|
|
Post by Clipper on Jan 3, 2012 17:49:21 GMT -5
As for the off duty trooper, the UPD finished the investigation into the circumstances and Trooper Miller was arrested for criminal trespass, assault and criminal mischief. Ooops. Can't blame the UPD for a cover up any more I guess. Sorry for all the naysayers that condemned Mark Williams for not jumping without looking into the evidence first. www.uticaod.com/news/x1015655618/Trooper-Jesse-Miller-pleads-not-guilty |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jan 3, 2012 23:38:03 GMT -5
I saw that and am still scratching my head why endangering the welfare of a child wasn't included since an infant was in the house when he came busting in.
The defense excuse seems pretty lame. He was at the wrong house on the wrong street from where he lives. Besides, does he always return home drunk and kick his own door in?
As far as any personal issues between Matt and Dave, from the merits of what the public saw, Dave did the right thing by trying to get a drunk driver off the road. I would hope Olney wasn't driven by a personal vendetta and acted to enforce the law. What the motivation behind his pursuit will might never know. I can only hope he doesn't turn out to be a hypocrite and find himself on the other end of flashing lights. And I can only hope if he is the standup guy that he appears to be, that he is representative of a majority in law enforcement rather than a minority.
Sorry to say, for each of these wayward LEO's getting into trouble, the worse it gets for the rest of them. I am c&p'ing my post from the OD today since it is kinda long to retype.,
To be clear, I am not anti-law enforcement. Most LEO's are good people, dedicated to what they do and trying to ensure law and order are maintained. What I am against are practices like ''professional courtesy'' and other aspects where some can be above the law when others protect them.
I have been told by some friends of mine in law enforcement where they'd go out and pick up buddies who had gotten drunk and ran their car off the road. Anybody else would be picked up for DWI, but because of these connections, those drunks never are. A drunk driver is dangerous no matter who it is behind the wheel. If we are to believe justice is blind, then it has to be applied to everyone, equally. One's profession should be of no concern when a law is broken. To be honest, his employment as a trooper shouldn't matter in this case. He wasn't on duty, nor acting as a law enforcement agent as far as we can tell. From what we can gather here, something illegal happened here and must be investigated and prosecuted in a criminal court. His profession is moot and will be up to the NYSP as to what happens to him in that regard, as it would be with anybody else's profession. However, given his profession, the public is led to believe these men and women are to be held to better standards than the criminals they're charged with arresting. We are led to believe these police organizations set a high moral standard for themselves, both on duty and otherwise. Or at least we should hope so. And we should hope the NYSP dispenses what is appropriate punishment here for the actions committed.
We also have to consider as a public servant, such investigations need to be transparent in order to maintain public trust in the justice system. And that is where we are seeing a public backlash here. In similar instances, it seems the mere complaint by a victim is enough to charge someone with a crime. Not in this instance for some odd reason. For all intents and purposes, the UPD and NYSP are unrelated and the scope of investigations by both are separate and unrelated. The UPD needs to be investigating a possible crime here, while the NYSP are investigating a potential personnel issue. The subject of both is the same person, however, they aren't a joint investigation nor should they be.
This is a serious situation here, not some petty charge like shoplifting. Even if one were to mitigate this case as someone too drunk and didn't know what they are doing, it still doesn't speak to their character that they'd get this intoxicated to do such things.
So, should we expect our LEO's to be saints? No, not entirely. They have personal lives and are prone to much the same as anybody else in the public. Matter of fact, more so because of their duties do we see their personal lives suffer. With that said, however, no matter who the person is and what kinds of personal problems they may have, we never, as a society, give them a free pass to wantonly break the law. We can't because anarchy will ensue if we do. Respect the law and those in law enforcement who also respect the law. Demand equal justice for those who break it. It is the only way to maintain law and order.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Jan 4, 2012 2:03:35 GMT -5
The guy is lucky he didn't break into a house where someone was armed.
No one knows if he's a Trooper or a thug, he's not in uniform and he's drunk.
Anyone breaks into my house and tries to attack my wife or I they are going to be nothing more than a spot on the wall to clean up when it's over.
Wrong house for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jan 4, 2012 6:14:44 GMT -5
Ralph nailed it, it all goes to intent, If someones intent on getting in that I dont want in, Im intent with making sure they dont get more than 2 steps through the door. This thing may have underlying stories but Cop or not, he was home invading and that will get you life behind pine curtains or actually death if its on my doorstep!
While I am convinced most LEO's are just ding their jobs the best they can under tough circumstances, Ultimate Power Corrupts many who wield it; when that happens, immediate and severe reactions are necessary to stop future activities of others who might do the same.
In a Law Enforcement situation, Police Officers often get special dispensation at least until the investigation is complete. This is not that case here, he should have been immediately arrested, instead he got a get out of jail free card because of his ID card.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jan 4, 2012 8:31:00 GMT -5
Yup, we're here again. Special treatment for police officers. Whatever happened to being "held to a higher standard?" Sounds to me like an offending officer is more likely to be held to a lower, privileged standard.
That is definitely not a good trend in a society where our rights are continuously eroded.
|
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jan 4, 2012 9:01:42 GMT -5
I heard on the radio they are finally leveling charges against him-
The OD wrote this
Print Comment
UTICA —
The state trooper accused of forcing his way into a South Utica house was so drunk that he mistakenly thought he was entering his own home, his defense attorney said Tuesday.
Trooper Jesse Miller, 31, pleaded not guilty in Utica City Court Tuesday afternoon after he was charged with felony third-degree criminal mischief, and criminal trespassing and third-degree assault, both misdemeanors.
Miller was released on $2,500 bond and is due back in court Friday, Feb. 3. Judge John Balzano issued a temporary order of protection instructing Miller to stay away from the homeowner and the scene of the incident.
Investigators spent several days weighing what charges should be lodged against Miller after he apparently kicked in the door of 27 Beverly Place around 12:18 a.m. Saturday. The homeowner struck Miller in the head with a hammer while defending himself, and then Miller allegedly bit the homeowner as the scuffle spilled outside, according to court documents.
While police and the shaken residents questioned what Miller’s motive was for entering the home, Miller’s attorney, Les Lewis, explained that Miller was too intoxicated to know that he approached the wrong house.
Miller’s nearby residence is in a similar location as the Beverly Place house, one block over on Farview Heights, Lewis said.
“Getting to know him and understanding how intoxicated he was, it makes total sense to me that he thought it was his house,” Lewis said. “I believe he thought he was at his own residence.”
Miller had walked home from a local bar on Genesee Street and was highly intoxicated, Lewis said. Although Miller’s official blood alcohol content level is not yet known, Lewis said it appears that his BAC was “at the top of the scale.”
Miller and the homeowner were hospitalized. Miller wasn’t released until Monday from St. Elizabeth Medical Center, where his head wound had to be stapled and where doctors sewed on a portion of his ear that had been torn by the hammer claw, Lewis said.
Miller is “embarrassed” by what happened, Lewis said, and he was immediately suspended from his duties with the state police while the case is pending. He also had to surrender all of his duty weapons, Miller said in court.
Miller was charged with felony criminal mischief because the damages to the house caused by the confrontation – including a broken door and a hole in the wall – are estimated to cost nearly $1,000, according to court documents.
The homeowner’s fiancée and a 16-month-old child also were in the house during the incident, but Miller currently is not facing any charges related to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by corner on Jan 4, 2012 9:07:54 GMT -5
its against state police policy and the state officers law for a LEO to be intoxicated on or off duty he will be fired regardles of the out come of the criminal proceedings
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jan 4, 2012 9:31:57 GMT -5
Given he's only been a trooper for four years and the severity of this situation, I don't think they would keep him on the force regardless of those policies, corner. Last year or the year before, they bounced that trooper who was busted with steroids in his backpack. Yeah, this Miller guy is done with the NYSP. They might not can him until after this case is adjudicated, but he has to know its over.
Ralph is correct. Deadly force is justified under the law to stop a burglary. Miller should be thankful he is getting judged by 12 instead of carried by 6 because it most assuredly could have gone that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2012 9:47:17 GMT -5
I kinda think that the Trooper should be given some special treatment. Maybe something happened between the Trooper and the owner of the house in the days leading up to this event and all it took was for the Trooper to get drunk and who knows maybe he defended himself or his honour. Just seems strange. I wonder if the person the Trooper maybe hit will press for charges. Sorry Alan, but if something did transpire between the 2 that doesn't give the Trooper the right to bust the door down to the family's house & assault the homeowner. He's damn lucky the homeowner didn't have a gun. I'm no lawyer but if he did I think he would have had every right to use it against some drunken idiot who broke into his house & attacked him in his own home in the dead of night. |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jan 4, 2012 10:05:41 GMT -5
Agreed with kracker. when you give special treatment for one, then you have to give special treatment for all. FYI NYS Penal Law § 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary. 3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary. At that hour of night, I doubt anybody would reasonably believe it was the Red Cross busting through the door collecting blood donations. Suffice to say, a man with his fiance and 16 month old son putting down this guy busting through the door, I don't think anyone would bat an eyelash over it. One does not need to be a lawyer to know their rights. law.findlaw.com/state-laws/state-codes.html Excellent resource that will take you right to State laws. Now, if they can show these people knew this trooper and there is some history here, and that they knew he was the one at the door, it would throw the suspected burglary theory out the window. But that does not appear to be the case. The story is this family just moved into this place within a couple days of the incident and are now moving out. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2012 12:00:43 GMT -5
I am sure that some form of special treatment is given to anyone within their respective professions. It has nothing to do with what they did but everything to do with how they are cared for.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jan 4, 2012 12:38:24 GMT -5
I am sure that some form of special treatment is given to anyone within their respective professions. It has nothing to do with what they did but everything to do with how they are cared for. Like a doctor taking care of another doctor? Probably, but they aren't public servants and aren't getting special treatment to skirt the law either. Not like this case anyway. If we are to believe justice is equal across the board, then officers who break the law need to face that same justice as everyone else. No special treatment, no professional courtesy, no sweeping it under the rug. Protecting bad cops hurts the good cops and hurts the public. It erodes trust that should exist between the badge and the people. Those in law enforcement who protect their comrades when they do stupid shit like this think they are doing them a favor when in fact they are making matters worse. It is no different from an overprotective parent who coddles their kid too long and shields them from any consequences for their actions. You lead someone to believe they can get away with things and eventually they will try to. Human nature. |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jan 5, 2012 0:41:38 GMT -5
Sadly, in the civil side of things, it is still a gray area. At one time, during the height of gun control people who believe the best way to secure people is to take away law-abiding citizens' second amendment rights, if you shot someone breaking onto your property, you could face murder charges. You also had a difficult-to-defend wrongful death lawsuit. Sometimes, the argument of unclean hands doctrine (neither party should come to court with dirty hands, e.g. if you are just as guilty of acting unlawfully, then you too should not be using the judiciary system) would work. But often times, the homeowner was viewed as the vile person, not the failure of a burglar. Slowly the courts are beginning to realize that there is a reason for the second amendment. Courts are slowly beginning to use common sense and intellect to realize that but for the imbecile breaking into the home, there would be no homicide or wrongful death. It does not stop certain zealous das from trying anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Jan 5, 2012 3:53:51 GMT -5
From what I consider an objective viewpoint; his house or not, why would he have to break down the door and attack whoever was in the house?
This was in reality, not a NYS Trooper that broke down the door and attacked the resident, but just another drunken sot.
What comes after the fact when it all shakes out is that he was a Trooper. Which by that time makes no difference because he has already crossed the line from LEO to lawbreaker.
I do understand the time given to research the incident and make sure that all the “I”s are dotted and the “T”s are crossed, but in the end he has to be held to the same standard, if not higher, than the average Joe. And I do understand a little professional courtesy in doing so.
But in the end he’s toast. He knows it, the DA knows it and his lawyer knows it. How it will wash, is how it will wash, but in the end he will be lucky all he walked away with is a staple in his head instead of some 00 in his center mass.
|
|
|
|
Post by longtimer on Jan 5, 2012 10:30:23 GMT -5
Interesting editorial in the OD regarding this case where they are criticizing the UPD for not charging Miller faster and giving him special consideration.
From the editorial:
"But Miller was not charged until Tuesday, after a public outcry accused police of protecting one of their own. Utica Police Chief Mark Williams argued that they wanted to discuss the case with members of the Oneida County District Attorney’s Office to determine what charges would be most appropriate.
Such protocol is not common. In fact, a cursory review of O-D files on home invasions finds no other instances where days passed between the alleged commission of such a crime and charges filed against the suspect. Last September, for instance, a Utica man broke into a New Hartford home early one morning, and before the day was over he had been arraigned on numerous charges and sent to the Oneida County without bail."
It certainly smells as if they may have been trying to find a way to get him off as lightly as possible. To me that is the only plausible explanation for the delay.
For a number of reasons the UPD's integrity is being highly questioned and they had better be squeaky clean in the future. While I have no problem with Chief Williams to this point as I said earlier, he is on the brink of losing all credibility with the community. He needs to do a much better job of communicating with his employers, the citizens of Utica.
|
|
