|
|
Post by longtimereader on Oct 17, 2024 19:29:51 GMT -6
This is nuts has anyone heard about this on the news?
|
|
|
|
Post by 3 Sport Town on Oct 18, 2024 9:45:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by longtimereader on Oct 18, 2024 9:58:31 GMT -6
Thanks "Unmarked car" with expired temp tags? Odd |
|
|
|
Post by gotscha on Oct 18, 2024 10:55:36 GMT -6
Something doesn't add up about this case. There are just too many unanswered questions and inconsistencies, starting with why did the off-duty cop pull into the work zone? That's not normal behavior. As for the sobriety test that he passed, I'm going to assume it was given by another cop - not exactly unbiased and probably didn't include a breathalyzer or blood test, since I'm sure that would have been mentioned if those were used and those are the only truly objective tests. The rest of the roadside 'testing' techniques are highly subjective.
I just hope the local news doesn't just drop this and move on. I'm going to be very interested in seeing how this progresses and what additional evidence comes to light.
|
|
|
|
Post by attackrat on Oct 18, 2024 12:24:41 GMT -6
Something doesn't add up about this case. There are just too many unanswered questions and inconsistencies, starting with why did the off-duty cop pull into the work zone? That's not normal behavior. As for the sobriety test that he passed, I'm going to assume it was given by another cop - not exactly unbiased and probably didn't include a breathalyzer or blood test, since I'm sure that would have been mentioned if those were used and those are the only truly objective tests. The rest of the roadside 'testing' techniques are highly subjective. I just hope the local news doesn't just drop this and move on. I'm going to be very interested in seeing how this progresses and what additional evidence comes to light. Completely agree. There should be body camera video. The relevant video (initial arrival, questioning, and the field sobriety test) should all be released. |
|
|
|
Post by longtimereader on Oct 18, 2024 12:42:50 GMT -6
If the reporting is correct it took 10 days, right before the construction guys were going to the press, for the arrests to happen?
Something does not smell right.
|
|
|
|
Post by gotscha on Oct 18, 2024 12:54:06 GMT -6
Something doesn't add up about this case. There are just too many unanswered questions and inconsistencies, starting with why did the off-duty cop pull into the work zone? That's not normal behavior. As for the sobriety test that he passed, I'm going to assume it was given by another cop - not exactly unbiased and probably didn't include a breathalyzer or blood test, since I'm sure that would have been mentioned if those were used and those are the only truly objective tests. The rest of the roadside 'testing' techniques are highly subjective. I just hope the local news doesn't just drop this and move on. I'm going to be very interested in seeing how this progresses and what additional evidence comes to light. Completely agree. There should be body camera video. The relevant video (initial arrival, questioning, and the field sobriety test) should all be released. Since the cop was off duty, I seriously doubt there will be any video. It's now his word against theirs. I really wonder who these witnesses are - other construction workers? |
|
|
|
Post by longtimereader on Oct 18, 2024 12:57:19 GMT -6
Completely agree. There should be body camera video. The relevant video (initial arrival, questioning, and the field sobriety test) should all be released. Since the cop was off duty, I seriously doubt there will be any video. It's now his word against theirs. I really wonder who these witnesses are - other construction workers? Going by the article the officer was "undercover" in "undercover clothing" and using and "undercover vehicle". That does not add up with he was off duty. |
|
|
|
Post by attackrat on Oct 18, 2024 13:26:14 GMT -6
Completely agree. There should be body camera video. The relevant video (initial arrival, questioning, and the field sobriety test) should all be released. Since the cop was off duty, I seriously doubt there will be any video. It's now his word against theirs. I really wonder who these witnesses are - other construction workers? Body camera video from the officers who responded, which should include the sobriety test performed. Everything prior to their arrival will probably remain a he said / she said situation. Check out the videos on YouTube from Fox 2 interviewing one of the guys who was later arrested. He seems credible. Apparently the cops didn’t even question the construction workers. And they kept the driver there for over 4 hours. Maybe to allow him to sober up a little??? I believe all county police wear body cameras, so again, this should be recorded. I wonder how they would justify this not being on video. |
|
|
|
Post by gotscha on Oct 21, 2024 9:13:49 GMT -6
Since the cop was off duty, I seriously doubt there will be any video. It's now his word against theirs. I really wonder who these witnesses are - other construction workers? Going by the article the officer was "undercover" in "undercover clothing" and using and "undercover vehicle". That does not add up with he was off duty. From the first sentence of the linked KSDK article: "Defense attorneys questioned the details of the case in court saying the off-duty officer was the instigator." |
|
|
|
Post by gotscha on Oct 21, 2024 9:16:09 GMT -6
Since the cop was off duty, I seriously doubt there will be any video. It's now his word against theirs. I really wonder who these witnesses are - other construction workers? Body camera video from the officers who responded, which should include the sobriety test performed. Everything prior to their arrival will probably remain a he said / she said situation. Check out the videos on YouTube from Fox 2 interviewing one of the guys who was later arrested. He seems credible. Apparently the cops didn’t even question the construction workers. And they kept the driver there for over 4 hours. Maybe to allow him to sober up a little??? I believe all county police wear body cameras, so again, this should be recorded. I wonder how they would justify this not being on video. Those will be interesting, assuming they're ever released or the cameras weren't "accidentally" not turned on. |
|
|
|
Post by longtimereader on Oct 21, 2024 9:37:33 GMT -6
Going by the article the officer was "undercover" in "undercover clothing" and using and "undercover vehicle". That does not add up with he was off duty. From the first sentence of the linked KSDK article: "Defense attorneys questioned the details of the case in court saying the off-duty officer was the instigator." Sure I got that then why was this stated? "Police added the off-duty officer was driving in an unmarked car and in plain clothes." An "unmarked car", which implies LE vehicle, with expired tags? The construction workers took a picture of the expired tag. Seems a pointless comment made by the police does it not? |
|
|
|
Post by gotscha on Oct 21, 2024 9:56:23 GMT -6
From the first sentence of the linked KSDK article: "Defense attorneys questioned the details of the case in court saying the off-duty officer was the instigator." Sure I got that then why was this stated? "Police added the off-duty officer was driving in an unmarked car and in plain clothes." An "unmarked car", which implies LE vehicle, with expired tags? The construction workers took a picture of the expired tag. Seems a pointless comment made by the police does it not? I think the police are trying to cover their asses on this one. Too many things aren't lining up that they're trying to make fit. We still don't know why he stopped like he did in a construction zone and got out of his car while off duty. |
|
|
|
Post by longtimereader on Oct 21, 2024 10:26:05 GMT -6
Sure I got that then why was this stated? "Police added the off-duty officer was driving in an unmarked car and in plain clothes." An "unmarked car", which implies LE vehicle, with expired tags? The construction workers took a picture of the expired tag. Seems a pointless comment made by the police does it not? I think the police are trying to cover their asses on this one. Too many things aren't lining up that they're trying to make fit. We still don't know why he stopped like he did in a construction zone and got out of his car while off duty. Agreed! |
|
|
|
Post by attackrat on Oct 21, 2024 20:26:00 GMT -6
From the first sentence of the linked KSDK article: "Defense attorneys questioned the details of the case in court saying the off-duty officer was the instigator." Sure I got that then why was this stated? "Police added the off-duty officer was driving in an unmarked car and in plain clothes." An "unmarked car", which implies LE vehicle, with expired tags? The construction workers took a picture of the expired tag. Seems a pointless comment made by the police does it not? I wouldn't get too focused on the expired tags. There are definitely areas of St. Louis County where a vehicle with a non-expired tag/plate would stand out!  |
|
