DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest
Contact Publisher Joe Albero at firstname.lastname@example.org or 410-430-5349
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest
Contact Publisher Joe Albero at email@example.com or 410-430-5349
Damn joe ,i love the coos but this guy is a rotten Apple and i hear from some if his friends he has a bad temper even in school,Bennett.
I would love to know how this thug of a cop passed a psychological test for SPD, I know for a fact the old timer cops are pissed at him and do not like the attention.
Thug? Rotten apple?You can't be serious!
Pile on the rich kid mentality .
Joe, I'm the guy you recently criticized for having harsh words about kops, and the spelling of the word cops.Now, you did support my 1st amendment right, as I do you. This is not intended to be a bad comment to you in any way. I think we can still respect each other even if we occasionally disagree.It seems to me, recently in fact, that you yourself have gotten on board with my criticising of kops as well. It is news and you publish news, but your comments seem similar to mine, to me anyway, even though yours might be less 'harsh'.I'm not sure where I'm going with this comment, but actions like these 'cops' have been displaying is a nationwide problem and now it seems to have come out in the open in little ole Salisbury.Some people think cops can do no wrong, and these people have had little to none interaction with them personally.These same people think others are 'bashing' cops when in fact they are stating truths, known to people who have had interactions with them. And no, you don't have to get arrested or be a criminal to have bad interactions with police.The internet, and court records, are full of stories about bad cops and their illegal, immoral and unnecessary actions.Some get caught some don't. Some get punished, some don't. Mostly don't.Now to be fair, there ARE some fine officers out there, and the few who have tried to take a stand against the bad ones have been punished themselves for doing so. Even putting their lives on the line for speaking out, from their FELLOW OFFICERS.None of what I speak is any secret and can be found quite easily by an internet search or case history search.Even if we don't agree, I salute you for having the backbone for publishing it. I think it is fair to say that in the 9, 10, 11 years or whatever the amount of time you have been doing this, YOU ARE DELMARVA'S NEWS LEADER. This has gotten longer than I intended, but I hope you get my meaning of it.In closing let me say good job and Godspeed.Peace.
My sense is that people that are anti law enforcement are probably on the wrong side of the law.
Wrong i like cops but what's right is right and whats wrong is wrong.good cops do not like bad cops.
Right on 10:11
Anonymous Anonymous said...My sense is that people that are anti law enforcement are probably on the wrong side of the law.September 4, 2014 at 10:11 PMMost kops feel that way too, but it's just a myth. An attempt to justify bad actions by kops for kops.BTW, just standing up against kops bad actions does not make anyone 'anti-police'. It makes them pro-justice, pro-freedom, pro-truth, pro-constitution and the list goes on. Right is right and wrong is wrong.Just because some people think they are safe and can sleep at night because there are cops out there 'protecting' them, is by no means an excuse to give any police carte blanche to do anything and everything they want to do. They do these things anyway, but condoning them or giving approval is WRONG. On every level.Police have ALWAYS been given the benefit of the doubt, in their street decisions and their testimony in a courtroom.BUT, it has consistently and constantly been PROVEN that that doubt they were given has been abused, taken for granted and used as a shield for WILLFULLY and KNOWINGLY breaking laws.Now if you, or anyone else, thinks my criticism of those kops and their actions is anti-police, well then, I am guilty as charged. And I would be proud to wear THAT label.To me, saying that crap about someone must be a criminal, or whatever, because they don't worship everything a cop does is just that, crap.They have broken my trust, and the trust of most Americans. Not all, but most. That is not an easy thing to get back. And insisting that someone has been arrested, is a criminal or whatever the excuse of the day is, is NOT the way to earn it back.That is just widening the gap between police and civilians. And a poor excuse to justify their bad actions to begin with.Every police agency in this country needs to be evaluated and corrections made in their policies, their violations of THEIR OWN POLICIES and laws in general, and weeding out as many of the kops that shouldn't be cops in the first place. Also, the FOP needs to be looked at as well. They have been protecting these bad cops for way too long. They need some corrective action as well.
Ohhhh, I see now. The arrested was a black male. This rookie cops has a wannabe Marine haircut. He threatens people first with pepper spray if they don't back up and later on he brings out his collapsible baton to intimidate the other citizens. (this from video on tv 47) He even arrested the one recording him for no reason that I could see. No surprise there really. Kops do it all the time and some even destroy ( or should I say they attempt to destroy) the video evidence that can be used against them.I realize police dept's have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to get officers, but this guy is trouble AND he carries a gun. Bad combination for all concerned. If he is not corrected now, someone WILL get hurt or killed by him.
1106 you are ignorant
Anonymous Anonymous said...1106 you are ignorantSeptember 4, 2014 at 11:13 PMWhat am I ignorant about? Or are you just another mindless dolt who has no valid argument? I would be pleased to discuss it with you if you can do so in a civil manner. If not, I have no desire to banter with you if that's all you can come up with. Or are you the one with the wannabe haircut?
10:03 couldn't have said it better myself.
Anonymous Anonymous said...10:03 couldn't have said it better myself.September 4, 2014 at 11:25 PMThank you, but I am the one 1113 thinks is ignorant. lolNeedless to say, I agree with you and disagree with him. lol.
Ok after viewing these tapes it is very apparent I am not experienced enough to see what you folks educated in viewing tapes and picking out dirty cops or guilty kids. I will wait until the court system makes the decision - and not rely on folks with an ax to grind..
I objectively viewed all videos. In the first video it appears that a police officer enters the crowd to affect an arrest. However, it is unknown what is said or what occurred prior to the police officer taking action. The person could have been disorderly or committed another crime. It is unclear from a traffic camera point of view. A disorderly situation can be anyone screaming or yelling loudly or otherwise behaving in a disorderly manner to the contrary of the public peace. Secondly, as we hear from the person filming "are you going to read me my rights?" or something to that effect, is also incorrect. A police officer is not required to read someone their Miranda rights unless it is a custodial interrogation. Only then is it required to avoid suppression of said questioning at a trial. Absent of that, the police have no requirement to read anyone their rights upon arrest. Such is a complete misunderstanding of Miranda and the functioning of our criminal justice system. Such is reserved for Hollywood dramas and action movies.Moreover, while filming the police may provide someone who is not committing a crime some protections, it is not an excuse to provoke, inflame, or commit a crime. Mind that someone filming the police can still commit a crime while filming, such as yelling and screaming or otherwise being disorderly (again a general statement not specific to this case in particular). Persons in the crowd can be heard yelling profanities loudly. There is such a thing as freedom of speech but as an American you do not have absolute freedom of speech. For instance you cannot incite a riot or breach the public peace. You do have the right to peaceably assemble with a permit, which is not the case here.At the point where the police officer was arresting the suspect you see members of the crowd start to walk inward. The police officers orders them to back up. One person does not comply and continues to be close to the police, thus resulting in his arrest. This is also a disorderly statue violation, failure to obey a lawful order of a police officer and obstructing and hindering a police officer. The police, being only one or two officers with a large group, have an absolute right to their safety and security. Those officers do not know if someone in the crowd will assault them or otherwise interfere with an arrest procedure. Yelling loudly, it itself, if witnessed or creating a public disturbance in and of itself is illegal. People seem to forget that especially when recording the police.Police officers have an absolute right to use the proper amount of force to affect an arrest. At no time did it appear that anyone was beaten, shot, or otherwise abused or mistreated. At this point I did not observe the police acting unlawfully or abusing any authority afforded to them under the law. On the heels of Ferguson, citizens think that because they record the police, it gives them the right to abuse the police and carry on however they see fit (speaking generally, not specific to this situation). It is the contrary. The tendency to think that police officers taking police actions is abusive is incorrect. In this instance, what we are to believe is that persons, minding their own business, walking down the street were attacked by the Salisbury City Police, is completely incorrect and inane. Allowing persons to yell and scream in the street is the definition of disorderly conduct. Failure of police to take action results in lawlessness. Lawlessness begets anarchy. As a society we hang on a dangerous precipice of managing civil liberties with complete lawlessness due to societies lack of understanding of laws and abuse of police authority. As a big believer of the constitution I firmly believe in our civil liberties. However, they have limitations. Evan AvnetTactical American Security Consulting, LLC.
Where was the Salisbury University Police. They seem to be to scared to be real police officers.What I see here is not really an out of control police officer I see an out of control mob/s that have put a burden on our city police department. It isn't our job to provide a baby sittings service for Mommies little innocent darlings who never get in trouble. Barrie Tilghman worked out an agreement with the University to provide the baby sitting service for University Village(?) the student housing off Milford Street. Jim Ireton needs to get the agreement changed and make the Salisbury University Police handle all the calls and patrolling in the Student Housing areas. SUPD should be patrolling Bateman Street and the surrounding streets near the university. They should also be patrolling the bars like the Monkey Barrel or what ever now exists near the college. The SUPD should be patrolling the parking lots and calls for service to the fast food joints across from the campus. The SUPD should also be running radar on College Avenue and Rt. 13 in front of the college. They should also be investigating and or assisting with all accidents surround University property. The SUPD should also be running radar on South Division Street as well. This is to protect student walking and crossing the street in those housing area.Salisbury University and their drunk punks are costing our city more than they are producing in revenue. SUPD needs to beef up their police force and start acting like a police force. If they want to be professional and deserve respect then it is time for them to step up to the plate. The Salisbury University police chief is a retired state police officer and has done a horrible job with that department. I can't give the SUPD police chief all the grief because he gets his barking orders from the University President which may be hindering his job. If that is the case he needs to find a new job and the blame can be pointed to him. He took the job and if he can't live up to it he needs to resign. Like it or not, with nearly 10,000 students, Salisbury University is a small city. Jim Ireton and the City Council need to meet with the University President and let them know what their expectations are.
The only "mob" I saw was the one that showed up in their squad cars and started tackling and beating people who were peacefully assembled for the purpose of enjoying each others' company.
5:40 you hit the nail on the head. This police officer does not follow the Jim Ireton "Love every man" philosphy. No pun intended. Officer sadly sometimes work to the level of the situation they are dealing with. This is really anissue with a police officer not much older then the kids he was dealing with.A bunch of entitled drunk college kids challenging the authority. Have we not seen this a million times in history. As for the older cops being tired of this kid's actions? Could it be he is doing the job they are too tired and lazy to do. I dont know I do not work for the S.P.D. but they have 17 open positions in a strapped economy. Need I say more. They can not get those spots filed because applicants with goos sense got the Mayor and Chief pegged. I guess I am saying if you want to play the blame game they are the winners hands down.As for the poster throwing the F.O.P. in the mix do your home work. The F.O.P. does not support any criminal activity. Actually you are removed from the F.O.P. roster if your are convicted of a crime. If you are not a police officer in good standing you are removed. The F.O.P. does have the back of police officers attacked by the liberal media. Officers that are under obvious political attack by by a biased administration. The F.O.P. will never turn and run leaving a police officer in need that I can assure you. If this officer is cleared and I think he will be. He needs to follow suit and sue these college kids. He was not charged with a crime this is a civil suit people. He can sue just like the next guy.
Why do people who make bad choices, consider the policemen to be the bad guy.
Finally reading some comments on here that explain in detail, the law. Why do folks get on such an uproar and immediately blame the police, without knowing the facts. We have courts to handle charges and lawsuits. Want to know whys and wherefores, read the court case, after it takes place.
Evan, your comment was well thought out and lucid. However, being the devil's advocate, you say that civil liberties have limitations and I question by whom are these limitations set. You also neglected to mention your background as an LEO, which may affect your objectivity. I too support law enforcement, but only if they behave professionally. Diffuse situations, do not exacerbate them. In the words of the late Richard J. Daley..."Gentlemen, get the thing straight once and for all– the policeman isn't there to create disorder, the policeman is there to preserve disorder."
I don't see an issue...when a law enforcement officer says move along then move!! Not time to debate unless of coarse you are intoxicated or want to see how far you can go pushing back against authority then this is what you get with kids.
0852 - Thank you for your feedback. I think that my prior law enforcement experience sheds some light on the subject rather than provides me to siding with the police. As you may know, I am a bill of rights supporter, specifically the 2nd amendment. You are entirely correct in that the police exist to prevent disorder rather than to create disorder. Absent from knowing what initially occurred to affect the original arrest, we are left with the crowd's disorderly behavior. In this case I feel that the police acted appropriately, with justification, and used restraint. As I stated before, we, as a society are on a dangerous precipice in maintaining law and order and balancing civil liberties of the populous. The police are fearful of taking action because ending up on youtube, which is a serious problem. It causes police officers to hesitate in a potentially deadly force encounter (not this situation, just in general).Additionally, bear in mind, that all occupations, including the police, have bad people. In policing the amount is infinitesimal compared to some other professions. This is because, although people think officers "get away" with things or are above the law, nothing could be further from the truth. Take in account a ordinary citizen who gets a DUI. Typically, the person will not be terminated from private employment, will probably get a probation before judgment on first offence, etc. Or a person who gets into an argument over a parking space. Again, little repercussions to an ordinary citizen. A police officer would loose their job, especially in this environment. So, policing is a tough job. I understand that people dislike the police but I think a large aspect of that is the public perception of the police. When anything bad happens involving a police officer it is all over the news. However, police officers do great things everyday from saving lives to helping people with ordinary activities and little of it makes the news. They put themselves in harms way to protect society. The job is becoming exponentially more difficult with the advent of portable video which frequently only shows a segment of an occurrence, only limits the view to 90 degrees, and can be edited for content. Sure there are bad police officers out there. It does occur, but again, few and far between. For example the pediatrician who molested the children Delaware. Are all doctors bad people, of course not. He is the exception. The assertion that the police abused people in this situation is at best ridiculous. Now, if there is an issue with the police report or there is a lack of probable cause, that's a horse of a different color. But, again... it's still not abuse. Abuse is a police officer using unnecessary force to affect an arrest. Mind you that a police officer is justified in using a proper amount of force, an amount to overcome and affect the arrest safely, during a lawful arrest of a lawbreaker. There is a force continuum that the police typically utilize and is why they carry so many things on their duty belt. Police must "slide" up and down the force continuum at a split second notice in order to use the proper amount of force. This can change dramatically in any situation. For instance, a police officer arrives on a call, there is an argument with two persons, one is armed with a brick. This is potentially a deadly force encounter, as a brick can be deadly if one person strikes another one in the head. The officer would possibly be justified in unholstering his weapon. The suspect drops the brick but continues aggressive action toward the victim. The police officer must use judgment in now engaging a situation that may be less deadly than before, holster his weapon and deploy pepper spray, verbal commands, soft/hard hand control tactics, and possibly his baton or taser. The person may pick up a brick again, back up to deadly force possibility. Search for the police force continuum on google.Evan AvnetTactical American Security Consulting, LLC.
As for the poster throwing the F.O.P. in the mix do your home work. The F.O.P. does not support any criminal activity. Actually you are removed from the F.O.P. roster if your are convicted of a crime. If you are not a police officer in good standing you are removed.I call bs.
Anonymous Anonymous said...As for the poster throwing the F.O.P. in the mix do your home work. The F.O.P. does not support any criminal activity. Actually you are removed from the F.O.P. roster if your are convicted of a crime. If you are not a police officer in good standing you are removed.I call bs.September 5, 2014 at 3:56 PMMust have been bs. It sure shut his pie hole.
Post a Comment