Officer Involved Incident Under Investigation

[poster]

Mixed feelings on this....
First of all they're ALL wrong.
The ATV guy is scum and I'm sure he got what was coming to him. Which in all honesty none of us truely know what he got, if anything. I'm sure he sees this as his ticket to the $$$ - which I have no doubt will be used to fuel his habit.

The girlfriend, well I have little reguard for her statements given the issues she's had with the boyfriend in the past.

The cop used very poor judgement, he's only human. He'll regret these events for the rest of his life. Given that he was, off-duty, drunk and in a personal vehicle (undecided if he was driving). Unless he was driving there's nothing wrong there. Assault-that's wrong. I'm not ready to agree he should be fired.

 

[usagent]

Nice try though wannabe!

That's hasbeen to you!

 

[awpitt]

The cop used very poor judgement, he's only human. He'll regret these events for the rest of his life. Given that he was, off-duty, drunk and in a personal vehicle (undecided if he was driving). Unless he was driving there's nothing wrong there. Assault-that's wrong. I'm not ready to agree he should be fired.

Not entirely true. Even if he wasn't driving, he was engaging in law enforcement activities while drunk. All beatings aside, he should not have even confronted the guy on the ATV.

 

[Solja_Boy]

If the cops wife was driving it wouldn't make sense for her to pull over knowing that her husband was drunk and the kid was in the car. In a situation like this the cop would have told her to pull over and she would most likely just keep driving and not stop.

If the cop was driving he would make sense that he saw this guy on the side of the road that he had been after for a while and was never able to catch so he pulled over to try and get him.

Since each person has a witness stating the oposite thing about who the driver was it makes this a he said she said situation and the truth about the driver will probably never be proven.

 

[poster]

Not entirely true. Even if he wasn't driving, he was engaging in law enforcement activities while drunk. All beatings aside, he should not have even confronted the guy on the ATV.

My meaning was prior to the "incident" at the point of him getting out of the car - yes he was wrong.

 

[LateApex]

You're right everything here is speculation except for one thing. He had a .18 an hour after the inncident so it was higher at the time everything happened. One would think that alone would be enough justification for the Sheriff to send him on his way. This is assuming the Dept has policies against performing law enforcement duites while under the influence.

...

 

[raven]

...

During the incident off-duty sheriff’s lieutenant Rick Burris arrived on the scene. After observing Goff acting inappropriately, Lt. Burris immediately initiated a preliminary investigation and directed Goff be removed to a nearby location where he was administered a Preliminary Breath Test. Probable cause was developed to suggest Goff had operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Goff was transported to the Sheriff’s Office for further investigation by the Bureau of Professional Responsibilities (Internal Affairs). The incident was reviewed with the State’s Attorney’s Office and the following charges were agreed upon:

1) Assault 2nd Degree

2) Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol

3) Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol – Per Se

4) Driving While Impaired

The administrative investigation into the entire incident is continuing. The defendant remains suspended with pay until the conclusion of the administrative/criminal investigation.

 

[awpitt]

During the incident off-duty sheriff’s lieutenant Rick Burris arrived on the scene. After observing Goff acting inappropriately, Lt. Burris immediately initiated a preliminary investigation and directed Goff be removed to a nearby location where he was administered a Preliminary Breath Test. Probable cause was developed to suggest Goff had operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Goff was transported to the Sheriff’s Office for further investigation by the Bureau of Professional Responsibilities (Internal Affairs). The incident was reviewed with the State’s Attorney’s Office and the following charges were agreed upon:

1) Assault 2nd Degree

2) Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol

3) Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol – Per Se

4) Driving While Impaired

The administrative investigation into the entire incident is continuing. The defendant remains suspended with pay until the conclusion of the administrative/criminal investigation.

It's interesting that nothing is noted about Goff performaing law enforcement function while under the influence? Would that be something handled by a disiplinary board?

 

[Solja_Boy]

It's interesting that nothing is noted about Goff performaing law enforcement function while under the influence? Would that be something handled by a disiplinary board?

It may be like showing up to your job drunk. They can fire you for it but you are not breaking any laws.

 

[cmz2u]

During the incident off-duty sheriff’s lieutenant Rick Burris arrived on the scene. After observing Goff acting inappropriately, Lt. Burris immediately initiated a preliminary investigation and directed Goff be removed to a nearby location where he was administered a Preliminary Breath Test. Probable cause was developed to suggest Goff had operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Goff was transported to the Sheriff’s Office for further investigation by the Bureau of Professional Responsibilities (Internal Affairs). The incident was reviewed with the State’s Attorney’s Office and the following charges were agreed upon:

1) Assault 2nd Degree

2) Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol

3) Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol – Per Se

4) Driving While Impaired

The administrative investigation into the entire incident is continuing. The defendant remains suspended with pay until the conclusion of the administrative/criminal investigation.

Suspended WITH PAY! Hope he enjoys his taxpayer paid for vacation (before he gets canned!)

 

[jjsmommy99]

Cops are people too. Hope no leniency is given. If I chose to get into a vehicle, and I had been drinking, and further draw attention to myself by getting out and beating on someone, I would be in major trouble. I hope St. Mary's does the right thing on this one.

 

[MMDad]

Suspended WITH PAY! Hope he enjoys his taxpayer paid for vacation (before he gets canned!)

Since he's going to be unemployed soon, won't ever be able to get a LE job again, and may even face jail time, think of it as a little bit of severance pay.

He'll probably be paying it all back and more in fines.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

Since he's going to be unemployed soon, won't ever be able to get a LE job again, and may even face jail time, think of it as a little bit of severance pay.

He'll probably be paying it all back and more in fines.

Heard through the grape-vine that he might be using it for child-support soon...

I would HOPE that his wife would leave him after being so stupid with their kid in the car :shrug:

 

[MMDad]

Heard through the grape-vine that he might be using it for child-support soon...

I would HOPE that his wife would leave him after being so stupid with their kid in the car :shrug:

It sort of depends on if this is an isolated incident, or if it's a pattern of behavior.

If he's remorseful, gets help, and it's a first offense, I'd hope she would stay with him. It's sort of the "for better or for worse" part.

But if this is normal for him, he's not remorseful, and he refuses to get help, then she should leave him.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

It sort of depends on if this is an isolated incident, or if it's a pattern of behavior.

If he's remorseful, gets help, and it's a first offense, I'd hope she would stay with him. It's sort of the "for better or for worse" part.

But if this is normal for him, he's not remorseful, and he refuses to get help, then she should leave him.

Agreed.

 

[MMDad]

Agreed.

You might want to delete that. If that info is true, the supervisor is breaking the law by spreading it.

If it's not true, it isn't fair to the cop.

 

[desertrat]

Knucklehead...He was in his OWN car. While they say we are on 24/7, there are times (drinking, medication. childcare) where one can not or would not drive a Police car to go to work. You know what they mean. Soooo it's not having it bothways.

So after drinking he decided to take his own car. Gotcha. Much better.

 

[Solja_Boy]

Deputy Charged With DWI and Assault - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

You might want to delete that. If that info is true, the supervisor is breaking the law by spreading it.

If it's not true, it isn't fair to the cop.

Not saying the supervisor said it.

Relative of supervisor has met the cop in question before :shrug: Not sure of the affiliation though other than aquaintance. Could have heard it from anyone really :shrug: but I'll delete it non-the-less.

 

[chernmax]

Wonder how many dash cams they forgot to turn on???

Regardless of the circumstances, the deputy's failure is the DUI, the ATV stop and everything he did afterwards. Didn't see it in the charge sheet but when I was in law enforcement, when off duty and you were going out to have a few drinks (with designated driver), you could not carry your service weapon because it would be an additional charge!!!

It also states it on my CCW permits!!!