Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Wed Apr 24, 2024 6:13 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Offtopic » Isolated Incidents

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 1 of 1
  [ 6 posts ] 
Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
 St. Paul cop investigated in alleged off-duty assault 
Author Message
DeanC
 Post subject: St. Paul cop investigated in alleged off-duty assault
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:58 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Minneapolis
Quote:
St. Paul cop investigated in alleged off-duty assault

By Mara H. Gottfried
mgottfried@pioneerpress.com
Posted: 02/10/2009 12:01:00 AM CST

A St. Paul police officer is the subject of a criminal investigation for allegedly assaulting a man while off duty.

Police spokesman Peter Panos said he doesn't know details of the case involving Officer Scott Wendell, who has been placed on administrative desk duty. The case has been referred to the Hennepin County attorney's office to avoid a conflict of interest, and a decision on whether or not charges will be filed is anticipated next week, Panos said.

A county attorney's office spokeswoman said she couldn't discuss cases that haven't been charged.

There will be an internal affairs investigation when the criminal case is closed, Panos said.

Wendell became a St. Paul police officer in 1999 and has no record of departmental disciplinary action, Panos said.

He is on unsupervised probation in Anoka County, where he lives, for a misdemeanor domestic assault case.

Wendell pleaded not guilty to the domestic assault charge filed in April. It was continued for dismissal on July 14 with conditions that he not commit assault, abusive behavior, terroristic threats, disorderly conduct and other offenses, according to the court register of actions. His probation ends July 14, 2009.

_________________
I am defending myself... in favor of that!

Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Macx
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:50 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:37 pm
Posts: 1757
Location: Whittier
Special people. I thought there was some kind of law. . . . where even a
Quote:
misdemeanor domestic assault
made a person inelligible to posess firearms. How has this cop who clearly meets 624.714 Subd. 2. (viii) 629.72, subdivision 2 been doing his job without a firearm?

Mind boggling isn't it?

_________________
Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become
a law unto himself; it invites anarchy .” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438

Offline
 Profile  
 
Dick Unger
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:53 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
Macx wrote:
How has this cop who clearly meets 624.714 Subd. 2. (viii) 629.72, subdivision 2 been doing his job without a firearm?



Because, the case disposition was "continued for dismissal". It's like it never happened.

Usually this kind of a disposition requires the consent of the prosecutor, as part of a plea agreement. "Domestic assault" is the kind of thing that tends to be repeated in the future, so a prosecutorial or judicial agreement for this kind of a disposition for a domestic assault charge is questionable, I think.

It's important to public safety that such a charge be a matter of public record.

It may well be "special people".
Offline
 Profile  
 
Macx
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:36 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:37 pm
Posts: 1757
Location: Whittier
I was under the impression a person had to have a conviction to be on probation. It might be poor reporting or rather a reporter trying to dumb down or an editor trying to save space.

On the other hand, re-reading that section, I guess
Quote:
(b) The judge may impose conditions of release or bail, or both, on the person to protect the alleged victim or other family or household members and to ensure the appearance of the person at subsequent proceedings. These conditions may include an order:
emphasis mine. Blame late night reading comp, on me missing that Judges have the discretion to disarm or not . . . but then again how likely is it that Joe Public gets the whole list and Joe Public Servant gets an abridged version. :roll:

A long way of saying good point Dick Unger.

_________________
Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become
a law unto himself; it invites anarchy .” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438

Offline
 Profile  
 
tman065
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:41 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am
Posts: 810
Location: Northern MN
Dick Unger wrote:
Macx wrote:
How has this cop who clearly meets 624.714 Subd. 2. (viii) 629.72, subdivision 2 been doing his job without a firearm?



Because, the case disposition was "continued for dismissal". It's like it never happened.

Usually this kind of a disposition requires the consent of the prosecutor, as part of a plea agreement. "Domestic assault" is the kind of thing that tends to be repeated in the future, so a prosecutorial or judicial agreement for this kind of a disposition for a domestic assault charge is questionable, I think.

It's important to public safety that such a charge be a matter of public record.

It may well be "special people".


Sometimes it's about how much justice you can afford. Sometimes it's about what drug dealer you can snitch on. I've see both - as well as the other.

_________________
Proud, Service Oriented, Rural LEO, or "BADGED COWBOY"
Certified MN Carry Permit Instructor

Offline
 Profile  
 
Jeff
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:40 am 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:57 am
Posts: 270
Location: Western Hennepin County
A continuance for dismissal (CFD) for domestic assault is extremely rare in Ramsey County. I have heard of one in the past 5 years or so though there could be a few more. One of the big reasons is that domestic assaults are enhanceable. For those that don't know, future domestic assaults (and related crimes) charges can be "enhanced" from misdemeanors to gross misdemeanors or felonies. If you completed a successful CFD, then no future enhancement would occur. Prosecutors also seems to appreciate the opportunity for increased pre-trial release conditions afforded by statute and Judges in enhanced domestic assault cases. For further inforamtion check out Minn. Stat. 518B.01.

I have heard that a CFD for a domestic assault is much more common in Anoka county.

_________________
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. - Thomas Jefferson

Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 1 of 1
  [ 6 posts ] 

Board index » Offtopic » Isolated Incidents

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 90 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group