GRPD traffic cop hit by car

Judged:

1

1

1

Pete wrote:

<quoted text>
Were you there? This guy says he saw the whole thing and she was not hit, what info do you have to the conrary other than the news reports. Furthermore standing in the middle of Fulton with a shotgun trying to stop/direct traffic is stupid police work. If they wanted to block Fulton the should have used a cruiser or fire engine with over head lights on not a single cop. It will certainly be interesing to see how this plays out.

Judged:

4

4

3

just the FACTS wrote:

<quoted text>
And since it's posted on the internet in black and white it MUST be true right?? Don't question anything "booger" says, since they took the time to write it, just consider it to be set in stone. Just assume that booger is the all knowing god of truth, and don't take into account that poor little booger didn't have all the facts, or enough knowledge to grasp what they say they allegedly witnessed.
Do you just believe EVERYTHING you read? Another sheep with a big mouth.

Judged:

5

5

5

Pete wrote:

<quoted text>Dropping the charges is not enough. This should be investigated, possibly by an outside agency. That misdemeanor charge was just to charge him with something to cover their butts since they had already arrested him. If she over reacted to falling on her **** she should be at a minimum disciplined. If she filed a false report she should be terminated just like the other guy who filed the false report about firing his weapon. If this guy is a senior citizen with no or minimal record who was just out shopping or visiting friends/relatives on a Saturday afternoon and she turned that day into a nightmare for him he ought to be compensated also. It is time to stop this type of behavior. They are supposed to be working for us, not an occupying force that can boss us around at will and then arrest us if we express displeasure.

Judged:

5

5

4

Pete wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not saying not to question what he says if you have a reasonable basis to do so. So far what we have is a spectacular story from the GRPD through the local media about a brave cop directing traffic away from a scene with a shotgun wielding nut who gets hit by a driver filled with road rage for having to turn around. We are told he is arrested for Felonious Assault of a Police Officer, a very serious charge. Next thing we know he is released and charged with misdemeanor Failing to Obey a Police Officer or something like that. In the meantime we hear from an eyewitness that the cop was out of control and the driver was a confused senior citizen who never hit her with his car. She allegedly just tripped.
Which version is more consistent with the charges? My money at this time is on Booger since they are not known around here for undercharging. Sometime between the time the story was given to the media by GRPD and this morning her story went to hell in a handbasket, assuming that was her story and not just some PR crap from GRPD.
I said before lets see what the tape shows. If it exonerates the senior citizen the GRPD Chief better have a press conference, show the tape and apologize to this fellow. If it backs up the original story so be it. Maybe it is not definitive but lets see it if it is available.

Judged:

11

11

11

just the FACTS wrote:

<quoted text>
And since it's posted on the internet in black and white it MUST be true right?? Don't question anything "booger" says, since they took the time to write it, just consider it to be set in stone. Just assume that booger is the all knowing god of truth, and don't take into account that poor little booger didn't have all the facts, or enough knowledge to grasp what they say they allegedly witnessed.
Do you just believe EVERYTHING you read? Another sheep with a big mouth.

Judged:

5

5

4

Insider wrote:

<quoted text>
Where does it say anywhere that she was lying about her injury?

Judged:

9

9

8

Booger Snacks wrote:

Has anyone noticed that some nutjob has gone through and marked our legitimate complaints and thoughts as spam?I love people that have no lives!

Judged:

3

3

3

Trouser Cough wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't worry about it Booger - I suspect it's the same person leaving the "off topic poetry" in these threads with the Rockford isp - they have a certain mind set or mentality in place that tells them EVERYTHING the police do, GRPD in particular, is always right - and anytime ANYONE says anything to the contrary - well, we are judged by this persons shallow mind accordingly.
Most of us regulars know who it is and you'll figure it out in due time as well. Don't worry about it - you did the right thing by coming forward and telling us all what you witnessed that afternoon - again I commend you!
Oh, and don't be surprised if this person who's doing this judging starts judging your comments in other "non related topics" from now on as well
- this individual has the ability to hold a grudge forever even if they know what they are doing is wrong. A very pathetic individual and you're right, they have no life.

Judged:

3

3

3

Booger Snacks wrote:

<quoted text>
For clarification- NO HE DID NOT HIT HER WITH HIS CAR. She tripped over her own feet when she was trying to grab at his car. I saw the whole damn thing. I have no reason to lie, and I was standing RIGHT THERE.
The officer SHOULD have had her car parked at the end of Dennis St directing traffic to head that way. Instead she was parked around the end of Mack street and was just standing in the road pacing back and forth. She wasn't directing traffic, and she wasn't doing anything of help except brandishing her weapon and yelling at people.
The police officer in question was not hit by a car. I will happily go to court to testify and I would take a lie detector test in a heartbeat as to what I saw. I wasn't the only one who saw it. Several others were standing right across the street from me and other people were on their porches watching the whole thing go down. The truth will come out.....

Judged:

2

2

1

Pete wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not saying not to question what he says if you have a reasonable basis to do so. So far what we have is a spectacular story from the GRPD through the local media about a brave cop directing traffic away from a scene with a shotgun wielding nut who gets hit by a driver filled with road rage for having to turn around. We are told he is arrested for Felonious Assault of a Police Officer, a very serious charge. Next thing we know he is released and charged with misdemeanor Failing to Obey a Police Officer or something like that. In the meantime we hear from an eyewitness that the cop was out of control and the driver was a confused senior citizen who never hit her with his car. She allegedly just tripped.
Which version is more consistent with the charges? My money at this time is on Booger since they are not known around here for undercharging. Sometime between the time the story was given to the media by GRPD and this morning her story went to hell in a handbasket, assuming that was her story and not just some PR crap from GRPD.
I said before lets see what the tape shows. If it exonerates the senior citizen the GRPD Chief better have a press conference, show the tape and apologize to this fellow. If it backs up the original story so be it. Maybe it is not definitive but lets see it if it is available.

Judged:

6

5

5

Trouser Cough wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't worry about it Booger - I suspect it's the same person leaving the "off topic poetry" in these threads with the Rockford isp - they have a certain mind set or mentality in place that tells them EVERYTHING the police do, GRPD in particular, is always right - and anytime ANYONE says anything to the contrary - well, we are judged by this persons shallow mind accordingly.
Most of us regulars know who it is and you'll figure it out in due time as well. Don't worry about it - you did the right thing by coming forward and telling us all what you witnessed that afternoon - again I commend you!
Oh, and don't be surprised if this person who's doing this judging starts judging your comments in other "non related topics" from now on as well
- this individual has the ability to hold a grudge forever even if they know what they are doing is wrong. A very pathetic individual and you're right, they have no life.

Judged:

7

7

6

unknown wrote:

<quoted text>
wow! i guess you just know everyone in rockford tc, that is pretty impressive!!
considering i am not a regular, and have never been, your assumptions about me are pretty bold, but i have read your posts and have come to the conclusion that you are a jerk,so i shouldn't be suprised.
as for grudges, that isn't my thing either. so all the 1000 different little posts that other person made are quiet safe.
i just figured everyone was posting whatever they wanted so i could too. if you don't like my poetry, feel free to skip right over it.

Judged:

8

7

6

unknown wrote:

<quoted text>
wow! i guess you just know everyone in rockford tc, that is pretty impressive!!
considering i am not a regular, and have never been, your assumptions about me are pretty bold, but i have read your posts and have come to the conclusion that you are a jerk,so i shouldn't be suprised.
as for grudges, that isn't my thing either. so all the 1000 different little posts that other person made are quiet safe.
i just figured everyone was posting whatever they wanted so i could too. if you don't like my poetry, feel free to skip right over it.

Judged:

18

17

15

unknown wrote:

<quoted text>
wow! i guess you just know everyone in rockford tc, that is pretty impressive!!
considering i am not a regular, and have never been, your assumptions about me are pretty bold, but i have read your posts and have come to the conclusion that you are a jerk,so i shouldn't be suprised.
as for grudges, that isn't my thing either. so all the 1000 different little posts that other person made are quiet safe.
i just figured everyone was posting whatever they wanted so i could too. if you don't like my poetry, feel free to skip right over it.

Judged:

7

6

5

Pete wrote:

<quoted text>
Dropping the charges is not enough. This should be investigated, possibly by an outside agency. That misdemeanor charge was just to charge him with something to cover their butts since they had already arrested him. If she over reacted to falling on her **** she should be at a minimum disciplined. If she filed a false report she should be terminated just like the other guy who filed the false report about firing his weapon. If this guy is a senior citizen with no or minimal record who was just out shopping or visiting friends/relatives on a Saturday afternoon and she turned that day into a nightmare for him he ought to be compensated also. It is time to stop this type of behavior. They are supposed to be working for us, not an occupying force that can boss us around at will and then arrest us if we express displeasure.

Judged:

5

5

5

Booger Snacks wrote:

<quoted text>
I am so pleased to see this!
If my involvement had anything to do with saving this guy from a felony that's fantastic, because he certainly didn't deserve it!
I did go ahead and fax the Prosecutor's office my version of events last night as well.
Thanks for the support folks!

Judged:

11

11

11

GR Rez wrote:

<quoted text>
May not be a "regular poster" anymore, but it's all in the family.(right DU?)
YOU can just skip over the posts YOU don't like either, correct?

Judged:

7

6

5

BR Bean Counter wrote:

<quoted text>
I'd just be amazed if you could understand that the first amendment gives every poster here the right to express their opinion. Even more so if one of you would admit the the mere act of tacking a badge to your shirt doesn't make you the consumate authority, or give you the right to run down another person <pun intended if you so desire>.
This is the second officer this summer to be hit by a car. The first decided to bark off a few shots instead of trying to get out of the way. This one, <?> who knows. How fast was this guy driving? 5mph, maybe less. Did he steer the car in her direction?
Your the one who claims just the FACTS. Why not quit whining, and try stating some of them.

Judged:

1

1

It takes all kinds wrote:

<quoted text>
Yet another liberal moron that thinks 1) they know law when they don't and 2) it never applies to them.
Cruising along in the left lane is illegal I would suggest looking it up in the Michigan Vehicle Code but it wouldn't matter since laws don't apply to liberals anyway, unless they are for wealth redistribution or reduced criminal and civil penalties.