|
|
Post by corner on Jun 10, 2009 6:33:03 GMT -5
the public doesn't have the right to know everything arrests trial and convictions happen every day that dont make the papers in reality if Olney and Sullivan had a good relatiionship Sullivan would have been escorted home told to soberup and no public record of anything would have existed...right or wrong that the way thinks are done when "professional courtesy " comes into play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 10, 2009 7:27:30 GMT -5
Thank you Corner. I am sure that you are right and if not for the alleged bad blood between Sullivan and Olney, I can quite likely that is what would have occurred. Amen
It damn sure doesn't make him innocent of the charge of DWI, but it certainly would explain the shit storm that followed. Rumor has it that Olney isn't being submitted for "Trooper of the Year" either. Many other officers are as pissed at him as they are at Sullivan.
|
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Jun 10, 2009 7:56:48 GMT -5
right or wrong that the way thinks are done when "corruption " comes into play. You had a misspelling, there. Heh. |
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Jun 10, 2009 8:02:31 GMT -5
It damn sure doesn't make him innocent of the charge of DWI, but it certainly would explain the shit storm that followed. Rumor has it that Olney isn't being submitted for "Trooper of the Year" either. Many other officers are as pissed at him as they are at Sullivan. I ask this in all seriousness- What are the other officers mad about? That a trooper was treated like a citizen? That the public's eye has been drawn to their professional disdain for equality before the law? |
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 10, 2009 10:20:25 GMT -5
I think that we can safely assume that many officers are simply mad because both of them have brought public disdain and criticism down on the image of the agency as a whole.
Of course a trooper is treated like a "citizen". They ARE a citizen. I think citizenship is a requirement for the job. I don't think we have any aliens working as state troopers, although I could be wrong.
I think if they are to be treated like citizens, then the whole media storm would not be necessary, and the sensationalist reporting and the desire to see Sullivan hung out to dry would not be such a public agenda to begin with.
He would have been arrested, tried, fired or reinstated, one or the other, pay his fines or serve his time, and the whole thing would be done with, without all this public shithouse lawyering going on.
I personally have more disdain for the thieving trooper that was caught stealing mulch from a private business in Rome, with an unregistered dumptruck, than I do for Sullivan, but people don't seem to have such a hard on for that felonious scumbag. It is not as exciting as a traffic stop and someone hiding in their house for 3 hours. I guess that the thief has never pissed off or differed in opinion on issues of interest to the OD.
|
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Jun 10, 2009 11:29:36 GMT -5
Of course a trooper is treated like a "citizen". They ARE a citizen. I think citizenship is a requirement for the job. I don't think we have any aliens working as state troopers, although I could be wrong. Except, of course, that ordinary citizens don't get to drive off from traffic stops, hang out at their house for a few hours with a polite police cordon at the front door, and then turn themselves in once everyone involved knows breathalyzer and BAC evidence is useless. Ordinary citizens that "flee a confrontation" with law enforcement have, more than once, ended up riddled with bullets. Trooper Sullivan will probably walk away from all this with a trivial fine, but the prompt release of the dash footage will at least demonstrate what actually happened. More importantly, it may help provide some impetus to equip every single law enforcement officer with a personal camera. I suspect having a constant video record of an officer's every move will not only significantly help with prosecutions, but make interactions with law enforcement a more pleasant experience for everyone involved. |
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 10, 2009 11:56:33 GMT -5
I still can't see an urgent need to release the dashcam video, other than to fuel more uninformed or half informed bashing and trashing on the web. Why is it that people have this insane desire to rush what will certainly be made public after the investigation into his actions by the state police as a personnel issue is completed? Do you really think that this video would be able to be kept from the public eye AFTER the case is tried? Some folks act like drooling bulldogs waiting for a scrap of meat to be dropped.
OH, I also doubt that anyone would be riddled with bullets in such an incident. Maybe charged with several more offenses related to disobeying the orders of a law enforcement officer, but I don't think they will shoot anyone for simply driving off and holing up in their home, unless the individual threatened law enforcement with, or brandished a weapon in the direction of police. Lets not over dramatize. Such an offender might be gassed out of his house, and might get his ass tossed on the ground and his ass kicked while being cuffed. Might even be tazed, but "bullet riddled" is a little over the top. Be real.
Anyone that thinks such an incident can be swept under any rug, is obviously delusional. Sullivan will obviously suffer for his misdeeds, and is most likely waking every morning right now, with nothing but regret for his actions. Let's face it, his career is over, and his name has been trashed forever. He will always be the BCI investigator that got drunk and barricaded himself in his house until sober. His dad was a well respected guy, and a great law enforcement figure for many years. The shame of it all must break Sullivan's heart every day.
Take a pill folks. Your day is coming. The case will be tried and adjudicated eventually, and then you can all jump up and down like kids at a birthday party and celebrate the misfortunes and misdeeds of others. Then you can all celebrate your victory and lay claim to all of your "I told ya so's".
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 10, 2009 12:09:58 GMT -5
I do agree with ya Gear that some sort of camera should be attached to an officers uniform to record stops and arrests. At the very least, an audio recording device of some sort to record any discourse between the person being stopped and the officer. It would certainly be good for both the officer AND the person being stopped. Cops would tend to be more courteous and professional, and those stopped or arrested would have little defense in allegations of mistreatment by the cop, if it were all on tape.
I think that it is becoming more and more prevalent to have dashcams in the patrol vehicles, and in most cases, having talked to a local cop here, the standard procedure if a person is asked to get out of their vehicle, is for them to be taken to an area in view of the dash cam specifically so the events can be recorded by the dashcam.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 10, 2009 22:01:43 GMT -5
Swimmy, who is preventing the dash camera footage from being released to the public? The SP? A judge? The DA? I'm still trying to work the logic (in my own feeble mind) from a public act on a public highway being recorded by a public servant of another public servant not being allowed into the public sphere. Like the others on this forum, I want to see a fair administration of justice and I don't want any of the parties, including Sullivan, ridiculed beyond what any fair minded person would feel is deserved. But I can't figure out how the tape could be controlled in the first place, just because it's evidence?
And I'm not for or against the publicizing of the tape, I'm just trying to figure out how these things are determined. It ought to be made clear by the authorities (and maybe it has) why they will not release the tape. Otherwise, anyone could suspect an ulterior motive. And that's the last thing the justice system would want to be accused of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 10, 2009 22:29:11 GMT -5
Hmmm maybe Olney made a horses ass of himself also, and is not snow white in the context of who said what to who, and what precipitated Sullivan driving away. Now the State Police would not want THAT made public now would they?
Only time will tell, and I am betting that it is not released until after Sullivan is tried.
|
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Jun 11, 2009 4:46:24 GMT -5
I still can't see an urgent need to release the dashcam video, other than to fuel more uninformed or half informed bashing and trashing on the web. One would think that an unblinking video record of what actually happened is exactly the kind of thing that would help us be informed. You're right. An ordinary citizen should expect to be beaten, gassed, cuffed, or tazed under circumstances like that. Trooper Sullivan, on the other hand, received a polite, deferential escort at a time and place of his choosing. Seriously, you can't see why that kind of favoritism and special treatment is a problem? Except, of course, that the State Police as a whole are attempting to do exactly that. Despite having completed their investigation weeks ago they continue to refuse lawful requests that the public records for the case be released. I'm sure he'll be crying into his iced mojito as his cabin cruiser makes it's way to Bermuda. That will certainly be a big win for the whole idea of the rule of law, won't it? Sadly, most regular citizens don't get multiple members of law enforcement to cooperate with their attempts to destroy and taint evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 11, 2009 9:52:19 GMT -5
Why is the slow moving legal process being described as sweeping something under a rug? I would say that there is no rug on the floor as long as the case is front page news every time someone involved breaks wind.
The dashcam video may or may not be a public record. I don't know if that has been ruled upon as of yet on a wider stage than the Sullivan case. Police reports and other DOCUMENTS are public record, and those should be released, but I am not sure dashcam video IS a pubic record, that it would be mandatory to release to the media and public. Swimmy may be able to shine light on that issue.
I simply get sick of all this stretchng of the definition of freedom of press, freedom of information, and freedom of this that or the other thing being tested over and over. It is a free country and freedom of speech, religion and other freedoms have always been available to us. However when it comes to freedom of information such as what everyone here is rabidly seeking, it gets a little over the top. We have plenty of information already about the night in question, and the reports and paperwork describe the events quite well.
We eventually indignantly demand more and more until it breeches the bounds of good taste, and constitutionality, and becomes an invasion of privacy for no reason other than to assassinate someone's character or sensationalize an incident to sell newspapers and inflame public opinion.
As far as the State Police defending their own, I don't think that is going to change in our lifetime, no matter what we would like to see. That "blue line" and fraternal wall that goes up in defense of a brother officer, has existed for as long as there has been law enforcement officers in organized departments. WHY THE HELL IS EVERYONE SO SURPRISED OR SHOCKED BY THAT?
Gear, I ask one question. For someone that would be the first to cry foul if "Big Brother" were to want to look over your shoulder, how can you justify this desire for the courts and the state police to release all this information that has no productive use to the public other than to inflame public opinion against an offender that has not been tried yet.
I think that the OD should be sued for bringing his affiliation with the Irish Festival, and his domestic situation or marriage situation into play. It has no bearing on the drunk driving case and was simply tabloid shit dug up by the OD. It brings the privacy of others into the mix for no productive purpose. Matt is the alleged offender, not his wife, children, or the Irish Festival board.
We are not going to agree on this subject any time in the near future, but I do respect the civil discussion without any anger or personal attacks coming into play. It IS a hotbed issue and emotions run high with such a subject on the table.
I might note that I am personally wondering why the Garramone cases have not raised as much interest. One of the brothers is accused of RAPING a young girl. IS THAT NOT MORE DISGUSTING THAT A DWI AND DRIVING AWAY FROM A TRAFFIC STOP??? My god. One is a lawyer, and both brother's are the sons of a retired judge, and a prominent name in legal circles. I wonder how many bottles of wine and complimentary dinners, it took to keep this out of the OD?
What color is the line among lawyers and judges if the line among cops is blue? What rug is that case being swept under, or is there a possibility that it just TAKES TIME TO INVESTIGATE AND PROCESS SUCH A CASE???
Let me close this post with this: HAPPY BIRTHDAY GEAR, AND MAY ALL YOUR WISHES COME TRUE TODAY! Have a great birthday and eat lots of cake. It only comes once a year and your blood sugar depends on the once a year boost, haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by corner on Jun 11, 2009 10:43:02 GMT -5
the gearster really needs to look at why he is so anti law enforcement ive read his musings on other sites and the same anti cop theme comes through
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 11, 2009 10:46:09 GMT -5
The information I posted earlier seems to have been over looked so I will quickly list what I said. 1. FOIL allows for the release of public records, but there are exceptions as nothing is absolute. If you request records that invade a person's privacy, e.g. tax return records, the state does not have to provide you with access to them. Under FOIL section 89 , there are several exceptions listed. Additionally, there are other exceptions listed in FOIL section 87 [2]. 2. FOIL s. 87 [2][e][ii] is the specific provision being argued against public disclosure. I would assume FOIL s. 87 [2][e] is another argument being used.
3. NYS Civil Rights Law Art. 5, section 50-a also comes into play because the record requested involves a police officer. New Hartford used this provision to deny a request for a letter complaining about a rogue police officer who was on suspended pay.
4. No constitutional rights are being violated at this time! The law is only concerned with secret evidence as it pertains to the defendant charged with a crime, not a newspaper. Here, there is no doubt the defendant has had access to this video so the constitutional requirements are satisfied.
5. That is not to say the video won't be released, but that there is statutory protection to keep it from being released. Now, the video, in all likeliness will be used at trial. At that point it is no longer an issue. If there is no trial or the video is not used at trial, the arguments cited against its public release become moot.
6. Civil Rights Law Article 5, section 50-b has some specific provisions about safeguarding the privacy of a victim of a sexual offense.
7. Regardless of the outcome, the video will eventually be released to the public so it's not a matter of trying to hide anything. Whether we like it, Mr. Sullivan, despite being a law enforcement officer and held to a higher standard of behavior - though unrealistic, has rights that need to be protected. |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 11, 2009 10:47:55 GMT -5
Swimmy, who is preventing the dash camera footage from being released to the public? The SP? A judge? I do not know for certain. But I would wager the video is in SP evidence and they initially denied access to the od. So, the od is motioning the court to release the video and now is up to a judge to decide. |
|
