Popular Posts

Sunday, February 01, 2015

A Comment Worthy Of A Post: Salisbury Police VS Salisbury University Students

While this is a long Post, I believe it makes for an extremely interesting read as well as an incredible debate. Chime in through comments if you like. 


Anonymous Said...

Well Joe.....this was a travesty. You know I love what you do but with the freedom you exercise with this blog comes great responsibility. We talked about this some until we got sidetracked. (Imagine that). This is something you really need to think about. By your own admission your blog reaches many. Even those whom it doesn't reach directly are reached by word of mouth. I would proffer that no one on that jury hadn't heard about that case prior to trial. Then we add the fact that blogs are more popular because people can comment with anonymity without responsibility. Many of these comments are made by people who write as if they are authorities on legal matters yet have nothing more than an opinion. 99% of the time these opinions are rendered with no legal knowledge yet are viewed by most (who are likely followers rather than leaders) as if they were gospel. Rommel played a scumbag lawyer trick and used you as a way to get his side of the story out to the public knowing that it would be tried in the court of public opinion way before the jury ever heard the case. I would bet that his plan the entire time was to play the media - in this case your blog - and then pray jury trial knowing that any jury pool would be tainted. In my opinion he manipulated the entire system and Sbynews to bring about a very calculated result. He intentionally released video to you knowing you would post it. He also knew he was going to use these videos as evidence when he released them to you. To me, this shows the underbelly of an individual who is not a good attorney, but rather an attorney with no moral compass. 


Now.......to all these roadside attorneys speaking of lawsuits who are obviously members of the group who know nothing of that which they speak but writes as if they are authorities......you completely misunderstand the implications that the different burden of proof thresholds required to make specific cases. For the purposes of this discussion the burden of proof for probable cause (that which is needed to file charges) was met as indicated by the impartial judicial officer for the district court. That means enough evidence exists to charge the defendants and bring the case to trial. If we had to assign a percentage amount to this level of proof we could attach a number of about 51%. The number needed to convict using the same scale is about 99%. Now....the number needed to win a civil case would be commonly called a preponderance of the evidence.....about 51% if using the same type of number assignment scale. In a nutshell this means that it has been already established that the officer in this case had enough evidence to arrest and bring charges....but according to a jury...not enough to convict. (Arguably) however if the defendants in this case argue that the officer didn't have enough evidence to arrest and that the arrest was false......the contrary has already been established. 

Joe....the anti-police sentiment in the U.S. Is increasing at an astounding rate. I would argue that much of this is due to what is tantamount to a hue and cry. In medieval times it would be the masses would be gathered on the front steps with pitchforks and torches demanding a hanging. We live in a nation of laws. When lynch mobs form due to misinformation it seriously undermines the rule of law....and it makes the job of police officers even more dangerous than it needs to be. These college students will now be emboldened and the citizens living in the areas surrounding the university will pay for it. When we look at your blog we see this post and then we see posts about the increase in violence in Salisbury. You can't condemn the police for doing their jobs and then expect them to put their necks on the line thinking they will be ridiculed in the court of public opinion by those who have no idea of what their job entails of the laws that govern their actions.


Here are some mistakes: 

"That means enough evidence exists to charge the defendants and bring the case to trial. If we had to assign a percentage amount to this level of proof we could attach a number of about 51%." 

"The number needed to convict using the scale is about 99%." (If this had been said, this at trial it would result in a mistrial; courts have made very clear the reasonable doubt standard is not a percentage or number). 

In a nutshell this means that it has already been established that the officer in this case had enough evidence to arrest and bring charges. 

These statements are absolutely not true. Any determination made by a district court commissioner is simply based upon the written allegations contained in the statement of probable cause. Evidence is not considered. Testimony is not considered. No factual findings are made. It is just based upon the allegations of the officer-there is never another side to the story. To say, therefore, that "it has already been established" that there was enough evidence to arrest and bring charges is simply incorrect. 

If the writer of the comment is going to criticize others for unformed statements, he should stick to what he knows and stay out of the area of legal burdens of proof. 

Rebuttal: Most people who are charged with a crime have their names and pictures (often a mug shot) released to the community long before their trials. The news media (including Salisbury News) publishes this information, which is based on charges, not evidence. There has been no trial, no hearing and no conviction, and no "other side to the story." Despite the fact people are presumed to be innocent the public sees them (for the first time, for a lot of people) standing and pictured in front a concrete wall at a police station because they have been accused of committing a crime. Being accused of a crime is different than being guilty or being convicted of a crime. Yet for most the these people, the first and only public attention or coverage they get is based on a charge made by a police officer, a charge that can be right, wrong or somewhere in between. Unfortunately for a lot of people, they do not have the means or opportunity to ever respond publically when they are acquitted of a crime. In many cases, the damage is done. (Ask Sheriff Lewis, and to a lesser extent Davis Ruark) 

If police agencies are going to use the news media to publish and broadcast arrest (based on their side of the story), I see no problem with some of the concerns expressed in the post above. Why should a person have to simply wait for trial and hope and pray for the best? What if they cannot afford a private lawyer, and their only option is to use a public defender they meet for the first time on their trial date? What if no one wants to hear their side of the story, because court is busy that day? What if a person charged is actually innocent? 

It is easy to say that the police are always right. Most of the time they are. Most people are in fact guilty of what they are charged with. But consider this: assume for a minute you have been falsely accused of a crime, and you have video evidence that you believe proves your innocence. You are going to want that video played on Salisbury News.

43 comments:

  1. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I saw the video and felt the cop was out of line. It is that simple for me, because the video evidence supported that.
    I would have the same opinion whether I saw it on your blog or in court.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I disagree with the statement - it has already been established that the officer in this case had enough evidence to arrest and bring charges.

    Cops lie all the time and make stuff up simply to press charges. I do not believe that just because you were arrested that the charges are valid.

    Wasn't there recently a case where a man flipped off the officer and was arrested for it. And the courts found it unjustified? My case in point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I firmly support all of our local PD's......but let's face the truth.....there are the occasional bad cop. When you have the same officer involved is so many conflicted issues....then they need to be investigated. Pure and simple.....that's the case with this officer. Stop this nonsense before he or an innocent citizen-gets hurt badly

    ReplyDelete
  4. 11:28,I agree,know of a person arrested twice by city cops and was not doing anything,once cop didn't show,had to get lawyer for other to be found not guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This clown must be a cop or someone involved in the case to say this crap...

    Doesn't the courts, cops and the like use these tactics??? Doesn't the federal govt use these tactics???? Yet always complain when someone used their own tactic against them?????

    This story here shows just how much these people, courts judges, cops and the like don't give a shit about you but a win or loss mark on their win/lose column... they have no morals or ethics, because nothing you do outside of having a weapon or charging at a cop full speed, should you get beat down and then handcuffed... Lets not forget getting cuffed for recording the cops... then you have where the cop gave a so called legal order to move back but wouldn't and didn't give the guy enough time to do what the cop asked and slammed him to the ground...

    Lets not forget that the cops where the ones who pushed the issue and ran down the college kids and jumped on their backs and what not...

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would say, and many would agree with me, half the cops are just bullies/criminals with badges.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Luke Rommel is one of the many reasons what happened at the mall keeps happening. Police are losing their ability to regain authority over idiots who want to break the law.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Cops lie all the time and make stuff up simply to press charges"

    This is an ignorant statement. Our system of justice is not perfect, but it has served us well. There are bad folks in any profession. Law enforcement does more than any other profession to weed out those that would potentially abuse their position and power, and rightly so.

    Broad, condemning rhetoric is not helpful. I'm a cop and the other day I drove past a middle aged white male in a mall parking area. As I drove past, he put his hands up in the air and mouthed, "don't shoot". I could not help but think that this is the same guy that would call me if his car was broken into in that parking lot...the same guy who would demand I catch the bad guy that robs him on his way back to his car from shopping...he would not meet me with his hands up then, but, rather, his hands would be out pleading for my help.

    The public should be careful what they wish for...a land without the thin blue line lends itself to anarchy, not order. We all flourish in an orderly society...and we all suffer in chaos.

    -One of the Good Guys

    ReplyDelete
  9. JA, I believe your blog could really help this community by your reporting news that we don't see anywhere else. BUT, when you allow comments(attacks) on people without them owning what they post, then it becomes a gossip blog and has no benefit except maybe for lots of laughs and lots of revenge by those who hate/dislike the person or persons being reported about. In many ways, Joe, you are being used by several people who comment. That, to me, is very sad & I'm sorry you don't see that, too. You are too smart to ignore it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. District Court is an aotumatic guilty 95% of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The anti-police and govt. sentiment will continue to grow until they act within the bounds of common law and justice not assumptions and corruption. The justice system is broken when a convicted murderer receives merely a slap on the wrist sentence when cold hard physical evidence exists to be offered a plea deal and a drug dealer is hit with multi-thousands in bonds and given years of time to serve..something has to change. When a situation arises and a long time citizen being too scared to testify for fear that the same will occur again the fact that the justice system has failed is more than paramount it is a travesty. The law has become so perverted by the typical judge or jury has to spend hours to understand the verbiage in which it is written. And what is more absurd is when a citizen without the help of an attorney can eloquently quote from the MD COMAR to a judge and the judge not understand the words that came out of their mouth. Things have to change. Unfortunately they will be for the worse before for the better, enjoy the so called underhanded ways of one lawyer because absolute power corrupts absolutely and it is not done by just one man but the entire justice community. So put down your burning stake and eat the sour grapes you have been given because if you don't finish you plate you have to sit at the dinner table until they your plate is clean. Good Day sir.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 12:12 --

    Your comment is spot on. And for those who can't afford to pay Luke Rommel there's the "public defender."

    ReplyDelete
  13. To 12:12PM and all.....although you are correct that Mr Rommel is "one of the many reasons", we all are too embarrassed to admit that..... WE, the parents of these kids must bear the majority of the blame and fault. Teach them correctly at home, with some respect and common sense, and you wouldn't see these actions. By trying to 'make it easier than we had it', we parents have created mini-monsters of disrespect. Our parents allowed us an inch of leeway and we have allowed a little more. The really scarey part, what about the children of our kids, what will they be like??? And I understand that every one of you reading this comment is thinking, "well, my kids are like that". Nope nobody's kids are like that, those involved in these incidents are transported here by UFO's. We did it....we gotta fix it, I'm just not sure how at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 12:19 - I am the one who made that comment.

    I understand your position, and only agree that I should have written;
    ... SOME cops lie all the time and make stuff up simply to press charges.

    The statement was made in reference to the article, but I understand how it came across to broadly.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  15. First....I never said that Police agencies don't release mugshots and photo's. But that has no evidentiary value. The police - or more importantly the prosecutors - don't go around releasing evidence to the media prior to trial. It doesn't happen. Any person presenting rebuttal can twist this however they want, Rommel presented this video evidence prior to trial. Illegal? No. But unethical according to attorney's with whom I've spoken.....including states attorneys. Anyone can offer rebuttal. That's their right. But I know where I would place my money. At any rate, the numeric value I used to compare the different burden of proof levels were used not as a basis used in law but rather a yardstick to which everyone can relate. And I would offer that when a district court commissioner finds probable cause, an impartial judicial officers has determined that probable cause exists - a very low burden of proof. Additionally, did the defense attorney, upon the completion of the states case, make a motion to dismiss due to lack of evidence? If not, the attorney probably felt that there was no question as to whether or not probable cause existed. If so, and the judge denied the motion, the judge recognized that probable cause existed warranting an arrest. Either way, an unlawful arrest lawsuit would be a monumental waste of time. And comment number 2 proves my point as it relates to people speaking on matters with no factual basis......"Many of these comments are made by people who write as if they are authorities on legal matters yet have nothing more than an opinion. 99% of the time these opinions are rendered with no legal knowledge yet are viewed by most (who are likely followers rather than leaders) as if they were gospel."

    ReplyDelete
  16. 12:27, So I put out the FACTS and the TRUTH and because we do not censor comments I am lying or spreading gossip?

    We do in fact do a lot of good for this community in every article we produce. If you don't like what the commenters have to say, don't read the comments and only publish what YOU think or feel the need to share.

    My name is Joe Albero, not Jesus Christ, or is that your name?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Too bad there are so many unintelligent comments on such an enlightened post.Nothing at all needed to be added to it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 1:51 What? That much of a sore loser?

    Comment #2 was made in relation to commonly publicized cases and current events. They do not even elude to any fact of having any legal knowledge. In fact the comment is also in the form of a question.

    What the heck is wrong with you dude? If you think comment #2 proves your point than you have real serious issues.

    It proves nothing other than a statement of fact that some cops lie and a case was in fact overturned where a citizen was charged for something that related to him flipping a cop the bird.

    The comment is actually factual.

    Your diatribes are making you look like a complete tool.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 2:14 enlightened post?
    The post is a rant by someone connected to the case that they lost.
    Nothing at all enlightened about it.

    All I see is a sheeple that thinks we have no right to defend ourselves public or private against injustices.

    Funny how the pot is calling the kettle black, since they are obviously part of the same corrupt legal system.

    That's my take on it. You are welcome to enlighten me some more if you wish.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The police themselves have brought about this national debate concerning excessive force. It is the police who are dressing up and playing soldier. Riding around in military vehicles carrying automatic weapons. This isn't the Soviet Union and this is not the type of law enforcement the people want or need.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I WILL HAVE YOU ALL KNOW, JOE does in fact sensor comments to a degree... I have personally used a lot of curse words in my post at times, mainly because talking nice and using evidence doesn't help the stupid people understand, and Joe has blocked the comment...

    These are peoples opinions and if you do not like them, them go ELSE WHERE as you want US to do... You people are so TYPICAL!!! I WANT WHAT I WANT and you can't do what you want because of what I want.... So typical...

    As for the so called GOOD COP who is "one of the good guys" You are a lying piece of shit PERIOD!!! ANY COP who is complicit in the actions of bad corrupt cops are no different than they ones who are commit said atrocities... YES maybe it is so, Maybe we will call you for help about a break in or the like even after we toss hands up and yell "Don't Shoot"... WHO GIVE S A DAMN THAT IS YOUR JOB REMEMBER????????????????

    If we could defend ourselves we wouldn't even need cops for half of the damn things you cops complain about us needing from you...

    Tell me this GOOD COPPER, who do I tell when you all handcuff people and beat them, or tase someone and then shoot them like Grant Morrison did from another state???? Who do we call when your illegal actions can't be stopped in court because IA or the DA will say you are justified in all that you do????

    As poster above stated, this is all because the courts are failing and because cops are too, you are only here to make money for corporations and that is all....

    What do we do when, you COPS fail to uphold the law??? When you say and I quote "I am only following the law" or "I am only doing as I am told" or "I enforce the laws on the books"??? What do we do when your first initial actions in approaching someone are illegal, but force them to do something and by their reaction you use force which then is justified???

    What do we do when the Supreme court said and you know damn well that we can record cops in public places as you all do with your world wide cameras and then steal personal property and detain handcuff or beat someone for recording??? Saying the camera can be a weapon or you are scare for you live over a camera, or when you walk down the block to confront the guy recording you, trying to say, you are interfering with an investigation when clearly they are not... When the supreme court says it is not illegal???

    What about when you deploy a taser and then lock someone up for resisting arrest or disorderly or assault on an offers is the one used most????

    People do not hate you, per say, they hate what you do because of what you think you can do behind the badge... People are protesting not about cops but about people getting shot with no weapons... So if you are scared of someone who has no weapon the you are a pussy...

    How about waiting to see him reach in the wait band or belt before you shoot, how about you actually see a gun... no just a mere movement gets people killed, why because you are train all people are terrorist...

    As you say, What do you have to hide if your not doing anything wrong?????

    ReplyDelete
  22. A police officer can't pull you over and arrest you just because you gave him the finger, a federal appeals court declared Thursday.

    In a 14-page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the "ancient gesture of insult is not the basis for a reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or impending criminal activity."

    Swartz was later charged with a violation of New York's disorderly conduct statute, but the charges were dismissed on speedy trial grounds.

    Commenter #2 doesn't need to know the law, looks like the Courts provided that factual tidbit for them.

    Which substantiates their statement, find any reason to press charges, valid or not ... Looks like in that scenario, despite your mathematical equation, the evidence is not there.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 12:19 said, "I could not help but think that this is the same guy that would call me if his car was broken into in that parking lot...the same guy who would demand I catch the bad guy that robs him on his way back to his car from shopping..."

    The reason we call is that our insurance company asks for the police report # when we make our claim. Otherwise we wouldn't waste are time calling. It's not like you will catch the perpetrator and get our stuff back. So who do you think you are fooling?

    ReplyDelete
  24. 3:36-I think you are missing the point. We can all concede that law enforcement is an imperfect profession...because it is made up of people. I would say the same about any profession but the majority of them are not bound by oath or charged with defending the Constitution.

    As to the previous cop hater that my comments called forth from the deep...settle down and take those pills the doctor prescribed. You are clearly already living in chaos and there remains little that good cops can do for you until your neighbor has had enough.

    ReplyDelete
  25. What do you expect when you have command staff that rewards those who lie and punishes those who tell the truth. Duncan and her cronies have been weeding out the honest cops for the last few years and replacing them with rookies who will do her dirty work without question.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 4:17 wow you've got some huge mental issues.

    I am not sure who - "the previous cop hater that my comments called forth from the deep" is that you are referring to, but as previously stated, you have more than substantiated what a tool you are.

    Get some help. It is obvious that you are desperately in need of it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 4:17 Insults are the typical response from an internet troll who lost the debate or no longer has a point.
    You lose.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 4:17 oh my gosh this is beyond too funny. You are the one who claimed you were the "good cop"!? And look at the twisted attitude you have!

    Oh the ick creeps out eventually now don't it!! Just give it time!

    I can't wait to see your next f'ed up response. Shot yourself in the foot with that pompous better than thou attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  29. blah blah blah. you talk about us like we don't know what we are talking about, but we were right and the students won.

    But that is only because it was on Joe's blog first? Ever hear of jury selection? Each side gets to decide on each potential juror.

    Still trying to cya. Kops screwed up, yet again, and THIS time they were held accountable.

    I got news for you Mr. Know-it-all, that is a trend that is just starting to begin nationwide. There will be many more like this case.

    Get used to it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. In reality it is the general publics inability to follow simple commands when asked or ordered by the police that starts the excessive force situations.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 5:47 do you mean cops legal or illegal commands? I am positive we can find instances where that statement is 100% false. Nice try though.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 5:47 said, "In reality it is the general publics inability to follow simple commands when asked or ordered by the police that starts the excessive force situations."

    So if the police officer asks or orders me to eat excrement then according to your way of thinking I am required to comply.

    You are an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Joe......this isn't anything that remotely resembles a debate. Most of these commenters aren't capable of intelligent debate. What they are capable of is name calling and lying. Unfortunately this is what fans the flames of anti police sentiment. Nice.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 9:21 and how many of them are yours?

    ReplyDelete
  35. While your suggestion about eating excrement is ludicrous, yes if a police officers orders you to do something you should comply with that order. This is something that is not new my friend this is common sense that should be used by everyone. If you fail to comply with an order issued by a police officer then right away that officer assumes you have something to hide. If you disagree with how a situation was handled, afterwards you have channels you can follow to try and rectify the situation. Whether that be speaking with a supervisor, the police chief or filing a lawsuit. it's that simple. It ain't rocket science.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 9:21, yea and the good cop didn't contribute to any of that either now did he? Perfect respectful little angel.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Sorry, I saw the video. reality is really hard to dispute, and I have seen enough in the film.

    Sorry for Aita, but you f'd up, more than once.

    ReplyDelete
  38. 9:27 and cops wonder....remember citizens you are guilty until proven innocent and it is obvious you have something to hide!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Whether that be speaking with a supervisor, the police chief . . ."

    Best joke so far on this thread.

    Apparently hiring Rommel is your best bet.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I am fascinated by the tone of comments coming from the supposed cop. Check them out carefully and it will reveal some glaring issues.

    You WILL comply
    You WILL do what I say
    If you do not comply I assume you are hiding something
    You are guilty
    It is ALWAYS your fault for escalation.
    This guy even goes so far as to quote mathematical statics on their probability of success on arrests.

    See a pattern here?

    Was this letter and following comments all orchestrated by Officer Aita? Certainly sounds like it. Who else would go to such lengths to defend him?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Most of the posters are dumb as box of rocks, complain about college kids, affects of rental town, loud party's etc, you can't stand police, what the heck do you stand for,complaining!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous Anonymous said...
    Most of the posters are dumb as box of rocks, complain about college kids, affects of rental town, loud party's etc, you can't stand police, what the heck do you stand for,complaining!

    February 1, 2015 at 5:48 PM

    and you are so much smarter. you are a box of hammers.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.