2 more of IMPD's finest arrested

[BehindBlueI's]

Oh... and saying you're a libertarian doesn't mean you are one.

See how far that gets you. Anyone who claims a religion is fair game here to judge everyone else, regardless if they follow tenants or not. I don't see political adherents getting a different treatment.

 

[88GT]

See how far that gets you. Anyone who claims a religion is fair game here to judge everyone else, regardless if they follow tenants or not. I don't see political adherents getting a different treatment.

Why would anyone want to follow tenants? Is there a religion with tenets that says one must follow tenants?

 

[halfmileharry]

To All,

Perhaps I should have clarified better, it was late so for that, "oops."

I have not said the LEO's involved should not be punished. I have not said that there was no wrong done here by either side.

The point I was going for was that the man who lost the fight was the one who initiated the fight! He committed Battery by grabbing & throwing the badge. I am looking specifically at IC 35-42-2-1(b) (Indiana Code 35-42-2). It could be argued that it was either a Class B Misdemeanor or Level 6 felony. The specifics would be if the officers were acting in their official capacity. As I am not a lawyer I will leave this to the realm of the experts. So why hasn't he been charged and arrested? Even IF the LEO's broke the law the fact remains that he broke it as well! (if my interpretation is even remotely correct)

So an obnoxious, drunk goober is told to leave the private property by an agent of the properties owner. He refuses. Two (2) known off duty LEO's are asked to help. Unwisely, they do so. The drunk initiates physical violence and, expectedly, loses the battle. Duh! What have I read on these boards from others - something about stupid games and prizes...?

The LEO's go overboard and IF everything is as it appears, should be punished. However, they should be treated no differently than any other person who is in the system. If the standard person arrested for fighting is an insignificant charge and probation they should receive the same, no better nor worse. That said, IF either one of them has a history of extensive physical abuse they should be removed from the position of authority.

As far as Libertarian goes, the drunk idiot had the right to swing away. The LEOs had the right to respond. Just because they responded harder and better doesn't mean anything! If someone comes at you with a knife and you have a gun and a knife, which choice will you make? There is nothing in the "rights" area that compels an equal response! Acknowledging such is somewhat libertarian I think.

Regards,

Doug

Sounds about right to me.

 

[poptab]

The question we must all ask ourselves is this: Do words have meaning or not?
If they do, then what is the meaning of libertarian?

 

[Trigger Time]

To All,

Perhaps I should have clarified better, it was late so for that, "oops."

I have not said the LEO's involved should not be punished. I have not said that there was no wrong done here by either side.

The point I was going for was that the man who lost the fight was the one who initiated the fight! He committed Battery by grabbing & throwing the badge. I am looking specifically at IC 35-42-2-1(b) (Indiana Code 35-42-2). It could be argued that it was either a Class B Misdemeanor or Level 6 felony. The specifics would be if the officers were acting in their official capacity. As I am not a lawyer I will leave this to the realm of the experts. So why hasn't he been charged and arrested? Even IF the LEO's broke the law the fact remains that he broke it as well! (if my interpretation is even remotely correct)

So an obnoxious, drunk goober is told to leave the private property by an agent of the properties owner. He refuses. Two (2) known off duty LEO's are asked to help. Unwisely, they do so. The drunk initiates physical violence and, expectedly, loses the battle. Duh! What have I read on these boards from others - something about stupid games and prizes...?

The LEO's go overboard and IF everything is as it appears, should be punished. However, they should be treated no differently than any other person who is in the system. If the standard person arrested for fighting is an insignificant charge and probation they should receive the same, no better nor worse. That said, IF either one of them has a history of extensive physical abuse they should be removed from the position of authority.

As far as Libertarian goes, the drunk idiot had the right to swing away. The LEOs had the right to respond. Just because they responded harder and better doesn't mean anything! If someone comes at you with a knife and you have a gun and a knife, which choice will you make? There is nothing in the "rights" area that compels an equal response! Acknowledging such is somewhat libertarian I think.

Regards,

Doug

A couple questions I have.
was the "badging" even legal or within impd's sop's? Can an off duty officer who's been drinking suddenly come "on duty" (because that's what he did as soon as he pulled his badge) and attempt to enforce the law for what? A minor trespass at best? (I'm asking not being snarky)
so then if no he cannot be an on duty police officers then the badge slap is bull and void BESIDES maybe a assault Or battery charge (whatever it's called when you hit someone) ?
from there if reasonable force was used to evict the drunk customer I could agree that it was justified and not even a police matter, but instead a matter handled by appointed agents of the establishment. (Bouncers in essence).
but allegedly 2 officers (because THEY put themselves on duty whether right or wrong) have more than just an old fashioned ass whoopin to this man they were allegedly vindictive and excessive.
this is a cluster **** in my opinion. Drinking a copping doesn't go well together in my personal opinion, because like some other jobs (with 24/7 on call people) your a cop 24/7 like it or not. If you see something illegal are you not required to act? (Again I'm just asking because I don't know the answer). So if your supposed to be job ready 24/7 but have a department that had a zero tollerance policy with alcohol then would it be better not to drink at all? Yeah I know that this will never be a reality. Not even in a civilian job would it be a reality. People love their booze!

so heres my predictions: cops fired. 2 careers and lots of money in training down the ****ter. Maybe they were a holes but good cops, maybe they were a holes and a hole cops. Doesn't really matter.

impd has another stain on it even though it's not fair to judge a whole department for 2 officers actions

man who was allegedly beat up sues the city and is driving a new porche in a year or so

indianapolis is now even more under policed and Ballard still will have his thumb up his ass.

The media will milk this story for the bad cop aspect until the paint falls off the walls

mikes pub has a serious of code violations and loses it's liquor license


only time will tell stay tuned!

 

[forgop]

A couple questions I have.
was the "badging" even legal or within impd's sop's? Can an off duty officer who's been drinking suddenly come "on duty" (because that's what he did as soon as he pulled his badge) and attempt to enforce the law for what? A minor trespass at best? (I'm asking not being snarky)
so then if no he cannot be an on duty police officers then the badge slap is bull and void BESIDES maybe a assault Or battery charge (whatever it's called when you hit someone) ?
from there if reasonable force was used to evict the drunk customer I could agree that it was justified and not even a police matter, but instead a matter handled by appointed agents of the establishment. (Bouncers in essence).
but allegedly 2 officers (because THEY put themselves on duty whether right or wrong) have more than just an old fashioned ass whoopin to this man they were allegedly vindictive and excessive.
this is a cluster **** in my opinion. Drinking a copping doesn't go well together in my personal opinion, because like some other jobs (with 24/7 on call people) your a cop 24/7 like it or not. If you see something illegal are you not required to act? (Again I'm just asking because I don't know the answer). So if your supposed to be job ready 24/7 but have a department that had a zero tollerance policy with alcohol then would it be better not to drink at all? Yeah I know that this will never be a reality. Not even in a civilian job would it be a reality. People love their booze!

so heres my predictions: cops fired. 2 careers and lots of money in training down the ****ter. Maybe they were a holes but good cops, maybe they were a holes and a hole cops. Doesn't really matter.

impd has another stain on it even though it's not fair to judge a whole department for 2 officers actions

man who was allegedly beat up sues the city and is driving a new porche in a year or so

indianapolis is now even more under policed and Ballard still will have his thumb up his ass.

The media will milk this story for the bad cop aspect until the paint falls off the walls

mikes pub has a serious of code violations and loses it's liquor license


only time will tell stay tuned!

The badging was a ahole move. Simple as that. If the cops had any common sense, they would have told the staff to call the police and have someone on duty respond. Instead, they chose to use their police powers while they're intoxicated to beat a guy and then attempt to cover up for it by implying the bar staff didn't see anything either. Even when they got the guy out the door as requested by the staff, they still continued on with the beating. I guess that's fine if you're ok with drunk cops acting like aholes and beating up on people in numbers.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

No, an IMPD officer may not be "on duty" with any measurable amount of alcohol in their system. By acting in an official capacity they violated at least one General Order.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I suppose a life threatening situation may be looked at a little differently if action is required to prevent (or attempt to prevent) bodily harm to or death of another person.

 

[forgop]

I suppose a life threatening situation may be looked at a little differently if action is required to prevent (or attempt to prevent) bodily harm to or death of another person.

I don't think anyone else would object to that even if someone was under the influence. I don't expect cops to have to avoid alcohol the rest of their lives once they're sworn in. At the end of the day, keep your badge in your pocket when you're not on duty. I'm never one to drink excessive amounts or give staff any trouble, but if I were sitting.at the next table, I may very well have told the guy to tell the cops to GFY the minute he pulled it out.

 

[rambone]

I am glad that IMPD has a Purity Test and apparently is willing to apply it.

 

[ghunter]

The sad part is, if they had restrained the guy with reasonable force*, called for district cars and made an arrest for public intoxication and disorderly conduct, this would not have been a story at all.

* Reasonable force does not mean a Henry, Tommy, and Jimmy v. Billy Batts style beat down.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

A couple questions I have.
was the "badging" even legal or within impd's sop's? Can an off duty officer who's been drinking suddenly come "on duty" (because that's what he did as soon as he pulled his badge) and attempt to enforce the law for what? A minor trespass at best? (I'm asking not being snarky)

Legally, there's no issue. There is no "on duty/off duty" in IC for an officer making an arrest. What most people consider "on duty" just means "getting paid" and has no bearing on legal authority. I don't know what a "minor" trespass vs a major trespass is, but yes, that would have been the issue here as presented. I would guess they figured they'd tell him to leave, show him that they were the police, and he'd leave and that'd be the end of it. That didn't pan out, and now they are in the situation they are in.


Policy wise has been addressed, yeah, you aren't supposed to take official action if you've been drinking. I don't recall exactly how the GO is worded, but its something like: off duty officers will take police action if reasonably required unless there is some good reason to do so, safety of your own family with you, been drinking, etc." I'm not interested enough to look up the exact verbiage, but that's the gist. If someone is going to get hurt if you don't act, you're supposed to, but if you have a good reason not to do so like you have kids with you that would be in danger by you acting, you've been drinking, etc, that's a "get out of being the police for free" card.

 

[HoughMade]

The sad part is, if they had restrained the guy with reasonable force*, called for district cars and made an arrest for public intoxication and disorderly conduct, this would not have been a story at all.

* Reasonable force does not mean a Henry, Tommy, and Jimmy v. Billy Batts style beat down.

Let's be clear. All Henry did was lock the door, drive the car and dig.

 

[hornadylnl]

Reiger is a 15-year veteran of the force, and Serban is a 16-year veteran, police said.


15 and 16 years and they both use their first ever "what happens here, stays here" card together on the same night.

 

[phylodog]

Reiger is a 15-year veteran of the force, and Serban is a 16-year veteran, police said.


15 and 16 years and they both use their first ever "what happens here, stays here" card together on the same night.

Of course not, we've been covering for these two and their shenanigans for years now. We're all culpable, every one of us on the agency bears the blame here. I should be ashamed (I guess).

 

[ghunter]

Let's be clear. All Henry did was lock the door, drive the car and dig.

True enough. We'll let Henry off the hook just this once.

 

[halfmileharry]

I'm going to withhold judgment until the media has a few more lines it can put in print so it doesn't take advertising space away or until they have a few more seconds to spare to get the story accurate.
Sadly I'm getting a lot of my info on opinionated INGO here.
There's all types of etiquette to get along in life.
Shooting range etiquette, Dining Room etiquette, etc, AND BAR ETIQUETTE. Those of you that made it a habit of regularly running the bars understand the rules.
The "victim" in question apparently didn't use his bar etiquette to the best possible outcome. I say he's directly responsible for his own actions. OR maybe it's his daddy's fault for not going Adrian Peterson on his arse at a younger age.
Do I think the LEOs are in the right? Not after hearing IMPD's guidelines but I know I have had to do wrong at times 'cause it was the right thing to do.
I think this one turned south over some arsehole.
I am assuming the intentions weren't to go as far as it did BUT....that's the kind of sh.t that happens when you're dealing with someone that's indulged or thinking impaired due to other reasons.
I'll wait 'til all of this is on the table to judge.
It's not like my house isn't made out of glass either.

 

[Trigger Time]

I'm going to withhold judgment until the media has a few more lines it can put in print so it doesn't take advertising space away or until they have a few more seconds to spare to get the story accurate.
Sadly I'm getting a lot of my info on opinionated INGO here.
There's all types of etiquette to get along in life.
Shooting range etiquette, Dining Room etiquette, etc, AND BAR ETIQUETTE. Those of you that made it a habit of regularly running the bars understand the rules.
The "victim" in question apparently didn't use his bar etiquette to the best possible outcome. I say he's directly responsible for his own actions. OR maybe it's his daddy's fault for not going Adrian Peterson on his arse at a younger age.
Do I think the LEOs are in the right? Not after hearing IMPD's guidelines but I know I have had to do wrong at times 'cause it was the right thing to do.
I think this one turned south over some arsehole.
I am assuming the intentions weren't to go as far as it did BUT....that's the kind of sh.t that happens when you're dealing with someone that's indulged or thinking impaired due to other reasons.
I'll wait 'til all of this is on the table to judge.
It's not like my house isn't made out of glass either.

We live in a different time. Bar ediquet of old is no longer the same.
I hate a drunk (a person who can't stay civilized or rational because they drank too much) whether it's a cop or a civilian. Doesn't matter.

 

[hornadylnl]

Of course not, we've been covering for these two and their shenanigans for years now. We're all culpable, every one of us on the agency bears the blame here. I should be ashamed (I guess).

Not what I said at all. If not for other bar patrons and video to defend the guy they beat up, who's side of the story would have won in court? If some of these bullies victims choose to seek payback the moment they lose their badges, I won't shed a tear.

 

[phylodog]

Not what I said at all. If not for other bar patrons and video to defend the guy they beat up, who's side of the story would have won in court? If some of these bullies victims choose to seek payback the moment they lose their badges, I won't shed a tear.

You were most certainly starting down that road by indicating that this was a regular behavior for these two. If it was a regular behavior then other officers must have known about it and been unwilling to intervene. I've been on INGO for awhile now, not much new to the arguments here.

I'm sure you wouldn't shed a tear for these officers if someone were to retaliate had they been treated wrongfully. The unfortunate thing is that if that were to happen and the officers (or former officers) were to dish out a healthy ass whooping for the effort you'll be quick to find fault again.

The "victim" in this case admitted he wouldn't have behaved the way he did had he not been intoxicated. Knowing one of the officers personally I can say the same applies for him. So we have mistakes on both sides of it. People can say whatever they want about current bar etiquette but if someone takes a personal possession of mine out of my hand and throws it while I'm intoxicated, chances are there will be more than a friendly discussion to follow. One of many reasons I don't go to bars and drink more than one and that is a rare occurrence.