your own dime. Should apply to admonishments as well. I don't give a shit what you think of my driving habits or that you don't want to have to see another bloody corpse halfway through a windshield. I'm a grown man, just give me the ticket or warning and let's both be on our way. I used to tell one of my partners that constantly but he never listened. Skip the lecture and just write the ticket. When I was a rookie patrolman, my FTO told be to give an ass chewing or a ticket but not both. I learned quickly that ass chewings are meaningless and generally just piss people off. I would either give a written warning or a ticket. Either way, the stop was getting documented. ETA - as others have said, no proselytizing on the job. In fact, leave personal issues and bias out of it altogether. It's called being professional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:06:41 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's not true I had a State trooper give me a warning for going 90 in a 55 And I didn't complain one bit in fact I got out of my car and walked back to him to thank him and shook his hand Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Never give warnings. Always ends in a complaint. Same as writing a red light ticket, always goes to court. Want a complaint? Write improper use of passing lane. Straight to IA on those. That's not true I had a State trooper give me a warning for going 90 in a 55 And I didn't complain one bit in fact I got out of my car and walked back to him to thank him and shook his hand I see you're a braver man than I. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:13:08 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I was a rookie patrolman, my FTO told be to give an ass chewing or a ticket but not both. I learned quickly that ass chewings are meaningless and generally just piss people off. I would either give a written warning or a ticket. Either way, the stop was getting documented. ETA - as others have said, no proselytizing on the job. In fact, leave personal issues and bias out of it altogether. It's called being professional. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Preach your flavor of bullshit on your own time and on your own dime. Should apply to admonishments as well. I don't give a shit what you think of my driving habits or that you don't want to have to see another bloody corpse halfway through a windshield. I'm a grown man, just give me the ticket or warning and let's both be on our way. I used to tell one of my partners that constantly but he never listened. Skip the lecture and just write the ticket. When I was a rookie patrolman, my FTO told be to give an ass chewing or a ticket but not both. I learned quickly that ass chewings are meaningless and generally just piss people off. I would either give a written warning or a ticket. Either way, the stop was getting documented. ETA - as others have said, no proselytizing on the job. In fact, leave personal issues and bias out of it altogether. It's called being professional. Rarely Lectured, but gave Mostly warnings.... I know what you did, YOU know what you did..... You had to do something exceptionally asinine for me to stop you...you had to be an asshole on top of that to actually get written. I made LOTS of Stops, 90% got verbal warnings..the other 10% were Apparently Gd members 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:14:04 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Holding someone under color of law as a police officer to deliver religious lectures? I'mSure there's some misdemeanor public officer law, etc Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Should be in jail
What NY Criminal Statute did he violate Counselor???? Since he didnt learn his lesson from the verbal warning he already had, 30 day suspension.... if he does it again after THAT.. Then he can preach all he wants on the Unemployment Line. But then again we had Progressive Discipline..barring a criminal act you COULDNT fire a guy for something like that, you had to work up to it. YOU are the Attorney.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:14:09 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really? That's your takeaway from this? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Never give warnings. Really? That's your takeaway from this? Well, one shouldn't preach at the roadside, but one shouldn't give warnings ever, either. "If I had really done something wrong, he would have given me a ticket! He only stopped because I am *whatever*/he was harassing me!" IA/civil jury: "Good point." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:16:14 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
http://fox59.com/2016/04/06/indiana-state-police-trooper-sued-again-for-preaching-faith-during-traffic-stop/ The lawsuit alleges Trooper Brian Hamilton of the ISP Pendleton post pulled the woman over for speeding and gave her a warning. He then asked her what church she went to and if she was saved. Documents said Hamilton invited Pyle to his church and even gave directions. ironically.... he could have just accidently shot her.... and he might get 30 days paid leave and retraining.... mention jesus, and BOOM your fired.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:17:23 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the cop isn't a problem? This is all kosher? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Should be sued. Proselytize on your own time, do your job. ETA: The agency deserves the suit because they should have fired him the first time. It's not something that one needs to be "trained" on. They gave him the opportunity to do it more than once. 
yes, because people like him are clearly the problem right? So the cop isn't a problem? This is all kosher? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:18:47 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rarely Lectured, but gave Mostly warnings.... I know what you did, YOU know what you did..... You had to do something exceptionally asinine for me to stop you...you had to be an asshole on top of that to actually get written. I made LOTS of Stops, 90% got verbal warnings..the other 10% were Apparently Gd members Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Preach your flavor of bullshit on your own time and on your own dime. Should apply to admonishments as well. I don't give a shit what you think of my driving habits or that you don't want to have to see another bloody corpse halfway through a windshield. I'm a grown man, just give me the ticket or warning and let's both be on our way. I used to tell one of my partners that constantly but he never listened. Skip the lecture and just write the ticket. When I was a rookie patrolman, my FTO told be to give an ass chewing or a ticket but not both. I learned quickly that ass chewings are meaningless and generally just piss people off. I would either give a written warning or a ticket. Either way, the stop was getting documented. ETA - as others have said, no proselytizing on the job. In fact, leave personal issues and bias out of it altogether. It's called being professional. Rarely Lectured, but gave Mostly warnings.... I know what you did, YOU know what you did..... You had to do something exceptionally asinine for me to stop you...you had to be an asshole on top of that to actually get written. I made LOTS of Stops, 90% got verbal warnings..the other 10% were Apparently Gd members +1. I think a majority of cops handle it that way. It is really the only way to go about it without inviting a ton of problems for "aggressive enforcement". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:19:57 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ironically.... he could have just accidently shot her.... and he might get 30 days paid leave and retraining.... mention jesus, and BOOM your fired. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://fox59.com/2016/04/06/indiana-state-police-trooper-sued-again-for-preaching-faith-during-traffic-stop/ The lawsuit alleges Trooper Brian Hamilton of the ISP Pendleton post pulled the woman over for speeding and gave her a warning. He then asked her what church she went to and if she was saved. Documents said Hamilton invited Pyle to his church and even gave directions. ironically.... he could have just accidently shot her.... and he might get 30 days paid leave and retraining.... mention jesus, and BOOM your fired. Well, he did get warned not to do it again.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:20:29 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, one shouldn't preach at the roadside, but one shouldn't give warnings ever, either. "If I had really done something wrong, he would have given me a ticket! He only stopped because I am *whatever*/he was harassing me!" IA/civil jury: "Good point." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Never give warnings. Really? That's your takeaway from this? Well, one shouldn't preach at the roadside, but one shouldn't give warnings ever, either. "If I had really done something wrong, he would have given me a ticket! He only stopped because I am *whatever*/he was harassing me!" IA/civil jury: "Good point." Unless it is a written warning. Then the stop is documented. You can show that it is common for you to do so, and it is done with the intent to educate the public about safe driving rather than abusing authority or generating revenue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:21:08 AM EDT
[#30]
Matthew 10:22 comes to mind for many in this thread
As a Believer.. The cop was in the wrong as his job should be to enforce the law. He should have written the ticket and let it go at that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:21:33 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Never give warnings. Exactly, they should have fired him the first time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:22:25 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your reaction is a huge part of what is wrong with our country. And I don't "witness." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Should be sued. Proselytize on your own time, do your job. Yup. I'm sure the ARFCOM Bible Brigade will be along shortly to tell us all the reasons why this was OK, but if you're in uniform and acting in an official capacity as an agent of the state ... you have an Establishment Clause problem if you're advocating your religion. Your reaction is a huge part of what is wrong with our country. And I don't "witness." So, if he encouraged her to wear a hijab and join a mosque, that would be fine and wholesome? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:23:20 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Never give warnings. LOL 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:25:48 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
http://fox59.com/2016/04/06/indiana-state-police-trooper-sued-again-for-preaching-faith-during-traffic-stop/ The lawsuit alleges Trooper Brian Hamilton of the ISP Pendleton post pulled the woman over for speeding and gave her a warning. He then asked her what church she went to and if she was saved. Documents said Hamilton invited Pyle to his church and even gave directions. Should've given her a ticket. Ungrateful skank |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:26:57 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Never give warnings. You sound like my traffic instructor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:27:47 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: She was stopped for a traffic violation. He was fired, so his bad behavior was deterred. Lawsuit is bogus. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Should be sued. Proselytize on your own time, do your job. ETA: The agency deserves the suit because they should have fired him the first time. It's not something that one needs to be "trained" on. They gave him the opportunity to do it more than once. No, his department should discipline him. Lawsuit is stupid as the plaintiff didn't suffer any real damages. She was detained and proselytized to by an armed agent of the state, in direct violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. She has a valid claim, she does have damages (even if they're not large), and in any event, the purpose of most tort suits (as opposed to contract type stuff) is to punish and deter bad behavior - not compensate the victim,. She was stopped for a traffic violation. He was fired, so his bad behavior was deterred. Lawsuit is bogus. He was fired AFTER she filed the lawsuit... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:30:41 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He was fired AFTER she filed the lawsuit... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Should be sued. Proselytize on your own time, do your job. ETA: The agency deserves the suit because they should have fired him the first time. It's not something that one needs to be "trained" on. They gave him the opportunity to do it more than once. No, his department should discipline him. Lawsuit is stupid as the plaintiff didn't suffer any real damages. She was detained and proselytized to by an armed agent of the state, in direct violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. She has a valid claim, she does have damages (even if they're not large), and in any event, the purpose of most tort suits (as opposed to contract type stuff) is to punish and deter bad behavior - not compensate the victim,. She was stopped for a traffic violation. He was fired, so his bad behavior was deterred. Lawsuit is bogus. He was fired AFTER she filed the lawsuit... And? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:30:56 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That would be some Gymnastics there... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Should be in jail What NY Criminal Statute did he violate Counselor???? Since he didnt learn his lesson from the verbal warning he already had, 30 day suspension.... if he does it again after THAT.. Then he can preach all he wants on the Unemployment Line. But then again we had Progressive Discipline..barring a criminal act you COULDNT fire a guy for something like that, you had to work up to it. Unlawful detention, he prolonged the traffic stop to proselytize. Could also be considered a civil rights violation, forcing her to listen to his proselytizing. That would be some Gymnastics there... Nothing compared to what a lawyer can argue in court with a straight face... He'd been warned about it and his agency had settled a lawsuit about it in the past, so he knew it was unlawful behavior. Once he finished the official business of the traffic stop, he no longer had ANY lawful basis to detain her. Just because the courts haven't previously considered that an unlawful detention doesn't mean they won't accept that argument and start applying it in the future. That he did it for the purpose of pushing his religion on her, in violation of the First Amendment, increases the odds that the courts will do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:33:38 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, his department should discipline him. Lawsuit is stupid as the plaintiff didn't suffer any real damages. She was detained and proselytized to by an armed agent of the state, in direct violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. She has a valid claim, she does have damages (even if they're not large), and in any event, the purpose of most tort suits (as opposed to contract type stuff) is to punish and deter bad behavior - not compensate the victim,. She was stopped for a traffic violation. He was fired, so his bad behavior was deterred. Lawsuit is bogus. He was fired AFTER she filed the lawsuit... And? Obviously the lawsuit isn't bogus if it prompted the agency to fire the officer. He DID violate her First Amendment rights, by using his position as an armed agent of the government to push her towards a particular religion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:34:31 AM EDT
[#40]
Dang ya'll some sue-happy folks. Jesus piss ya'll off?
How about just fire him, that a breach of common sense? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:35:09 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Obviously the lawsuit isn't bogus if it prompted the agency to fire the officer. He DID violate her First Amendment rights, by using his position as an armed agent of the government to push her towards a particular religion. And you are sure of that how? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:38:36 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless it is a written warning. Then the stop is documented. You can show that it is common for you to do so, and it is done with the intent to educate the public about safe driving rather than abusing authority or generating revenue. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Never give warnings. Really? That's your takeaway from this? Well, one shouldn't preach at the roadside, but one shouldn't give warnings ever, either. "If I had really done something wrong, he would have given me a ticket! He only stopped because I am *whatever*/he was harassing me!" IA/civil jury: "Good point." Unless it is a written warning. Then the stop is documented. You can show that it is common for you to do so, and it is done with the intent to educate the public about safe driving rather than abusing authority or generating revenue. Good thing about our Dispatch system was all stops called out are logged by the dispatcher as a car stop. The one time a boss started to give me shit about "Not writing enough tickets" I called up my stop records, and handed him the page from the rules and regulations stating that we have discretion and should use it judiciously when it comes to writing violations. Newly promoted Captains can be such Children.....especially when they havent worked in patrol in a decade or two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:39:21 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yes, because people like him are clearly the problem right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Should be sued. Proselytize on your own time, do your job. ETA: The agency deserves the suit because they should have fired him the first time. It's not something that one needs to be "trained" on. They gave him the opportunity to do it more than once.
yes, because people like him are clearly the problem right? Yep. He is a fucking problem. Witness his getting fired for disobeying orders to not do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:40:32 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless it is a written warning. Then the stop is documented. You can show that it is common for you to do so, and it is done with the intent to educate the public about safe driving rather than abusing authority or generating revenue. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Never give warnings. Really? That's your takeaway from this? Well, one shouldn't preach at the roadside, but one shouldn't give warnings ever, either. "If I had really done something wrong, he would have given me a ticket! He only stopped because I am *whatever*/he was harassing me!" IA/civil jury: "Good point." Unless it is a written warning. Then the stop is documented. You can show that it is common for you to do so, and it is done with the intent to educate the public about safe driving rather than abusing authority or generating revenue. All stops are documented in the CAD system including if the person was cited, given a written warning or a verbal warning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:41:20 AM EDT
[#45]
In the 70's, my older teenage brother got nabbed with some illegal stuff because of a narc using marked bills
Detective came to the house and after the interrogation asked if he'd been saved, yada yada.... Dad was kinda offended (only because we're traditional Roman Catholic and the detective was an evangelical *Charismatic* Catholic) but not so much as to sue |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:45:06 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, his department should discipline him. Lawsuit is stupid as the plaintiff didn't suffer any real damages. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Should be sued. Proselytize on your own time, do your job. ETA: The agency deserves the suit because they should have fired him the first time. It's not something that one needs to be "trained" on. They gave him the opportunity to do it more than once. No, his department should discipline him. Lawsuit is stupid as the plaintiff didn't suffer any real damages. I disagree. I don't want any government agent telling me about any religion. Especially when my interaction with them is involuntary. That is something that shouldn't happen. The Department should have fired him the first time around. Maybe now IF another trooper is so stupid to believe that his job includes spreading the gospel they'll tighten up their ship and not subject another person to religious indoctrination attempts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:50:47 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All stops are documented in the CAD system including if the person was cited, given a written warning or a verbal warning. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Never give warnings. Really? That's your takeaway from this? Well, one shouldn't preach at the roadside, but one shouldn't give warnings ever, either. "If I had really done something wrong, he would have given me a ticket! He only stopped because I am *whatever*/he was harassing me!" IA/civil jury: "Good point." Unless it is a written warning. Then the stop is documented. You can show that it is common for you to do so, and it is done with the intent to educate the public about safe driving rather than abusing authority or generating revenue. All stops are documented in the CAD system including if the person was cited, given a written warning or a verbal warning. That works too. My last patrol days were from 92-97. No CAD system existed then.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 10:52:26 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I disagree. I don't want any government agent telling me about any religion. Especially when my interaction with them is involuntary. That is something that shouldn't happen. The Department should have fired him the first time around. Maybe now IF another trooper is so stupid to believe that his job includes spreading the gospel they'll tighten up their ship and not subject another person to religious indoctrination attempts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Should be sued. Proselytize on your own time, do your job. ETA: The agency deserves the suit because they should have fired him the first time. It's not something that one needs to be "trained" on. They gave him the opportunity to do it more than once. No, his department should discipline him. Lawsuit is stupid as the plaintiff didn't suffer any real damages. I disagree. I don't want any government agent telling me about any religion. Especially when my interaction with them is involuntary. That is something that shouldn't happen. The Department should have fired him the first time around. Maybe now IF another trooper is so stupid to believe that his job includes spreading the gospel they'll tighten up their ship and not subject another person to religious indoctrination attempts. Lawsuit for hurt feelings? Outstanding! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 11:00:28 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lawsuit for hurt feelings? Outstanding! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Should be sued. Proselytize on your own time, do your job. ETA: The agency deserves the suit because they should have fired him the first time. It's not something that one needs to be "trained" on. They gave him the opportunity to do it more than once. No, his department should discipline him. Lawsuit is stupid as the plaintiff didn't suffer any real damages. I disagree. I don't want any government agent telling me about any religion. Especially when my interaction with them is involuntary. That is something that shouldn't happen. The Department should have fired him the first time around. Maybe now IF another trooper is so stupid to believe that his job includes spreading the gospel they'll tighten up their ship and not subject another person to religious indoctrination attempts. Lawsuit for hurt feelings? Outstanding! It is the right and responsibility of the injured, no matter how slightly you might think said injury is, to hold the government and it's agents accountable and operating withing the limitations of their power and authority. Her rights were injured. OUTSTANDING FUCKING LAWSUIT. ETA: the government and it's agents are supposed to learn lessons when citizens win suits against them. The real problem arises from the fact that they regularly fail to do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2016 11:01:24 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the purpose of most tort suits (as opposed to contract type stuff) is to punish and deter bad behavior - not compensate the victim,. Lol no, we have a criminal incarceration system for that. The purpose of torts is to make lawyers rich. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
