Minneapolis cops shoot up town while drunk (again?)
Author |
Message |
kimberman
|
Post subject: Minneapolis cops shoot up town while drunk (again?) Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:52 pm |
|
Wise Elder |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm Posts: 2782 Location: St. Paul
|
|
|
|
|
KonaSeven
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:48 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:17 pm Posts: 908 Location: Meeker Co., MN
|
Do LEO's have the same .04 BAC as 624.714?
_________________ 1 of 55153
"The attitude of people associating guns with nothing but crime, that is what has to be changed. I grew up at a time when people were not afraid of people with firearms." —Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Sierra Trading - Firearms Sales, Service and Training
|
|
|
|
|
kimberman
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:37 pm |
|
Wise Elder |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm Posts: 2782 Location: St. Paul
|
KonaSeven wrote: Do LEO's have the same .04 BAC as 624.714?
Yes. 624.7142 refers to "a Person" who carries while intoxicated. It never uses the term "permit holder." That person may have their "authority" to carry under the provisions of a permit or otherwise [i.e., because they are a "peace officer"] suspended as a condition of release and it is revoked upon conviction.
But, the friendly prosecutors corruptly refuse to charge peace officers under 624.7142 and graciously allow their departments to handle it as an internal personnel matter. Usually a three-day suspension is imposed after a mild ass chewing.
|
|
|
|
|
kecker
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:00 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:57 am Posts: 818 Location: Apple Valley, MN
|
Quote: Mars admitted to firing his gun out the sunroof of the SUV.
So he fired the bullet straight up into the air.
So they landed where?? Edina? St. Cloud? Wisconsin?
And did what damage??
|
|
|
|
|
Dick Unger
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:50 am |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am Posts: 2444 Location: West Central MN
|
A .19 blood alcohol reading indicates a very experienced drinker. It's not unusual, unfortunately, but the coorelation with a level this high and a DUI alcohol evaluation of "require treatment for alcoholism" is close to 100%. Without a lot of drinking practice, people can't get their blood level this high, because they pass out or get very sick.
He probably had about 20 drinks, and that is probably casual drinking for him. If he was sick he probably would not have driven himself. And his passenger was willing to ride with him.
The ability to drink like this is something that will greatly affect the personality of the drinker whether he is drunk or sober.
Most police would simply not test or arrest a brother officer, things usually have to get pretty outrageous for them to get a DUI. I think one in eight Minnesota adults have a DUI record, but police officers hardly every get one.
|
|
|
|
|
chunkstyle
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:03 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:28 pm Posts: 2362 Location: Uptown Minneapolis
|
This is not an "again". This is a follow-up of the earlier story.
I have yet to get from MPD any pictures of the officers/perps.
_________________ "The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
"Man has the right to deal with his oppressors by devouring their palpitating hearts." - Jean-Paul Marat
|
|
|
|
|
kimberman
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:05 am |
|
Wise Elder |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm Posts: 2782 Location: St. Paul
|
chunkstyle wrote: This is not an "again".
Yes it is "AGAIN". At least as I meant it.
THEY (officers on the MPD) do this at least once EVERY year (and have done so consistently since I started watching gun issues in 1983). The first drunk to shoot up the MOA (years ago) was a ... armed MPD officer.
I've never heard of a drunken Roseville officer shooting up the town. I do remember that in my nine years on the Roseville Police Civil Service Commission, every candidate we turned down wound up on the MPD. Those we thought were unsuitable for police work, Minneapolis grabbed.
|
|
|
|
|
someone1980
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:07 am |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:19 pm Posts: 2305
|
kimberman wrote: I've never heard of a drunken Roseville officer shooting up the town. I do remember that in my nine years on the Roseville Police Civil Service Commission, every candidate we turned down wound up on the MPD. Those we thought were unsuitable for police work, Minneapolis grabbed.
That explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
kecker
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:11 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:57 am Posts: 818 Location: Apple Valley, MN
|
Dick Unger wrote: I think one in eight Minnesota adults have a DUI record, but police officers hardly every get one.
One in eight??? Seriously???
Wow...I wouldn't have figured that high. Where did you hear that?
|
|
|
|
|
someone1980
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:20 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:19 pm Posts: 2305
|
kecker wrote: Dick Unger wrote: I think one in eight Minnesota adults have a DUI record, but police officers hardly every get one. One in eight??? Seriously??? Wow...I wouldn't have figured that high. Where did you hear that?
It is becoming higher. Take a look at what happens when someone gets a DUI. You will find that handing out DUIs makes a good deal of money in fines and mandatory classes.
|
|
|
|
|
Tick Slayer
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:27 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:53 am Posts: 1263 Location: MN
|
One in EIGHT? That's 12.5%!
What happened to designated drivers? And what happens to drivers who get more than one DUI?
_________________
Image courtesy of Right Wing Swag
|
|
|
|
|
KonaSeven
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:42 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:17 pm Posts: 908 Location: Meeker Co., MN
|
kimberman wrote: KonaSeven wrote: Do LEO's have the same .04 BAC as 624.714? Yes. 624.7142 refers to "a Person" who carries while intoxicated. It never uses the term "permit holder." That person may have their "authority" to carry under the provisions of a permit or otherwise [i.e., because they are a "peace officer"] suspended as a condition of release and it is revoked upon conviction. But, the friendly prosecutors corruptly refuse to charge peace officers under 624.7142 and graciously allow their departments to handle it as an internal personnel matter. Usually a three-day suspension is imposed after a mild ass chewing.
Okay, thanks. I didn't know if there possibly was a lower limit for LEO's by internal policy. Such as BAC for professional drivers can be lower than .08 in a company policy. It sounds like it may be more lax for the "professional" carry person in this case.
_________________ 1 of 55153
"The attitude of people associating guns with nothing but crime, that is what has to be changed. I grew up at a time when people were not afraid of people with firearms." —Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Sierra Trading - Firearms Sales, Service and Training
|
|
|
|
|
chunkstyle
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:35 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:28 pm Posts: 2362 Location: Uptown Minneapolis
|
kimberman wrote: I've never heard of a drunken Roseville officer shooting up the town. I do remember that in my nine years on the Roseville Police Civil Service Commission, every candidate we turned down wound up on the MPD. Those we thought were unsuitable for police work, Minneapolis grabbed.
It occurs to me that if officers that shouldn't be employed as officers are able to apply (and fail) at places like Roseville, then apply (and succeed) at places like MPD, then the problem is likely most easily rectifiable at the state POST-level certifying.
Can something be done to toughen standards there? Could problem departments (like MPD) be required to recertify all their officers at a tougher standard? Could weed out quite a few bad apples...
Just a thought.
_________________ "The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
"Man has the right to deal with his oppressors by devouring their palpitating hearts." - Jean-Paul Marat
|
|
|
|
|
Greg
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:42 am |
|
Forum Moderator |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:13 pm Posts: 874 Location: Minneapolis
|
KonaSeven wrote: kimberman wrote: KonaSeven wrote: Do LEO's have the same .04 BAC as 624.714? Yes. 624.7142 refers to "a Person" who carries while intoxicated. It never uses the term "permit holder." That person may have their "authority" to carry under the provisions of a permit or otherwise [i.e., because they are a "peace officer"] suspended as a condition of release and it is revoked upon conviction. But, the friendly prosecutors corruptly refuse to charge peace officers under 624.7142 and graciously allow their departments to handle it as an internal personnel matter. Usually a three-day suspension is imposed after a mild ass chewing. Okay, thanks. I didn't know if there possibly was a lower limit for LEO's by internal policy. Such as BAC for professional drivers can be lower than .08 in a company policy. It sounds like it may be more lax for the "professional" carry person in this case.
The FAA says .04% and 8 hrs for pilots and my company says .02%.
_________________ Diesel Boats (and Tube Radios) Forever!
|
|
|
|
|
Duane J
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:49 am |
|
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:11 am Posts: 225 Location: Farmington, MN
|
Greg wrote: KonaSeven wrote: kimberman wrote: KonaSeven wrote: Do LEO's have the same .04 BAC as 624.714? Yes. 624.7142 refers to "a Person" who carries while intoxicated. It never uses the term "permit holder." That person may have their "authority" to carry under the provisions of a permit or otherwise [i.e., because they are a "peace officer"] suspended as a condition of release and it is revoked upon conviction. But, the friendly prosecutors corruptly refuse to charge peace officers under 624.7142 and graciously allow their departments to handle it as an internal personnel matter. Usually a three-day suspension is imposed after a mild ass chewing. Okay, thanks. I didn't know if there possibly was a lower limit for LEO's by internal policy. Such as BAC for professional drivers can be lower than .08 in a company policy. It sounds like it may be more lax for the "professional" carry person in this case. The FAA says .04% and 8 hrs for pilots and my company says .02%.
and a security company i moonlight for has a zero tolerance policy, ZERO. it's a bit funny in a way, this security company makes the MPD look like the little leagues....... i don't rightly understand.
D
|
|
|
|
|
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
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 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
|