LEO gone wild......

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by TDS92A, Sep 25, 2013.

  1. TDS92A

    TDS92A New Member Supporter

    2,747
    0
    0
  2. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    Unbelievable. This losers pic needs to be posted everywhere.
     

    Attached Files:


  3. TDS92A

    TDS92A New Member Supporter

    2,747
    0
    0
    Sure does. He is a disgrace to LEO's everywhere!!!


     
  4. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    12
    38
    he is too fat and old for a patrol officer. prolly the union boss...
     
  5. Sniper03

    Sniper03 Supporting Member Supporter

    7,665
    61
    48
    Before I made a final judgement regarding the picture I would want to see him actually taking it rather than a comment and this photo that can not be substantiated he took the sign. He could have been looking at it or checking it out! The other issue if he did, as I noticed the sign is on the city's easement and very close to the roadway. And unfortunately, there may be a city ordinance against posting any signs on city easements as in a lot of cities. And like it or not he may be responsible for enforcing city code regardless of how he really feels about an issue or what the sign says. Or he may have been contacted by a city official about a sign being on the easement? So all I am saying is, if he took it for only the purpose of "his" personal anti-gun views and stealing the sign he should be terminated! But I would need more facts and proof of the situation before I would pass final judgement. And all here probably know how patriotic and pro gun Second Amendment and devout supporter of our Constitutional Rights I am.;)

    03
     
  6. John_Deer

    John_Deer New Member

    6,624
    1
    0
    When a man gets to that point in his life he is looking for the gravy. Stealing the man's sign was very easy. I bet he had simple tasks all around town.
     
  7. AIKIJUTSU

    AIKIJUTSU New Member

    2,883
    0
    0
    If the sign was on city property, the least he could have done is knock on the guy's door and ask him to move it. But then, he may have had to walk 30 feet to get to the guy's door.
     
  8. AIKIJUTSU

    AIKIJUTSU New Member

    2,883
    0
    0
    Yep. He's the 2013 Krispy Kreme Kalendar model.
    :D
     
  9. steadyshot

    steadyshot New Member

    919
    0
    0
    A read about this the other day. The man is a true bottom feeder. Any other LEO's that would support or defend this type of behavior are just as bad.

    It will be interesting to hear what his superiors have to say about this.
     
  10. Sniper03

    Sniper03 Supporting Member Supporter

    7,665
    61
    48
    Orangello,

    No doubt from your pictures he did take the sign that was not shown in the first picture. So city ordinance I would hope! If not he should face discipline or dismissal if it was a personal issue in my oponion! I do tend to belive it was on city easment as close to the road as it was. And he may have been instructed to move all signs from city eavsment regardless of it being this sign, a for sale sign or yard sale sign. Almost gaurantee there is a utility easment that close to the street. It would be a rarity if it were not. And of course had the man called about his sings missing he may have found out why also. And this officer may not have been the only one taking his sign and enforcing an ordinance. Most cities have a code enforcement division. I do not know how big Sumers is. If he knew where the guy was that owned the sign I feel it would have been best as stated and I think most officers whould have went up to the house an advised of the situation and the possible ordinance violation. Most are understanding if it is respectfully explained. And if not OH WELL! But as many have stated this is NY!

    03
     
  11. Doc3402

    Doc3402 New Member

    2,823
    0
    0
    From the article, the homeowner was sent a letter about the sign. The city's obligation to inform ended with that letter. For whatever reason he apparently chose not to move it to his own property. It could be an easement debate, it could be ignorance of the easement, or it could be he is seeking his 15 minutes of fame. Knowing the media we will never hear how this turns out.
     
  12. Rick1967

    Rick1967 Well-Known Member

    4,988
    40
    48
    Years ago I put a sign up in front of my hotel. I code enforcement officer politely came into the building and asked to speak with me. He told me that the hotel across the street had complained. (I used to be the manager of that hotel. Long story, owner is a jerk) The officer told me that even though the type of sign I built was technically illegal, he knew that a lot of hotels used them. He told me that if I wanted to put it closer to my building he would be ok with it. The whole time he was polite and professional. That is the way this should have been handled. (I discarded the sign.)
     
  13. towboater

    towboater Active Member

    4,577
    16
    38
    I saw a series of photos, showing him taking them. I'll have to see if I can find them.
     
  14. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    And, once again the news media only tells a part of the story. The owner of the sign, "of rural Lake Lincolndale" has a sign broken and taken. The story does not say where the sign was actually posted. The area appears (on Mapquest) to be a resort/retirement area. There are many neighborhood roads that connect the area with Somers (where the cop is from). Mapquest does not delineate city limits and the story does not provide an address of the location the sign was taken from so I cannot determine whether it was in their city limits or not.

    If the sign was posted in the public Right Of Way, AND this spot is in the city of Somers, exactly what is the beef here?

    If the sign was posted in the public Right Of Way, AND this spot was NOT in the city of Somers, BIG problem.

    If the sign was posted on private property? HUGE problem.

    I, for one, would like the WHOLE story, not some possibly slanted version (whether the slant is to the right or the left)
     
  15. Doc3402

    Doc3402 New Member

    2,823
    0
    0
    If you look at the picture you can see that the patrol car is parked partially on pavement and the sign is right next to the drivers door. No matter where you are, unless it is a private drive, that should be considered a right-of-way or easement. Now the only question is where the property is located and whether an incorporated entity governing that property has an ordinance concerning signs.
     
  16. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    I too would LOVE to hear the whole story and to understand better the location of the sign and motivations of the officer. Regardless of location, that doesn't seem to be the BEST way to handle an errant sign; a missing sign with no explanation would generate the earlier results mentioned, the homeowner replaced the earlier signs and deployed some kind of surveillance camera.

    Had the first person to remove the original sign for a legitimate city code-type reason SIMPLY knocked on the door and explained to the sign owner about how the sign was in the wrong place or even left the uprooted sign with an explanatory note and contact information, whatever improprieties may have existed could have been corrected. If the sign owner then reoffended, they could very legitimately be cited and referred to a court for resolution of the situation. Instead, several signs were removed without explanation (at least not at the time of removal) leaving the sign owner thinking some kids or vandals were abusing his signs. This may have been "legal" but it wasn't right or smart, IMO.
     
  17. Doc3402

    Doc3402 New Member

    2,823
    0
    0
    I've been thinking about this all day, and I've come to the following conclusions based on the available information.

    1. The homeowner was informed by the city via a letter that the original sign was in violation due to it's location on the right-of-way.

    2. The homeowner decided that his free speech rights trumped the laws of his community and the wants of his neighbors.

    3. The homeowner placed a game camera hoping to catch whoever was enforcing the laws of his community.

    4. The homeowner is an a$$hat that is more concerned about his own individual rights as he sees them than he is about the rights of his neighbors and the community at large.

    Now for those that haven't figured this out yet, this is the type of thing that really frosts my nuggets. Who is this guy to think that his rights are more important than the rights of the people? What right does he have to blatantly ignore the laws of his community and then cry about how he was only exercising his rights? Personally, I think he is a cop hater who knew exactly who was removing his signs, and he wanted to create an internet uproar over the big bad officer depriving him of his rights. Well, I for one am not buying the bullchit. Somebody give this guy his widdle blankie and send him to bed without his supper.
    </rant>