Cop shown favoritism again.. *sigh* - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Glory's Sun · 11-19-2009, 07:51 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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:

Originally Posted by Crash victim's lawyer: If cops weren't drag racing, what the hell were they doing? - The Connecticut Post Online

"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

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

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

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

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:

Originally Posted by Milford police chief recommends firing officer in fatal crash - The Connecticut Post Online

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

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

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:

Originally Posted by Milford fires officer in fatal crash - The Connecticut Post Online

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.

11-19-2009, 07:59 AM	#2 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	It's way douchey. Nobody will contest that. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

11-19-2009, 10:01 AM	#5 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	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. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

11-19-2009, 05:31 PM	#7 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	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. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

11-19-2009, 06:48 PM	#8 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	Hang their asses out to dry. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

11-19-2009, 07:10 PM	#12 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	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. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

11-19-2009, 08:55 AM	#4 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	yeah, it's crazy that nobody knows much I was kinda blown away by that as well..

11-19-2009, 05:02 PM	#6 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	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.

11-19-2009, 07:04 PM	#11 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	So anyone accused of a crime should automatically lose their job?

11-19-2009, 09:14 PM	#14 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	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? Last edited by Fotzlid; 11-19-2009 at 09:17 PM..

11-19-2009, 09:53 PM	#15 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	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. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

11-19-2009, 10:35 PM	#16 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	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.

11-20-2009, 06:09 AM	#19 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	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.

11-20-2009, 06:34 AM	#21 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	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. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

11-20-2009, 06:56 AM	#22 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	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. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

11-20-2009, 07:04 AM	#23 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	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.

11-20-2009, 11:46 AM	#24 (permalink)
Reese Delicious	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. __________________ “It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry

11-20-2009, 05:09 PM	#25 (permalink)
percy Addict	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.

11-20-2009, 06:05 PM	#27 (permalink)
Redlemon Devoted Donor Location: New England	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?" __________________ I can't read your signature. Sorry. Last edited by Redlemon; 11-22-2009 at 08:01 AM..

11-20-2009, 07:02 PM	#29 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	.. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 12-19-2010 at 11:40 AM..

11-20-2009, 07:27 PM	#30 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	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. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

11-20-2009, 10:54 PM	#31 (permalink)
f6twister Addict	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. __________________ A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day. Calvin

12-11-2009, 06:53 AM	#34 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	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.

12-11-2009, 07:11 AM	#35 (permalink)
Lasereth Knight of the Old Republic Location: Winston-Salem, NC	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. __________________ "A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

12-11-2009, 08:13 AM	#36 (permalink)
Redlemon Devoted Donor Location: New England	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. __________________ I can't read your signature. Sorry.