Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[twa]

the jerk down at the snowcone joint probably ratted them out.

 

hard to blame the cop for enforcing the zero tolerance laws the health Nazi's pass.

[The Evil Genius]

Texas Cop Shuts Down Girls' Lemonade Stand

 

 

 

Fortunately, the girls quickly learned how to game the system.  They reopened the stand and offered free lemonade and popcorn.  Of course, donations were accepted.

 

What probably wasn't mentioned was that the girls parents probably saw a $ making opportunity out of it and contacted the media and now the donations have come rolling in. I'm sure the girls have their college educations paid for.

 

Stupid law though. And it didn't need to be enforced. Much like cops let people who commit traffic violations go without punishment every day. 

Edited June 12, 2015 by The Evil Genius

[twa]

you are saying if a complaint is filed the cop can just ignore a clear violation?

[Larry]

Stupid law though. And it didn't need to be enforced. Much like cops let people who commit traffic violations go without punishment every day.

And get chewed out, by the people who were knowingly breaking the law, in front of a police officer, when they DO enforce them.

[Dan T.]

you are saying if a complaint is filed the cop can just ignore a clear violation?

 

No complaint was filed... the cop happened to drive by.  The cop could have handled it a couple of ways.  He could have:

 

1. Pretended he didn't see it and kept driving.  Everybody except Larry would have been fine with that.

 

2. Helped the girls edit the sign to say "Free Lemonade: Donations accepted," drink a glass, drop a dollar in their basket, and drive away.

 

Instead, he chose 3. Shut the whole thing down. Yay.

[s0crates]

I absolutely would not blame the cop for that. He's actually enforcing an actual law. (Maybe it's a stupid law, but the cop really doesn't have much say in that).

Really?

No complaint was filed... the cop happened to drive by. The cop could have handled it a couple of ways. He could have:

1. Pretended he didn't see it and kept driving. Everybody except Larry would have been fine with that.

2. Helped the girls edit the sign to say "Free Lemonade: Donations accepted," drink a glass, drop a dollar in their basket, and drive away.

Instead, he chose 3. Shut the whole thing down. Yay.

Well put.

[twa]

No complaint was filed... the cop happened to drive by.  The cop could have handled it a couple of ways.  He could have:

 

1. Pretended he didn't see it and kept driving.  Everybody except Larry would have been fine with that.

 

2. Helped the girls edit the sign to say "Free Lemonade: Donations accepted," drink a glass, drop a dollar in their basket, and drive away.

 

Instead, he chose 3. Shut the whole thing down. Yay.

 

well it was not just a cop driving by, it was a code enforcement dick.....which explains everything.

 

http://www.kltv.com/story/29290704/police-video-shows-officer-questioning-about-lemonade-stand-permit

 

they are almost as bad as the HOA's 

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Click to read the rest

http://news.yahoo.com/mckinney-pool-party-officers-past-includes-allegations-of-racial-profiling-questionable-police-practices-014210547.html

 

 

 

McKinney pool party officer’s past includes allegations of racial profiling, questionable police practices

 

 

Tommy Brown of Dallas was watching the controversial video on a local TV news report earlier this week when a broadcaster identified the officer involved as Eric Casebolt.

 

“Casebolt!” Brown recalls shouting. “That’s his name! This is the guy that took me to jail. I never will forget that name.”

 

Nor will he forget the charge that put him behind bars: defective headlight.

 

“Who goes to jail over a headlight?” said Brown, who is black and grew up in McKinney. “If I was a different color, I believe I wouldn’t have been going to jail for a headlight.”

 

 

Edited June 13, 2015 by BRAVEONAWARPATH

[s0crates]

Click to read the rest

http://news.yahoo.com/mckinney-pool-party-officers-past-includes-allegations-of-racial-profiling-questionable-police-practices-014210547.html

Surprise, surprise.

[Major Harris]

Surprise, surprise.

Which part?

[twa]

so did he actually go to jail for a headlight?

I'll wait.

[Bang]

the kids with the lemonade stand,,   unfortunately, while it is all fine when little kids do something like this, the problem comes from other people who WILL try to skirt the law and gain unfair advantage, and then complain when busted that the city let those little girls do the same thing...

for everything that is good and sweet and wholesome, there care a hundred assholes ready to exploit it for themselves.

Unfortunately, we're perpetually in a situation of "Since we all can't play nice, no one can play at all."

 

It's a shame for the kids.

 

~Bang

[s0crates]

the kids with the lemonade stand,, unfortunately, while it is all fine when little kids do something like this, the problem comes from other people who WILL try to skirt the law and gain unfair advantage, and then complain when busted that the city let those little girls do the same thing...

for everything that is good and sweet and wholesome, there care a hundred assholes ready to exploit it for themselves.

Unfortunately, we're perpetually in a situation of "Since we all can't play nice, no one can play at all."

It's a shame for the kids.

~Bang

So kids' lemonade stands are a slippery slope to what exactly? Unregulated restaurants?

I don't see it.

so did he actually go to jail for a headlight?

I'll wait.

Yes.

There are two guys named Brown in the story, try not to get them confused. The guy named Tommy Brown went to jail for a headlight, it was the guy named Albert Brown who had the drugs.

Tommy's case is notable because the officer completely overreacted. Albert's case is notable because the officer failed to follow the law, resulting in the drug charges being dropped. Both are clear cases of the officer bullying black people, which is what I find unsurprising.

The writer could have made the distinction between the two clearer, but you could have read more carefully too.

Edited June 13, 2015 by s0crates

[Bang]

Permits exist so that the city can insure public safety, and fair collection of taxes, among other things.
Around my way there's a huge 'farmer's market' that is basically a pirate's paradise.

need ripped off music, knockoff clothes and shoes?
Plenty to be had there.

People there are getting shut down all the time for selling conterfeit items, stolen goods, and all sorts of things. One of the ways they catch them is a lot of the crooks operate without permits.
A walk thru check for permits nets them a decent haul of fraudsters most of the time.

The permit process helps stop that sort of thing.

 

These little girls made a nice 25$.. nice day for a couple of kids to learn about business, and how to be productive. i'm all for it.

But the fact they're allowed with a nice little 'aww' and pat on the head gives a real scumbag legal legs when they are setting up their unregistered stands.

 

as far as restaurants go.. we all know most of them are pretty gross in back ,and a lot of local newspapers report on which ones the health Dept. shut down that week.

If the owner serving you rat feces in your carryout Kung Pao has a decent lawyer, who knows what kind of argument he can make using those two little kids.

 

It's sad, but it's the way it is. 
 

 

~Bang

Edited June 13, 2015 by Bang

[s0crates]

Permits exist so that the city can insure public safety, and fair collection of taxes, among other things.

Around my way there's a huge 'farmer's market' that is basically a pirate's paradise.

need ripped off music, knockoff clothes and shoes?

Plenty to be had there.

People there are getting shut down all the time for selling conterfeit items, stolen goods, and all sorts of things. One of the ways they catch them is a lot of the crooks operate without permits.

A walk thru check for permits nets them a decent haul of fraudsters most of the time.

The permit process helps stop that sort of thing.

These little girls made a nice 25$.. nice day for a couple of kids to learn about business, and how to be productive. i'm all for it.

But the fact they're allowed with a nice little 'aww' and pat on the head gives a real scumbag legal legs when they are setting up their unregistered stands.

as far as restaurants go.. we all know most of them are pretty gross in back ,and a lot of local newspapers report on which ones the health Dept. shut down that week.

If the owner serving you rat feces in your carryout Kung Pao has a decent lawyer, who knows what kind of argument he can make using those two little kids.

It's sad, but it's the way it is.

~Bang

I'm all for shutting down dirty restaurants and shady businesses. No argument there.

It's the connection between that and little kids selling lemonade I'm having a hard time seeing.

How exactly would not bothering those kids enable the shady businesses? Are you saying that a cop ignoring the kids would set some kind of legal precedent?

If so, I'm not buying it. Failure to prosecute one person doesn't exempt another from prosecution, does it? If one guy gets away with a crime, it doesn't prevent somebody else from being charged with one, as far as I know. When I get stopped for speeding, the law won't buy the excuse that the guy ahead of me was speeding too.

Edited June 13, 2015 by s0crates

[Bang]

I'm all for shutting down dirty restaurants and shady businesses. No argument there.

It's the connection between that and little kids selling lemonade I'm having a hard time seeing.

How exactly would not bothering those kids enable the shady businesses? Are you saying that a cop ignoring the kids would set some kind of legal precedent?

Your honor, if the city can't be bothered to insure that those two children, those two unsupervised minors with absolutely no experience in serving any quantity of self-prepared beverage to the general public, ... if the city cannot be bothered to be sure they are providing safe lemonade.. if the city cannot make even one check of their establishment and it's sanitary process, then I can't see legally why my client should not be allowed the same leeway when it comes to such matters.

 

After all, my client is in business, and one of the largest expenses his business incurs is in fact sanitation that is demanded of him by the city, and the employee hours required to comply with the city's very rigorous code. To not require a competing business to follow the same laws and be exposed to the same expenses is simply not fair to a law abiding taxpaying business owner in the community.

 

and so on and so forth. Unfortunately one thing we've led the world in recently is graduating lawyers.. and they use the justice system like an ATM machine.

There is no shortage of them to make the most preposterous arguments that can ever be made.

we see and hear of them all the time.

 

~Bang

Edited June 13, 2015 by Bang

[s0crates]

Your honor, if the city can't be bothered to insure that those two children, those two minors with absolutely no experience in serving any quantity of self-prepared beverage to the general public, ... if the city cannot be bothered to be sure they are providing safe lemonade.. if the city cannot make even one check of their establishment and it's sanitary process, then I can't see legally why my client should not be allowed the same leeway when it comes to such matters.

After all, my client is in business, and one of the largest expenses his business incurs is in fact sanitation that is demanded of him by the city, and the employee hours required to comply with the city's very rigorous code. To not force a competing business to follow the same protocols and be exposed to the same expenses is simply not fair to a law abiding taxpaying business owner in the community.

and so on and so forth.

~Bang

I don't think that would work. Let me provide a counter-example.

Suppose I take a traffic ticket to court. Say I was speeding. Imagine my lawyer gives the following argument:

"Your honor, my client was not the only person speeding that day. Several other speeders were allowed to travel unmolested. If the highway patrol cannot be bothered to stop those drivers, then I cannot see legally why my client should be forced to travel the speed limit."

Do you think that argument would work? I don't.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying the idea that ignoring little kids selling lemonade would prevent prosecution of shady businesses. I'm not saying to take the laws off the books, I'm saying that an officer should use some common sense. You can let a guy go for doing 66 in a 65 and still stop a guy for doing 80.

Edited June 13, 2015 by s0crates

[dfitzo53]

Your honor, if the city can't be bothered to insure that those two children, those two unsupervised minors with absolutely no experience in serving any quantity of self-prepared beverage to the general public, ... if the city cannot be bothered to be sure they are providing safe lemonade.. if the city cannot make even one check of their establishment and it's sanitary process, then I can't see legally why my client should not be allowed the same leeway when it comes to such matters.

 

After all, my client is in business, and one of the largest expenses his business incurs is in fact sanitation that is demanded of him by the city, and the employee hours required to comply with the city's very rigorous code. To not require a competing business to follow the same laws and be exposed to the same expenses is simply not fair to a law abiding taxpaying business owner in the community.

 

and so on and so forth. Unfortunately one thing we've led the world in recently is graduating lawyers.. and they use the justice system like an ATM machine.

There is no shortage of them to make the most preposterous arguments that can ever be made.

we see and hear of them all the time.

 

~Bang

I agree with you a lot of the time, but I think you're way off base here.

 

Let's start with the fact that if the officer hadn't said anything to the girls there wouldn't be any record of the lemonade stand in the first place.   There would be nothing for anyone to refer to as "precedent".  The only reason the entire episode was written anywhere is because it was absurd.  

 

s0crates has already covered why the hypothetical court argument is irrelevant so I don't need to add much there.  "He did it too and you didn't say anything to him!" has never even been an acceptable defense in elementary school, let alone the court system.

Edited June 13, 2015 by dfitzo53

[Bang]

I suppose you'd have to prove others were speeding.

IO can prove these kids were peddling without a license.

 

 

Usually when i see a headscratcher situation like this, i figure it's because someone can exploit it. Unfortunately our society today is very litigious, and there does not seem to be a lot of shame for how ludicrous someone will be when wasting the court's time.

 

I hear what you're saying, we will just disagree this time... i am forced to choose which i think is more likely,, the city wanting to shove some kids around, or some scummy person using it to exploit the law for themselves.

i don't want to think the city is actually concerned over collecting fees from a 25$ profit at the good old All American kid's lemonade stand.

 

~Bang

[twa]

So kids' lemonade stands are a slippery slope to what exactly? Unregulated restaurants?

I don't see it.

Yes.

There are two guys named Brown in the story, try not to get them confused. The guy named Tommy Brown went to jail for a headlight, it was the guy named Albert Brown who had the drugs.

Tommy's case is notable because the officer completely overreacted. Albert's case is notable because the officer failed to follow the law, resulting in the drug charges being dropped. Both are clear cases of the officer bullying black people, which is what I find unsurprising.

The writer could have made the distinction between the two clearer, but you could have read more carefully too.

 

 

 

I read fine, though the writing did suck.

 

Are you seriously telling me he was arrested FOR the headlight out? 

That he was stopped and ticketed for it is obvious, as is there being something left out.

[s0crates]

I read fine, though the writing did suck.

Are you seriously telling me he was arrested FOR the headlight out?

Sounds like that's all the cop had on him, and all he charged him with. Since he did go to jail on that charge, the answer to your question is yes.

Here's everything the article says about his case:

"Tommy Brown of Dallas was watching the controversial video on a local TV news report earlier this week when a broadcaster identified the officer involved as Eric Casebolt.

“Casebolt!” Brown recalls shouting. “That’s his name! This is the guy that took me to jail. I never will forget that name.”

Nor will he forget the charge that put him behind bars: defective headlight.

. . .

That was one year after the Jan. 16, 2007 traffic stop that landed Brown in jail.

. . .

Brown, who has a history of misdemeanor convictions, had just graduated technical college and had landed a job. “I was clean,” Brown told Yahoo News. “I didn’t have any warrants, my driver’s license was good and I had insurance on the car.”

The auto mechanic admits having smoked marijuana before getting in the car, but said he was not high while driving. He said his shirt likely smelled of pot when Casebolt stopped him for the headlight. “But he was very adamant about me selling some drugs,” said Brown, who is now 45.

In below-freezing weather, Brown said he stood for nearly an hour while the officer checked and re-checked his car.

“There wasn’t any papers, paraphernalia, any roaches, no seeds, no nothing,” he said. “The car was clean. He just wasn’t hearing it.”

As the hour wore on, Brown said Casebolt began threatening him with jail.

“He said, ‘I know you deliver some marijuana here in McKinney. I’m gonna put you in jail and I’m going to go to the East Side and anybody I find with some drugs or marijuana, I’m going to charge you for it.’”

. . .

Tommy Brown spent the night in the county jail before posting a $136 fine to be released on the defective headlight charge.

He thought about filing a complaint against Casebolt with the police department, but instead requested a jury trial to hear the headlight charge in traffic court.

“Of course I lost, but it was exciting to me having him in there wasting time like he wasted mine,” Tommy Brown said.

Tommy Brown said he had put the matter behind him until last weekend.

“It came back to light real quickly,” he said. “The arrogance. Instantly, I knew exactly what the problem was, who it was and everything.”

Now it does sound like the cop suspected him of something else (dealing weed), but he didn't have any evidence to support that charge.

Edited June 13, 2015 by s0crates

[Passepartout]

Need to retrain the officers not to shoot unarmed people. And despite making a split second decision on their part. Cops need to learn when or when a person is armed or unarmed. Before making a judgement call. Split second decisions last a lifetime!

[Major Harris]

Sounds like that's all the cop had on him, and all he charged him with. Since he did go to jail on that charge, the answer to your question is yes.

Here's everything the article says about his case:

Now it does sound like the cop suspected him of something else (dealing weed), but he didn't have any evidence to support that charge.

Yep, smoking weed before driving and probably smelling like weed never leads to a bad result.

Now, do that and give the cops a reason to pull u over? Just pure stupidity that i have a hard time feeling sorry for.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Major Harris

[s0crates]

Yep, smoking weed before driving and probably smelling like weed never leads to a bad result.

Nothing in there about possession or DWI charges . . .

[Major Harris]

Nothing in there about possession or DWI charges . . .

He said he smoked weed and probably smelled like it.

So, a dude with a rap sheet drives a car with malfunctioning equipment right after smoking weed. ....i wonder how some of you are able to bottle up so much compassion