Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwynn
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Do you know how far away their positions were when the girls came out of the store?
What does that matter? It's their job to know what they're on about, however it needs to be done within a non-police state.
There are 12 packs of colas and water and beer carried from store to car, all day, all night. If a team of 7 dimwits can't figure out the distinction and difference in the area of their putative 'expertise,' then they need to be fired, for that alone.
I think this is pretty much the crux of the issue, in a nutshell.
Much has been made about the fact what isn't known about the case, since some information seems missing or unclear about what exactly happened. The girl seems forthcoming in telling her side of the story, while the cops are stonewalling and giving very scant information to the public. This makes it look like the cops are hiding something.
Their entire position is apparently based on this statement (linked earlier by eulero83):
quote:
Agents were working in the area, concentrating on underage possession enforcement. An agent observed what appeared to be an underage person in possession of what appeared to be a case of beer, and approached her to investigate. The agent identified herself as a police officer and was displaying her badge. Other agents did not join the incident until the subject refused to cooperate. Rather than comply with the officers' requests, the subject drove off, striking two officers. She was not arrested for possessing bottled water, but for running from police and striking two of them with a vehicle.
The agents were acting upon reasonable suspicion and this whole unfortunate incident could have been avoided had the occupants complied with law enforcement requests. We take all citizen complaints seriously and the matter is currently under review by the ABC Bureau of Law Enforcement.
They don't really give much detail as to how the chain of events took place. How far away was the agent when she "observed what appeared to be an underage person in possession of what appeared to be a case of beer"? What made the agent believe that it was a case of beer? Did she bother to look at the label before approaching to investigate? Or was it that she was too far away to see and that she couldn't tell, so she just wanted to get a closer look?
Did they observe her enter the store before she made her purchases? Did they witness the actual transaction? And if not, why not? They're saying that their whole job, their whole reason for being there is to look for underage people buying beer, so if they don't have somebody in the corner of the store watching each and every transaction, then what else could they have been doing? Were they goofing off? Were the asleep on the job?
They also state that the female agent "approached her to investigate." This is also a key point which is glossed over in the statement. How, exactly, did this "approach" take place? Was the agent running across the parking lot and screaming like a maniac? Was she walking slowly and speaking calmly? What was the agent's demeanor and state of mind at that exact moment? This is another key piece of information that the cops should have included in their statement, but by not being more forthcoming with information, their story just doesn't wash.
Then we get to this part, "The agent identified herself as a police officer and was displaying her badge." Again, there is no detail about how this actually took place. Was she yelling across a parking lot from 100 yards away? Is it possible that the girls didn't hear her or see the badge? Is it possible that they may have thought she was trying to get someone else's attention instead?
And how did the "subject refuse to cooperate"? Did she flip them off or something? Was she just ignoring the agent and going about her business? Again, no details.
From the girls' viewpoint, all they knew was that a bunch of crazy people with guns started jumping on their car and banging on the windows for no reason. They had no idea what was going on, so how does that constitute an active, intentional "refusal to cooperate"? The fact that she called 911 was a clear indication that she honestly believed she was being attacked by some criminal gang. Otherwise, who would call the cops to get protection from the cops? And what reason would they have to run away from law enforcement if they weren't doing anything wrong? What reason would they have to not cooperate?
And why they wait all that time before approaching the girl in the first place? Why wait until she's almost at her car, when they could have easily stopped her just as she was exiting the store? The agent could have been standing right by the door, and as she came out, they could have asked:
"Excuse me, are you old enough to buy beer?"
"This isn't beer."
"Okay, thank you, have a good evening."
But no, they didn't they do that. They were likely goofing off in another part of the parking lot, not paying attention, then just incidentally caught sight of the girl as she was almost to her car and thought "Oh shit! We'd better do our jobs, she looks like she has beer, let's go get her!"
|
RE: psycho agents terrify college students - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread