Back at the end of November, a 61 year old Farmington woman filed suit in federal court against several members of the Farmington Police Department who she claims used excessive force when they kicked and struck her and then twisted both her arms causing serious shoulder injuries. You can read the original civil complaint pulled from PACER and stored on RECAP‘s repository on the Internet Archive for more background.
From the civil complaint:
29. Defendants Bellows, Hendrickson and Johnson intentionally caused Plaintiff Menoch emotional distress by falsely arresting, illegally imprisoning, kicking, twisting her arm to the point of harming her shoulder and abusing her.
30. Defendants intentionally caused emotional distress upon Plaintiff Menoch by visiting her home uninvited and abusing her and causing her injuries.
31. As a result of the aforesaid acts of the Defendants, Plaintiff Menoch suffered damages as aforesaid.
[...]
36. Because of said negligence of Defendants Lindquist Plaintiff Menoch has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including, but not limited to emotional distress, pain andsuffering. Menoch has also suffered pecuniary loss.
[...]
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Menoch requests this Court:
A. That Defendants be jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff Menoch for damages in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) as allowed by appropriate laws and statutes;
According to a fairly recent Thisweek article about the lawsuit, the Farmington Police Department was, “dispatched to Menoch’s house to check on her welfare.” After they arrived they found Menoch, “screaming and uncooperative,” at which time they deemed it necessary to subdue her and subsequently handcuff her. It was during this time that officers said they, “grabbed her by the arm, utilizing arm bar control technique, spun her around and up against a counter top.” Two officers eventually brought her to the ground, restraining both arms, while she continued to resist their efforts to cuff her. An officer, “delivered three common peroneal knee strikes to the outside of her left thigh and she let go of her wrist, enabling me to cuff her other hand.” According to Wikipedia (and the Thisweek article), the peroneal knee strike causes numbness and pain sometimes lasting up to 5 minutes. In addition to the temporary pain delivered by the knee strike, Meonch claims her rotator cuff was torn as a result of the struggle and that she required surgery and physical therapy to repair the damage.
Do you think that a 61 year old woman who was having a welfare check done at her home deserved to be handled in the manner she was? Knowing her possible state of mind do you think the police should have delivered the physical force they did? Do you really believe a 61 year old female should need to be taken down to the ground with painful knee strikes? Do you think the City of Farmington will settle out of court to avoid the costly battle or do you think they were 100% in the right here and should fight it all the way through to a jury trial? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
December 13th, 2011 at 7:20 am
Old people scare me. I scare myself looking in the damned mirror every morning.
What if this was my own mother? Well, many many times I’ve wanted to do this same thing, sometimes a beat down is the only way to get through the grannie when she won’t take her meds or shut up and sit quietly.
December 13th, 2011 at 8:37 am
“visited HER home uninvited”. The US Constitution appears to be dead in Washington, I guess these Officers felt no need to abide by it either.
There must be much more to the story.
December 13th, 2011 at 8:49 am
The question above leads me to recall just about every case where US military forces have been implemented as police or peace keeping forces. As in this case, you have tool, and it is designed to do specific things. They can be really good at those things they are designed for. They often do badly when used to perform tasks they are not designed for.
I’m not sure police officers are necessarily the correct tool to use to bring a elderly person into line with authority. I would have thought Farmington and/or Dakota County have a system for dealing with elderly in such a condition. i.e. I can see having a patrol car to stop by and check things out. But do they really know what they can and can’t due when subduing a geriatric person? Often pain doesn’t occur until after damage is done, their pain receptors can be dulled from current medications, and they will often not react to safe levels of force like a non-medicated or younger person will.
When I take first aid classes, we go through the standard way of doing things, and the modified ways for children, and seniors. Do they do the same when training how to knee a person in the thigh, or twist their arm behind their back with the intention of creating pain?
The original report would be interesting to see. Police making commands after forcing their way into the home would likely get a bit of attitude from me as well. They better know good and well what they are doing if they are going to start messing with you in your own home.
December 13th, 2011 at 9:05 am
61 is elderly? I could elaborate but I won’t.
December 13th, 2011 at 9:16 am
I don’t have the right to yell and go all weird in my own home? What are the criteria for intervening in a welfare check? Seems like that should be a preeeeety high bar to meet in order to detain someone in their own home. Go Constitution!
December 13th, 2011 at 9:46 am
Well this may or may not be a factor but if you look her name up at http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx you will find that she has some past history with Farmington police with traffic violations (4) that date back to 2006.
So maybe she feels she being targeted or she’s just a PITA to deal with.
December 13th, 2011 at 9:50 am
61 is old??? As a 52 YO that kind of bums me out!
December 13th, 2011 at 10:01 am
Congrats to n52 on comment #100!
December 13th, 2011 at 10:01 am
More from the Farmington Independent here: http://www.farmingtonindependent.com/event/article/id/18762/publisher_ID/7/
December 13th, 2011 at 10:31 am
1. They should not be able to go into someones home and do this.
2. 61 is really not old. Isnt Madonna around that age. Certainly a 61 year old could still represent danger to another person.
December 13th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Oh yeah, remember Verne Gagne’s sad story a few years back at the nursing home where he ended up killing another resident? I think he was in his 80′s at the time and he was still a hand-fill for the staff.
December 13th, 2011 at 10:44 am
n52, you found her traffic violations, I suggest looking at her FB profile and you’ll see that she would be little match for one Farmington police officer, let alone more than one.
December 13th, 2011 at 11:22 am
Domestic calls are the worst for police for many reasons. The cops didn’t just go there because they didn’t have anything else to do. SOMEONE requested they go for a welfare check. The cops came to my neighbors house last year for a welfare check. They didn’t break down the door until AFTER there was no reponse to repeated knocks on both doors (at least 15-20 minutes). They also asked one or more of the other neighbors if anyone had seen the person…so should the cops enter the house? Was the force excessive, maybe but how much time elapsed BEFORE they entered the house. How many attempts at communication did she IGNORE before they got physical.
My point is that we weren’t there so it is hard to know for sure EXACTLY what happened.
December 13th, 2011 at 11:23 am
I wasn’t saying that she would put up much of a fight. Just her state of mind.
December 13th, 2011 at 11:28 am
I wonder what all you constitutional experts on here suggest should happen when a concerned relative asks the police to do a welfare check on someone they fear stopped taking meds and may be in an abnormal state of mind?
So they pull up to the house. Find the tenant acting erratically. What next?
Please enlighten.
December 13th, 2011 at 11:33 am
Seppuku,
Simple: leave the person alone.
Unless there is a power of attorney in play here (it doesn’t seem to be in this case) or the person is a harm to another city resident either in or outside the home, the police should have noted she was alive, called the relatives and let them know, and possibly alerted the paramedics and/or social services to deal with it from there.
—
If I refuse to take my medication as an adult and no one else has power over me, then I expect that as long as I am not a danger to other people that I will be left alone in my own home. That is my right to make, not the right of others around me and especially does not give the police the right to come into my home without my permission.
December 13th, 2011 at 11:52 am
Remember this woman initiated this incident by threatening to kill herself(“If you want me to kill myself, I will,”). She was obviously upset and doesn’t sound like she was calm or answering questions causing officers to enter through her unlocked back door. Especially being diabetic and acting irrationally, the police are unable to determine if this woman is having a medical emergency, intoxicated, or just very upset. If it is one of the first 2 and the pt dies after the officers leave without investigating, they would be liable in a lawsuit from her family. The bottom line is she started this mess with her texts.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
December 13th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Hopefully more information will come out in court. Based on what information we have, I think you just have to break down the facts on a few levels. First is the history of both sides. The Farmington Police Department doesn’t appear to have a history of problems with excessive force. We don’t have much information on Menoch to know if she has a history of irrational behavior. As previously noted, she has 3 speeding violations and 3 seat belt violations in 5 years, but that’s just an indication of stupidity (at least on the seat belt violations…the speeding was between 9 and 13 MPH, which certainly isn’t uncommon), not irrational behavior.
So without any real history from either side to go on, all you can base any opinion on at this point is the reports and interviews from each side. We know that:
1. Farmington PD was called to Menoch’s home after receiving a call from a family member requesting a welfare check on her because she had sent a text message saying, “If you want me to kill myself, I will. You do not want me anymore.”
2. FPD let themselves into Menoch’s home through an unlocked back door.
3. Menoch claims she was not told why FPD was there. FPD claims they tried to explain why they were there but Menoch was screaming loudly and wouldn’t listen.
4. FPD used physical force to restrain Menoch and have paramedics take her to Fairview Ridges. There are somewhat varying descriptions of how much physical force was used, but I’m not sure how relevant the variance between the two stories is.
5. Menoch hadn’t taken her diabetes medication or eaten in at least 6 hours.
6. Menoch now has injuries which she claims are a result of the force used to restrain her.
Now, I don’t think anyone argues that police brutality is wrong. But consider what would have happened if FPD had acted differently.
Menoch takes issue with FPD coming into her home. However, that’s expected of any police department in response to a welfare check. By entering a home in response to a welfare check, police are able to address and help stop or prevent instances of suicide, child abuse, death, etc. If FPD hadn’t entered the home and Menoch had committed suicide, there would likely be a lawsuit against them for neglecting their duty. So I don’t think it’s fair to contend that FPD shouldn’t have entered the home.
The next issue becomes whether FPD explained why they were there. Again, I’m not sure that FPD can be faulted here given that they apparently tried to explain their presence (which I would hope means that they did explain their presence but did not get acknowledgment from Menoch that she heard and understood). The fact that Menoch’s irrational behavior prevented them from being able to communicate effectively with her isn’t FPD’s fault.
And then there’s the issue of physical force and restraint that was used. Should FPD have used restraint? If so, how much? Again, without video we can only go on what each side is saying. But I think it’s fair to say that if FPD had left the scene with an irrational, out-of-control woman who had threatened suicide and she did commit suicide, they’d have a problem on their hands. It’s been noted that they could have called social services, but how long would it have taken until someone arrived? Given the state she was apparently in, did the officers have reason to believe she was an immediate threat to her own safety?
It’s obviously unfortunate that there are physical damages, but I’m not seeing anything here that leaves me condemning FPD’s response. I think the outcry if they’d done nothing would have been far worse than any response to what they did do. Menoch said she’s joined an organization against police brutality and I wonder if the sympathy she’s drawn from that group is part of what made her file the lawsuit.
From what I can see here, the only potential issue of liability for FPD is how tough the physical restraint was. I have a feeling that handcuffing an irrational woman who’s flailing her arms is not an easy task and isn’t something that can exactly be done gently.
It’s not like this is a case where FPD filed charges against her for her behavior. They apparently were simply trying to get her the help that she appeared to need based on the initial phone call and the behavior they observed. Given the information that we have, I’ve got to side with FPD on this.
Sorry this comment went so long. I’ve typed it now though, so I’m pressing “submit.”
December 13th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Joey,
All you have told us is that we’re a litigious society hellbent on allowing public safety officers to expand their intended scope beyond what the Constitution allows.
If a homeowner tells the police not to come in and they are not there with a court-ordered warrant then they should never be permitted through the door and no one, and I mean absolutely no one, should side with them in this case.
December 13th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
The 3 seatbelt violations as separate occurrences in three separate years is really odd. That normally only happens when you are pulled over for something else (speeding in her case).
Unless these prior cases had a speeding charge that was dropped and it’s not part of the record anymore.
In any event, that’s a lot of contact with a small town police force. Sounds like that’s an angle her lawyers will try if this goes to trial.
They’ll probably settle this out though.
December 13th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
You’re right, odd. I though the seatbelt violations would be dropped before the speeding would.
December 13th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
I cannot possibly disagree with you more, Bill.
If I am on a business trip and my wife calls me in an uncharacteristic, freaked out state saying she’s going to kill herself, the police DAMNED WELL BETTER break down the fucking door to save her life instead of standing outside watching her kill herself through the window. It is irrelevant if she invites them in for tea or not, as the text message and belligerence are evidence enough that she is in no state to make the decision to give them permission. This lady was clearly a threat to self and others. I have no problem whatsoever with police operating in this manner.
December 13th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
The text message is evidence that she’s a drama queen. The belligerence was evidence that she didn’t want the police in her home and she had low blood sugar.
See, we can both make up wild stories about what really happened here when the only fact of the matter is she was manhandled inappropriately for her age and the government’s powers to do what they want with a person’s property grows with each and every passing day due to an ever-more passive public.
December 13th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Let’s all remember our rights. Police have a lot of power and can exercise “warrantless searches” in some clearly defined circumstances. In this case it probably falls under “exigent circumstances.” [for those from South Dakota, exigent means: requiring immediate action or aid; urgent; pressing.]
Exigent circumstances usually involve some type of emergency situation. If the police have reason to believe that they or someone else is subject to immediate danger, the police can justify a warrantless search to protect themselves or others. If the police receive a call involving a domestic dispute and then while near the house hear evidence that someone is being harmed, they can enter to protect the perceived victim. The search will be upheld, even if it’s later discovered to be a misunderstanding, because the entry was reasonable under the circumstances. Police can also enter a house when they are in hot pursuit of a defendant. There is no “home base” rule. If the police follow you to your home, they are authorized to continue the pursuit to prevent your escape or the destruction of evidence.
This may be a sticky legal wicket. Oh, and Sank, I scare myself regularly… so yup, old folks are scary.
December 13th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
I am left to wonder if the Farmington PD had cameras on the police personnel like the Burnsville PD does if this would even be an issue.
December 13th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
dsw, I wonder if they would ‘malfunction’ as often as the MVTA’s cameras?
December 13th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Making up stories? I didn’t make anything up. There was a text message where she stated she was going to kill herself. They arrived to a belligerent person who was acting consistent with a violent person.
They didn’t have the benefit of your Monday morning quarterbacking.
I simply put myself in the position of a family member and stated what I would hope for in that situation. The outcome for this woman is exactly what I would hope for: She is alive. Thank you officers for probably saving her life!
Now, the issue of excessive force and that case is another issue entirely.
But make no mistake: You said “no one, and I mean absolutely no one, should side with them in this case.” I side with them 100%.
December 13th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
You also support red light cameras in Burnsville. I can’t trust anything you say when it comes to rights of Americans.
December 13th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
There seem to be a LOT of folks you don’t trust. I can’t imagine the discomfort of living life in fear of almost everyone and everything like you seem to.
December 13th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
I don’t trust the majority of those in government because they have proven themselves unworthy of our trust. Anyone who doesn’t see that is thus also untrustworthy.
December 13th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Again, I can’t imagine living like that – having your core values and daily life guided by gross generalizations and mass-association.
If 95% of government is untrustworthy, I still won’t round it up to 100%. Everyone deserves to be judged upon their own merit. That’s a core value to me and it’s how I live my life.
There’s also a lot of sentiment that “anyone that has such mistrust of the police must be hiding something and is a criminal”. Is that generalization true because you fall into it (by your own logic)?
December 13th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Based on how I am treated by the government I clearly do.
December 14th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
I have a comfortable distrust level with government types. Police in particular, mostly because the types of individuals drawn to that type of work are well, those type of people.
p.s. asserting your rights shouldn’t mark you as a criminal. This is supposed to still be America, innocent until proven guilty. Police love for you to think otherwise.
December 14th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
“Those type of people”?
Please…enlighten us, mikeh.
December 14th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
MSPD,
I’m guessing he means assholes on a power trip. It would appear that minimum education requirements (baccalaureate) for metro area police departments limit that when compared to police officers who walked out of secondary school and straight into uniform.
December 14th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
A hundred years ago, when I was working, I used to attend the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) convention – still have my lapel pin I think. A couple of the companies on the show floor were selling psychological screening tests for candidates. In chatting with these folks about their testing it became apparent they screened both ends of the spectrum – those who were unable to issue authority responsibly and those who were too “smart” for police work. (I kid you not.) They pushed their ability to “hit the sweet spot” – just the right temperament for police work.
I suspect that discipline has matured to the point that the current cop on the street is very well qualified, psychologically, to minimize their “assholeness.”
December 15th, 2011 at 7:42 am
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.
December 15th, 2011 at 7:44 am
I remember sitting in court one day being very disturbed that the State troopers (another state, not MN) did not know what legally constituted an arrest…
December 15th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
I have great respect for police officers and the difficult job they do, but I also have a strong belief that in order to do the job they have to be assholes on a powertrip.
Difficult balance I guess.
I would imagine that dealing the the subject matter they deal with on a daily basis, it becomes difficult for them not to be somewhat jaded and or have a somewhat darker outlook on society than most of us.
December 15th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
while I probably wouldn’t have used those works specifically, I think assholes on a power trip is pretty close. I’m sure it is hard to believe folks are innocent until proven guilty when you deal with pretty clearly non-innocent people much of the day. And shockingly, the actually innocent don’t sound all that different from the likely not-innocent.
Yet how do you explain police officers that do not follow the laws of the road? Police officers who will protect one of their own, regardless of how bad they are? Remember the Mpls Gang Task Force? WTF?
yes there are some great officers out there. But all you need is 2 or 3 bad ones to really fuck it up. And how good are the good ones when they are unwilling to cut loose the bad ones themselves?
December 16th, 2011 at 11:25 am
Mikeh, every profession has “2 or 3 bad ones”. What business are you in? Priest? Oops…bad choice. Investment? Ooh, ouch Mr. Madoff. How about non-profit management? Google “non-profit fraud and $40 billon” and see what comes up. Technology? Hackers and identity thieves. School teacher? Statutory rapists. University Administrator? Pedophiles. Scout Master? Pedophiles. Little league administrator? Pedophiles. Car dealer? Slimy (and quite possibly pedophiles). Restauranteur? Hook up that PBR to the IPA tap, hardly anyone will know. Doctor? Well, Michael Jackson had a noble one. OB/GYN? Yeah, you’re groping your patients. Lawyer? Heh. I know…scientist/researcher! Certainly nobody (cough cough anthrax attack) casts a cloud on that profession. Oh, you’re a politician! Priceless.
Go ahead and apply the “those people” label to any profession based on the worst of the worst. That’s about the lamest argument you can make to try and prove some kind of point.
Just remember mikeh that it ain’t a marketing manager that puts their ass on the line when you are on the receiving end of a crime and call 911.
Some other thoughts: Based on the law enforcement officers I actually know and talk to regularly (how many do you interact with on a frequent basis mikeh?) the “unwilling to cut loose” is not only untrue, but is beyond the control of the officers on the street. Most LEOs I know (including the one in my family) are MORE disgusted by internal misdeeds because it makes their job even harder. Largely because of people who take the “2 or 3 bad ones” or inaccuracies and take to the blogs exaggerating and lumping them all in as devious, power-tripping a-holes.
The “laws of the road” comment is just bunk. Not even worthy of a reply.
Anyway, just keep on with the baseless jibber-jabber. I’m sure all the cheering and back-patting you’re getting from the militia folks, gun dealers, pot farmers, and other anti-government loonies strokes your ego.
Oh shoot…was that a stereotype?
December 16th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
MSPD,
Those examples, while spot on and I can certainly agree with where you are coming from, can’t put me in prison on death row to be killed a few years later because they didn’t like the color of my skin, the fact that I was videotaping their every move, or because I author a website which points out when they did something incredibly stupid.
December 16th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Nonsense and irrelevant to mikeh’s disparaging the character of an entire profession.
December 16th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Just like I would hold management at a restaurant responsible for ongoing bad employee behavior, I do the same for police. If you have one or two bad officers in your rank, and you as a leader allow them to continue, what does that say about that department? If a restaurant, I can just not go there again. If it’s my local police department, I guess I just need to move. Now maybe that is more indicative of issues in government in general and not just police departments. But thus far police officers are the only ones that can legally get away with confining me, or trespassing on my property.
I believe law enforcement officers need to be held to a higher standard than other professions.
I always find it interesting when people trying to excuse issues with law enforcement behavior do so by trying to imply that law abiding folks don’t have anything to worry about. That if you are questioning their behavior it must simply be because you do illegal things.
I highly respect law enforcement officers. But I do not trust them. I don’t know that you have to trust them to respect them.
December 16th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Where does this happen without repercussions?
This is not true. Police officers can confine you if they are placing you under arrest or to protect your safety or others. Cite examples of random people being confined.
Why? Why shouldn’t all professions be held to high standards of integrity? And, I would argue by nature they are held to a higher standard. Everything a police officer does regarding arrests/tickets/etc. is reviewed and subject to argument (due process). This is from parking tickets to mass-murders. What other professions are held to a standard like that?
“Excusing issues with law enforcement behavior” and the other part have nothing to do with one another. I’m not sure anyone is “excusing issues with law enforcement behavior” (I assume you mean excusing issues where law enforcement has violated the law or exceeded its authority). Cite an issue with facts where law enforcement has violated the law or exceeded its authority and I’m pretty sure nobody will “excuse” it.
To be clear, I believe 100% that “law abiding folks don’t have anything to worry about”. Why should they?
That was a popular generalization/stereotype that I was presenting to prove how nonsensical Bill’s generalization about nobody in or associated with government being trustworthy was.
Everyone invites people to question police tactics. I know for a fact that they invite it too. That’s the whole purpose of due process as well. Unlike Bill’s comment above, a rogue cop cannot “put me in prison on death row to be killed a few years later because they didn’t like the color of my skin” etc. You would have to have a justice system, jury, and government complicit in that. (p.s. I strongly oppose the death penalty in all cases).
Getting back to this, this is a tremendously narrow point of view. You know that’s stupid. Even in this Farmington case, the matter is proceeding through due process. That’s what started this whole discussion. The woman perceives what you do — that the police exceeded their authority. She/You DO have all the recourse in the world as a citizen to deal with alleged police misconduct. If the facts bear out, the individuals WILL receive reprimand and you will likely receive settlement.
I appreciate that you seemed to back away from the “those people” thing. I won’t ever understand someone that has a blanket distrust of all law enforcement officers though. That’s unfortunate and as I said to Bill earlier, must be an absolutely miserable way to live.
December 16th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
The cops start it MSPD and they have been known to leave out or doctor evidence which then sways the rest of the justice system. The police are the first link in the chain and generally garner all the “evidence” against a person.
So while you can rant on and on all you like about how police officers are only part of the problem, we all know that they’re the biggest problem due to the power they hold over everyone else involved.
December 16th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
OK, Jesse Ventura. You just keep on believing your fantastic conspiracy theories. Yes, Farmington, Minnesota…the hotbed of doctoring/planting evidence and sinister, rogue cops all out to get the (dum-dum-daaaaah)….law-abiding-yet-evil BLOGGER/SAS professional!
Granted, I asked mikeh a lot of questions (albeit mostly rhetorical) and I’m sure the responses will come, but the rational thoughts are pretty much exhausted. Have a good weekend in Fantasy Land (although not too good…The Man might be waiting to pounce and randomly arrest you…you’d better watch your back. Muu-ha-ha-ha-haaaaa).
I’m out.
December 16th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
This thread helps explain why MSPD and mikeh have so many comments. I’ll have to amend my strategy in the impossible race to surpass MSPD: engage in at least one back-and-forth comment debate per week. I shouldn’t have any trouble doing that, I’ll just start responding to lefty in the comments instead of simply rolling my eyes and pressing “dislike.”
December 16th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
I wasn’t talking about Farmington and neither were you.
December 16th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
Uh, you did type in the word “Farmington” into the page. Is the title of this post referring to Louisiana?
I’m not going to engage in some crap about 30 year-old Texas death penalty cases or the OJ trial conspiracy theories.
December 16th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
We stopped talking about Farmington specifically a long time ago. We’re talking about law enforcement in general unless otherwise noted and you know it :)
December 17th, 2011 at 9:51 am
wrapping up, I will try to apply some introspection. I will admit. My distrust first attitude towards law enforcement is difficult to justify with any rational arguments. I set law enforcement up to an extremely high standard, perhaps one they will never be able to meet. I’m o.k. with that, simply because my interaction with such officers is so infrequent, that my feelings rarely make the rare encounters anything other than respectful but cautious.
The problem with law enforcement bad eggs, is that as a citizen, you never know when they might turn up and impact your life negatively. And while officer McFly is disgusted by the misdeeds of officer Biff, and he/she is unable to take any corrective actin, Biff’s supervisor sure as heck could. That such bad eggs are allowed to continue in their positions over citizens, is an indication to me* that Biff and his supervisor do not act in the best interest of those they serve.
I applaud the law enforcement community for the great things they do. But that doesn’t mean I forgive the bad things because of all the good they do. Damned if they do, damned if they do not.
Which is why I believe using police officers in the case of this Farmington woman was a mistake, and ended up exactly how one might expect it would when police officers get involved. Their skill set is not designed to have them be nice and gentle with a grandma resisting their every attempt to do what they feel is right.
December 18th, 2011 at 8:34 am
It is true, not all officers are bad. However, I would wager the number is higher than we think. Every officer that looks the other way or willfully ignores the bad conduct of a fellow officer under some unwritten “code of silence” is as bad as the dirty cop themselves. They would charge someone on the street with conspiracy or aiding and abetting if they engaged in similar conduct. If an entire profession does not want the bad rap caused by a few, they need to vigorously and effectively police themselves.
December 18th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
http://www.neiassociates.org/barrythesis.pdf. This thesis contains a decent look at the historic and sociological aspects of police corruption and the code of silence as a set up to proposed reform. It is a little over 10 years old, but the points it makes are still valid.
December 18th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
I have a book around here someplace by a retired MN police officer about the code of silence. I will have to dig it up and share the title for those interested.
Anyone who thinks cops don’t shade the truth has never sat through a day of traffic court. So much so that common sense would make me want to make sure to never give law enforcement any reason to consider me in the same thought as any serious crime.
For what it’s worth I do have close friends in law enforcement, both in the military and civilian world, including an ICE agent. As noted above, I have a great deal of respect for what our police do, see, and put up with on a daily basis.
December 19th, 2011 at 11:53 am
The book I referenced above is “Walking with the Devil: The Police Code of Silence” by Michael W Quinn. Officer Quinn was a 25 year veteran of the Minneapolis Police Department.
Certainly given the polarity of the above posts, I think there may be people reading this who would find the book interesting and informative.
http://www.amazon.com/Walking-Devil-Police-Code-Silence/dp/097591250X
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Cops lie all the time. I am a lawyer and what is included in the reports is about 1/10 of what happens in real life. Also have a family member on MPD and have went to parties and heard unbelievable stories from cops. That aside – it was just about my job until the Lakeville cops in October pulled their guns on my 12 year old (good student; athlete) son for suspected ding dong ditching in the middle of the day. They entered my house illegally and searched. Called my husband and I and lied to us about what they were doing. LIed to my nanny. I have NO record nor does my husband (maybe some old speeding/parking tickets). Cops NEVER been called to my house. Hurt my sweet golden retriever dog who had to go to vet because couldn’t use stairs. AWFUL! Would never had believed what they could do until it happened to me.
January 4th, 2012 at 8:23 am
Ben Franklin,
You are about as credible to me as you would have us believe the cops are to you. While it is entirely possible that a police officer may make a mistake and be too forceful, they sure as hell are not doing it to people who can afford a nanny, and also coincidentally break a bunch of other laws against you as well.
lefty
January 4th, 2012 at 9:30 am
Ben:
Your rant is barely coherent. Please provide some documentation of some sort to prove you’re not a troll.
Judging by your use of grammar, I suspect that your home schooling was not that much of a success.
So you are saying that the cops somehow determined your child was at your place then they called in the SWAT team so they could storm your house to extract your son and in the process hurt your dog?
Wow! Sounds like Fido had his civil rights violated, and since you’re a lawyer you must be in the middle of filing the paperwork to bring forth a huge federal case!
I think the real story is that you were most likely were intoxicated one night and you decided to mouth off to a cop when they were called in when you started a fight at the bar which that got you arrested and thrown into detox for 3 days and thus have hated cops ever since.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:43 am
nurd,
The only thing I can find for Ben Franklin is a speeding violation for 73 in a 55. I mean, I’m all for hyperbole but that was a little silly :)
January 4th, 2012 at 10:26 am
OK, so “Ben Franklin” links to the Huson Law Firm web page (Christina Huson). I would hope to high heavens that the post above wasn’t made by Ms. Huson, otherwise in a matter of just two minutes of typing, she just destroyed the credibility of her work in my opinion.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:31 am
Well, they only list two attorneys, but the other one looks to be a bit young to have a child that got roughed up by the cops.
With that rant, it is easy to see why she does not have many partners in her firm.
January 4th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
I find most home school kids’ problem to be more an issue of social ineptitude and selective education than grammar (they’re often voracious readers to a fault). Somehow a few of us emerge relatively unscathed. ;)
I have no doubt that cops lie, and despite that she’s in family law I suppose she sees a police report here and there. However, I’m very interested in seeing evidence of the abuse she notes happening in Lakeville. That sounds like something that would be a news story, especially if it happened to a well-connected attorney as involved in her community as she indicates that she is.
March 7th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Jury trial demanded: http://www.thisweeklive.com/2012/03/07/jury-trial-demanded-in-excessive-force-case-against-farmington-police