Bad Experience with Carmel PD

[Expat]

I'm offended he didn't answer my question, even to deny he did it.

I kept waiting on him to answer as well. What was the purpose of reading negative comments from this thread that were not seemingly material and not at all probative?

 

[theweakerbrother]

So, at the end of the day, the justification for attempting to prosecute a man who broke no laws was "just doin' my job, sir," and we're okay with it?

 

[Jack Ryan]

So, at the end of the day, the justification for attempting to prosecute a man who broke no laws was "just doin' my job, sir," and we're okay with it?

Apparently a lot of people here are, they are repping him.

It's no wonder we've gone from a RIGHT to own a firearm to the point you are taxed, license, and permitted. "Ah that's alright, he's just doing his job. He's so nice to come here and actually talk to the common guys like us. We might even learn something from his highness."

 

[SirRealism]

Agreed. To keep coming back even after everything that has been thrown at him shows some integrity.

I disagree. It shows tenacity and doggedness. Both good traits for a lawyer, but not necessarily the same as integrity.

 

[theweakerbrother]

Apparently a lot of people here are, they are repping him.

It's no wonder we've gone from a RIGHT to own a firearm to the point you are taxed, license, and permitted. "Ah that's alright, he's just doing his job. He's so nice to come here and actually talk to the common guys like us. We might even learn something from his highness."

I have to believe it is one of two things. People mistakenly thinking that the above poster was either LS's lawyer or the judge himself.

Or the thin blue line exists for prosecuting attorneys whom we are told are not LEO. Remember?

But probably both.

 

[sparky241]

1. It burned down a few months ago. (Seriously - it did! There's probably still news articles about it.)
2. IMNSHO he did use common sense, from a law enforcement perspective. He let the judge sort it out.
how much do you thinbk this cost the people a carmel? the cop should have put himself in libertys shoes and seen the incident for what it was and not waste anymore time on it
You may disagree to your heart's content.
and i will too

We did, it wasn't, and well... here we are.


You are entitled to your opinion. I think what he needed to do was a little Mozambique Drill on the pooch. YMMV.
so let me get this straight, you are advocating that he do more than what was needed to stop the threat? so where do you draw the line here?

According to the Star (make of that what you will), there's a 6th grader or something at IUPUI debunking Einstein. I guess I'm in pretty good company.

so what exactly did you type in? man almost mauled by dog in carmel indiana? my god man that sure took some skills, wow you are good

As to the rest... well... random bits of 0s and 1s in the internet ether....

there was no excuse for a case like this being tried. you wasted not only liberty's time and money you also wasted taxpayer money on your own opinion. you are not paid to further your opinion you are paid the make sure the law is upheld. I really would love to see liberty file suit against you and carmel for putting him through this.

 

[E5RANGER375]

So, at the end of the day, the justification for attempting to prosecute a man who broke no laws was "just doin' my job, sir," and we're okay with it?

yeah, I think its bull **** that so many here are ok with it and ready to make friends because he "did his job". well no I dont think he did. I think he abused his position of trust that was afforded to him by the people. he's a lawyer so he will smooth talk his way out of what ever we say here and make anyone that doesnt buy into his bull **** look like idiots, but whatever. I know when I cant compete on an intellectual level but that doesnt de-value my Honorable stance on freedom and liberty. we have seen his type on here before. I suppose many of the people here would have sat down and had a drink with Benedict Arnold after the revolutionary war, but not me. A traitor to liberty is always a traitor. He is just so about himself that he couldnt resist coming here and getting into it.

theres actually people here that are repping a man who hurt a good honest member financially and drug his name through the mud unjustly. if officer bissard came here to lie about his side of the story would you people positive rep him too? come on people! As soon as I get some rep back I will be trying to put this guy in the rep red!

 

[Roadie]

I disagree. It shows tenacity and doggedness. Both good traits for a lawyer, but not necessarily the same as integrity.

Point taken

 

[Eddie]

yeah, I think its bull **** that so many here are ok with it and ready to make friends because he "did his job". well no I dont think he did. I think he abused his position of trust that was afforded to him by the people. he's a lawyer so he will smooth talk his way out of what ever we say here and make anyone that doesnt buy into his bull **** look like idiots, but whatever. I know when I cant compete on an intellectual level but that doesnt de-value my Honorable stance on freedom and liberty. we have seen his type on here before. I suppose many of the people here would have sat down and had a drink with Benedict Arnold after the revolutionary war, but not me. A traitor to liberty is always a traitor. He is just so about himself that he couldnt resist coming here and getting into it.

theres actually people here that are repping a man who hurt a good honest member financially and drug his name through the mud unjustly. if officer bissard came here to lie about his side of the story would you people positive rep him too? come on people! As soon as I get some rep back I will be trying to put this guy in the rep red!

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".
This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".
-Nuremburg Principle IV

 

[MinuteMan47]

Ok, ladies, I have to make this quick this morning.

I'd like everyone to consider a couple of things.

The guy has the guts to come on here and defend his position, and he's doing it civilly.

Although he did call E5Ranger and the others "ladies"...

That's a personal attack and against INGO rules.

 

[LEaSH]

I've tried to displace the emotion that I had during the course of the thread and after the not guilty verdict.

Trying to use everything as a real world educational tool on what to do and not to do.

I'm glad T. Lex came here. I won't say I'm satisfied at all with the thought process and tactics used to get that much desired win he was after.

Hunter S. Thompson used to recount in his writings that LBJ would like to accuse a political opponent (factually or made up) of have relations with a pig. It didn't matter what was true or not, according to HST, it was getting the opponent to acknowledge and deny something. To throw crap at the wall to see what might stick.

There is some downright savagery in some professions. The more success a person achieves the less importance is placed on honor and integrity.

If Liberty Sanders had no means of financially defending himself, the outcome would probably be different. That's not justice. It isn't supposed to work that way. This attitude that 'all's fair in war' is against everything right.

 

[Tripp11]

Although he did call E5Ranger and the others "ladies"...

Maybe he just knows how E5Ranger rolls and knows he's always got a group of "ladies" tugging on his trousers and he was really shouting out to the ladies.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

By the way guys, that interview I did with Ginny Simone will be archived on the NRANEWS.COM site for several days.

Just click on the weekly archive then click on the tab for yesterday's date.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Maybe he just knows how E5Ranger rolls and knows he's always got a group of "ladies" tugging on his trousers and he was really shouting out to the ladies.

i wish. although I dont think my wife would like it

 

[Tripp11]

i wish. although I dont think my wife would like it

She's probably monitoring this very thread, much like some government officials.

Your secret is safe with me....and the 14,000 other INGO members.

 

[roscott]

For some reason, I had not yet read ANY of this thread...


I just read the entire thread.

And I feel like I just got done reading a good thriller! The good guys win!!! I'm so excited right now!

 

[E5RANGER375]

She's probably monitoring this very thread, much like some government officials.

Your secret is safe with me....and the 14,000 other INGO members.

i show her what i write. she knew what to expect before she married me I treat her like a queen.

ok, she's gone now....... lol

 

[dross]

There are several issues going on here.

1. Did LS act correctly - I think he did.
2. Did the cop act correctly - I don't think he did. Plus, I think he lied.

Now, from the attorney's point of view.

What is his job? He looks at the cop's report and goes from there. Why wouldn't he believe the cop? They are on the same side. You have the guy who was charged saying one thing, the cop saying another. It's not the attorney's job to read minds, his job is to represent the city, which includes the cop.

According to the cop, there were two key pieces - the dogs weren't dangerous, and LS's action was reckless.

What should the attorney do at this point? Say he doesn't believe the cop? Sure, he shouldn't believe the cop if he has some reason not to. But the fact that the guy who was cited has a different story isn't enough reason to doubt the cop when you're the city's attorney.

Once the cop presents him with the reasons he gave the citation, it isn't the attorney's job to assume it's not true and tear it down. Quite the opposite - his job is to look at all the facts and emphasize the ones that support the city's case.

We wouldn't have lawyers or a legal system if they had to meet the tests you guys require. It's not their job to determine the truth - that's what the judge or the jury is for.

The cop said the dogs were not dangerous and that LS's action was reckless. THAT may have been tyranny and oppression if the cop lied, which I think he did. You ask too much of the lawyer however, to see it the same way you do, when he has nothing to base that on other than LS's word.

The one thing I find fault with the lawyer about is the way he used LS's statements about the judge on this board. That was out of bounds, IMO.

Now, if that makes me some kind of boot licker or anti-freedom advocate in some people's eyes, so be it.

 

[lovemachine]

I totally agree with dross. It was the job of the lawyer to win for the city, whatever way it took.

LS expected the same from his own lawyer. Which, luckily, he succeeded.

I'm glad the lawyer from the other side is here. And I hope he stays. He could give interesting insights on other topics.

I wouldn't want to seek free legal advice however. He did lose his case, remember?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

There are several issues going on here.

1. Did LS act correctly - I think he did.
2. Did the cop act correctly - I don't think he did. Plus, I think he lied.

Now, from the attorney's point of view.

What is his job? He looks at the cop's report and goes from there. Why wouldn't he believe the cop? They are on the same side. You have the guy who was charged saying one thing, the cop saying another. It's not the attorney's job to read minds, his job is to represent the city, which includes the cop.

According to the cop, there were two key pieces - the dogs weren't dangerous, and LS's action was reckless.

What should the attorney do at this point? Say he doesn't believe the cop? Sure, he shouldn't believe the cop if he has some reason not to. But the fact that the guy who was cited has a different story isn't enough reason to doubt the cop when you're the city's attorney.

Once the cop presents him with the reasons he gave the citation, it isn't the attorney's job to assume it's not true and tear it down. Quite the opposite - his job is to look at all the facts and emphasize the ones that support the city's case.

We wouldn't have lawyers or a legal system if they had to meet the tests you guys require. It's not their job to determine the truth - that's what the judge or the jury is for.

The cop said the dogs were not dangerous and that LS's action was reckless. THAT may have been tyranny and oppression if the cop lied, which I think he did. You ask too much of the lawyer however, to see it the same way you do, when he has nothing to base that on other than LS's word.

The one thing I find fault with the lawyer about is the way he used LS's statements about the judge on this board. That was out of bounds, IMO.

Now, if that makes me some kind of boot licker or anti-freedom advocate in some people's eyes, so be it.

Dross,

This actually represents my viewpoint more than people might expect.

I never had a real bone to pick with the prosecutor. As you said, he gets a report from a cop and he rolls with it. The officer deliberately falsified his report in an attempt to bolster his case and make me look like a loose cannon, creating a completely fictitious conversation wherein I claimed I was trying to herd the dogs by firing gunshots.

As an aside here, he also lied about my description of how I fired the shot. Fortunately, my wife was looking out the window and was able to give an exact account of the angle at which I fired.

My only beef is how any rational person could believe the implausible scenario described by the "officer."

According to him, I went outside to restrain my neighbor's dogs, who were displaying no signs of aggression. I then fired a shot in an attempt to get these totally non-aggressive dogs to line up, single file, and calmly squeeze back through the breach in the fence (if they were so gentle, why did I need to fire a shot to motivate them?). After firing this shot, which would be a violation under the Discharging Firearms ordinance of any town in the country, I went back in the house and called the police on myself. When the officer arrived, I explained my absurd motivation for firing the shot, after which he told me he was charging me. Only then did I fabricate a story about being attacked by the dogs.

How can any person in their right mind believe anything so obviously ridiculous?