do you think that the officer's apology is sincere?
She, like you, needs a job
do you think that the officer's apology is sincere?
She, like you, needs a job
She should apply. Seems that she has found her calling.
What a stupid *****! Just an entitled drank looking for her 15 minutes of internet fame.
And what a professional, polite, calm, understanding officer.
His apology isn't sincere. He is just being polite to an increedibly stupid person. He shouldn't have apologized, but it calmed her down and ended the situation.
I've always thought cops should get 1 pass to shoot stupid people
I think that sometimes private citizens have a hard time knowing what to do when they observe a police officer creating a dangerous situation for no good reason.
How should she have handled the situation of the speeding police officer, Cochese?
Yes, yes it did.
First, how would you handle that situation?
How would you know under what circumstances, the 'reason', the officer is operating?
I'm curious. Why did you post this video, video #2 of 3?
I'm awaiting a response to this question as well.
One wouldn't know for sure until there is an investigation.
Sometimes in a given situation there may be clues that the police officer has a legal justification, or does not have a legal justification (a sthe case may be), but one only knows for sure after the investigation has been completed and the results reported back.
Do you ever have an actual, honest answer?
Before I became a cop, I would see officers hit their lights and go through an intersection, speeding (safely) through town, etc. all the time. Do you know how exactly how much thought I gave to it?
That's right, none. Because I didn't care and don't care now.
This woman can't understand normal thinking. He certainly entertained her longer than I would've.
Burgers, have you ever driven an emergency vehicle of any kind?
yes oh and
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?
apparently this is what you get when talking to an attorney....And apparently not a very good one. Might be time he brushed up on criminal law.
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....
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.
Why not? Isn't the examination of all evidence the way to properly form an opinion?
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
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.
Every things all fine and dandy until someone gets hurt.
Just ask ex-Illinois trooper Matt Mitchell
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.
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...
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Quoted for posterity and later review
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
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.
So someone like that lady, who probably does not have the training do drive at high speed,endangered everyone around her to scold a police officer. She should have been arrested.
she still can be arrested, can't she?
I hope so. Maybe get some mental health help also. She didn't seem stable.
Anyone responding to this guy's threads are as guilty as he is at this point. Seriously, guys. This is why I don't post much here anymore. If I wanted this crap, I just have to wait till 830am when I walk in the back door of Hq tomorrow morning to deal with this type of nonsense.
4. Trained in driving a motor vehicle at a high rate of speed through traffic while tapping on the computer and talking on a cell phone or radio
Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk
Where does our self-righteous Suzy Creamcheese get off booking down the strasse at 80, yapping on her phone/camera? How does she know he was doing 90 and the circumstances the officer was under? How would you respond if the circumstances were reversed and the citing officer said that he gave you 15 over the limit because it "felt" like that or he thought that was about how fast you were going? Do we think Suzy would've posted this if she'd brushed up against someone while she was distracted in her pursuit?
I got "pulled over" by an old hag once. She is such a pain in the County, she managed to get the speed limit lowered on that particular road (If I believe the stories) Since I don't feel like typing a long story I will just say we had a discussion and I considered writing her a ticket for speeding but I decided I did not want to be the center of the poopstorm that would certainly have come. I guarantee I would not have come out on the winning end in the courts, admin etc.
Actually she didn't pull anyone over, she followed.
The officer noticed her following and thiught there was a problem so pulled over to investigate. She pulled over behind him.
Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk
Could have been worse: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/road-rage-shooting-death-one-florida-man-kills-another/
That's ok, Google tells us you've been admitted to the bar in 2 states: