Yep, nuts.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That news story makes me wonder if there is something else we don't know about, because it does seem a strange conclusion to jump to ("they happen to have speed-tracking equipment, therefore they are stalking Person X").
I'd be more comfortable with assessing it as weird if the story included a line about how the couple had never had any other contact with this particular officer. It seems like that would be an obvious note to make, and yet the writer didn't -- which doesn't prove anything, of course, but it does make me less certain about how to judge it. What if, for example, they'd already asked this officer several times to stop speeding unnecessarily through their area?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Lee says his most surprising catch yet? A neighbor who ought to know better. “Kennesaw police officer, you know, coming down the hill and running 34 miles per hour in a 25 mile an hour zone.”
And Lee says it happens quite often.
“Oh, I’ve caught him going 42, 37, going up the hill, down the hill, all kinds of speeds.”
...
According to the warrant affidavit filed by Officer Perrone, he says the Sipples did harass him by sending his employer multiple e-mails in an effort to get him in trouble. Kennesaw Police say they are investigating and have counseled Perrone before for improperly flashing his badge at the Sipples. ...
It looks like a very complicated situation, likely further complicated by stress, frustration, and conflict management problems on multiple sides.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Multiple emails to one's employer is stalking and/or harassment?
Uh . . . yeah, I'd say there's plenty of blame on both sides here.
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
Funny. There's a picture with MPH in it.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
One of my friends as a child had a car come crashing through her kitchen (and, on other occasions, her garden and her front yard) because they lived at the bottom of a very dangerous hill. My sympathies are entirely with the couple. The police officer shouldn't have been speeding in the first place, and he certainly should have stopped after being politely asked once.
Edit to add: It sounds like they were pretty rude to the police officer, which is bad. But he was an officer of the law repeatedly breaking the law, and the two don't even compare.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rotar Mode: Funny. There's a picture with MPH in it.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I don't see a reason for blaming the people with the cameras and radar for catching speeders. Unless we're to believe that they're wrong because you mustn't expose cops breaking the law.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Multiple emails to one's employer is stalking and/or harassment?
Uh . . . yeah, I'd say there's plenty of blame on both sides here.
I am not getting how only the officer is not to blame. It looks like he tried to intimidate the couple, after they legitimately tried to get him to stop speeding by complaining. Reading between the lines in the article, it sounds like they've been trying to get this resolved for some time.
What have the couple done wrong?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Or, what Will B said. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't think we have reason to believe that the couple was doing anything wrong, Storm Saxon, at least not by my current read. However, I do think the situation is explainable, even if some actions may not be justified. [Note that my prior comments were all related to the OP and the title of the thread. I don't really disagree with Christine, though -- it just didn't pass my "whiff test" with the information we originally had. Something else really had to have been going on.]
The fact that it played out the way it did is perfectly understandable to me. It reads (again, to me) as if there is a lot of stress and frustration, and more than one person (at the very least, the police officer and whomever was fielding the emails from the couple) likely have some deficits in appropriate conflict management.
--------
Edited to add: Of course, without the text of the emails from the couple, it's hard to judge whether they were appropriate to the situation. It's entirely possible to have a just cause but pursue it in an inappropriate way. By my read, we can't judge whether the emails themselves were harrassment or not. Depends on what they actually said. Not that's a reason to assume they were harrassing, either -- just a reason to withhold judgment on that particular aspect.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I guess we'll see. Since the trial rests on the emails, it should be easy for the judge to determine whether 'stalking' was going on.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Thanks for linking to the other articles. It does add a bit more to the story, but I still think its nuts. I can't find any definition of stalking under which this fits -- it really does sound to me as if the police department is pissed that they got caught red-handed.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It sounds to me like the officer was pissed, for sure. And my guess is that nobody else in authority over enforcement officers wanted to get involved unless they had to.
quote:The Kennesaw officer who sought the arrest of a Bartow County couple in regard to them recording his vehicle with a camera and radar gun dropped his complaint Wednesday in Bartow magistrate court.
...
Perrone told the couple in front of Mosley, "I would like to withdraw my warrant application for arrest."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
One thing to remember: in at least one state (Virginia), no law enforcement official has authority to prevent citizens from presenting charges to a magistrate. The magistrate can refuse to allow the case to proceed, but prior to that hearing, no one has authority to stop it.
The system seems to have worked as designed.
Also, we have no idea what actually happened here, nor do we know what law was actually alleged to have been violated here.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
To the idea that sending emails to 'his boss' constitutes Harassement or stalking. That would be true if he was a factory worker or insurance salesman and emails were sent to 'the boss', but keep in mind that this is a police officer and his boss is "The Police". So, in otherwords, they reported him to the police as I assume they also did with other speeders.
This strikes me as a blatant attempt by a police officer to intimidate a couple of citizens.
Now, I confess to not knowing the content of the emails, but for the moment, it doesn't seem that they were treating this offender any different than they treated any other offender they caught.
I'm glad the charges were drop. I suspect when the reality of going to court set in, the Officer realized he wasn't going to come off looking so good.
As to stalking, it seems hard to 'stalk' someone from the comfort of your own home. Usually, you have to go out to where that the stalked party is and pursue him there. How can you stalk someone without ever leaving your own house?
Just silly.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: To the idea that sending emails to 'his boss' constitutes Harassement or stalking. That would be true if he was a factory worker or insurance salesman and emails were sent to 'the boss', but keep in mind that this is a police officer and his boss is "The Police". So, in otherwords, they reported him to the police as I assume they also did with other speeders.
BlueWizard, from the last article, it appears they were emailing him directly.
quote:According to the Sipples' attorney, Perrone wanted to meet to request that the couple stop e-mailing him, but only a superior court judge can enforce restrictions of this nature.[emphasis added]
quote:As to stalking, it seems hard to 'stalk' someone from the comfort of your own home. Usually, you have to go out to where that the stalked party is and pursue him there. How can you stalk someone without ever leaving your own house?
Just silly.
Not silly. It is covered in the law itself.
[Just about] any form of contact that follows a certain pattern of behavior in particular contexts would count. Emails, phone calls, and snail mail can all be means of stalking. Couple one or more of these with surveillance, and the situation may fit even more closely.
If those emails were threatening in nature (a big if!), this case would seem on its face to be a candidate for the Georgia statute for stalking.
quote: Georgia Stalking Law Title 16, Section 16-5-90
(a)(1) A person commits the offense of stalking when he or she follows, places under surveillance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places without the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person. For the purpose of this article, the terms 'computer' and 'computer network' shall have the same meanings as set out in Code Section 16-9-92; the term 'contact' shall mean any communication including without being limited to communication in person, by telephone, by mail, by broadcast, by computer, by computer network, or by any other electronic device; and the place or places that contact by telephone, mail, broadcast, computer, computer network, or any other electronic device is deemed to occur shall be the place or places where such communication is received. For the purpose of this article, the term 'place or places' shall include any public or private property occupied by the victim other than the residence of the defendant. For the purposes of this article, the term 'harassing and intimidating' means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes emotional distress by placing such person in reasonable fear for such person's safety or the safety of a member of his or her immediate family, by establishing a pattern of harassing and intimidating behavior, and which serves no legitimate purpose. This Code section shall not be construed to require that an overt threat of death or bodily injury has been made.
(2) A person commits the offense of stalking when such person, in violation of a bond to keep the peace posted pursuant to Code Section 17-6-110, standing order issued under Code Section 19-1-1, temporary restraining order, temporary protective order, permanent restraining order, permanent protective order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction or condition of pretrial release, condition of probation, or condition of parole in effect prohibiting the harassment or intimidation of another person, broadcasts or publishes, including electronic publication, the picture, name, address, or phone number of a person for whose benefit the bond, order, or condition was made and without such person's consent in such a manner that causes other persons to harass or intimidate such person and the person making the broadcast or publication knew or had reason to believe that such broadcast or publication would cause such person to be harassed or intimidated by others.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, a person who commits the offense of stalking is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c) Upon the second conviction, and all subsequent convictions, for stalking, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years.
(d) Before sentencing a defendant for any conviction of stalking under this Code section or aggravated stalking under Code Section 16-5-91, the sentencing judge may require psychological evaluation of the offender and shall consider the entire criminal record of the offender. At the time of sentencing, the judge is authorized to issue a permanent restraining order against the offender to protect the person stalked and the members of such person's immediate family, and the judge is authorized to require psychological treatment of the offender as a part of the sentence, or as a condition for suspension or stay of sentence, or for probation. [emphasis added]
---
Edit to add for clarification: Mind you, I don't think they were stalking him. I do, however, see how such a case could possibly be made, even if I don't think myself (knowing just what I know) that it should go to trial.
I also think that the initial news article painted a very different picture of this by omission of certain facts. The more detailed articles make the police officer look much worse, actually, but they also note details that make how this played out less puzzling to the reader.
[ February 20, 2007, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To the idea that sending emails to 'his boss' constitutes Harassement or stalking. That would be true if he was a factory worker or insurance salesman and emails were sent to 'the boss', but keep in mind that this is a police officer and his boss is "The Police". So, in otherwords, they reported him to the police as I assume they also did with other speeders.
What makes you think this is true? They emailed the Kennesaw police (his employer), who have no authority over speeding in Barstow County.
The link concerning the dropped charges also points out that he wanted them to top emailing him.
In essence, they emailed his employer (who happen to "The Police" in another jurisdiction, but not here) and him about this, repeatedly (at least from what the officer alleges). They might or might not have emailed "The Police" (Barstow law enforcement), but there's nothing in any of the three stories I read that indicate emails to The Police were the basis for his complaint.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Or, in more detail and much more eloquently, what Dagonee said.
(We have to stop meeting like this.)
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Trouble is, if that definition of stalking is expanded to include this, then I get to prosecute the next cop who pulls me over. Anybody who's ever investigated for any crime gets to prosecute the cops for putting them under surveillance.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Will B, I think it wasn't just the surveillance, but the further private contact and the fact that the surveillance wasn't provisioned under other statutes (which I assume police surveillance is, though I don't know that for sure). I expect a police officer is not permitted to repeatedly contact you privately, outside the normal channels, after having pulled you over.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Trouble is, if that definition of stalking is expanded to include this, then I get to prosecute the next cop who pulls me over. Anybody who's ever investigated for any crime gets to prosecute the cops for putting them under surveillance.
My humor meter is misfiring. Was this a joke?
A quick reminder: no government official acting in his official capacity supported or affirmed such an expansion in any way. This was the act of a private citizen.
Beyond that, what if they sent 200 emails a day demanding him to give up his license? What if they sent 200 emails a day to his boss telling them that he needs to be fired?
I think that kind of behavior, after a request to stop, would be something we want to be able to apply criminal sanctions to.
What if the emails said this: "If we don't get [u]satisfaction[/u] soon, we will take STEPS! The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants!"
Clearly, there's a new element here - the threat. But few stalking cases are this clear. The line between threat and philosophizing is one we want juries to draw.
I assume neither the 200 emails nor the threat happened in this case. But we allow people to bring charges, and provide a way to review them prior to a great investment of time or effort, precisely because there are so many situations.
The bar for bringing charges is intentionally low - probable cause. The bar for citizens bringing complaints is even lower - don't lie about what happened. The alleged facts are evaluated to see if probable cause exists in the hearing that was about to happen when the officer withdrew charges.
quote:(We have to stop meeting like this.)
I know - people might start to talk!
*points radar gun at CT*
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
If I'm a private citizen, then I can't contact a policeman by any means *except* privately.
What are the normal channels for reporting a crime? Isn't it to call the cops?
Do we really want to make it a crime to report a crime?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
But they weren't reporting a crime to the law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction where the speeding occurred. It was more analogous to me calling your boss (repeatedly) and informing him that you have been speeding.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: If I'm a private citizen, then I can't contact a policeman by any means *except* privately.
I don't understand. I have contacted police before at their public place of work through publicly available channels, either to follow up on a report or to ask for work assistance. I would consider that a public contact [as opposed to, say, an individual's own email account].
quote:Do we really want to make it a crime to report a crime?
Again, I don't understand your point. This seems to have nothing to do with the matter at hand. (What are you talking about?)
[ February 20, 2007, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:According to the warrant affidavit filed by Officer Perrone, he says the Sipples did harass him by sending his employer multiple e-mails in an effort to get him in trouble. Kennesaw Police say they are investigating and have counseled Perrone before for improperly flashing his badge at the Sipples.
I just wanted to point out that if the Sipples had contacted the Kennesaw police to report the officer speeding in his private car then they were clearly out of line. If, however, they had contacted the Kennesaw police because he had improperly flashed his badge or because he had been speeding in a police vehicle, then contacting his employer about his improper use of police department resources was entirely appropriate.
We don't know enough about this case to know which if either of these happened, but its clearly possible to imagine situations in which the Sipples action was appropriate and situations in which it was inappropriate.
My sympathy lies with the couple because I once lived over the crest of a hill where speeding was rapant. The speed limit was 25 mph but people routinely came over the hill at over 40 mph. Our street intersect this street about 80 feet from the crest of the hill which meant that if cars were going significantly over the speed limit we couldn't seem them until it was too late. There were numerous serious accidents at the intersection particularly in winter. Finally, the city spend a huge sum of money regrading the hill which only partially resolved the problem.
I find it deeply irritating that so many Americans feel that speed limits aren't important laws so its OK to break them.
Speed limits exist for all of our safety. When someone violates the speed limit, they are endangering peoples lives. Over 40,000 are killed annually in the US in automobile collisions.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
The man's just holding us down. Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:... I would consider that a public contact [as opposed to, say, an individual's own email account].
OK. In that case, how is it private channels when you call the police station to report a crime by a cop?[quot]e
quote:Do we really want to make it a crime to report a crime?
Again, I don't understand your point. This seems to have nothing to do with the matter at hand. (What are you talking about?) [/QUOTE]I was talking about some people who are being criminally charged for reporting a crime.
[ February 20, 2007, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: OK. In that case, how is it private channels when you call the police station to report a crime by a cop?
Will, as I mentioned above, their own lawyer said they were being asked to stop sending the officer himself emails. As Dagonee said, "They might or might not have emailed "The Police" (Barstow law enforcement), but there's nothing in any of the three stories I read that indicate emails to The Police were the basis for his complaint."
quote:I was talking about some people who are being criminally charged for reporting a crime.
Will, they were not charged. The complaint was dropped. You are not referring to something that actually happened. (?) (Are we reading the same thread? Am I spacing out on you? )
---
Edited to add: Both of these issues are in the last excerpts I posted from the latest news article. It's all in a post about 12 above this one.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I see reporting the speeding to his police chief as in the same line as, say, reporting a broker to his company for inside trading. Something you have a moral responsibility to do.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I'm glad to see the charges were dropped, from Claudia's link. Of course, they should never have been brought in the first place, but it's still good that they were dropped.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Hmm. That's not terribly far from here. Kennesaw isn't, anyway. Bartow County (not BarStow) is a bit of a hike from here, but it's a neighboring county.
I once had a neighbor knock on my door to complain about how fast my "son" drove past her house. She looked really confused by my age, and asked if the car parked out front belonged to us. I told her that it belonged to my husband's younger brother, and adult. I told her I would tell him and all, but he wasn't under my authority in any way. She said some stuff about if he hurt her kids, she'd make sure his life was ruined.
I just kept calm and said I understood, and she seemed kind of deflated when she left. Arguing with me is seldom satisfying, because I usually just... don't. *shrug*
People get crazy when they believe their families are at risk, and not just in John Irving novels.
[ February 21, 2007, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I hate dumb people.
THEY are the reason for the fall of western civilization, and eastern civilization. and the rest of civilizations.
including high school counseling offices.
although I cannot admit they were ever civilized.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: I'm glad to see the charges were dropped, from Claudia's link. Of course, they should never have been brought in the first place, but it's still good that they were dropped.
There were no charges "brought in the first place." There was a complaint made, but the complaint was dropped before the arraignment. Thus, no charges.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I was talking about some people who are being criminally charged for reporting a crime.
Although CT has cleared up the "charged" aspect of this statement quite nicely, it seems the second half is still unresolved, Will. At this time, we have no evidence that the complaint was associated with "reporting a crime."
If I call the San Diego police right now and tell them about people spray painting my car, I have not reported a crime - because I am in Virginia right now.
They called the officer's employer, who had no authority over the alleged crime. They weren't reporting a crime,* they were calling someone's employer who had no authority to accept a report of this crime.
* It seems they also emailed the Bartow police, and this was "reporting a crime," but this was not the basis for the complaint.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
On the contrary, police officers are sworn to uphold the laws. Breaking that oath is a matter which should be dealt with by his Kennesaw employer. If for no other reason, a police officer must give sworn testimony in court as part of his job. A habitual oathbreaker can hardly be described as a reliable witness, and so can hardly be described as someone qualified to be employed as an Officer of the Law.
"Bartow authorities...visited the Sipples' home to tell them Perrone intended to press charges against them for stalking" and "...Bartow County...deputy...'trying to figure out if she’s going to arrest me...' " seems overly close to engaging in witness tampering/intimidation under the color of authority: which is a very serious felony.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: On the contrary ...
"On the contrary" to what?
The discussion was about a complaint made against the couple, not against the officer. There was no complaint made against the officer, at least not reported in the articles above.
Now, if you want to discuss whether a complaint should be made against the officer (and I think this might well be a good idea, actually), you certainly can, but:
1) you'd have to start a different discussion, because 2) this hasn't happened yet (as far as we know), and thus 3) there is no preceding discussion to be "on the contrary" to.
I think. Or am I misreading something? (This whole thread has had me thinking I must be misreading everything, as the basic facts seem to keep changing.)
[ February 21, 2007, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"Bartow authorities...visited the Sipples' home to tell them Perrone intended to press charges against them for stalking" and "...Bartow County...deputy...'trying to figure out if she’s going to arrest me...' " seems overly close to engaging in witness tampering/intimidation under the color of authority: which is a very serious felony.
Are you contending that the Bartow authorities came overly close to committing this very serious felony? Or that the officer who took out the complaint did so?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Bartow authorities. Officer Perrone has the same right to file a complaint as the Sipples or anyone else; and the same responsibility to be truthful in making his allegations.
" 'On the contrary' to what? "
To "...if the Sipples had contacted the Kennesaw police to report the officer speeding in his private car then they were clearly out of line." Most (possibly all) police officers do not go "off the job" in the same manner as civilians. eg A civilian doesn't have to be a "Good Samaritan", an off-duty police officer does. A civilian doesn't have to carry a weapon, an off-duty police officer does. etc... The right to exercise police powers do not end when an officer punches out on a clock. And to "But they weren't reporting a crime to the law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction where the speeding occurred. It was more analogous to me calling your boss (repeatedly) and informing him that you have been speeding." How about reporting a truck-driver to his/her hauling company? Or a delivery-driver to his/her pizza joint? Both businesses can be held legally and financially liable for accidents caused by their drivers. As well as to "If I call the San Diego police right now and tell them about people spray painting my car, I have not reported a crime - because I am in Virginia right now. They called the officer's employer, who had no authority over the alleged crime." If a SanDiego police officer had spray painted the car, the SanDiegoPoliceDepartment certainly does have the authority&obligation to decide whether that alleged offense constitutes sufficiently serious grounds for duty restrictions or a suspension until the matter is legally settled.
[ February 21, 2007, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Bartow authorities. Officer Perrone has the same right to file a complaint as the Sipples or anyone else; and the same responsibility to be truthful in making his allegations.
" 'On the contrary' to what? "
To "But they weren't reporting a crime to the law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction where the speeding occurred. It was more analogous to me calling your boss (repeatedly) and informing him that you have been speeding." How about a reporting a truck-driver to his/her hauling company? Or a delivery-driver to his/her pizza joint? Both can be held financially liable for accidents caused by their drivers. And to "If I call the San Diego police right now and tell them about people spray painting my car, I have not reported a crime - because I am in Virginia right now. They called the officer's employer, who had no authority over the alleged crime." If a SanDiego police officer had spray painted the car, the SanDiegoPoliceDepartment certainly does have the authority&obligation to decide whether that alleged offense constitutes sufficiently serious grounds for duty restrictions or a suspension until the matter is legally settled.
Ah, okay. Thanks.
I'll read and see if I have anything to comment back. But I see where you are coming from now.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The Bartow authorities were investigating a complaint by a citizen. They did absolutely nothing wrong. To call it "overly close to engaging in witness tampering/intimidation under the color of authority" is fairly ludicrous. It's called investigating an alleged crime, and there's zero evidence of any impropriety inthe way it was handled.
As for your "on the contrary" explanation, what you said isn't actually "contrary" to anything I said. Will made a specific allegation - that the complaint was brought because a crime was reported.
If the facts as we have them are accurate - that the complaint was in reference to calls to Kennesaw and to the officer - then the statement I took exception to is factually incorrect. If everything you say is true, that statement is still factually incorrect.
quote:If a SanDiego police officer had spray painted the car, the SanDiegoPoliceDepartment certainly does have the authority&obligation to decide whether that alleged offense constitutes sufficiently serious grounds for duty restrictions or a suspension until the matter is legally settled.
Sure. But I wouldn't be reporting a crime, which is what was actually being discussed. I have not once said they shouldn't have called Kennesaw. I have merely said that even if the complaint were sent forward to formal charges, it would not be criminalizing the reporting of a crime.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The situation is still "nuts."
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
That's the problem, Dagonee. Neither report has sufficient information; which indicates that the reporters and editors are incapable of asking the right questions. Probably comes from having journalism and/or communications majors being hired as journalists: lack of a broad knowlege base isn't good for the news business.
What bothers me is Bartow's contact before "A judge will hear Perrone’s stalking application February 14." doesn't seem like StandardOperatingProcedure provided for all citizens. It'd be highly relevent to know the police SOP for other restraining-order applications and harassment-charge filings within that jurisdiction.
I'd also like to know precisely what the Bartow police officer said and intimated: which is one of the many reasons that all government employees should be recorded during all official contacts with members of the public. And that such recordings should become a part of the public record immediately*.
* With the obvious exceptions of undercover investigations and witness protection.
[ February 21, 2007, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What bothers me is Bartow's contact before "A judge will hear Perrone’s stalking application February 14." doesn't seem like StandardOperatingProcedure provided for all citizens. It'd be highly relevent to know the police SOP for other restraining-order applications and harassment-charge filings within that jurisdiction.
I've personally witnessed quite a few visits in analogous situations (i.e., where one party has filed a complaint of harassment/stalking/etc. and the police visit the accused) that have occurred before magistrate action. So there's nothing per se unusual about police contact prior to judicial action.
In fact, I'd think it'd be more unusual the other way around.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
For reports of physical harm, threats of physical harm, assault / unwanted touching / deliberately preventing ones free travel on a public right-of-way, trespassing, and similar crimes: undoubtedly.
But for sending complaints to an employer about their employee's poor job performance? I'd suspect that a restraining order would have to have been previously approved by the court.
[ February 21, 2007, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I am lost again. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Not sure where I veered off-road. In case it helps, oath-breaking and poor job performance by a police officer includes flouting the law; eg habitually driving well above the posted maximum-speed limit.
[ February 21, 2007, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But for sending complaints to an employer about their employee's poor job performance? I'd suspect that a restraining order would have to have been previously approved by the court.
No, I've specifically seen ones involving repeated calls and emails to the complainant's work - in at least one occasion, related to work performance.
There's definitely no "have to have" here - as in, there's no requirement of court action before police visit a house in response to a complaint.
Police investigate many complaints, even when they know before hand no crime has been committed, because they can often defuse a situation that may escalate.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I am aware that part of police work is peacekeeping: preventing irritants from becoming crimes. Also that restraining orders can be put in place by a judge to prevent harassment at work. In this case, there was no such restraining order. Did the complaints-against-employee-perfomance case that you witnessed also include that lack of a restraining order?
And it ain't a matter of exceptions, but rather of Bartow police SOP: 1) Did the Bartow police investigate the grounds for Perrone's complaint before a Bartow officer contacted the Sipples? eg Were the numbers of Sipples' complaints enough to appear to be harassing? Or were they separate complaints about separate incidents, along with a natural number of follow-up inquiries? eg Did the Stipples' complaints appear to be meant to be informative? Or meant to be legally malicious? 2) Was Perrone's complaint treated in the same manner as an average citizen's complaint about the same type/level of irritating behaviour? 3) If the answer is no to either or both questions, why did the Bartow officer contact the Sipples?
And as I said, the two news articles linked above don't provide any answers in areas which would provide a usefully clear picture of what occurred. Not even the Stipple's quote: police presence can be intimidating in-and-of-itself, so the Stipples may have misinterpreted threat into a perfectly innocuous inquiry and discussion.
[ February 21, 2007, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If not to either or both, why did the Bartow officer contact the Sipples?
I think you are applying too rigorous a standard here. I suspect that when a complaint is issued, it is standard procedure for the police to talk to both parties as part of a routine follow up. In fact I would expect them to do this in most cases.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have a hypothetical question. Imagine someone set up speed checking equipment in front of their home and a system that would send out e-mails to recognized individuals when they were observed speeding and perhaps an e-mail to the local police as well. Imagine that a person drove past the home twice a day speeding on both occasions so that they were getting two e-mails a day sent to them to inform them that they had been observed speeding along with 2 e-mails a day going to the police. If the e-mails simply said "Your car was observed at 7:46 am going at 9 mph over the posted speed limit at 555 MyHouse Road. A notice of this has been sent to the local police." Would/should this be considered legitimate grounds for a harassment complaint?
What if 2 e-mails were sent for each violation? What if 10 e-mails were sent for each violation? What if 1000 e-mails were sent for each violation?
I can see that at some point this could indeed become harassment but its not really clear to me where that point is.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
So this couple contacted a police officer's boss to report him breaking the law. On the one hand, I can understand that his boss had no jurisdiction to do anything about this as a crime. But his job is to uphold and enforce the law, and they are his "customers", so to speak. So whom do they contact when they have a "customer complaint" about how he conducts himself in doing his job? If he worked at Starbucks and gave them bad coffee, they'd call his boss, and not be accused of harrassment or stalking.
Of course someone posted that it depended on whether or not he was in his police vehicle at the time. I don't know; I thought police were always supposed to uphold the law, whether they're technically on duty or not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Did the complaints-against-employee-perfomance case that you witnessed also include that lack of a restraining order?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. The police investigated. There was no restraining order. This is common.
quote:Did the Bartow police investigate the grounds for Perrone's complaint before a Bartow officer contacted the Sipples? eg Were the numbers of Sipples' complaints enough to appear to be harassing? Or were they separate complaints about separate incidents, along with a natural number of follow-up inquiries?
There's no level of proof WRT initiating contact with the subject of a complaint. Many times, the next step after interviewing the complainant will be interviewing the subject of the complaint, before additional investigative resources are spent.
quote:Was Perrone's complaint treated in the same manner as an average citizen's complaint about the same type/level of irritating behaviour?
Don't know. I would think you would want to know this before throwing around the accusations you have.
quote:If the answer is no to either or both questions, why did the Bartow officer contact the Sipples?
If the answer is "no" to the first question, then the reason for the contact is "because a complaint was made." If the answer to the second question is "no" then there's a possibility of misconduct.
quote:And as I said, the two news articles linked above don't provide any answers in areas which would provide a usefully clear picture of what occurred.
I said this in my very first post in the thread.
quote:I have a hypothetical question. Imagine someone set up speed checking equipment in front of their home and a system that would send out e-mails to recognized individuals when they were observed speeding and perhaps an e-mail to the local police as well. Imagine that a person drove past the home twice a day speeding on both occasions so that they were getting two e-mails a day sent to them to inform them that they had been observed speeding along with 2 e-mails a day going to the police. If the e-mails simply said "Your car was observed at 7:46 am going at 9 mph over the posted speed limit at 555 MyHouse Road. A notice of this has been sent to the local police." Would/should this be considered legitimate grounds for a harassment complaint?
It would depend on a lot of things, including if he was asked to stop sending the emails to the complainant and on the specific state law.
quote:What if 2 e-mails were sent for each violation? What if 10 e-mails were sent for each violation? What if 1000 e-mails were sent for each violation?
Each email beyond 1 per violation weakens any contention that the emails are informational only. Once there's a purpose beyond communication, there's a greater chance of finding harassment.
Clearly, at a 1000, they'd likely find harassment (assuming there's a non-threat-based version of the law). I think even 2 might be enough, assuming they intended to send two and hadn't made an error setting up the system.
quote:o whom do they contact when they have a "customer complaint" about how he conducts himself in doing his job? If he worked at Starbucks and gave them bad coffee, they'd call his boss, and not be accused of harrassment or stalking.
The officer wasn't on duty at the time of the alleged incidents, so this isn't a very imperfect analogy.
quote:I don't know; I thought police were always supposed to uphold the law, whether they're technically on duty or not.
Technically all of us are supposed to uphold the law. I'm pretty sure officers don't get fired for speeding unless there's an ongoing issue. One citizen with a grudge and very possibly inaccurate equipment isn't likely to be enough to take formal action.
Regardless, nothing in this story suggests that the couple's actions are grounds for a harassment charge.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
First, Rabbit, I added: "...if the Sipples had contacted the Kennesaw police to report the officer speeding in his private car then they were clearly out of line." Most/?all? police officers do not go "off the job" in the same manner as civilians. eg A civilian doesn't have to be a GoodSamaritan, an off-duty police officer does. A civilian doesn't have to carry a weapon, an off-duty police officer does. etc... The right to exercise police powers do not end when an officer punches out on a clock.
And made some other (minor but clarifying) changes to the phrasing of my answers&questions beginning at post39. The responses come too quick&furious for me to properly edit what I meant to say in a sufficiently timely fashion.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Editing my 3) back in: the answers to the preceding two questions being preconditions to my third question.] 3) If not to either or both, why did the Bartow officer contact the Sipples?
"I think you are applying too rigorous a standard here."
Considering the power&responsibility that we grant police officers, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?", who guards the guardians? Under most circumstances, ie without clear evidence otherwise of greater expertise/etc: A police officer's testimony is granted more credibility than any testimony which contradicts it. A police officer is granted the extraordinary power to temporarily suspend laws which normally apply; eg a police officer can legally run a red light in what s/he judges to be an emergency.
When there is no emergency, eg investigating a letter-writing campaign or a speeding complaint, I think it is quite reasonable to apply the most rigorous standards.
"I suspect that when a complaint is issued, it is standard procedure for the police to talk to both parties as part of a routine follow up."
Which was my 1)st question: Was Officer Perrone's complaint investigated? Was Officer Perrone "talked to" in the same manner as the Sipples.
"In fact I would expect them to do this in most cases."
In most serious cases. There is no indication that the Sipples' speeding complaints were seriously investigated by the Bartow police. And there appears to be at least one Bartow police officer who accepted officer Parrone's harassment complaint at face value, without any report of a Bartow investigation as to its validity. So as far as the linked-to news articles are concerned, there is no indication that both parties were talked to equally.
I regard an excessively speeding vehicle to be a FAR more of an immediate menace to the public than a letter writing campaign. And a police officer flouting the law to be a FAR more serious offense than a civilian writing a harassment letter. So in keeping with my 2) precondition, questions arising from the Sipples' complaints should have been given a MUCH higher priority, should have been investigated well before Perrone's charge that the Sipples' letters constituted written harassment.
[ February 22, 2007, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:. . . so this isn't a very imperfect analogy.
It's just slightly imperfect? Can we get a discount?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I am not talking about whether contact with the Sipples was legal, Dagonee. Anyone* can knock on your door and make darn**near any statement they want, ask darn near any question they want. I am specificly asking whether there was any Bartow investigation into the validity of Parrone's complaint before the Bartow officer contacted the Sipples. If not, why not? For that matter, has there been any Bartow or Kinnesaw investigation into the validity of Parrone's complaint after the Bartow officer contacted the Sipples? And if not, why not?
* Excluding in gated communities; and in some areas, commercial salespeople. ** Obviously, obscenities directed at children and making open threats of physical harm would be treated differently.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I have a hypothetical question. Imagine someone set up speed checking equipment in front of their home and a system that would send out e-mails to recognized individuals when they were observed speeding and perhaps an e-mail to the local police as well. Imagine that a person drove past the home twice a day speeding on both occasions so that they were getting two e-mails a day sent to them to inform them that they had been observed speeding along with 2 e-mails a day going to the police. If the e-mails simply said "Your car was observed at 7:46 am going at 9 mph over the posted speed limit at 555 MyHouse Road. A notice of this has been sent to the local police." Would/should this be considered legitimate grounds for a harassment complaint?"
Welcome to DavidBrin's TransparentSociety. What an individual can't make transparent, SergeyBrin's Google can...or at least can find you the commercial information brokers who can. So why make it hypothetical? A perv decided to flash* a young woman on a NewYork subway. The woman had a cellphone, snapped a picture, reported the incident to the police, and posted the picture of the miscreant on the Internet. The flasher was caught, charged, found guilty, and sentenced. Would the world have been better off if the woman hadn't used her cellphone, hadn't posted the picture on the Internet? Then the flasher tried to sue the woman for "harassment and public humiliation". He lost. Fortunately in the US, truth is a shield against slander and libel charges. And truth caught in a public venue is a shield against invasion of privacy charges.
There have been many incidents in which private citizens have used the new video technology to capture crime scenes. Would we be better off if people who caused car accidents or robbers who shot convenience store clerks could more easily avoid capture?
The Sipple's radar gun and videocam evidence is fairly reliable -- eveything is timestamped, with video frames cross-checking what the radar registers -- and difficult to tamper with in a manner that can't be detected by low hobbyist-level expertise.
The saving loophole for Parrone is that most state laws have very strict definitions of who is allowed gather traffic-court-usable evidence of speeding and who can issue speeding tickets -- mostly, police officers only -- as well as what technology can be used to provide traffic-court-usable evidence of speeding.**
Which doesn't prevent police officers from using evidence collected by private citizens to reprioritize which roads need to be officially surveilled for speeders, or highway planners from using privately-gathered data to prioritize which roads need to be officially surveilled to decide which roads probably need 4way stoplights / 4way stopsigns / etc.
I'm sure the Sipples would be quite happy to give up their crusade in exchange for police or governmental action to reduce the absurdly high speeds at which cars travel along their stretch of road. Probably wouldn't have started their little "hobby" if the police and/or the local government had paid attention to their original complaints.
* Refusing to turn this into yet another onanism thread.
** Including which, where, when, and how the relatively few-and-far-between automatic radar&camera speedtraps can be used.
[ February 22, 2007, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Don't know. I would think you would want to know this before throwing around the accusations you have."
What? Airing the obvious questions raised by the available reporting is hardly the same as throwing around accusations.
[ February 22, 2007, 03:49 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am specificly asking whether there was any Bartow investigation into the validity of Parrone's complaint before the Bartow officer contacted the Sipples. If not, why not?
Because there almost never is. You have yet to adequately explain why there should be. It is COMMON procedure to go tot he subject of a complaint before proceeding with an investigation.
You are basing your questions on mistaken assumptions (for example, that talking to the subject of a complaint is only done in "serious" instances). You're wrong about this, and all your vague conspiracy suggestions rely on this assumption.
quote:Airing the obvious questions raised by the available reporting is hardly the same as throwing around accusations.
No. This is throwing around accusations:
quote:Bartow County...deputy...'trying to figure out if she’s going to arrest me...' " seems overly close to engaging in witness tampering/intimidation under the color of authority: which is a very serious felony.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
)![[Frown]](frown.gif)