Joanimaroni wrote: He had already approached people asking if they were straight...a key word for finding buyers for pot or crack.
That's cop bullshit, covering for Ard, and it's a perfect example of why there's no such thing as a good cop. They spread the same kind of lies in L.A. after the Rodney King beating, that he was a child molester, a male prostitute, etc.
It doesn't even make sense anyway, Ard was in a vehicle, the kid was on a bike, how could he know that Steen was doing that. If there was the slightest possibility of it being true, the media would have reported it. If it was on a radio transmission or a complaint call, it would have been recorded and a transcript would be available, so it's bullshit.
It sounds like the kind of crap you'd hear in a cop bar, cops telling groupies war stories to get laid.
Is that where you heard it? It sure isn't in any reports about the case. Do you really think the city would have handed over $500.000 if there was the least possibility of damaging the plaintiffs case in the press?
You sound like every gullible badge-bunny that ever worked a cop bar. I bet you're a sucker for a badge and a gun--pun intended.
Face it, a so-called "good" cop chased down and killed a black kid on a bike, further proof that
there's no such thing as a good cop.Also, you're full of shit about Steen being in violation of curfew in Pensacola. Here, read this advisory opinion from the Florida Attorney General,
from 1982:
The court interpreted the purpose of the ordinance to be the control of the activities of children under the age of 16 during late night hours, but the court found that to accomplish this purpose the ordinance prohibited such children from participating in school, recreational and church activities, among others, because in going to or coming from such activities, the child would be upon a street, alley, park or other public place. The ordinance would make many activities unlawful which otherwise would be lawful. The court stated that the general right of every person to engage in lawful activity, while subject to reasonable restriction, cannot be completely taken away under the guise of police regulation; an ordinance to the contrary is an arbitrary invasion of the inherent personal liberties of all citizens. Thus, said the court, it could not be said that the prohibition against the mere presence of a child under the age of sixteen on a street or park or other public place between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m., for a purpose other than required by his occupation or unless accompanied by his parent or guardian, had any real relationship to the primary purpose of the ordinance. Therefore such a prohibition constituted an invasion of personal rights and liberties and for that reason was unconstitutional. The district court went on to hold that restraining children under the age of sixteen years from freely walking upon the streets or other public places when no emergency situation exists is incompatible with the freedoms of speech, association, peaceful assembly and religion secured to all citizens of Florida by Article I of the Florida Constitution. Since the Pensacola ordinance failed to mention an emergency situation and the record in that case failed to show such a situation, the court held the ordinance unconstitutional.You're a
LIAR Joaniphoni!
Home
