Backing the Blue

[Dr Exiled]

Only post-order remedies. I'm sure it's the same in all jurisdictions, but, it is really easy to get a protection order because they are granted on an ex-parte basis, as domestic violence is a huge problem as all are probably aware. However, you can get a relatively quick hearing to request that the TPO be cancelled and make your case.

Sometimes, unfortunately, the system is abused. I recently had a case where my client's former girl friend made up a bunch of lies and used the TPO to kick my client out of his own property because he broke up with her. He had to live in a hotel and with friends for two weeks prior to our being able to reverse the TPO and get one against her. My client filmed the cops escorting her out of his property. There is justice at times.

Thanks. I have no experience in protective orders at all. So, in a case like Kevin's, the prosecutor simply moves for a TPO based simply on an affidavit from the LEO?

What generally happens, at least here in Las Vegas, is that a person is charged and if they are under arrest, there is a probable cause hearing usually the next day and that is when the no-contact order is issued by the Judge. If the person isn't arrested, the person is summoned to court and at that hearing the no-contact order is issued. The defendant can argue against it and I have on behalf of clients, but, the Court will then say that out of an abundance of caution, the order should issue and will remain until the case is resolved.

In the non-criminal case, where the complaining party contacts the help line, an interview happens and the facts are then presented to a Judge and then a TPO is entered on an ex-parte basis. However, this is where the Defendant can request a hearing and show that the TPO was entered in error. However, as in the case I wrote about above, once a TPO enters, the cops can show up and kick a person out of his home as long as the complaining party has a possessory interest in the home as my client's girlfriend did.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks. I have no experience in protective orders at all. So, in a case like Kevin's, the prosecutor simply moves for a TPO based simply on an affidavit from the LEO?

What generally happens, at least here in Las Vegas, is that a person is charged and if they are under arrest, there is a probable cause hearing usually the next day and that is when the no-contact order is issued by the Judge. If the person isn't arrested, the person is summoned to court and at that hearing the no-contact order is issued. The defendant can argue against it and I have on behalf of clients, but, the Court will then say that out of an abundance of caution, the order should issue and will remain until the case is resolved.

In the non-criminal case, where the complaining party contacts the help line, an interview happens and the facts are then presented to a Judge and then a TPO is entered on an ex-parte basis. However, this is where the Defendant can request a hearing and show that the TPO was entered in error. However, as in the case I wrote about above, once a TPO enters, the cops can show up and kick a person out of his home as long as the complaining party has a possessory interest in the home as my client's girlfriend did.

Thanks for the information! Once again I am reminded why I refer these types of issues to specialists.

[DaveIsHere]

All Cops Are Bastards.

If you're a cop, let's debate. If you're a fanbois/groupie, let's fight.

[Dr. Shades]

The article you link to doesn’t factually support your opinion that they “did precisely what you are advocating for--trying to help.”

Oh really? Did they refrain from making a lawful arrest, as they legally could've, or didn't they?

I never used that terminology (drug-induced psychosis) with the cops, I merely told them she was suffering from negative effects of chemo drugs she had been taking for months and I ALSO told them that she has to take her meds to even everything out. When they first gave her steroids in the hospital it drove her nuts, but they had to balance that out with some other drug called Buspirone.

That's fantastic, but you fail to account for the fact that they didn't know you from Adam. They likely have long experience with victims saying whatever they need to say in order to escape the consequences of having called the police. You also fail to account for the fact that they may very well have been under legal constraint to make an arrest when they have probable cause to believe domestic violence has occurred, no matter how trivial the injury.

Apparently you think she was better served being locked in a cell where her necessary prescription drugs would be denied, . . .

Absolutely not. I wish she had been given every medicine she had been prescribed--my facility does. The only reason I can imagine that she wouldn't have been is because the on-site medical technician or doctor was under some other legal constraint to prevent certain controlled substances from entering the facility.

. . . as opposed to going back home in my care where she would just go straight to sleep after taking her meds.

Did they have anything, beyond your word only, to independently verify that that would be the effect on her system after taking those meds? Or were they supposed to just believe you?

That last sentence isn't calling your integrity into question. I know you and would've believed you. I'm sure everyone here would've believed you, too. But I'll bet dollars to donuts that the officers with whom you dealt are like all other officers who spend all day being lied to by the citizenry. To wit, because they don't know you from Adam, they have to observe whatever evidence is available--your cellular telephone video being chief among them--and come to whatever conclusion they honestly believe is the most likely scenario. And like I said, even if they were 100% sympathetic to your cause, they might very well have been under legal constraint to make that particular arrest. Double so because she was driving impaired.

Apparently this is the kind of desperate mental gymnastics you're willing to entertain in order to back the blue at all costs, no matter what the circumstances.

They aren't mental gymnastics, desperate or otherwise. You posted your story, we're providing our input. I'm sure what you're saying is 100% correct on all counts, but prior lying individuals over the many decades--whose lies probably resulted in later homicides--spoiled it for you, forcing the police--and the system at large--to act with extreme caution. I'm merely telling you that an alternate perspective to yours exists, and why.

All Cops Are Bastards.

Right. Just like all members of your profession are bastards, too.

If you're a cop, let's debate.

Okay.

[Marcus]

The article you link to doesn’t factually support your opinion that they “did precisely what you are advocating for--trying to help.”

Oh really? Did they refrain from making a lawful arrest, as they legally could've, or didn't they?

Doc already fully responded to this - maybe you didn’t see it

The article you link to doesn’t factually support your opinion that they “did precisely what you are advocating for--trying to help.”

From the article:

… an allegation from a woman who says the officer, Eric Pratt, had threatened to kill her after their relationship ended,

They also argue that Pratt should have never been hired by the department because of his history and comments he’d previously made on a podcast about trying to find “loopholes” when enforcing the law.

and

After trying to get advice from the assistant chief, Pratt then instructed Robbins to decide what to do because he was training Robbins at the time. “I don’t care if we use the actual letter of the law to not charge,” Pratt said, according to the video footage.

So, he put the decision on a trainee and openly stated he wasn’t going to follow the law. by the way, there’s more in the article about Pratt’s alleged prior behavior that calls into question his ability to make sound decisions. Not a good look, for sure.

- Doc

[Dr. Shades]

Oh really? Did they refrain from making a lawful arrest, as they legally could've, or didn't they?

Doc already fully responded to this - maybe you didn’t see it[:]

So, he put the decision on a trainee . . .

Which was stupid.

. . . and openly stated he wasn’t going to follow the law.

In other words, he was going to exercise officer's discretion and refrain from making the arrest, regardless of the letter of the law. You know, precisely what Veritas wanted so badly to happen and is complaining didn't happen.

by the way, there’s more in the article about Pratt’s alleged prior behavior that calls into question his ability to make sound decisions. Not a good look, for sure.

Nope, not.

[Res Ipsa]

Doc already fully responded to this - maybe you didn’t see it[:]

So, he put the decision on a trainee . . .

Which was stupid.

. . . and openly stated he wasn’t going to follow the law.

In other words, he was going to exercise officer's discretion and refrain from making the arrest, regardless of the letter of the law. You know, precisely what Veritas wanted so badly to happen and is complaining didn't happen.

by the way, there’s more in the article about Pratt’s alleged prior behavior that calls into question his ability to make sound decisions. Not a good look, for sure.

Nope, not.

I didn't understand Pratt as saying that he was not going to follow the law. I understood him as saying that he didn't mind if Robbins used the letter of the law to avoid making an arrest. My impression was that was a reference to deciding whether the reported incident was "domestic violence" or "disorderly conduct."

Giving an LEO discretion without property training will inevitably result in bad decisions. The focus appears to be on technical interpretations of the definition of domestic violence as opposed to recognizing certain red flags that indicated domestic violence.

[DaveIsHere]

All Cops Are Bastards.

Right. Just like all members of your profession are bastards, too.

Yeah, bro, last time I checked welders don't murder unarmed people, falsify evidence, teargas and beat peaceful protesters, racially profile people, and help each cover up wrong doing. Do you see anyone operating a TIG welder needing a body cam in order to make sure they're not being shady? No, just bastards with badges.

That's before we get into rampant cowardice like the Uvaldi school shooting. Anyone that trusts cops is either an idiot or a class traitor.

[Dr. Shades]

Yeah, bro, last time I checked welders don't murder unarmed people, . . .

That's right. They only pocket precious or semi-precious metals to defraud their employers. All of them.

. . . falsify evidence, . . .

They only falsify inventories to mask their lack of productivity. All of them.

. . . teargas and beat peaceful protesters, . . .

Only because they have no teargas and aren't required to get in the vicinity of peaceful protesters. If they did, they would.

. . . racially profile people, . . .

They only refuse to hire racial minorities and shun and sabotage any who manage to slip through the cracks.

. . . and help each cover up wrong doing.

That's what all welders do when one of them welds a part to the wrong end. They discard the botched part and refuse to report it.

Do you see anyone operating a TIG welder needing a body cam in order to make sure they're not being shady?

The body cam is to avoid liability for when someone falsely accuses the officer of touching them inappropriately or firing without cause or whatever.

No, just bastards with badges.

Only because your employer is too cheap to spring for them. You most certainly need them, as you well know.

That's before we get into rampant cowardice like the Uvaldi school shooting.

If they had shot the guy you would be complaining about why they didn't calmly talk the guy into surrendering.

Anyone that trusts cops is either an idiot or a class traitor.

Just like how trusting a welder is idiocy and traitorous against one's class.

[DaveIsHere]

Yeah, bro, last time I checked welders don't murder unarmed people, . . .

That's right. They only pocket precious or semi-precious metals to defraud their employers. All of them.

What's worse, Pig, killing an unarmed human for no reason or stealing? Also, outside of jewelers, who the “F” is pocketing precious anything. I work with aluminum, copper, iron, steel, inconel..

Not exact prescious metals, fool

. . . falsify evidence, . . .

They only falsify inventories to mask their lack of productivity. All of them.[/quote]

Yeah, the customer will find out. You give them a quote and go over they'll want an itemized list of all those overages.

Meanwhile, you badge wearing cucks regularly lose/find evidence as suits you.

Only because they have no teargas and aren't required to get in the vicinity of peaceful protesters. If they did, they would.

What, the peaceful protesters are at my shop why? I never killed an unarmed black man. I do, however, employed a one-armed African-American.

Your weakass would probably choke him out for EWB.

They only refuse to hire racial minorities and shun and sabotage any who manage to slip through the cracks.

Yes, because violating EO hiring is the same as profiling, stopping, and murdering people.

Are you high?

That's what all welders do when one of them welds a part to the wrong end. They discard the botched part and refuse to report it.

Except if one of my welds fails due to negligence I can be held criminally liable, and unlike you, I don't have a department full of racist thugs to cover for me.

The body cam is to avoid liability for when someone falsely accuses the officer of touching them inappropriately or firing without cause or whatever.

Yeah, and my point still stands. None of my employees needs to do that. For “F”'ssake, you just agreed with me. Cops can't be trusted, therefore bodycams.

Moron...

Only because your employer is too cheap to spring for them. You most certainly need them, as you well know.

I am the employer. My boys and girls don't need them because they're professionals who speak up if they “F” up. They no it's better to own up instead of letting me or the customer find it.

Unlike you assholes...

]
If they had shot the guy you would be complaining about why they didn't calmly talk the guy into surrendering.

Spoken like a true gutless coward...

Just like how trusting a welder is idiocy and traitorous against one's class.

You're an idiot. Just do the needful and become a Load statistic.