Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive :: View topic - MN Trooper Dashcam:Legitimate traffic stop or abuse of power

joelr wrote:

anybody who disagrees probably has his head up his landen.

sheepdog wrote:

"RockNRoll" Rindal....HAH!

joelr wrote:

anybody who disagrees probably has his head up his landen.

DeanC wrote:

I thought you were going to say 'Beard'.

1911fan wrote:

Joel, as to the haircut, it does apply. Sorry, but wearing such a haircut that more or less screams the L word, tells me she is living with a chip on her shoulder and that came out in how she handled this. I deal with alt lifestyles all the time, and I have enough experience that those who where the blatant external symbols are very often the least comfortable with who they are and are trying to "prove" how lifestyle they are.

tman065 wrote:

all policies vary.

My agency's policy states that pursuits need to be ended quickly for the safety of the public.

There are guidelines about the speed at which the PIT may be done, and some about safety of others (not the badguy).

The INTENTION to use the PIT is to be communicated to dispatch.

oops - I'm not Long Ago LEO - sorry

1911fan wrote:

What makes this worse for me is that the Troop in question is a many year veteran, who is in authority, and has been training people. I want her gone.

I do not want to be paying her salary and retirement when this is the sort of behavior, dishonesty (her report contained some vagueness and inconsistency, HELLO she filed a phony report!!!) which to me means she will no longer have ANY credibility in court as far as I am concerned. She may be near family to some on here, and I understand that, but when you take the oath, and then file a phony report, your done.

Joel, as to the haircut, it does apply. Sorry, but wearing such a haircut that more or less screams the L word, tells me she is living with a chip on her shoulder and that came out in how she handled this. I deal with alt lifestyles all the time, and I have enough experience that those who where the blatant external symbols are very often the least comfortable with who they are and are trying to "prove" how lifestyle they are.

1911fan wrote:

While I stick by my assertion re the haircut. I don't think it can be stressed enough that her credibility is gone. She was found to have filed a less than honest report. Everytime she sits in the witness box her testimony will be questioned. All a lawyer has to ask is "you lied once,are you lying now?"

Author:	sheepdog [ Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:45 am ]
Post subject:
A lousy result? - indeed, but better than nothing. Sounds like he had a respectable lawyer and he was just following his recommendation. "RockNRoll" Rindal....HAH! Thanks for the good laugh, Joel.

Author:	joelr [ Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:52 am ]
Post subject:
Well, certain names lend themselves to mockery, one way or another. And anybody who disagrees probably has his head up his landen.

Author:	DeanC [ Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:01 am ]
Post subject:
joelr wrote: anybody who disagrees probably has his head up his landen. I thought you were going to say 'Beard'.

Author:	Carbide Insert [ Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:50 am ]
Post subject:
sheepdog wrote: "RockNRoll" Rindal....HAH! joelr wrote: anybody who disagrees probably has his head up his landen. DeanC wrote: I thought you were going to say 'Beard'. You guys crack me up!

Author:	1911fan [ Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:25 pm ]
Post subject:
What makes this worse for me is that the Troop in question is a many year veteran, who is in authority, and has been training people. I want her gone. I do not want to be paying her salary and retirement when this is the sort of behavior, dishonesty (her report contained some vagueness and inconsistency, HELLO she filed a phony report!!!) which to me means she will no longer have ANY credibility in court as far as I am concerned. She may be near family to some on here, and I understand that, but when you take the oath, and then file a phony report, your done. Joel, as to the haircut, it does apply. Sorry, but wearing such a haircut that more or less screams the L word, tells me she is living with a chip on her shoulder and that came out in how she handled this. I deal with alt lifestyles all the time, and I have enough experience that those who where the blatant external symbols are very often the least comfortable with who they are and are trying to "prove" how lifestyle they are.

Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://ellegon.com/forum/

MN Trooper Dashcam:Legitimate traffic stop or abuse of power http://ellegon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=11690	Page 5 of 6

Author:	beeger [ Sat Mar 21, 2009 7:07 am ]
Post subject:
Yeah, I'd say that officer over reacted. I guess I wouldn't have exited my vehicle the way that guy did, but hey...he had small children in his vehicle, so I can see why he'd be excitable.

Author:	mrokern [ Sat Mar 21, 2009 7:35 am ]
Post subject:
Long Ago LEO, maybe you can shed some light on this... When I worked in Wisconsin in LE-related jobs (reserve, and community corrections), I counted a LOT of cops as friends, and due to an incident years ago we ended up discussing pursuits. Most of them mentioned that PITs had to be approved on a case-by-case basis at a certain command level before they could be performed. Is this not actually all that common of a policy? -Mark

Author:	tman065 [ Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:06 am ]
Post subject:
all policies vary. My agency's policy states that pursuits need to be ended quickly for the safety of the public. There are guidelines about the speed at which the PIT may be done, and some about safety of others (not the badguy). The INTENTION to use the PIT is to be communicated to dispatch. oops - I'm not Long Ago LEO - sorry

Author:	joelr [ Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:41 pm ]
Post subject:
1911fan wrote: Joel, as to the haircut, it does apply. Sorry, but wearing such a haircut that more or less screams the L word, tells me she is living with a chip on her shoulder and that came out in how she handled this. I deal with alt lifestyles all the time, and I have enough experience that those who where the blatant external symbols are very often the least comfortable with who they are and are trying to "prove" how lifestyle they are. I understand, but disagree; I know somewhat butch-looking lesbians who are fine, calm folks, as well as those who, well, aren't. I think -- and have said -- that I think there's a lot wrong with Rindal's behavior on that night (and, not having been born yesterday, I doubt that's the only night she was thinking with her badge), and I think it's indicative that she needs a much more major attitude adjustment than what we're sure that she's gotten . . . but her preferred romantic partners' genitalia just don't matter to me, at all. Just hypothetically -- and I don't have the slightest idea if this is the case -- I can imagine the possibility that a generally very good woman street cop might choose, by haircut (among other things) to prove to some of the guys that she's just as tough as they can be. And I'm pretty sure that I know of at least two such.

Author:	mrokern [ Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:56 pm ]
Post subject:
tman065 wrote: all policies vary. My agency's policy states that pursuits need to be ended quickly for the safety of the public. There are guidelines about the speed at which the PIT may be done, and some about safety of others (not the badguy). The INTENTION to use the PIT is to be communicated to dispatch. oops - I'm not Long Ago LEO - sorry Oh, I suppose your version works too. Seriously, thanks...'Twas exactly what I was wondering. -Mark

Author:	joelr [ Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:05 pm ]
Post subject:
Yup. Priority, IMHO, should be public, cop, and bg, in that order. The public doesn't volunteer for the danger; the cop does, to some extent; the bg has, to a huge extent. All of those have to be balanced, again IMHO, with the reality that a no-chase policy, while immediately safer for all, is a terrific incentive for all sorts of bad stuff that shouldn't be incented.

Author:	Long Ago LEO [ Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:28 am ]
Post subject:
mrokern - I think tman065 pretty much covered it. In fact, I believe this is about the minimum requirement. I am aware of some departments that will not authorize a PIT without a minimum of two police vehicles present. (Not using both vehicles, mind you.) As for tman065 not being me; nope - he actually EARNS his paycheck!

Author:	Dick Unger [ Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:08 pm ]
Post subject:
1911fan wrote: What makes this worse for me is that the Troop in question is a many year veteran, who is in authority, and has been training people. I want her gone. I do not want to be paying her salary and retirement when this is the sort of behavior, dishonesty (her report contained some vagueness and inconsistency, HELLO she filed a phony report!!!) which to me means she will no longer have ANY credibility in court as far as I am concerned. She may be near family to some on here, and I understand that, but when you take the oath, and then file a phony report, your done. Joel, as to the haircut, it does apply. Sorry, but wearing such a haircut that more or less screams the L word, tells me she is living with a chip on her shoulder and that came out in how she handled this. I deal with alt lifestyles all the time, and I have enough experience that those who where the blatant external symbols are very often the least comfortable with who they are and are trying to "prove" how lifestyle they are. A "blantant external symbol" such as a haircut, is a fair warning that the wearer may be a very insecure (or immature) person, and therefore much more likely to act out than a "normal" person. But in my experience, an "L" gal is no more likely to be insecure than anyone in general. I agree, she should not be an officer. Anyone who intentionally acts out with a vehicle probably should face a review of their driving privileges. It just seems kind of basic to not license folks who intentionally cause accidents.

Author:	1911fan [ Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:40 pm ]
Post subject:
While I stick by my assertion re the haircut. I don't think it can be stressed enough that her credibility is gone. She was found to have filed a less than honest report. Everytime she sits in the witness box her testimony will be questioned. All a lawyer has to ask is "you lied once,are you lying now?"

Page 5 of 6	All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Dick Unger [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:12 am ]
Post subject:
1911fan wrote: While I stick by my assertion re the haircut. I don't think it can be stressed enough that her credibility is gone. She was found to have filed a less than honest report. Everytime she sits in the witness box her testimony will be questioned. All a lawyer has to ask is "you lied once,are you lying now?" A speed cop does not have to testify as often, as, say, a drug or a homocide detective because MOST of their cases are just traffic. They usually call in other agencies when they find the dead bodies in the trunk. Then they testify only as to the reason for the stop, at an Omnibus Hearing without a jury, their trial testimoney is not critical. (Not to put a speed cop down, his or her duties are just as important, probably more dangerous, but different.) And a "less than honest report" may not enough to be admissable to challenge credibility before a jury in an unrelated case. Watch and see what happens next. This will not be the only time she screwed up, there will be other instances of flawed judgment that we don't know about. If she has friends in the Patrol she may actually get a promotion whcih would take her off the streets when this dies down. But, she needs to be off the streets as a cop, and she's not. It takes more than this.