Cops Arrest Girl For Possession Of Water And Ice Cream

[Kutnupe14]

If you have no idea what your spokesman said, why did you accuse me of saying something "absolutely false"? My post explicitly referenced what was said on the news.

Fair enough, I didn't see that interview. I will simply say it would be completely out of character, and that since there is no proof supporting either claim, it's hearsay.... until proof one way or the other is provided. I will further suggest that you replace the pronoun "they," which is inclusive of the entire department, with "he," indicating that in that interview, one person made that statement, which ran contrary to the decision of a collective group of officers that were on the original scene.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Fair enough, I didn't see that interview. I will simply say it would be completely out of character, and that since there is no proof supporting either claim, it's hearsay.... until proof one way or the other is provided. I will further suggest that you replace the pronoun "they," which is inclusive of the entire department, with "he," indicating that in that interview, one person made that statement, which ran contrary to the decision of a collective group of officers that were on the original scene.

Translation: I can not disagree with your original statement about that indecent, and my original counter was premature.

 

[Fargo]

Fair enough, I didn't see that interview. I will simply say it would be completely out of character, and that since there is no proof supporting either claim, it's hearsay.... until proof one way or the other is provided. I will further suggest that you replace the pronoun "they," which is inclusive of the entire department, with "he," indicating that in that interview, one person made that statement, which ran contrary to the decision of a collective group of officers that were on the original scene.

Whoa there, let's back up just a bit here.

1. If the guy whose title is "department spokesman" doesn't speak for the department, then who does? Your dept put him on the news.

2. I don't think you understand the definition of "hearsay". I suggest you look it up and pay close attention to the part about "the truth of the matter asserted". Me posting what he said to illustrate how wrong what he said is, is by definition excluded from the definition of hearsay.

3. How do you figure there is "no proof"? I personally saw/heard it and posted about it the next day 3.5 years ago. You admit you have no idea what was said. Where do you get off saying there is "no proof"? Just how are you impeaching me? You already have admitted ignorance. I'd wager you have locked people up before off the "proof" of one eyewitness.

You are kind of making my point for me here. Step out of your CPD shoes and reread what you just wrote. How do you think it comes off to the general citizenry? You, a cop, have called me out for falsehoods. You have then admitted that you have no idea whether what I said was false or not. You then come up with a bunch of stuff about hearsay and proof which simply makes no sense.

I don't understand how you think this is helping the readership here trust cops more? You know I'm not a cop-hater. You know that I've posted a ton of stuff on INGO supporting LE.

Don't look on this as personal against you or your dept, it isnt. My axe to grind is that I want there to be public trust in law enforcement and I'm sick of seeing a few LEOS just pissing all over that by refusing to consider that maybe getting arrested and held over this water incident is a citizen getting screwed over.

One of the biggest reason a lot of people take an us vs them attitude toward cops because of cops who cannot consider the possibility they were wrong or made a mistake and that is a shame.

Everyone makes mistakes, I've made way more than my share. It isn't the mistake that damages trust, it is the refusal to acknowledge it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Whoa there, let's back up just a bit here.

1. If the guy whose title is "department spokesman" doesn't speak for the department, then who does? Your dept put him on the news.

2. I don't think you understand the definition of "hearsay". I suggest you look it up and pay close attention to the part about "the truth of the matter asserted". Me posting what he said to illustrate how wrong what he said is, is by definition excluded from the definition of hearsay.

3. How do you figure there is "no proof"? I personally saw/heard it and posted about it the next day 3.5 years ago. You admit you have no idea what was said. Where do you get off saying there is "no proof"? Just how are you impeaching me? You already have admitted ignorance. I'd wager you have locked people up before off the "proof" of one eyewitness.

You are kind of making my point for me here. Step out of your CPD shoes and reread what you just wrote. How do you think it comes off to the general citizenry? You, a cop, have called me out for falsehoods. You have then admitted that you have no idea whether what I said was false or not. You then come up with a bunch of stuff about hearsay and proof which simply makes no sense.

I don't understand how you think this is helping the readership here trust cops more? You know I'm not a cop-hater. You know that I've posted a ton of stuff on INGO supporting LE.

Don't look on this as personal against you or your dept, it isnt. My axe to grind is that I want there to be public trust in law enforcement and I'm sick of seeing a few LEOS just pissing all over that by refusing to consider that maybe getting arrested and held over this water incident is a citizen getting screwed over.

One of the biggest reason a lot of people take an us vs them attitude toward cops because of cops who cannot consider the possibility they were wrong or made a mistake and that is a shame.

Everyone makes mistakes, I've made way more than my share. It isn't the mistake that damages trust, it is the refusal to acknowledge it.

I know you're not a cop hater, and I'm not accusing you of being untruthful.

 

[Rookie]

Yeah, you got a link to that claim? 'Because that is absolutely false. It was decided, on scene, that since the lightbar didn't work that RLE didn't apply, even though the wighwags and siren were functional.

I know you're not a cop hater, and I'm not accusing you of being untruthful.

 

[Mark 1911]

I hope she wins. The responsible departments and individuals should be held accountable.

 

[mrjarrell]

Fair enough, I didn't see that interview. I will simply say it would be completely out of character, and that since there is no proof supporting either claim, it's hearsay.... until proof one way or the other is provided. I will further suggest that you replace the pronoun "they," which is inclusive of the entire department, with "he," indicating that in that interview, one person made that statement, which ran contrary to the decision of a collective group of officers that were on the original scene.

Really weird, but this popped up on Facebook just now.

Young mother handcuffed at gunpoint by Carmel Police - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

 

[Kutnupe14]

Really weird, but this popped up on Facebook just now.

Young mother handcuffed at gunpoint by Carmel Police - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

On the WTHR site?

 

[mrjarrell]

On the WTHR site?

No, in a friends feed. Thought it was strange, but timely and relevant considering your discussion.

 

[IndyGal65]

Really weird, but this popped up on Facebook just now.

Young mother handcuffed at gunpoint by Carmel Police - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

I had a cop car on my a** today because I was going the SPEED LIMIT on 465. I wish I had the ability to give him/her a ticket.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I had a cop car on my a** today because I was going the SPEED LIMIT on 465. I wish I had the ability to give him/her a ticket.

You were going 55mph, on 465??? Do you always do that?

 

[88GT]

One more reason to avoid Carmel. No transparency means no accountability.

You were going 55mph, on 465??? Do you always do that?

Are you calling her a liar? What kind of question is that?

 

[Kutnupe14]

One more reason to avoid Carmel. No transparency means no accountability.


Are you calling her a liar? What kind of question is that?

Was she in Carmel? Is that what you're trying to say?
And you need to take a deep breath. I asked if she always went 55mph on 465 to find out if she simply slowed down due to knowing a patrol car was behind her (which people typically do), of if she actually DOES do 55mph all the time (which would be VERY rare).

 

[88GT]

Was she in Carmel? Is that what you're trying to say?

No. If I were connecting that comment to her post it would have been below her post. It was above her post, hence not related. Carmel does not, as policy, release any dashcam footage. There's only one reason for that. And it ain't good.

And you need to take a deep breath. I asked if she always went 55mph on 465 to find out if she simply slowed down due to knowing a patrol car was behind her (which people typically do), of if she actually DOES do 55mph all the time (which would be VERY rare).

My O2 levels are fine. Why should I take a deep breath? Oh, wait. You thought I was worked up over your post? You aren't that important. Does it matter whether she slowed down only for the cop? The point is she was doing the speed limit and the cop was tailgating her.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No. If I were connecting that comment to her post it would have been below her post. It was above her post, hence not related. Carmel does not, as policy, release any dashcam footage. There's only one reason for that. And it ain't good.

Actually, that's the city's policy, and the department strongly disagrees with it. There have been plenty of issues that officers have wanted the video released, and the city refused. In fact, the very case involving that mom, the department wanted to release the other vids from attending cars, and the city refused. So, what's your "ain't good" reasonings?


My O2 levels are fine. Why should I take a deep breath? Oh, wait. You thought I was worked up over your post? You aren't that important. Does it matter whether she slowed down only for the cop? The point is she was doing the speed limit and the cop was tailgating her.[/QUOTE]

Anybody that's seen you post know it's pretty easy to get you "worked up".... important person or not. So spare me your dramatics.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No. If I were connecting that comment to her post it would have been below her post. It was above her post, hence not related. Carmel does not, as policy, release any dashcam footage. There's only one reason for that. And it ain't good.

Actually, that's the city's policy, and the department strongly disagrees with it. There have been plenty of issues that officers have wanted the video released, and the city refused. In fact, the very case involving that mom, the department wanted to release the other vids from attending cars, and the city refused. So, what's your "ain't good" reasonings?

My O2 levels are fine. Why should I take a deep breath? Oh, wait. You thought I was worked up over your post? You aren't that important. Does it matter whether she slowed down only for the cop? The point is she was doing the speed limit and the cop was tailgating her.

Anybody that's seen you post know it's pretty easy to get you "worked up".... important person or not. So spare me your dramatics.

 

[actaeon277]

Back to the excise officers, or whatever they are called. This thread has been going on long enough I've forgotten some stuff.
Do they have arrest powers?
When I've had to deal with them, or heard of them, they just left notes of violations. And their department (ATC) sent fines out.

 

[88GT]

Actually, that's the city's policy, and the department strongly disagrees with it. There have been plenty of issues that officers have wanted the video released, and the city refused. In fact, the very case involving that mom, the department wanted to release the other vids from attending cars, and the city refused. So, what's your "ain't good" reasonings?

Yeah, that's what I said. I've already addressed why it isn't good.

So spare me your dramatics.

That's rich.

 

[IndyGal65]

You were going 55mph, on 465??? Do you always do that?

What makes the difference? I was going the speed limit. He was not traveling at a safe difference behind me. Oh wait...THAT doesn't matter.

 

[Denny347]

Back to the excise officers, or whatever they are called. This thread has been going on long enough I've forgotten some stuff.
Do they have arrest powers?
When I've had to deal with them, or heard of them, they just left notes of violations. And their department (ATC) sent fines out.

Full arrest powers.