Baltimore Police in the news again

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
The Sgt. here made $243,000 last year. He didn't like the 1A rights of the citizens he swore to protect, so he arrested him for something, lied in his police reports, then less than 24 hours after gettign out, police pull him over for dark tint and a license plate “positioned in an unusual manner”.

The Sgt. was arrested and suspended without pay. The police union says the city rushed to judgement.


With 24 years on the force, Newberg clocked enough overtime to receive $243,000 last fiscal year, the second most pay of any city employee, even more than the mayor.
“I was struck by how willing the Commissioner was to condemn an on duty, uniformed Police Sergeant after watching the body worn camera,” wrote Sgt. Mike Mancuso, the union president.
In explaining why they charged Dotson, the officers wrote that he interfered with their arrest, incited a hostile crowd and squared off against them in an aggressive and combative stance.
“It is also depicted on the body-worn camera that when a Hispanic officer approached Sergeant Newberg and suggested that he ‘relax,’ Sergeant Newberg told the Hispanic officer to never question the way he does things and ordered him to leave the scene, and later called him ‘a kumbaya office
Forty of the 50 highest-paid city employees last fiscal year worked in the police department.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-officer-charged-folo-20190607-story.html
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

Yeah, I already posted this a while back Chris, with the title of the thread, "$243,000 WTAF". But I feel ya. There is absolutely no way in hell that a cop/officer/deputy/trooper should be paid such a stratospheric pay of nearly a quarter of a million dollars a year. It is insane. Any one in, "law enforcement", should be on the same, or similar, pay scale system of the US armed forces. Rank for rank and time in grade. In Calvert County, there are regular patrol deputies being paid over $100,000. Stupid crazy. Maybe you can write some letters to the Commissioners and have them tell Evans to stop the insanity, or to cut the Sheriff's Office funding?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
If I may ...

Yeah, I already posted this a while back Chris, with the title of the thread, "$243,000 WTAF". But I feel ya. There is absolutely no way in hell that a cop/officer/deputy/trooper should be paid such a stratospheric pay of nearly a quarter of a million dollars a year. It is insane. Any one in, "law enforcement", should be on the same, or similar, pay scale system of the US armed forces. Rank for rank and time in grade. In Calvert County, there are regular patrol deputies being paid over $100,000. Stupid crazy. Maybe you can write some letters to the Commissioners and have them tell Evans to stop the insanity, or to cut the Sheriff's Office funding?
That's not his salary. That's his total compensation after overtime.

Now, why is he working so much overtime? Is it within guidelines to work that much overtime? Truck drivers can't. Pilots can't. Nuclear power plant operators can't. Because, it's not safe if they do. And, they don't wear guns.

So, the question isn't the pay, it's the amount of overtime.

Not sure what happened in this clip, but clearly there's a hell of a lot going on we do not see. The man said he would sue before he made it to the ground....let's see what the court system has to say about it.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Not sure what happened in this clip
A man walking by the scene voiced his displeasure with officers for making another man sit on the wet curb. Sgt. psycho responded to this comment with force because that officer apparently felt the need to teach the guy a lesson. The officer continually talked crap to the guy and couldn;t articulate why he was being arrested. In the longer video, a "white shirt" shows up and does absolutely nothing to remedy the situation and when another officer tells Sgt. psycho to calm down, the Sgt. tells him "don't you ever tell me how to do my job".

In reality, it doesn't matter. The court may (should) rule that the officer had no legal grounds to stop, tackle, and arrest the guy, but any payout due to the actions of Sgt. psycho will be by taxpayers anyway. The police union has already made it clear they'll back any and all officers at any cost and if history teaches us anything, the city will have a long fight ahead of them just trying to remove an officer that clearly has no business wearing a badge.

This isn't new. This is policing in cities and everyone wonders why inner city people don't trust the police or the justice system.
 
Last edited:

This_person

Well-Known Member
A man walking by the scene voiced his displeasure with officers for making another man sit on the wet curb. Sgt. psycho responded to this comment with force because that officer apparently felt the need to teach the guy a lesson. The officer continually talked crap to the guy and couldn;t articulate why he was being arrested. In the longer video, a "white shirt" shows up and does absolutely nothing to remedy the situation and when another officer tells Sgt. psycho to calm down, the Sgt. tells him "don't you ever tell me how to do my job".

In reality, it doesn't matter. The court may (should) rule that the officer had no legal grounds to stop, tackle, and arrest the guy, but any payout due to the actions of Sgt. psycho will be by taxpayers anyway. The police union has already made it clear they'll back any and all officers at any cost and if history teaches us anything, the city will have a long fight ahead of them just trying to remove an officer that clearly has no business wearing a badge.
The guy voicing his displeasure could EASILY be construed as disrupting an arrest.

I, personally, from what little I saw on the linked clip, think the officer should have just shrugged this ******* citizen off, since he was walking away while he was verbally involving himself in the arrest. The citizen has no right to involve himself in the arrest, but he was just being a jerk (which normally is legal) and the officer probably should have let that crime go. He didn't, and he responded with what could also easily be described as excessive zeal.

Two wrongs, and all that.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
The guy voicing his displeasure could EASILY be construed as disrupting an arrest.

I, personally, from what little I saw on the linked clip, think the officer should have just shrugged this *** citizen off, since he was walking away while he was verbally involving himself in the arrest. The citizen has no right to involve himself in the arrest, but he was just being a jerk (which normally is legal) and the officer probably should have let that crime go. He didn't, and he responded with what could also easily be described as excessive zeal.

Two wrongs, and all that.
A citizen has EVERY right to voice pleasure or displeasure with police.

Citizens speaking up about police interactions is not a "wrong" and it's not the job of officers to police legal behavior, or teach people a lesson, or be some sort of morality police.

 

This_person

Well-Known Member
A citizen has EVERY right to voice pleasure or displeasure with police.
Not if it could reasonably be construed as disrupting an arrest.

While I am not certain I would see this as disrupting an arrest, it is a reasonable argument to say that it was.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Not if it could reasonably be construed as disrupting an arrest.

While I am not certain I would see this as disrupting an arrest, it is a reasonable argument to say that it was.
That's like saying recording police can "reaonably" be construed as disrupting. Or someone walking by could be disrupting arrest.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
That's like saying recording police can "reaonably" be construed as disrupting. Or someone walking by could be disrupting arrest.
Recording could teach tactics, but I'm generally for recording (as are the police, as they often have body cams), so, no, it's not like saying that.

Walking by is just walking by and not involving oneself in the arrest, so, no, it's not like saying that.

If you are involving yourself in the arrest by talking with the officer, disrupting his attention from the detainee or distracting the officer from anything else going on, you are disrupting the arrest. It's like saying, "if you're involving yourself in the arrest, you're disrupting the arrest."

Everything you described is not involving yourself in the arrest.

Again, it seems to me likely the officer overreacted. It seems likely to me he should have (opinion here) just let that crime go, and complained about it over his scotch that night.

This is clearly not cut and dried wrong, but it's equally clearly not cut and dried appropriate.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
If I may ...

Yeah, I already posted this a while back Chris, with the title of the thread, "$243,000 WTAF". But I feel ya. There is absolutely no way in hell that a cop/officer/deputy/trooper should be paid such a stratospheric pay of nearly a quarter of a million dollars a year. It is insane. Any one in, "law enforcement", should be on the same, or similar, pay scale system of the US armed forces. Rank for rank and time in grade. In Calvert County, there are regular patrol deputies being paid over $100,000. Stupid crazy. Maybe you can write some letters to the Commissioners and have them tell Evans to stop the insanity, or to cut the Sheriff's Office funding?
I am way opposite to your view on this.
I agree the guy shouldn't make that much overtime , that is BS and probably padded.

As for their salary being the same as military, that isn't even reality.
Military pay is predicated on the Government feeding and clothing and giving a cot to sleep on.
Do you really think you would get a person to perform the duties of a police officer for military pay?
You are dreaming.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Recording could teach tactics, but I'm generally for recording (as are the police, as they often have body cams), so, no, it's not like saying that.

Walking by is just walking by and not involving oneself in the arrest, so, no, it's not like saying that.

If you are involving yourself in the arrest by talking with the officer, disrupting his attention from the detainee or distracting the officer from anything else going on, you are disrupting the arrest. It's like saying, "if you're involving yourself in the arrest, you're disrupting the arrest."

Everything you described is not involving yourself in the arrest.

Again, it seems to me likely the officer overreacted. It seems likely to me he should have (opinion here) just let that crime go, and complained about it over his scotch that night.

This is clearly not cut and dried wrong, but it's equally clearly not cut and dried appropriate.
Police have stated, multiple times, that being recorded during a traffic stop is a distraction. Here's a recent one:

Although the preservation of liberty depends in part upon the maintenance of social order, the First Amendment requires that officers and municipalities respond with restraint in the face of verbal challenges to police action, since a certain amount of expressive disorder is inevitable in a society committed to individual freedom, and must be protected if that freedom would survive.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/451/

Like you and I agree, he should have shown restraint when a citizen , who was simply walking by, verbally challeneged him for approximately 3 seconds.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Like you and I agree, he should have shown restraint when a citizen , who was simply walking by, verbally challeneged him for approximately 3 seconds.
And, the person should have been simply walking by, not involving themselves in the arrest. Two wrongs do not make a right - they make both people wrong.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
And, the person should have been simply walking by, not involving themselves in the arrest. Two wrongs do not make a right - they make both people wrong.
That's where we differ. The assumption that citizens can't voice their opinion to officers while walking by is, IMO, wholly unAmerican.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I am way opposite to your view on this.
I agree the guy shouldn't make that much overtime , that is BS and probably padded.

As for their salary being the same as military, that isn't even reality.
Military pay is predicated on the Government feeding and clothing and giving a cot to sleep on.
Do you really think you would get a person to perform the duties of a police officer for military pay?
You are dreaming.
Military pay does not clothe a person.

Military pay is predicated on commitment to duty over all other things. Police pay is predicated on protecting and serving - even when the enemy is not identified. Police encounter the enemy far more often than the vast majority of military members.

I am saying this as a veteran. I signed up fully knowing I could die for my country, that my duty would take me where I didn't want to go, and when I didn't want to work. Not being stupid I also knew the likelihood of ever dying for my country was exceptionally slim.

A cop doesn't know that nearly to the extent I did.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
That's where we differ. The assumption that citizens can't voice their opinion to officers while walking by is, IMO, wholly unAmerican.
We're not talking about voicing their opinion. We're talking about involving oneself in an arrest.

It is absolutely that man's right to voice his opinion - letter to the editor, to the head of the police department, to the cop himself AFTER the detainee is removed from the scene. It is NOT the citizen's right to involve themselves in the arrest.

Now, if the cop was beating the hell out of the detainee, or slicing his fingers off while yelling "talk, dammit, or your hand is next" or some other CLEARLY obvious illegal thing like that, a citizen not only can but SHOULD get involved.

This was a complete fukktard trying to piss off a cop talking about the detainee sitting down in a way the citizen didn't like. The citizen won his case - he pissed off the cop by being a complete fukktard.

Two wrongs do not make a right, they make two people wrong.
 

MiddleGround

Well-Known Member
Has anyone else noticed the drastic decrease in reported events of police brutality, racism, and inappropriate actions since body cams became the norm? There used to be multiple news stories every week. Now......

Odd...
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
We're not talking about voicing their opinion. We're talking about involving oneself in an arrest.

It is absolutely that man's right to voice his opinion - letter to the editor, to the head of the police department, to the cop himself AFTER the detainee is removed from the scene. It is NOT the citizen's right to involve themselves in the arrest.

Now, if the cop was beating the hell out of the detainee, or slicing his fingers off while yelling "talk, dammit, or your hand is next" or some other CLEARLY obvious illegal thing like that, a citizen not only can but SHOULD get involved.

This was a complete fukktard trying to piss off a cop talking about the detainee sitting down in a way the citizen didn't like. The citizen won his case - he pissed off the cop by being a complete fukktard.

Two wrongs do not make a right, they make two people wrong.
Of course we're talking about that. The guy didn't walk by and say "how bout the weather today?" he specifically said something about the actions of the officers.

Had he stayed there and berated the officers, I could possibly see your point, but he made a simple statement as he walked by and clearly Sgt. pyscho wasn't having that. Hell, he couldn't even have his fellow officers voice their opinion to him.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Of course we're talking about that. The guy didn't walk by and say "how bout the weather today?" he specifically said something about the actions of the officers.

Had he stayed there and berated the officers, I could possibly see your point, but he made a simple statement as he walked by and clearly Sgt. pyscho wasn't having that. Hell, he couldn't even have his fellow officers voice their opinion to him.
He didn't make a single statement as he walked by, he continued to make statements after he walked by.

Either way, he distracted the officer while the officer had a detainee - he disrupted the arrest. that's not ok. If someone slaps you softly or punches you hard in the face, it's assault either way.

The citizen had absolutely no grounds for disrupting the arrest, distracting the officer. He did it to be a jackass because he anticipated zero consequence. He was wrong.

The officer, seemingly, overreacted.

They were both wrong.
 
Top