328 replies to this topic

[Darth Lefty]

Once. Just one, single time...

Please don't feed the troll.

[ChipShot]

Sergeant Scamdahl committed a serious crime of theft, and was arrested.

That's all I need to know.

Folsom PD needs an independent review of it's policies and procedures.

There's obviously a problem there of some sort.

[Bill Z]

Sergeant Scamdahl committed a serious crime of theft, and was arrested.

That's all I need to know.

Folsom PD needs an independent review of it's policies and procedures.

There's a problem there of some sort.

For your sake, I hope you don't ever need the police to help you.

[ChipShot]

For your sake, I hope you don't ever need the police to help you.

That's exactly my point.

I help pay their salaries, so I expect professionalism, not criminality.

Sad that many of you don't.

[Bill Z]

That's exactly my point.

I help pay their salaries, so I expect professionalism, not criminality.

Sad that many of you don't.

I expect that too, but I'm waiting to hear how it goes as I haven't heard enough of true factual info to guess at the man's innocence or guilt and what the actual final charges will be and the verdict. Until then, I'm reserving judgement. There is too much I just don't know.

[Robert Gary]

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.

If the grease is still edible as it sits in the recovery container then please post a video with you, a big spoon, a smile, and a big bucket of coagulated grease. Clearly the law is making a difference between freash "shortening" ( you never call it grease when its fresh) and the dirty crud in the recovery container, thus calling it not edible.

-Robert

[Robert Gary]

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.

Sorry, I should keep it at a 3rd grade reading level for you. It's unfortunate that you can't keep up.
So let's summarize this all up...

1) First you said the officer was not arrested. We posted news articles and even a video interview with the Folsom PD Lt saying he was arrested. You continued to insist he was not arrested even after seeing the video...
2) You said that the Folsom PD Lt could not have arrested the officer in question because you somehow knew that the Lt did not personally witness the crime (or some other such silly claim). Again, you were proven wrong
3) You said this was a witch hunt because the officer was charged with transporting grease and officers are exempt from this rule. Then your own post showed the officer was charged with *STEALING* grease, you were thus proven wrong.
4) You accused anyone of holding an officer to a higher standard of being on a witch hunt and that apparently even speaking publically about what type of punishment an officer convicted of such a crime was somehow wrong.


-Robert

[Darth Lefty]

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.

If the grease is still edible as it sits in the recovery container then please post a video with you, a big spoon, a smile, and a big bucket of coagulated grease. Clearly the law is making a difference between freash "shortening" ( you never call it grease when its fresh) and the dirty crud in the recovery container, thus calling it not edible.

If you two are going to fight anyways could you at least do it about something worthwhile?

[ChipShot]

Sorry, I should keep it at a 3rd grade reading level for you. It's unfortunate that you can't keep up.
So let's summarize this all up...

1) First you said the officer was not arrested. We posted news articles and even a video interview with the Folsom PD Lt saying he was arrested. You continued to insist he was not arrested even after seeing the video...
2) You said that the Folsom PD Lt could not have arrested the officer in question because you somehow knew that the Lt did not personally witness the crime (or some other such silly claim). Again, you were proven wrong
3) You said this was a witch hunt because the officer was charged with transporting grease and officers are exempt from this rule. Then your own post showed the officer was charged with *STEALING* grease, you were thus proven wrong.
4) You accused anyone of holding an officer to a higher standard of being on a witch hunt and that apparently even speaking publically about what type of punishment an officer convicted of such a crime was somehow wrong.
-Robert

Please quit encouraging the troll.

He's just trying to employ 'the blue code of protection/silence'.

But still a troll, nonetheless.

[Bill Z]

If the grease is still edible as it sits in the recovery container then please post a video with you, a big spoon, a smile, and a big bucket of coagulated grease. Clearly the law is making a difference between freash "shortening" ( you never call it grease when its fresh) and the dirty crud in the recovery container, thus calling it not edible.

-Robert

as I said, if you read my posts, it is dumped still edible, but then does go rancid in the container.

Geez, try reading before replying

[jafount]

Sorry, I should keep it at a 3rd grade reading level for you. It's unfortunate that you can't keep up.
So let's summarize this all up...

1) First you said the officer was not arrested. We posted news articles and even a video interview with the Folsom PD Lt saying he was arrested. You continued to insist he was not arrested even after seeing the video...

You are a typical diptard who only see/hears what he chooses to.

In the State of California there are 29 separate codes that are enforcible by peace officers. Among these are the California Penal Code, Vehicle Code, Health and Safety code, Business and Professions Code, Welfare and Institutions code, Public Resources Code, Education Code, Fish and Game Code and the list goes on and on and on...

Penal Code Section 836 says:

836. (a) A peace officer may arrest a person in obedience to a
warrant, or, pursuant to the authority granted to him or her by
Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2,
without a warrant, may arrest a person whenever any of the following
circumstances occur:
(1) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer's presence.

(2) The person arrested has committed a felony, although not in
the officer's presence.
(3) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed a felony, whether or not a felony, in fact,
has been committed.
(b) Any time a peace officer is called out on a domestic violence
call, it shall be mandatory that the officer make a good faith effort
to inform the victim of his or her right to make a citizen's arrest.
This information shall include advising the victim how to safely
execute the arrest.
© (1) When a peace officer is responding to a call alleging a
violation of a domestic violence protective or restraining order

2) You said that the Folsom PD Lt could not have arrested the officer in question because you somehow knew that the Lt did not personally witness the crime (or some other such silly claim). Again, you were proven wrong

I knew the crime wasn't seen by the Lieutenant because the news story said it was reported by Sacramento Rendering Company. The fact that this was reported by Sacramento Rendering Company, precludes an on view arrest situation from having occurred.

See above

Procedurally, this arrest could not have happened as arresting for a misdemeanor not committed in the presence of a peace officer is precluded by PC 836. The only way he could have been "arrested" is if he had been arrested for a felony, as this is permitted under PC 836

My assertion is that the Lieutenant mis-spoke as this is often the case with a PIO. They tend to "dumb down" the scenario so, in deference to you, simple people can better grasp what happened. As an aside, the Media tends to up play and selectively edit for more sensational public consumption.

3) You said this was a witch hunt because the officer was charged with transporting grease and officers are exempt from this rule. Then your own post showed the officer was charged with *STEALING* grease, you were thus proven wrong.

This confounds me. I'd like for you to take a moment and go find my specific post that supports your claim. You, sir (or ma'am) suffer from selective reading disorder. Or, maybe it's just a comprehension problem, but I DARE you to find and quote where I said he was only charged with transporting grease. Now before you get all excited and run off, thus failing to read the balance of this post, I would caution you that I did specifically address the transporting section and noted there is an exception for peace officers. However, this does not diminish the fact that I acknowledged what sections he was charged with.

I copied the Sac Bee article and linked to it so anyone was able to see the two sections this man was charged with violating.

4) You accused anyone of holding an officer to a higher standard of being on a witch hunt and that apparently even speaking publically about what type of punishment an officer convicted of such a crime was somehow wrong.
-Robert

What I said was, this IA investigation is a "witch hunt". It's a "fishing expedition". Others agreed with me on this. Others, still will wait until the facts are in to render their judgment. I have the right to call this a witch hunt if I so desire. Having spent a LOT of years in the industry, I know many good men who were subject to such fishing expeditions by supervisors who were either micro-managers, incompetent or insecure.

Everyone here can bear witness to what I am about to say.

I will meet with you and place a crisp $100 bill in your hand if you can find one of my posts that says "anyone holding an officer to a higher standard is only on a witch hunt and speaking "publically" (I copied your spelling error from above) about what punishment they should receive, was wrong. Find that....I'll give you money. Care to support any of your claims with greenbacks?

Seriously, you should work harder at your armchair lawyering. I suspect you're a snot nose kid because you seem to know a lot about how a fast food restaurant stores its used cooking grease, but that's not enough to give you a pass. If you're going to come out swinging with all your legal expertise, I would highly recommend you have some expertise to back your claim. Short of that, you look like what you are...an idiot who can't comprehend English and lack basic reasoning skills. Oh and before you cry foul, I mean idiot in the legal sense, not as a personal slight. Seriously it's a legal term....feel free to look it up. Lemme help you though, it's spelled i-d-i-o-t.

[jafount]

Please quit encouraging the troll.

He's just trying to employ 'the blue code of protection/silence'.

But still a troll, nonetheless.

Pot meet Kettle. I just love how you tow that line.

Lemme know if you ever change your mind about that beer...you're such an interesting guy, I realllly want to chat with you in person.

[Dave Burrell]

Sergeant Scamdahl committed a serious crime of theft, and was arrested.

That's all I need to know.

Folsom PD needs an independent review of it's policies and procedures.

There's obviously a problem there of some sort.

Serious crime?? Does your hatred for cops make you that ignorant?

[Dave Burrell]

That's exactly my point.

I help pay their salaries, so I expect professionalism, not criminality.

Sad that many of you don't.

Your employer expects you to work all day, not chat online. You are stealing from your employer and should be fired

[Dave Burrell]

Please quit encouraging the troll.

He's just trying to employ 'the blue code of protection/silence'.

But still a troll, nonetheless.

Now you are just being a Richard