328 replies to this topic

[jafount]

Just in case anyone thinks that jafount knows what he's talking about, be advised that his insistance that the officer was charged with simply transporting oil (something he claims an officer is allowed to do) in unfounded. The Bee article he quotes says the officer is additionally charged with violation of CVC 2474...

"2474. It is unlawful for any person to steal, misappropriate, contaminate, or damage inedible kitchen grease, or containers thereof.
Added Sec. 3, Ch. 394, Stats. 1998. Effective January 1, 1999."

I think the word here is "steal".

Its not clear from the article if these are the code sections the officer has been formally charged with or simply the sections that the arresting officer placed in the arrest record (the media rarely distinguishes the two). Ultimately it will be up to the DA as to what charges to go after. Personally I think it was a mistake on the part of the department to release the officer's name before he's answered the charges.

-Robert

Are you seriously this stupid? Seriously. I'm asking because I'm flabbergasted and have to believe you're just playing around here.

Yes that is what the section says. I never argued that it wasn't valid unless...see that? Unless there was no per-mis-sion to take it. As the IA isn't even done, this is a fact that has not been established.

Building on your comments, it's not clear the officer has been formally charged at all. However, based on the circumstances PC 2474 would be the most applicable section.

So...what's your point? What "don't I know" what I'm talking about? He was charged with two sections. One is transporting without the Department of Agriculture permit, the second is the misappropriation/theft section. So help me understand what it is you are asserting.

[jafount]

You've obviously never worked in a restuarant. No one throws out grease while its still edible. Its pretty nasty stuff by the time they toss it out.

-Robert

huh?

[Robert Gary]

Yes that is what the section says. I never argued that it wasn't valid unless...see that? Unless there was no per-mis-sion to take it. As the IA isn't even done, this is a fact that has not been established.

HAHAHAHAH Ok, now I know you are joking. No one said any officer was convicted of anything or that any fact had been established. The only thing I've heard on this list is that if he's guilty he should be seriously punished. You keep trying to confuse the issue by saying the investigation isn't done or had hasn't been convicted. No one said otherwise so your argument is without logic. Whether or not the investigation is done has no bearing on what the punishment should be for an officer convicted of such a charge.

-robert

[jafount]

HAHAHAHAH Ok, now I know you are joking. No one said any officer was convicted of anything or that any fact had been established. The only thing I've heard on this list is that if he's guilty he should be seriously punished. You keep trying to confuse the issue by saying the investigation isn't done or had hasn't been convicted. No one said otherwise so your argument is without logic. Whether or not the investigation is done has no bearing on what the punishment should be for an officer convicted of such a charge.

-robert

I enjoy how you try to spin fact here are some refreshers for you:

Example 1:

He sure sounds guilty to me.

And if did this for a long time, you're talking felony theft...we may never know, I guess.

Cop engages in theft = Cop loses job.

Example 2

There was 6 months of investigation, so if he had permission, we wouldn't be at this point.

He was arrested, charged, and placed on leave.

Smoke, fire, etc...

Example 3

Police Sergeant takes Oath...Sergeant commits serious crime (yes, theft is serious)...Sergeant loses job.

And my personal favorite:

All I have to say is "Thank God you're no longer carrying a badge and gun".

No offense.

The cop is guilty. 6 months of investigation.

Slam dunk.

So if you're wrong about what was said in this thread...I wonder what else you're wrong about? (rhetorical)

[ChipShot]

We have to have a zero-tolerance against rogue, dishonest cops.

This guy displayed some seriously poor judgment, and should be removed from the Dept. in order to send a message to future-rogue cops.

If we can't trust the police, society as a whole breaks down.

Sergeant Landope's supporters/defenders/excuse-makers should be ashamed of themselves for supporting an obviously disturbed individual.

(2 Diesel cars in his driveway....Priceless!!)

[Bill Z]

HAHAHAHAH Ok, now I know you are joking. No one said any officer was convicted of anything or that any fact had been established. The only thing I've heard on this list is that if he's guilty he should be seriously punished. You keep trying to confuse the issue by saying the investigation isn't done or had hasn't been convicted. No one said otherwise so your argument is without logic. Whether or not the investigation is done has no bearing on what the punishment should be for an officer convicted of such a charge.

-robert

Robert, do you have chipshot on ignore?

Cuz CS hasn't said IF he's guilty.

CS is firmly in the " i'm judge, jury, executioner" mode on this one and has his gallows warmed up and ready to roll.

[jafount]

We have to have a zero-tolerance against rogue, dishonest cops.

This guy displayed some seriously poor judgment, and should be removed from the Dept. in order to send a message to future-rogue cops.

If we can't trust the police, society as a whole breaks down.

Sergeant Landope's supporters/defenders/excuse-makers should be ashamed of themselves for supporting an obviously disturbed individual.

(2 Diesel cars in his driveway....Priceless!!)

Your pointless tirades here every day display serious lack of judgment and reason.

Nobody should be "ashamed" of themselves for wanting a record of facts, not speculation and conjecture coupled to comments like "six months of investigation" when that hasn't even been established and the IA investigation is still underway!

Trying to save money by re-using cooking oil is hardly "rogue". You're so narrow minded, you don't even know if the guy did the right thing and walked in and admitted he made a judgment error by doing something he shouldn't have. NONE of those facts have been aired.

Since no one is without sin, I'd much rather have a guy that stood up, accepted responsibility and consequences, than a guy who skulks along nefariously conducting his dirty deeds. In fact, there is something very upstanding about a guy who can say "yes I did it, I'm sorry", but you don't end a career or take away a pension for that, given the totality of circumstances.

I know you're baiting me Chip because you get off on it. That's fine. I'm glad you have a hobby. The pathetic thing is, you essentially have less than five allies here and have proven yourself time and time again to be a person of ZERO substance. You come off like some sort of sociopath who can't see the folly of his ways. In the beginning, I thought it was just an act, but over time, you have solidified your position as a whiny, sniveling malcontent who hides his own sense of entitlement behind a keyboard with seemingly conservative double-speak.

Once. Just one, single time I would like to see you actually put some thought and effort into a post. Pretend you actually do care and actually have an opinion about a topic and lay out a well thought out, reasoned post and prove me wrong.

[ChipShot]

The guy is guilty....all the facts point to that, which is why he did the only prudent thing and turned himself in to be arrested/booked.

No amount of equivocating can erase his guilt and extremely poor judgment.

We will wait and see if justice is properly served.

[jafount]

The guy is guilty....all the facts point to that, which is why he did the only prudent thing and turned himself in to be arrested/booked.

No amount of equivocating can erase his guilt and extremely poor judgment.

We will wait and see if justice is properly served.

Which facts point to his guilt?

[Bill Z]

You've obviously never worked in a restuarant. No one throws out grease while its still edible. Its pretty nasty stuff by the time they toss it out.
-Robert

First, I don't think you interpreted my humor correctly, but it doesn't matter, you're wrong on the above.

Second, yes I have worked in restaurants, specifically even being the guy on graveyard to dump said grease.

At the time at Jack-in-the Box, the graveyard crew would dump the shortening from the taco deep fryer and the onion ring deep fryer into the barrels out by the dumpster. Before dumping, it was dark, but I wouldn't say it was inedible or that nasty (if it was, then no one would have liked the last order of onion rings that had been prepared, the stuff is dumped before it gets that bad), but after sitting outside for a few days it would start to smell rancid so yes, it eventually turned inedible. then we would dump the shortening from the two french fry fryers into the onion ring fryer and the taco deep fryer.
Then we would dump fresh shortening into the french fry fryers and bring them back up to temp.

[Robert Gary]

First, I don't think you interpreted my humor correctly, but it doesn't matter, you're wrong on the above.

No I'm not. I guess that makes you wrong twice. Best give up while you are ahead.

-Robert

[Robert Gary]

I enjoy how you try to spin fact here are some refreshers for you:

Example 1:
Example 2
Example 3
And my personal favorite:
So if you're wrong about what was said in this thread...I wonder what else you're wrong about? (rhetorical)

I have no idea who you are quoting. How does quoting someone else prove that you were not wrong again. You keep trying to deflect the issue that an officer should be held to a higher standard by saying he's not you convicted. I don't give a crap if some particular officer is convicted, it doesn't change the fact that if an officer is convicted he should be held to a high standard.

-Robert

[Bill Z]

No I'm not. I guess that makes you wrong twice. Best give up while you are ahead.

-Robert

what do you mean I'm wrong twice, restaurants have to throw out grease while it is still edible so it isn't in use when it becomes inedible. did you even read my description of how it's done at one restaurant.

[Dave Burrell]

Looks like we have a lot of armchair lawyers who think the know better

[jafount]

I have no idea who you are quoting. How does quoting someone else prove that you were not wrong again. You keep trying to deflect the issue that an officer should be held to a higher standard by saying he's not you convicted. I don't give a crap if some particular officer is convicted, it doesn't change the fact that if an officer is convicted he should be held to a high standard.

-Robert

I guess if you were articulate enough to string together a coherent thought, I'd comment...since you aren't, we're done.

BTW if you're an aspiring lawyer...yikes.