GlockTalk Forum banner

21 - 40 of 76 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
196 Posts
Discussion Starter #21
That's not what I asked you, although a cute redirect, that wasn't the question. Your first post lacked any qualifiers about citizens perception so its safe to assume you have already based an opinion.

So again Burgers, how do YOU know what circumstances the officers was operating under?
I didn't watch the videos, but didn't the officer confess on videotape here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,004 Posts
I didn't watch the videos, but didn't the officer confess on videotape here?
Does it matter? Does the officer have a requirement to explain the circumstances to the citizen? Would it be reasonable to assume the officer in an attempt to create as little tension as possible provided what was necessary to deescalate the situation.

And counselor, I'm still waiting on a response. I know this isn't IP law, but since this is your thread we are all waiting....
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
196 Posts
Discussion Starter #23
L
Does it matter? Does the officer have a requirement to explain the circumstances to the citizen? Would it be reasonable to assume the officer in an attempt to create as little tension as possible provided what was necessary to deescalate the situation.

And counselor, I'm still waiting on a response. I know this isn't IP law, but since this is your thread we are all waiting....
Lot of people who confess to crimes later say that they gave a false confession for this reason or that reason. Usually I am inclined to believe the confession and disbelieve the attempted retraction. In this case, the police officer hasn't even tried to publicly retract his confession yet, so there isn't (yet) a reason to doubt it.

Note: To be clear, I still haven't watched his videotaped confession, just going by what the media accounts said about it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
54,594 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: RCJH

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,004 Posts
L


Lot of people who confess to crimes later say that they gave a false confession for this reason or that reason. Usually I am inclined to believe the confession and disbelieve the attempted retraction. In this case, the police officer hasn't even tried to publicly retract his confession yet, so there isn't (yet) a reason to doubt it.

Note: To be clear, I still haven't watched his videotaped confession, just going by what the media accounts said about it.
Wow....All that just to say.....Yea, you know what, I've formed an opinion, but I haven't watched the videos, nor do I know what conditions the officer was operating under.

Least I can give you this.....You're consistant
 
  • Like
Reactions: RCJH

·
Banned
Joined
·
196 Posts
Discussion Starter #26
I posted this story here mostly to ask police officers questions about how they felt about it, and not for the purpose of telling police officer how I feel about it.

It seemed like the type of story that police officers would have strong and definite feelings about, as opposed to me, who is kind of tentative and uncertain about how to respond to this story.
 

·
In the STL
Joined
·
3,766 Posts
Every things all fine and dandy until someone gets hurt.

Just ask ex-Illinois trooper Matt Mitchell
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
54,594 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
196 Posts
Discussion Starter #29 (Edited)
So you form an opinion based on someone else's non-sworn testimony about an event?
This question seems a little silly, but will answer in good faith:

1. I pointed out that my opinion is tentative because I haven't watched the officer's alleged confession yet.

2. I form opinions based on unsworn testimony all the time. As just one random example, I formed an opinion, in my capacity as a private citizen, that OJ was guilty of murdering Nicole even before any of the litigations started.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
54,594 Posts
I posted this story here mostly to ask police officers questions about how they felt about it, and not for the purpose of telling police officer how I feel about it.
Well, here's the thing about this forum. It's populated by members of law enforcement. An important part of the job is asking questions. You do agree that asking questions is important, don't you? It avoids all kinds of trouble, right? Yet you ask, expect a direct answer, but you rarely directly answer the questions put to you.

You've given very little information about yourself, especially about your intent here.

You can be assured that the questions will continue until people get to know you, but only if you answer our questions.

There are many unanswered questions here and in other threads. How about starting with them...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RCJH

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,104 Posts
If a citizen has a concern about how I am driving they are free to take my vehicle number and call into my department to voice those concerns. The officer was under no obligation to stop and talk to her. But he handled it well and probably shouldn't have been driving that fast.

What people don't understand is there are many legitimate reasons we drive fast, pass people, sometimes go through stop signs etc. that would appear improper.

I am only permitted to use my overhead lights and sirens when responding to a top priority call (violent crime, in progress felony) or obviously when conducting a traffic stop. However there are calls of lower priority that have the potential to become much worse if I don't expedite my response. Consider the child calling 911 because parents are fighting and drunk, history of violent dv and access to weapons. In my department this would probably not be the highest priority call, but I assume the populace would expect a quick response. But, since I can't by policy turn on my lights and sirens, I drive fast, pass people and get there quickly.

A call to the department when a perceived unsafe situation is observed is probably the best option, not "stopping" an officer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59,812 Posts
She should apply. Seems that she has found her calling.
I am actually thinking not. She indicated the officer was going 90 or above but that she never sped up past 80 but she did manage to keep site of the officer from if I remember correctly the Miller Drive ramp to the Palmetto and then onto the Dolphin; I am guessing maybe six or eight miles. My guess is if we went out there and drove it together in two different cars at her supposed speed and his that we could quickly show a lack of credibility/honesty on her part. Even in traffic court officers are expected to be honest.

Since speeding here is a civil infraction and this was hardly an actual interrogation, I am unsure that confession is the best word; perhaps admission would be the better choice of a word. Probably splitting hairs, but words have meanings and sometimes very specific meanings in legal proceedings.

Since both roadways are 55 even without her speedometer being calibrated and certified, it is probably reasonable to guess that he was over the limit and with relatively lax traffic enforcement probably a bit above traffic which seems to often be ~70 along the Palmetto. My guess - and this is just a (slightly better than average) guess - is the officer will be disciplined and given the publicity of the incident that the discipline will be within a range of discipline for similar policy violations which will also include previous history, if any, and will range somewhere from a written reprimand to loss of the cruiser for a time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
L


Lot of people who confess to crimes later say that they gave a false confession for this reason or that reason. Usually I am inclined to believe the confession and disbelieve the attempted retraction. In this case, the police officer hasn't even tried to publicly retract his confession yet, so there isn't (yet) a reason to doubt it.

Note: To be clear, I still haven't watched his videotaped confession, just going by what the media accounts said about it.

So let me get this straight.

1) You posted a Time magazine online article about this woman pulling over an officer. That article contains video 3 of 3, which contains the officers "confession".

2) You post that Time article link with another link to video 2 of 3

You claim you haven't watched his "confession", but the article you posted contained that video of his "confession" and you went to all the trouble of finding the 2nd video and posting that, but didn't bother to watch the 3rd video of his alleged "confession" which is right there in the original article you linked?

Video 3 of 3 is 1:38
Video 2 of 3 is 1:21

So in the last 15 hours since you posted this, you haven't been able to find 2 minutes and 59 seconds to watch two videos, but you've spent all the time here arguing about it and making a total of 6 posts about an incident, for which you haven't even bothered to watch the videos (which again, you posted the videos yourself).

Wow.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
196 Posts
Discussion Starter #34
well, RussP, the way I see it is that I am not asking personal questions, and most of the questions directed at me (at least the ones I am not acknowledging) are personal questions.

I am purposely not claiming to be an attorney, or to be an expert because I don't want to put my personal life "in play." Not because I am a criminal, but, rather for general privacy reasons.

It seems like this should be understandable and not some kind of cause for concern. Very few posters here use their full "real names" as their handle, and there are good reasons for that.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
196 Posts
Discussion Starter #35
So let me get this straight.

1) You posted a Time magazine online article about this woman pulling over an officer. That article contains video 3 of 3, which contains the officers "confession".

2) You post that Time article link with another link to video 2 of 3

You claim you haven't watched his "confession", but the article you posted contained that video of his "confession" and you went to all the trouble of finding the 2nd video and posting that, but didn't bother to watch the 3rd video of his alleged "confession "which is right there in the original article you linked?

Video 3 of 3 is 1:38
Video 2 of 3 is 1:21

So in the last 15 hours since you posted this, you haven't been able to find 2 minutes and 59 seconds to watch two videos, but you've spent all the time here arguing about it and making a total of 6 posts about an incident, which you haven't even bothered to watch the videos for (which again, you posted the videos yourself).

Wow.

If it makes you feel any better, I actually posted the video by accident. I thought I had the URL for the woman's still pic in my "clipboard," but somehow the video link was in there. So I went back after I pasted the vid link and snarfed the link of the pic showing Claudia herself.

As far as why I haven't watched the video, I haven't reached a point where I think the video would reveal anything interesting to me. I don't know if I will ever watch the videos. If Claudia ends up in jail on a resist / obstruct charge, then I will probably watch the video. If the officer gets fired then I would probably watch the video. As for now, I feel like I know enough about the alleged facts, and am mostly curious about the reactions that police officers may be having.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,206 Posts
Not watching...

If I determine a loon is "following me" with a camera, I'm going to turn my lights on and leave.
If an unidentified loon is tailing me, I'm reporting a tail & calling backup.

Everyone wants to be a hero pointing out the speed, but when I drive 65 and everyone backs up behind me like a clogged toilet, who do they blame? They all like the "flow" of traffic when we aren't slowing the highway.

People are batshot crazy, what else is new...sad you have to think in terms of IA and confession. Lady, here's your ticket for distracted driving/cell use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
If it makes you feel any better, I actually posted the video by accident. I thought I had the URL for the woman's still pic in my "clipboard," but somehow the video link was in there. So I went back after I pasted the vid link and snarfed the link of the pic showing Claudia herself.
My feelings have nothing to do with it, but my knowledge of hyperlinks tells me that's bogus.

To get the link for video 2 of 3, you would have had to go to YouTube using the 3 of 3 video link in the Time article, open Claudia Castillo's YouTube channel, open the link to video 2 of 3, and copy and paste it. That's not something you do "accidentally", and if it was done accidentally, why didn't you fix it?

Where did the pic of Claudia herself come from? It didn't come from YouTube, and it didn't come from the Time Article. So how did you get two YouTube links mixed up trying to post a link not from YouTube? :whistling:


As far as why I haven't watched the video, I haven't reached a point where I think the video would reveal anything interesting to me. I don't know if I will ever watch the videos. If Claudia ends up in jail on a resist / obstruct charge, then I will probably watch the video. If the officer gets fired then I would probably watch the video. As for now, I feel like I know enough about the alleged facts, and am mostly curious about the reactions that police officers may be having.
How self-absorbed are you? Your post is all about me me me, but you're discussing a situation that happened between two other people for which YOU were not present. Video is one of many tools that can be used in conjunction with one another to help you get a feel for what happened if you weren't there (body cam + dash cam + surveillance footage + witness statements + victim statements + officer statements = a fairly complete picture of an incident as a whole).

So in analyzing a situation and getting reactions, you are purposefully avoiding the evidence available to you? No wonder the cops on this board can't communicate with you.

You have your head shoved in the sand, wrapped up in what you think you know about the allegations instead of viewing ALL of the evidence available to you and coming to a conclusion. THAT is what officers are required to do every day, and until you can get your head wrapped around that, you're going to be met with hostility, because your comments and assertions have no place in the discussion.

From a logical stand point, your method defies common sense. Watch the videos. Evaluate the evidence. Ask your questions. Instead, you self-admittedly avoid the evidence unless it profits you, which renders any discussion pointless, because instead of debating facts and merits you're arguing from a position of ignorance, not only of LE procedure, but also because you're not interested in the evidence available.

Whether intentional or not, Burgers Allday, you appear to be poking the bear with all of these LE related threads. If you want to learn stuff, then I would recommend you listen more and post less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
882 Posts
well, RussP, the way I see it is that I am not asking personal questions, and most of the questions directed at me (at least the ones I am not acknowledging) are personal questions.

I am purposely not claiming to be an attorney, or to be an expert because I don't want to put my personal life "in play." Not because I am a criminal, but, rather for general privacy reasons.

It seems like this should be understandable and not some kind of cause for concern. Very few posters here use their full "real names" as their handle, and there are good reasons for that.
I've only seen a little bit of your nonsense but your game is pretty obvious..."hmm I'll post something inflammatory and anti-police and then act like I am asking an innocent question..I'll also make sure I evade answering any direct questions and try to act like i really didn't know what I was doing the whole time"

Go troll somewhere else
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
Questions I would ask (in the following order) on the roadside:
1. Are you experiencing a medical emergency?
2. Did a mechanical emergency cause you pull onto and stop on the shoulder?
3. Are you trained and certified by the state to be able pace and attest to the true speed of a moving vehicle?
4. Has the vehicle you're driving had the speedometer calibration checked in the past 6 months to validate your aforementioned testimony?
...no? Then piss off. You admit to driving 80 (in probably a 55 or 65 zone) to catch up (whilst driving a non-emergency vehicle). You certainly appear to be following to closely. The only thing you are correct about is that you certainly have no idea why he appears to be driving fast. All of these things make anything you have to say equivalent to an insignificant whimper. Stand by, you will be receiving a stack of tickets.
 
21 - 40 of 76 Posts
Top