In Philadelphia last August, there was a 3:00 AM fender-bender between two motorists who had valid CCW permits, and both were armed.
Nothing happened. There were some angry words exchanged, but no shots were fired and no guns were displayed.
But one of the motorists was the son of an on-duty police officer, who tracked down the occupants of the other car and found them a few minutes later in a convenience store. He can be seen in the picture above, pressing his gun into the neck of the female passenger. She claims the officer screamed at her, "'You think you can hit my son and get away with it, you think you can f--- with me?'" Another witness, the store clerk, corroborated her account. She was charged with assaulting the officer.
As the arrest proceeded, other officers arrived on the scene. According to the store clerk, he was told three times, by two officers, to get rid of the security tapes.
A week later, the convenience store delivered copies of all four security camera tapes to Internal Affairs. The tapes corroborated the woman's testimony and contradicted the cop's report and his sworn testimony to the judge who issued the indictment. All charges against the woman were dropped. The officer was disarmed and assigned to desk duty for eight days, then returned to full duty.
Internal Affairs did not proceed with charges against the officers who wanted the security tapes to disappear. Perhaps because they merely suggested it, as in, "Why don't you do yourself a favor and get rid of the camera tapes?"
The interesting thing to me about this story is the ironic juxtaposition: the armed civilians behaved peacefully and responsibly, but the police acted like hoodlums and gangsters, tried to intimidate witnesses and destroy evidence.
Disciplinary action against the officer is still pending. A lawsuit is likely.
h/t Sailor Curt and Say Uncle.
Nothing happened. There were some angry words exchanged, but no shots were fired and no guns were displayed.
But one of the motorists was the son of an on-duty police officer, who tracked down the occupants of the other car and found them a few minutes later in a convenience store. He can be seen in the picture above, pressing his gun into the neck of the female passenger. She claims the officer screamed at her, "'You think you can hit my son and get away with it, you think you can f--- with me?'" Another witness, the store clerk, corroborated her account. She was charged with assaulting the officer.
As the arrest proceeded, other officers arrived on the scene. According to the store clerk, he was told three times, by two officers, to get rid of the security tapes.
A week later, the convenience store delivered copies of all four security camera tapes to Internal Affairs. The tapes corroborated the woman's testimony and contradicted the cop's report and his sworn testimony to the judge who issued the indictment. All charges against the woman were dropped. The officer was disarmed and assigned to desk duty for eight days, then returned to full duty.
Internal Affairs did not proceed with charges against the officers who wanted the security tapes to disappear. Perhaps because they merely suggested it, as in, "Why don't you do yourself a favor and get rid of the camera tapes?"
The interesting thing to me about this story is the ironic juxtaposition: the armed civilians behaved peacefully and responsibly, but the police acted like hoodlums and gangsters, tried to intimidate witnesses and destroy evidence.
Disciplinary action against the officer is still pending. A lawsuit is likely.
h/t Sailor Curt and Say Uncle.
1 comment:
But police officers are trained to handle their weapons in a responsible manner! They have undertaken courses in sensitivity and diplomatic speech in order to properly deal with situations like this! Obviously there has been a grave misunderstanding here, the officer was only trying to work a kink out of the lady's neck that she got in the collision.
Good post, people need to see this.
Post a Comment