Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   General Discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/)
-   -   Cop shown favoritism again.. *sigh* (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/152004-cop-shown-favoritism-again-sigh.html)

Glory's Sun 11-19-2009 07:51 AM

Cop shown favoritism again.. *sigh*
 
Quote:

MILFORD -- A video of the June 13 crash that killed two Orange teens shows a Milford police cruiser traveling at a high rate of speed as it struck the young couple's car under a flashing traffic signal.

The video released Tuesday is from the dashboard camera of another Milford cruiser and shows Officer Jason Anderson's car pass on the right and plow into a 2008 Mazda carrying Ashlie Krakowski and David Servin. The Mazda was struck as it made a left turn from the Boston Post Road onto Dogwood Road at 2:13 a.m., sparks and small flames shooting from underneath the vehicle.

Officer Rick Pisani at one point was traveling at more than 70 mph, according to the dashboard camera, as he and Anderson returned to Milford after a mutual aid call in West Haven. Pisani was going about 65 mph when Anderson shot past him on the right; the speed limit on that stretch of the Boston Post Road is 40 mph.

The two-minute video segment was released in response to a state Freedom of Information request by the Connecticut Post. It covers the nearly half-mile stretch between the Utopia 77 Lounge in West Haven, from where the officers left, and the crash site. An earlier video segment, also screened Tuesday by Chief Keith Mello, shows Pisani leaving the scene of the West Haven mutual aid call while Anderson's cruiser is still there.

Anderson has been charged by State Police with two counts of second-degree manslaughter in the teens' deaths. He will be arraigned Nov. 24 in
Advertisement
Derby Superior Court and has been suspended with pay.

Pisani is now the subject of an internal investigation into his speed that morning, Mello said. The 39-year-old probationary officer remains on duty, working the night shift.

Servin's mother, Susan, watched the video Tuesday morning in the victim advocate's office at Milford Superior Court, accompanied by her attorney, Bart Halloran.

Attorney John Wynne viewed the video at the same time, at the request of Ken Krakowski, Ashlie's father.

"It was horrific, frankly," Halloran said. "It was shocking to see that type of behavior. The cruiser taking the video is going 66 to 72 mph with no explicable reason.

"We'd have concerns about him driving a car," the Servins' attorney said of Pisani. Both officers were "playing fast and loose with people's lives, to do that kind of speed at any time of day.''

Mello confirmed that neither Milford cruiser had its light bar or siren on, and that neither officer was being dispatched to another call at the time of the crash.

State law requires police officers traveling without lights and sirens, and not dispatched on a call, to obey prevailing speed limits, the chief said.

Wynne said that he was told by state police that Anderson was traveling at 94 mph just before the impact. "That is 138 feet per second, which doesn't leave much reaction time for another driver,'' he said.

The video does not give a true impression of Anderson's speed because it is being taken from a vehicle that is also traveling very fast, Krakowski's lawyer said.

The lawyers said in separate interviews that they have not had access to the vehicles involved and still do not know which of the two teens were driving at the time of the crash.

"Even if my client was the passenger, we don't intend to file suit against the driver," Halloran said. "We will be going after the party who is responsible for the collision.''

Although police found a small amount of marijuana in the couple's car, a toxicology report found no traces of the drug in their blood, Halloran said.

Wynne said that he has not been provided a copy of the arrest warrant affidavit for Jaycen Munro, a Milford resident state police have charged with serving alcohol to minors on the night of the crash.

Krakowski's lawyer said he doesn't know if the crash victims attended the party Munro gave, or whether either of them consumed any alcohol.

The affidavit was not available late Tuesday afternoon from Milford Superior Court, where Munro is to be arraigned on Nov. 25.

The cruiser that Pisani was driving on June 13 is one of only two in the Milford department's 25-car patrol fleet equipped with a dashboard camera, Mello said. The department plans to use a $79,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to equip seven more patrol cars with cameras, he said.

The camera, manufactured by I-COP, constantly captures data, Capt. Tracy Mooney said, but only records it when a cruiser's lights and siren are activated.

Mello said that the camera has the ability to go back 60 seconds from the moment the lights and siren are switched on and store video from that point.

Pisani switched on his vehicle's emergency devices when he saw the crash happen in front of him, which preserved the moment of impact on video.

Video of fatal crash that killed two teens released - The Connecticut Post Online

Video is in the link.

Ok so here's some key points from the article:

Mello confirmed that neither Milford cruiser had its light bar or siren on, and that neither officer was being dispatched to another call at the time of the crash.

State law requires police officers traveling without lights and sirens, and not dispatched on a call, to obey prevailing speed limits, the chief said.


So, they weren't responding to a call.. but they decided it would be fun to race or whatever they were doing..

...has been suspended with pay.

so.. he's suspended but he's still cashing that paycheck. NICE.

So I wonder, what are the defenders of the boys in blue going to say about this one?? It never fails that when SOME cops are shown to be doing the wrong thing, someone always stands up for them saying it's part of their job or whatever. Clearly, this wasn't part of their job as they weren't even responding to a call.

I cannot fathom why he's still cashing a check when he clearly wasn't following procedure and ended up killing 2 people because of his actions.

Plan9 11-19-2009 07:59 AM

It's way douchey. Nobody will contest that.

The_Jazz 11-19-2009 08:51 AM

My thought is that it's probably some sort of agreement with the union. That's based on this:

Quote:

Anderson has been charged by State Police with two counts of second-degree manslaughter in the teens' deaths. He will be arraigned Nov. 24 in Derby Superior Court and has been suspended with pay.
Given that, I have a hard time thinking that the force would WANT to have him on the payroll, and they probably have to follow their guidelines to fire him. Then again, maybe you're right.

To me, the interesting thing is how little the families know 4 months after the fact. They don't even know who was driving. Crazy.

Glory's Sun 11-19-2009 08:55 AM

yeah, it's crazy that nobody knows much I was kinda blown away by that as well..

dksuddeth 11-19-2009 10:01 AM

classic CYA policies. hide as much as possible so that as much damaging information to the department/officers can be swept under the rug. It happens everywhere.

Fotzlid 11-19-2009 05:02 PM

The cop was an idiot for going that fast but the kid in the Mazda was a bigger one for trying to jump in front of oncoming traffic like that. Even if the cop was doing the speed limit, the Mazda was going to get t-boned.

Why should the cop be fired outright? Doesn't innocent until proven guilty apply to the police as well? The video is damning, but the cop hasn't had his day in court yet.

SecretMethod70 11-19-2009 05:31 PM

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is a standard we use for criminal cases, not for deciding when it is appropriate to fire someone.

FuglyStick 11-19-2009 06:48 PM

Hang their asses out to dry.

Fotzlid 11-19-2009 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70 (Post 2730504)
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is a standard we use for criminal cases, not for deciding when it is appropriate to fire someone.


It is a criminal case.
Just because its a cop involved doesn't mean he isn't entitled to due process. If he isn't guilty of something yet, why should he lose his paycheck?

SecretMethod70 11-19-2009 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid (Post 2730539)
It is a criminal case.

And you've missed the point entirely. It's a criminal case to determine if he needs to go to jail, pay a fine, etc etc... not whether he gets to keep his job. One can be innocent of a crime but still negligent in their job.

Fotzlid 11-19-2009 07:04 PM

So anyone accused of a crime should automatically lose their job?

SecretMethod70 11-19-2009 07:10 PM

If it's in the course of doing your job, that's not uncommon at all, and when there's substantial video evidence and you're a police officer on top of it, yes.

dippin 11-19-2009 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid (Post 2730542)
So anyone accused of a crime should automatically lose their job?

While whether or not the officer in question is guilty of a crime might still be in question, but there is zero doubt that he was reckless in his duties. People are fired all the time for being reckless on the job, even when that recklessness does not constitute a crime, so to make a firing decision conditional on a guilty verdict is completely unreasonable.

Doctors lose their licenses all the time for errors that do not amount to criminal charges, same for airline pilots and so on. Why should cops only be considered unfit for the job when they cross the line into criminal behavior?

Fotzlid 11-19-2009 09:14 PM

The criminal charges are the more serious of the two. The criminal charges need to be resolved before the issue of negligence.
If the cop is found guilty, then the issue of negligence is moot.


Then there is the question of the level of negligence. The tape clearly shows the Mazda suddenly cut in front of the cruiser. The cruisers brake lights were only one for a second at the most before the collision. Who is more negligent in that case? The speeding officer or the driver that actually caused the crash?
Yes the officer was speeding and the occupants of the other vehicle could have survived a slower collision, but would the collision have occurred if the other driver stayed in his lane?

SecretMethod70 11-19-2009 09:53 PM

Fotzlid: I honestly don't understand what's so hard about this... you keep making comments which regard the legal case. Whether or not the officer should be fired has nothing at all to do with the legal case. One need not be convicted of a crime, serious or not, in order to be fired from a job for performing poorly. Speeding unnecessarily without lights or sirens on is explicitly against policy, and even if he's not legally negligent, by ignoring those policies his actions contributed the the deaths of two individuals.

Fotzlid 11-19-2009 10:35 PM

Yes it does. He is currently being charged with a crime and that has to be resolved first. If convicted, he loses his job. If not, then they can try and get him off the force for negligence. If he is fired for negligence first, then how can he adequately defend himself against the legal charges? The department firing him first basically sends the message that he is guilty of the criminal charges without the benefit of a trial.
That is why they suspended him with pay. He is innocent until proven guilty of the legal charges in a court of law. If he is acquitted, then the department can go through their procedures to determine if he gets to keep his job.
The law over-rides departmental policies.


The other driver failed to yield the right of way by crossing 2 lanes and directly into the path of the cruiser. If anything, I'd say the cop was only 50% at fault in this collision.

dippin 11-19-2009 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid (Post 2730570)
Yes it does. He is currently being charged with a crime and that has to be resolved first. If convicted, he loses his job. If not, then they can try and get him off the force for negligence. If he is fired for negligence first, then how can he adequately defend himself against the legal charges? The department firing him first basically sends the message that he is guilty of the criminal charges without the benefit of a trial.
That is why they suspended him with pay. He is innocent until proven guilty of the legal charges in a court of law. If he is acquitted, then the department can go through their procedures to determine if he gets to keep his job.
The law over-rides departmental policies.


The other driver failed to yield the right of way by crossing 2 lanes and directly into the path of the cruiser. If anything, I'd say the cop was only 50% at fault in this collision.

The law and the departmental policies are unrelated things, and I can't see how that is hard to grasp. There are numerous situations where a police officer can (and should) be fired that do not require being found guilty of a felony.

Acquittal in the criminal case doesn't change the fact that the police officer was reckless. "Only 50% at fault" may not be enough to get him in jail, but should be enough to get him fired.

Glory's Sun 11-20-2009 05:06 AM

Here's why he was reckless and should be at least suspended without pay until the outcome of the trial..

Quote:

Mello confirmed that neither Milford cruiser had its light bar or siren on, and that neither officer was being dispatched to another call at the time of the crash.

State law requires police officers traveling without lights and sirens, and not dispatched on a call, to obey prevailing speed limits, the chief said.

Wynne said that he was told by state police that Anderson was traveling at 94 mph just before the impact. "That is 138 feet per second, which doesn't leave much reaction time for another driver,'' he said.
Ok, so we know that they weren't responding to a call. They weren't obeying speed limits, they were reckless in driving (both cops were going far to fast), and the result ended in a crash. That is reckless and deserving of a heavy suspension or firing. If someone driving a tractor trailer gets into an accident, more times than not, the person driving will be fired.

You can say that the other car suddenly pulled out in front of the cop, but if the posted speed limit is 40 miles an hour, and a car looks far enough to turn in front of, then most people will go, however since this was at night and the cop at that point was traveling 138 ft. per second that is a difficult speed to judge which is why it would appear that the other car "suddenly" pulled out in front of the cop. If the cop(s) were going the correct speed limit or slightly over, the car would have been out of the way with plenty of time to spare.

Fotzlid 11-20-2009 06:09 AM

I never said the law and departmental policies were the same and I never said the cop should go unpunished.

The argument about it being at night and difficult to judge is BS. That was a well lit main road. There were 2 cruisers heading towards that oncoming car, one of which was pulling away from the other at a good clip. If you can't judge the speed of the lead cruiser in that situation, you shouldn't be allowed on the road to begin with. That was either sheer impatience or just not paying close enough attention to the road on the part of the Mazda driver and he paid for it with his life.

Now I know there are a lot of cop haters here on TFP but the simple fact, whether you like it or not, is that the department is playing by the book on this one.

He will probably be acquitted of the manslaughter charges, then suspended without pay for a period of time, then the families will sue the town for millions of dollars.
At least that is typically how it plays out.

Redlemon 11-20-2009 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid (Post 2730565)
The tape clearly shows the Mazda suddenly cut in front of the cruiser. The cruisers brake lights were only one for a second at the most before the collision. Who is more negligent in that case? The speeding officer or the driver that actually caused the crash?
Yes the officer was speeding and the occupants of the other vehicle could have survived a slower collision, but would the collision have occurred if the other driver stayed in his lane?

This story is local news for me.

Here's a quote from the defense lawyer from this morning's paper. He has spent much more time reviewing the videotape than we have.
Quote:

"They are in that intersection for four seconds and had gone almost through it when their car was struck," Halloran said. "If Anderson was even going 84 miles an hour instead of 94, they would have made it."

There's no way to anticipate someone doing 94 mph on a local road, especially at night.

FuglyStick 11-20-2009 06:34 AM

I'm not one of the "cop haters" here on TFP; I've gone a few rounds with the "all cops are bootjack thugs" crowd myself. But here's the thing--these jokers were joyriding. In the company car. And caused a fatal accident. I think Jazz is right, the only reason they are still being paid is because of some contractual clause involving incidents that are under investigation. I can't imagine the Milford PD is too happy about the press, or the black mark on their reputation.

Truth is, you go out joyriding in the company car and get in an accident, you're going to lose your job.

The_Jazz 11-20-2009 06:56 AM

He was fucking around with his buddy in a police car at night. That FACT (pretty much impossible to dispute) is enough for him to be suspended in my book. That his decision to screw around on the job with a dangerous piece of machinery at the very least contributed to the deaths of two people is enough for me to justify firing him. Why would you ever want to give him the opportunity to make another bad decision like that?

I am no cop hater. I'd classify myself as cop-friendly, especially considering that I have CPD neighbors and one of my assistants is married to a CPD detective. I know cops have tough jobs and have to deal hourly with the worst parts of humanity, but that doesn't give them the excuse for joyriding down a major street in the middle of the night.

Glory's Sun 11-20-2009 07:04 AM

I think redlemon's post and Jazz's post pretty much explain why he should be fired. Fugly is dead on too.

Look, you can say that judging a car at night on a well lit road is an excuse and if they couldn't judge etc etc.. but the fact is that most people are going to assume that a car is going no more than 55 on a road like that. The fact that the car was almost through the intersection proves this. The cop obviously shouldn't have been on the road if he was too dumb to slow down when approaching an intersection when he's traveling at 138 ft. per second. Nobody on the road is going to be able to accurately judge that another car approaching at night is traveling at that rate of speed. I don't care who you are.

Both cops should be fired for joyriding and putting everyone at risk. The sad part is that two kids died because of their stupidity. It's almost like they were trying to re-enact a scene out of Superbad.

I hope he goes to jail, not because I'm a cop hater, but because his needless and reckless actions killed two people.

Reese 11-20-2009 11:46 AM

The driver of that car started his turn while the cop was at least a caution light down. Every way I look at it, The cruiser caused the crash.

percy 11-20-2009 05:09 PM

The cop(s) were in the wrong. No doubt. And it is dificult to place responsibility on the deceased.

But part of one's duty in being a licensed operator of a vehicle is the ability to judge situations and react.

65-70 mph is not that fast. Given that 4 headlights were approaching the intersection, at any rate of speed, tells me the deceased either misjudged the speed of the oncoming cars or simply wasn't paying attention.

This may be part of the puzzle.

My reasoning is because I am a motorcyclist as well as car driver and if there is one situation where my spidey senses tingle riding or driving, it is left hand turns. Anyone who rides will back that one.

MSD 11-20-2009 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid (Post 2730644)
The argument about it being at night and difficult to judge is BS. That was a well lit main road. There were 2 cruisers heading towards that oncoming car, one of which was pulling away from the other at a good clip. If you can't judge the speed of the lead cruiser in that situation, you shouldn't be allowed on the road to begin with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by percy (Post 2730905)
65-70 mph is not that fast. Given that 4 headlights were approaching the intersection, at any rate of speed, tells me the deceased either misjudged the speed of the oncoming cars or simply wasn't paying attention.

Here's the intersection the turning car was at while they were waiting to turn (two lanes to the left of where this picture was taken.)
utopia milford ct - Google Maps
The turning driver was waiting at a flashing red light and determined that it was clear. The cop car that hit them was coming around the curve way up in the distance at three times the posted speed limit, and coming around the curve, however slight, makes it harder to judge the speed of oncoming traffic. From their vantage point, the cop probably appeared to be speeding (everyone does around there,) but having driven that road many times, I can say there's no way that they could reasonably be expected to assume a car is coming toward them at 94mph. If he had been going a few mph slower, they would have made the turn safely.

Redlemon 11-20-2009 06:05 PM

I am looking forward to the moment in the trial when the defense^H^H^H^H^H^H prosecuting attorney looks at either or both of the officers and asks, "What the fuck? Can you give any possible explanation?"

Glory's Sun 11-20-2009 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon (Post 2730919)
I am looking forward to the moment in the trial when the defense attorney looks at either or both of the officers and asks, "What the fuck? Can you give any possible explanation?"


We can only wish.

that would be fucking awesome.

timalkin 11-20-2009 07:02 PM

..

FuglyStick 11-20-2009 07:27 PM

Wait, why are there still people trying to place blame on the two civilians who were killed? Culpability rests with the LAW ENFORCEMENT officers who were BREAKING THE LAW travelling far in excess of the speed limit for NO OTHER REASON than the shits and giggles. The "reasoning" going on to place the blame on the victims is misguided, and actually quite pathetic. The truth is, those two civilians wouldn't be dead if the police officers hadn't been dicking around. PERIOD. End of story.

f6twister 11-20-2009 10:54 PM

I'm usually a defender of police but sometimes there is no defense. This is one of those times.

There has been a lot of discussion regarding why Pisani hasn't been fired yet. The criminal case and violation of department regulations are separate and handled differently. This is part of the reason he hasn't been fired yet. A department internal investigation has different laws and regulations than a criminal investigation. Basically, you are less restricted in the internal investigation as far as what you can ask and how you go about the investigation. Many adminstrators wait to conduct the internal investigation until the criminal portion is over so their internal investigation doesn't impede or interfere with the criminal portion.

I believe they are progressing in the right manner. While it may be obvious that this guy should be out of a job yesterday, it will be more effective on both sides if they follow this process.

Also, the ICOP cameras can be set to start recording when the squad reaches a set speed limit. I wonder what speed their squads start recording at if they didn't kick in when traveling over 90.

Redlemon 11-22-2009 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin (Post 2730939)
Why would the defense attorney ask this question?

<---- is an idiot. Fixed, thanks.

Redlemon 12-11-2009 06:38 AM

Update from today's newspaper; both new content and a good summary of where things stand in the case, with some legal commentary.
Quote:

MILFORD -- Police Chief Keith Mello wants to fire the officer who accidentally killed two Orange teens in June when his cruiser broadsided their car on the Boston Post Road.

The Police Commission will review Mello's recommendation to terminate Officer Jason Anderson, a five-year member of the force, at its Monday night meeting, according to the agenda.

The latest development in the tragic saga of the June 13 Orange crash comes on the heels of the revelation that the teens had been drinking that fatal night, and both apparently had blood-alcohol levels above the legal limit at the time of the accident.

A State Police investigation found Anderson was driving 94 miles per hour when he crashed into the teens, who were traveling in the opposite direction and attempted a left-hand turn onto Dogwood Road in front of his cruiser at roughly 2 a.m.

The officer is charged with two counts of second-degree manslaughter and is free on $250,000 bond while his case is pending in Milford Superior Court. He has been on paid suspension since the crash.

Quoting unnamed sources, the New Haven Register reported Thursday toxicology results show both Ashlie Krakowski and David Servin, who was driving, had blood-alcohol levels of 0.13. Both were 19 years old, but the legal blood-alcohol limit for adults is 0.08. Those figures could not be confirmed.

Krakowski and Servin, who were dating, attended a party in Milford a few hours before the crash, where witnesses reported they were "tipsy" and said they had been playing beer pong.

The party's host, 21-year-old Jaycen Munro, of Heenan Drive in Milford, was charged by State Police last month with providing alcohol to minors.

Sources have also said police found marijuana in the teens' car.

Anderson's New Haven lawyer, Hugh F. Keefe, declined Thursday to comment on the toxicology reports. He said there is a court order preventing their public release.

Jeffrey Meyer, a criminal law professor at Quinnipiac University's School of Law, said even if the teens were considered drunk under the legal standard, it will likely not decrease Anderson's culpability in the case.

"It does not appear to be a game-changer," said Meyer, who had been a federal prosecutor for a decade.

Although the teens' drinking may intensify the tragedy, it doesn't excuse reckless behavior on Anderson's part, he said.

"At the end of the day, the job of police officers is to be keeping an eye out for drunk drivers, not ramming into them at 95 miles per hour for no reason," Meyer said. "It's the police officer, above all, that we expect to be complying with the law, not engaging in joy-riding down public highways."

Although civil law often takes into account "contributory negligence," criminal law doesn't typically allow that defense in cases such as this -- just like an unlocked bank doesn't justify theft, he said.

Lawyers representing the families of Krakowski and Servin, John Wynne and Bart Halloran, respectively, did not return calls requesting comment.

The families have filed notice of their intent to sue Milford and its Police Department.

Anderson and Officer Richard Pisani were heading back to Milford from a mutual-aid call in West Haven on the night of the accident. A video camera installed in Pisani's cruiser recorded both officers speeding far above the posted limit of 40 mph. Pisani accelerated up to 72 mph and was driving at about 65 when Anderson barreled by him on the right, shortly before crashing into the teens.

The Police Commission agenda Monday states the board will also consider "the performance of" Pisani, indicating that he faces departmental charges and discipline, but not termination.

Internal investigations into the conduct of both officers before the crash indicated Pisani, a probationary officer, had not played a role in the crash.

Mello declined to comment until after Monday's meeting.

Anderson's blood-alcohol content was also tested after the crash, showing he had no alcohol in his system.

State police reported that the power control module from the police vehicle indicated that for the nearly nine seconds leading up to the crash, Anderson was pushing the accelerator pedal at 100 percent. Then, six-tenths of a second before impact, he slowed down slightly and hit his brakes.

The Police Commission will meet at 7 p.m. in police headquarters, 430 Boston Post Road.


Glory's Sun 12-11-2009 06:53 AM

Yeah, the whole intoxicated bit doesn't mean jack in this case really. Even if they were drunk, it doesn't excuse the cops from joyriding. If the cops hadn't been playing around the accident wouldn't have occurred. I'm glad that the cop is facing termination, as that's only a fraction of the punishment he should get.

Thanks for the update, I was wondering about this last night, but forgot to look for it on Google.

Lasereth 12-11-2009 07:11 AM

I wish there were more articles about when the police screw up and DO get fired with no questions asked. But that's not interesting so it doesn't make it on the news.

Redlemon 12-11-2009 08:13 AM

Gucc, I'll keep the thread going with updates whenever something significant happens. It's front page news in my local paper, so I can't avoid it anyways.

MSD 12-11-2009 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasereth (Post 2738368)
I wish there were more articles about when the police screw up and DO get fired with no questions asked. But that's not interesting so it doesn't make it on the news.

Cops rarely get fired with no questions asked. When an investigation takes place and someone is fired with cause, it's usually not newsworthy.

Lasereth 12-11-2009 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSD (Post 2738496)
Cops rarely get fired with no questions asked. When an investigation takes place and someone is fired with cause, it's usually not newsworthy.

You're taking me too literally. When I say no questions asked, I mean there is no debate as to what will happen when the investigation is over. And you're right, it's not newsworthy, so nobody hears about how often it occurs (which is often).

The_Dunedan 12-11-2009 02:10 PM

Quote:

You're taking me too literally. When I say no questions asked, I mean there is no debate as to what will happen when the investigation is over. And you're right, it's not newsworthy, so nobody hears about how often it occurs (which is often).
Really? Because I've yet to see any of these incidents resolve in any way other than:

1: Cop fucks something (or someone) up. (For example shoots a homeowner in the back while homeowner holds robber at gunpoint and, beats up a waitress for refusing to serve him another drink, shoots handcuffed unarmed suspect who's secured in a patrol car, blows up/burns down a major residential neighborhood.)
2: Cop and his co-workers attempt to cover up the upfuckerry. Other cops pitch Major Union Bitch that anyone is daring to question anything they ever do.
3: Cop is placed on "Paid suspension" while an "investigation" takes place.
4: "Investigation" finds that cop "acted within procedures" or some other such Newspeak.
5: Cop is reinstated, frequently given a raise.

The above article is literally the first time I've heard of any cop, anywhere, looking at serious sanction for killing somebody. Prior to this the worst I've heard of is the thug/thugette "taking early retirement" only to be hired at another Cop Shop a few miles down the road, where they do whatever-it-was (this seems a particular problem with sexual assault/rape) all over again. If there actually are more incidents wherein up-fucking cops lose their jobs (or suffer any serious sanction whatsoever, it would do my heart good to read about them.

Redlemon 12-15-2009 06:52 AM

Quote:

Milford fires officer in fatal crash
Board of Police Commissioners suspends 2nd officer 30 days for role in accident that killed 2 Orange teenagers

By Frank Juliano
Staff writer
Updated: 12/14/2009 10:39:54 PM EST

MILFORD -- The Milford police officer who accidentally killed two Orange teens in June when his cruiser broadsided their car on the Boston Post Road lost his job Monday night.

The Board of Police Commissioners fired Jason Anderson, a five-year department veteran, and suspended another officer, Richard Pisani, for 30 days without pay in connection with the incident. The board also extended Pisani's probationary period, due to end in February, for another year.

Anderson and Pisani were heading back to Milford from a mutual-aid call in West Haven on the night of the accident. A video camera installed in Pisani's cruiser recorded both officers speeding far above the posted limit of 40 mph. Pisani accelerated up to 72 mph and was driving at about 65 when Anderson barreled by him on the right, shortly before crashing into the teens.

He has been charged with two counts of second-degree manslaughter and one count of reckless driving, and is free on $250,000 bond. Anderson is next scheduled to appear Jan. 13 in Milford Superior Court. Pisani does not face criminal charges.

Anderson was joined in the packed hearing room by Jeffrey Matchett, a retired Milford police sergeant who is now executive director of Council 15 of the Connecticut Police Unions, and Eric Brown, legal counsel for the association. After the board voted to terminate him, the officer and his brother Richard, a Milford police sergeant, moved through a crowd of family, friends and fellow officers, accepting hugs.

Jason Anderson declined to comment to a reporter.

The commission's action doesn't change a thing, according to the lawyer for the family of David Servin, one of the 19-year-olds who died in the crash. "Whether or not they are fired or suspended is not the issue to me and my clients," attorney Bart Halloran said before the meeting. "I think the chief and the commission have a duty to clarify what the two officers were doing that night."

Witnesses told State Police that the two Milford officers appeared to be drag racing. A State Police investigation found Anderson was driving 94 mph when he crashed into the car carrying Servin and Ashlie Krakowski. The couple was traveling in the opposite direction and attempted a left-hand turn onto Dogwood Road in front of Anderson's cruiser shortly after 2 a.m.

Halloran confirmed that toxicology reports show that Servin's blood alcohol level was 0.13 when he died at the crash scene, far above the 0.02 limit for those under 21 and the 0.08 limit for adults. Although State Police have said that Servin was driving, Halloran and John Wynne, the Krakowski family lawyer, are not sure. They haven't been able to have their experts inspect the car, Halloran said.

"But the (toxicology results) are a red herring anyway," the Servins' lawyer said Monday. "To have someone driving 94 miles an hour in the right lane -- passing someone -- is so far beyond the human experience of making a left turn. We've all made left turns and had it be closer than we wanted because we misjudged the speed. But this guy was going 94 miles an hour -- nothing prepares you for that."

The police commission agreed with Chief Keith Mello's conclusion that both officers violated department policy, particularly the requirement that officers follow posted speed limits when not responding to an emergency.

"I would like to remind everyone that there are 111 police officers in this department who have and will continue to put their safety on the line to protect others," Mello said. "With rare exception, they perform admirably and honorably and they have served this community well for decades."

The difference in the severity of the discipline is partly due to the outcome of the incident, said Sgt. Vaughan Dumas, a department spokesman, and partly because the officers were travelling at different speeds. State statutes treat speeds above 80 mph as reckless driving violations, and below 80 as speeding infractions.

The commission voted unanimously on both officers' discipline, spending 30 minutes reviewing the internal investigation of Anderson and nearly an hour on the report concerning Pisani. Six members voted; Chairman Carleton Giles, a Norwalk police officer, recused himself, citing his professional contact with Council 15 union officials. Labor lawyer Lawrence Sgrignari, of Hamden, represented the city on both matters.

Anderson had been on paid administrative leave since Nov. 10, the date of his arrest. Pisani had been working his regular 4 p.m. to midnight shift while the internal investigation was going on.

There was another article in the Sunday paper titled something like "What's it take to fire a cop?", but for some reason it isn't on the website. An interesting point from the article: it was important that the police be put on *paid* leave while the investigation was being performed. If they were on *unpaid* leave, that would be their punishment, and any additional punishment would be considered double jeopardy.

Glory's Sun 12-15-2009 07:48 AM

hmm I've never thought about the double jeopardy thing like that before.. it makes sense.

I'm glad this cop was fired, but as the attorney said, it doesn't change the real issue at hand one bit. This cop needs to be put in front of a jury.

bazkitcase5 12-15-2009 10:41 AM

I agree

I already get pissed every time I see a cop going way over the speed limit when their lights are not on - I'm sure they are sometimes going somewhere important, but not all the time.

95% of the time when I'm driving and I see a HP in my lane, they are passing me, usually at a high rate of speed.

They like to be able to do whatever they want to do on the road, just because they are cops, and in this case, it cost somebody their life.

MSD 12-15-2009 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bazkitcase5 (Post 2739595)
I agree

I already get pissed every time I see a cop going way over the speed limit when their lights are not on - I'm sure they are sometimes going somewhere important, but not all the time.

95% of the time when I'm driving and I see a HP in my lane, they are passing me, usually at a high rate of speed.

They like to be able to do whatever they want to do on the road, just because they are cops, and in this case, it cost somebody their life.

I watched local cops screaming out their windows to each other and flooring it through red lights right at shift change time once. Good thing I had looked before stepping out into the crosswalk.

This is a pretty clear case of wrongdoing, but the media survive off sensational stories and it can throw off our perception. I know plenty of cops and they're good people, and it would be great to see them out there doing good on TV and in the paper, but it doesn't sell very well because "Man is polite to officer during traffic stop, gets off with warning and promises to keep an eye on his speed" isn't particularly exciting.

The_Dunedan 12-15-2009 12:55 PM

Thanks for posting the outcome, mate. Glad to see some justice served...now, the -real- test will be to see if this piece of work gets hired at another PD.

Lasereth 12-15-2009 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2738518)
Really? Because I've yet to see any of these incidents resolve in any way other than:

1: Cop fucks something (or someone) up. (For example shoots a homeowner in the back while homeowner holds robber at gunpoint and, beats up a waitress for refusing to serve him another drink, shoots handcuffed unarmed suspect who's secured in a patrol car, blows up/burns down a major residential neighborhood.)
2: Cop and his co-workers attempt to cover up the upfuckerry. Other cops pitch Major Union Bitch that anyone is daring to question anything they ever do.
3: Cop is placed on "Paid suspension" while an "investigation" takes place.
4: "Investigation" finds that cop "acted within procedures" or some other such Newspeak.
5: Cop is reinstated, frequently given a raise.

The above article is literally the first time I've heard of any cop, anywhere, looking at serious sanction for killing somebody. Prior to this the worst I've heard of is the thug/thugette "taking early retirement" only to be hired at another Cop Shop a few miles down the road, where they do whatever-it-was (this seems a particular problem with sexual assault/rape) all over again. If there actually are more incidents wherein up-fucking cops lose their jobs (or suffer any serious sanction whatsoever, it would do my heart good to read about them.

Did you read what I said?

Quote:

And you're right, it's not newsworthy, so nobody hears about how often it occurs (which is often).
You don't hear about it because it never makes the news.

Zeraph 12-15-2009 07:13 PM

It depends heavily on the state you're in for how things are handled and the quality of police officers (cities too) you may have. Here for instance you can be fired for being late one too many times, even showing up only a few minutes late will go on your permanent file.

dksuddeth 12-16-2009 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasereth (Post 2738368)
I wish there were more articles about when the police screw up and DO get fired with no questions asked. But that's not interesting so it doesn't make it on the news.

There was.

Injustice Everywhere

but seems that they've lost their funding. not enough people were interested in police misconduct.

Redlemon 12-16-2009 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2739650)
Thanks for posting the outcome, mate. Glad to see some justice served...now, the -real- test will be to see if this piece of work gets hired at another PD.

Funny you should ask that... see the 4th paragraph.
Quote:

Anderson firing: What's next?
By Frank Juliano
STAFF WRITER
Updated: 12/15/2009 11:11:57 PM EST

MILFORD -- Being fired by the Milford police for driving recklessly in a crash that killed two people would not by itself keep Jason Anderson -- or any other officer in the same circumstances -- from being hired by another department.

Municipal police officers are certified by the state through the Police Officer Standards and Training program. The Meriden agency, headed by former Milford Chief Tom Flaherty, runs the training academy used by several area communities, including Milford.

Speaking in general terms and not about Anderson in particular, Sgt. Vaughan Dumas, a Milford Police Department spokesman, said that it would be up to each department whether to hire an officer fired somewhere else, and up to the POST program whether to certify the officer.

Police officers may not have felony records, so Anderson would have to be exonerated of the charges that he faces in the deaths of Ashlie Krakowski and David Servin, both 19, before he would be allowed to resume his law enforcement career.

Anderson was fired by the Board of Police Commissioners on Monday night for violating departmental policy, specifically the requirement that officers obey all traffic laws when not responding to an emergency.

State Police say that Anderson was traveling 94 mph when his cruiser broadsided the car carrying Servin and Krakowski early in the morning of June 13 on the Boston Post Road.

The commissioners Monday night also suspended another officer, Richard Pisani, for 30 days without pay in connection with the incident, and extended Pisani's probationary period, due to end in February, for another year.

But if Pisani completes his term as a probationary officer and joins the regular force, the incident will have no impact on his future police career, officials said.

Anderson and Pisani were heading back to Milford from a mutual-aid call in West Haven on the night of the accident. A video camera installed in Pisani's cruiser recorded both officers speeding far above the posted limit of 40 mph. Pisani accelerated up to 72 mph and was driving at about 65 when Anderson barreled passed him on the right, shortly before crashing into the teens.

Police officials said that probationary officers are closely supervised in the field and their performance is reviewed monthly. But Milford officials would not say who was supervising Pisani on the morning of the double-fatal crash.

Sgt. Richard Anderson, Jason Anderson's brother, was the first Milford officer at the scene of the crash, at the intersection of the Boston Post Road and Dogwood Road in Orange.

Jason Anderson, charged with two counts of second-degree manslaughter and reckless driving, is free on $250,000 bond and is next scheduled to appear Jan. 13 in state Superior Court in Milford. Pisani does not face criminal charges.

Commissioners went to unusual lengths Monday night to conduct the disciplinary hearings without any taint of questionable procedures. Chairman Carleton Giles, a Norwalk police officer, recused himself, citing his professional contact with police union officials.

A full page of "ground rules'' for covering the public portions of the hearing were given to the media, and none of the commissioners took questions afterward.

Chief Keith Mello read a prepared statement and the department's spokesman relayed his answers to written questions from reporters.

Several times officers said that the measures were being taken because of "potential litigation," but would not say whether they thought Anderson or Pisani might seek to overturn the actions taken against them. Lawyers for the families of the teens have filed notices of intent to sue the city and the Police Department.

Eric Brown, the legal counsel for the Connecticut Association of Police Unions, Council 15, did not return a reporter's phone call Tuesday.
The Anderson file n Jason Anderson, 34, was a Milford police officer for five years. n Prior to that, he had been a member of the Darien police force. n He had two minor motor vehicle accidents before the June 13 crash in Orange that killed two teens. Both occurred while he was backing a police cruiser into a parking space. n Anderson was commended for individual bravery and received five unit citations, a service award presented by the Board of Police Commissioners. n He had one civilian complaint on his personnel record, but the complaint of conduct unbecoming an officer was not sustained after an internal investigation. n Anderson had been on paid administrative leave since his arrest on Nov. 10. n He had returned to work in late summer, on light duty, as he recovered from a chest injury in the crash. n Anderson worked the 3 to 11 p.m. shift and was a member of the department's special tactical unit. He earned a base salary of $57,144.


Redlemon 04-27-2010 11:16 AM

Progressing towards trial.
Quote:

Fmr. cop enters plea in deadly crash
On-duty crash killed two teens

Updated: Tuesday, 27 Apr 2010, 12:57 PM EDT
Published : Tuesday, 27 Apr 2010, 11:11 AM EDT

Milford, Conn. (WTNH) - A former Milford police officer pled not guilty to manslaughter charges following an on-duty crash that killed two teenagers.

A dashboard camera showed Jason Anderson's police cruiser speeding down the Boston Post Road in Orange and colliding with another car back in June of 2009. He was not responding to a call and he did not have his lights or siren on.

Dave Servin and Ashlie Krakowski, both 19-years old and from Orange, were killed.

Anderson's case was continued until June. The defense has hired an independent researcher to reconstruct the accident.

"These things generally take a little longer than ordinary criminal cases because it's so complicated and the state police, for instance, in their accident reconstruction of the case before the arrest took about five months," said Anderson's attorney, Hugh Keefe.

Anderson was fired from the force in December.

Glory's Sun 04-27-2010 12:07 PM

wow.

buying time with the independent researcher bit.

I hope this guy gets prison time.

Redlemon 09-29-2010 07:48 AM

Glory is gone, so, does anyone else still care about this case? I can continue to post updates, if even one person asks.

The_Jazz 09-29-2010 08:11 AM

Update me!

Plan9 09-29-2010 08:15 AM

I'm listening.

And where did that old cuffer Gucci go? Polishing knobs in Thailand for $20s or what?

Redlemon 09-29-2010 08:27 AM

Oh, you guys are going to love this one...

Quote:

Milford cop suspended for erasure of dashboard video
Frank Juliano, Staff Writer
Published: 12:03 a.m., Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Milford cop suspended for erasure of dashboard video - Connecticut Post

MILFORD -- A police lieutenant was suspended for one day without pay for inadvertently ordering the destruction of thousands of hours of dashboard video sought by the family of one of the two teens killed when a speeding Milford police cruiser slammed into their car.

Police Chief Keith Mello said Monday afternoon that he suspended Lt. Dan Bothwell, who is in charge of the Records Division, in the incident. The video was the subject of a Freedom of Information request by lawyer Bart Halloran, who said that he hoped to use it to establish a pattern of Milford police officers using excessive speed on routine business.

"I am furious, absolutely outraged at this," Halloran said Monday night. "We will be pursuing every legal remedy available to us for destruction of evidence."

Halloran represents the parents of David Servin, who was killed June 13, 2009, along with his girlfriend, Ashlie Krakowski. The two, both 19, were returning to Servin's home in Orange when their car was hit broadside by a Milford cruiser driven by Officer Jason Anderson.

Anderson's speed was estimated at more than 90 mph in the moments before the crash on the Boston Post Road. He was fired last December and has been charged with two counts of vehicular manslaughter.

Mello said at the time of the crash that Milford police had between 18 and 20 months of footage from dashboard cameras stored on a server. State law requires municipal police departments retain the most recent 30 days of video. The chief said that Milford police were aware of Halloran's FOI request.

The chief stressed that none of the footage of the crash, taken from the Milford cruiser behind Anderson's, and none from the 30-day period that included it, was affected. The deleted material was "non-critical, in-car police video files from 2008 and 2009," he said.

"I disciplined the lieutenant for unintentionally violating an order to retain video files that were being reviewed for possible release under the pending FOI request," Mello said. Bothwell reportedly instructed a Management Information Systems staffer who works in the Parsons Government Center to delete the files. That instruction was in accordance with State Records Retention schedules, but violated Mello's order to retain all existing video files.

"Quite plainly, this should not have happened," the chief said, adding that he called in a computer forensic examiner to try to locate and recover the deleted material. "This accidental lapse is a stark reminder to pay close attention to every detail of our work. This employee has expressed sincere regret for his error." No additional disciplinary action is expected, he said.

The scheduled Oct. 18 hearing before the state Freedom of Information Commission will go forward, Halloran said, "at which time we will seek the maximum penalty the commission can assess." That maximum, officials said, is $1,000 per violation.

"It seems to be one thing after another with the Milford Police Department," Halloran said. "Their apology really helps," he added sarcastically. "It is inconceivable to me that this evidence would have been destroyed if it had been in any way helpful to their case."

MSD 09-29-2010 07:00 PM

That's pretty appalling, I've covered people's asses for various reasons, but never for something involving harming anyone else. That's just inexcusable.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9 (Post 2826769)
And where did that old cuffer Gucci go? Polishing knobs in Thailand for $20s or what?

Something like that.

dksuddeth 09-30-2010 12:00 PM

I'm not surprised at this, even expected it. It's not any different with the Erik Scott case in Costco. LV Metro confiscated the hard drives for the video system after they executed him, then claimed that they couldn't get any footage off the disks because they were damaged.

dksuddeth 10-05-2010 02:31 PM

yet another case of favoritism applied to cops.

deputy allowed to fly after gun found in carry on luggage

Quote:

DENVER - A Gilpin County Sheriff's deputy was allowed to fly from Denver International Airport Sunday, even after Denver Police confiscated his personal handgun and a loaded magazine from his carry-on luggage.

Lloyd Stace Williams, 38, was flying Sunday morning, when TSA agents found his personal gun and magazine.

Denver Police took Williams into custody and FBI agents interrogated him.

After two hours of questioning, and confiscating the gun, Williams was allowed to rebook his travel plans, according to Department of Homeland Security Spokesman Luis Casanova.

Williams is not facing charges, according to Denver FBI spokesman Dave Joly.

"The FBI investigated this matter and consulted with the United States Attorney's Office, which declined prosecution," Joly said in an emailed statement.

Jeff Dorschner, a spokesman with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Denver declined comment.
But i'm sure that the DOJ is always fair and equal and would not charge anyone else for their forgetfulness, right?

What? That-doesn't-apply-to-us?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360