Greetings, this is citizen Homero Sanchez, and this is my testimony. As the complaint says, I was indeed left alone for a grueling 10 minutes inside the police car by Special Agent Kowalski while he left the scene for reasons unknown to me, I could have died of a heat stroke if they took any longer which is why as one of the exhibits shows I was asking for a cup of water which was granted afterwards thankfully, otherwise I would have landed in a hospital bed rather than a jail cell. I wasn't read my Miranda Rights upon the initial arrest, and had them read to me only after my attorney, Sally Slaughter questioned Agent Kowalski about it. Not to mention the fact that he seemed to be uncharacteristically rude towards my attorney for no reason I don't exactly get it.
Signed, Homero Sanchez
Regarding my own "endangerment", this was done, and rather evidently by the footage, during a time where no civilians were present in the immediate vicinity so as to potentially hurt anyone. The person gathering the footage was well back, within a pizza store until their convenient approach towards the scene in close proximity during the undertaking of the process, however even so, was clearly not hurt. Furthermore, while the shockwave did cause me to trip over, I certainly did not endanger my own life. Even if it did, if you've actually read the law, it clearly states to another. If I put myself at risk, it wouldn't be the most sensible move, however it would not be illegal as I am not jeopardizing anybody else's safety.So, "no civilians were present"? Is the person recording not a civilian? You can hear from the pre-video recording (logs) how they addressed the situation of you going ham on vehicles, after which she briefly ran inside the building for shelter.
Furthermore, I did not address your questions as I am particularly busy and my job requires me to be on the move, frequently. It's pretty clear I suggested you could ask a police officer about vehicle towing. Sorry to have offended you, but you didn't get any special treatment.Interesting how your job requires you to constantly be on the move, yet you did have the couple of minutes to go ballistic on vehicles, which are people's property.
As for your client's arrest - he was escorted to the Washington Police Station and was obviously to be read his miranda rights. This is usually the responsibility of the arresting officer, however, as Officer Hazard is still learning how to improve his work, and commendably so, this may have been missed at the scene of the arrest, though I cannot confirm at this stage. Either way in case of any such situation, I reiterated your client's rights to him personally and on the record. I am well aware that your client has rights and I had no intention of violating them. Your client was made aware of his rights on-record prior to any official proceedings.Usually the responsibility of the arresting officer? You are blatantly throwing the blame unto a rookie, how disrespectful! Hazard tries his best and cares about his job, is eager to learn, yet you throw him under the bus. Also, if you were there with an officer who is trying to learn, and he made a mistake (as is human to do), shouldn't you have corrected him, as the veteran?
This is in accordance with the Law Enforcement Code of Vice City which indicates a suspect must be read their rights. All things considered, there were extenuating circumstances which resulted in myself and other officers responding to a high priority call. As a result of the chaos, it's possible details were missed at the initial scene, yes. However, at no stage did anyone seek to violate your client's rights and this is evident by the fact I clearly stated your client his rights.Again, must be read their rights PROMPTLY, which was failed to be done.
In respect to the alleged negligence, I won't apologise for urgently rushing to back my comrades in a life-threatening situation. Your client was still outside a police station and I am not the only law enforcer in the state. It is hardly negligent for your client to be outside a police station where cops come and go frequently, where any officer could've come and taken your client inside.
Your client's actions were in the vicinity of myself and Officer Hazard, hence why he felt it necessary to make the arrest, and I would support the officer's judgement, given that this was within a close external proximity to other people. Plus, it was in the middle of the road and not off to the side or away from traffic.Nobody is denying what my client did to get himself arrested and detained, and nobody is going after Hazard for initiating the arrest. This complaint is about what you did, and nobody else. Thats why in the complaint form I only put your name.
My actions are different in that I ensured no citizens were within such a proximity that may cause injury, given the pizza shop's building has tempered and reinforced glass, and was clearing the road for traffic as these vehicles were already heavily damaged and posed a risk by being there, as a fire hazard. Furthermore I did not simply spray bullets, I also used a physical means of having the vehicles cleared. It's also rather arguable by your footage that you approached as this process was underway and put yourself at risk. Quite frankly, you endangered yourself by coming towards the scene knowing full well what was happening. Strikes me as rather convenient that you approached the scene in the middle of the process being undertaken only to then claim I endangered you.Please provide us any evidence you have to prove us that you ensured nobody was in proximity. Regarding the alleged "tempered and reinforced glass" protecting the person who was filming, does that mean its also ok to shoot a cop because he is wearing a Kevlar vest? Doubt it.
Mr. Homero Sanchez' testimony:They will need to post this themselves, to prove legitimacy. This will not be taken into consideration otherwise.
Mr. Homero Sanchez' testimony:They will need to post this themselves, to prove legitimacy. This will not be taken into consideration otherwise.
Regarding my own "endangerment", this was done, and rather evidently by the footage, during a time where no civilians were present in the immediate vicinity so as to potentially hurt anyone. The person gathering the footage was well back, within a pizza store until their convenient approach towards the scene in close proximity during the undertaking of the process, however even so, was clearly not hurt. Furthermore, while the shockwave did cause me to trip over, I certainly did not endanger my own life. Even if it did, if you've actually read the law, it clearly states to another. If I put myself at risk, it wouldn't be the most sensible move, however it would not be illegal as I am not jeopardizing anybody else's safety.So, "no civilians were present"? Is the person recording not a civilian? You can hear from the pre-video recording (logs) how they addressed the situation of you going ham on vehicles, after which she briefly ran inside the building for shelter.
Nobody said you endangered your own life, but you did endanger yourself, and the law doesn't have any statement as to what is "big endangerment or small endangerment"; point is, you shouldn't endanger people, and you hurting yourself just proves that what you did is dangerous and reckless.
And you did indeed put the footage taker's well being, jeopardizing their safety.
Furthermore, I did not address your questions as I am particularly busy and my job requires me to be on the move, frequently. It's pretty clear I suggested you could ask a police officer about vehicle towing. Sorry to have offended you, but you didn't get any special treatment.Interesting how your job requires you to constantly be on the move, yet you did have the couple of minutes to go ballistic on vehicles, which are people's property.
Plus, conveniently, I did actually went ahead and asked another police officer afterwards on his thoughts regarding the situation, to which he told me that shooting and exploding cars is illegal, and if he was there he would've told you to immediately stop, as its his job. (https://imgur.com/a/t82fX7X)
My actions are different in that I ensured no citizens were within such a proximity that may cause injury, given the pizza shop's building has tempered and reinforced glass, and was clearing the road for traffic as these vehicles were already heavily damaged and posed a risk by being there, as a fire hazard.
As for your client's arrest - he was escorted to the Washington Police Station and was obviously to be read his miranda rights. This is usually the responsibility of the arresting officer, however, as Officer Hazard is still learning how to improve his work, and commendably so, this may have been missed at the scene of the arrest, though I cannot confirm at this stage. Either way in case of any such situation, I reiterated your client's rights to him personally and on the record. I am well aware that your client has rights and I had no intention of violating them. Your client was made aware of his rights on-record prior to any official proceedings.Usually the responsibility of the arresting officer? You are blatantly throwing the blame unto a rookie, how disrespectful! Hazard tries his best and cares about his job, is eager to learn, yet you throw him under the bus. Also, if you were there with an officer who is trying to learn, and he made a mistake (as is human to do), shouldn't you have corrected him, as the veteran?
How nice of you to "reiterate" something you've never iterated in the first place, and a whole 33 minutes (10 of which were spent in a hot car alone!) after the initial arrest, which according to the Law Enforcement Code, the Miranda Rights must be read to the suspect promptly. Is 33 minutes after the fact considered promptly? It says so in the Code, if only you knew someone ((maybe the person who wrote it)) to help you understand it.
Oh and by the way, there is one right which you have failed to bring up, the right to refuse to testify against yourself, as stated in the constitution.
This is in accordance with the Law Enforcement Code of Vice City which indicates a suspect must be read their rights. All things considered, there were extenuating circumstances which resulted in myself and other officers responding to a high priority call. As a result of the chaos, it's possible details were missed at the initial scene, yes. However, at no stage did anyone seek to violate your client's rights and this is evident by the fact I clearly stated your client his rights.Again, must be read their rights PROMPTLY, which was failed to be done.
In respect to the alleged negligence, I won't apologise for urgently rushing to back my comrades in a life-threatening situation. Your client was still outside a police station and I am not the only law enforcer in the state. It is hardly negligent for your client to be outside a police station where cops come and go frequently, where any officer could've come and taken your client inside.
Nobody's asking you to apologize for helping others, but you don't get to lock someone in a blistering hot vehicle outside; you should've taken at least the 5 extra seconds to escort him inside the department, could've cuffed him to a bench or something.
Also stating "some other cop could've seen him"? Again throwing the blame on other people? My client will be able to testify that during those 10 minutes he saw nobody pass.
Your client's actions were in the vicinity of myself and Officer Hazard, hence why he felt it necessary to make the arrest, and I would support the officer's judgement, given that this was within a close external proximity to other people. Plus, it was in the middle of the road and not off to the side or away from traffic.Nobody is denying what my client did to get himself arrested and detained, and nobody is going after Hazard for initiating the arrest. This complaint is about what you did, and nobody else. Thats why in the complaint form I only put your name.
Oh and according to the footage, there was a person in proximity to the explosions you have made.
My actions are different in that I ensured no citizens were within such a proximity that may cause injury, given the pizza shop's building has tempered and reinforced glass, and was clearing the road for traffic as these vehicles were already heavily damaged and posed a risk by being there, as a fire hazard. Furthermore I did not simply spray bullets, I also used a physical means of having the vehicles cleared. It's also rather arguable by your footage that you approached as this process was underway and put yourself at risk. Quite frankly, you endangered yourself by coming towards the scene knowing full well what was happening. Strikes me as rather convenient that you approached the scene in the middle of the process being undertaken only to then claim I endangered you.Please provide us any evidence you have to prove us that you ensured nobody was in proximity. Regarding the alleged "tempered and reinforced glass" protecting the person who was filming, does that mean its also ok to shoot a cop because he is wearing a Kevlar vest? Doubt it.
I'm also thinking of requesting you to provide an eye test, considering the footage clearly shows the filmer arriving before you went crazy on the vehicles. Not to mention you didn't do any effort in clearing them away from your illegal escapade.
Oh and one more thing, you failed to try and cover up the fact that the cars you exploded and destroyed were peoples property, which counts as vandalism.. That's a charge, you know?
((oh and regarding that OOC line you added... What a weird defense. because you assume he went afk for some time (which he didn't, as he was talking in main chat during that time), its ok to RP negligence? Come off it, Kowalski.))
Congratulations on asking the same officer who arrested your client about a crime with little to no context about what's actually happening.Actually if you would bother to look at the timing of the pictures and evidence, you'd realize that question was asked before the arrest of my client.. I really think you might've not really look at the evidence I provided.
The vehicles were a fire hazard and heavily damaged. So much as a spark from a collision and they could go up in flames.Evidence shows otherwise - the vehicles weren't even lightly smoking.
your client was read his rights before any official proceedings occurredIrrelevant, the code says you have to do it promptly upon arrest, not right as you start the interrogation.
if I were to put myself at risk by doing parkour along a skyscraper without a harness, I haven't actually broken the law, it would be plain stupidity.The comparison you've just tried making is contextually different to this situation. It's illegal to go on a public rampage upon civilian's vehicles, and exploding them.
The person behind the building's tempered glass was protected from what was happening.You know, its interesting that you insist that the building has tempered glass (not that tempered glass would protect someone from an explosion anyways), because I went on the field and checked myself if the windows would protect someone from an explosion, and as you can see in the video provided here, where I performed a test with an ARPD officer to induce an explosion near the exact same windows in a safe manner (by clearing the area of civilians that shouldn't be there, and announcing the fire, plus we had an ambulance and medics on standby just in case), it is apparent that both the vehicle placed inside, and the trained professional on the other side of the window, were hit by the explosion through the so called "tempered bullet proof glass".
Homero Sanchez
1. ((Were you or were you not AFK at some point between 10:51 and 11:05 CET. I will check logs to make sure but I want to hear the truth from you ))
FBI Special Agent Kowalski
1. Why were you involved in the traffic stop, and why did you think the VCPD required FBI assistance?
2. Did you take custody of the suspect from VCPD Officer Hazard, and was this properly communicated?
3. Why did you escort the suspect, and not the arresting Officer?
4. Do you think it is ok to leave a suspect alone, without supervision?
5. Elaborate on the Code 1, that in your defence forced you to leave the suspect behind.
I'm no expert in the secret lingo used between the FBI and VCPD, but I have these recordings of Hazard asking Kowalski through the police radio if he minds to "go ahead with it" and Kowalski replying with "aight", to which after Hazard has, and my client is alone with Kowalski.2. Did you take custody of the suspect from VCPD Officer Hazard, and was this properly communicated?2.) I did not. If anything, I communicated the contrary. At the end of the interrogation of Mr. Sanchez, I specifically reiterated that any detainment or release of the suspect in custody was up to Officer Hazard as he was the arresting officer and the suspect was in his custody.
I'm no expert in the secret lingo used between the FBI and VCPD, but I have these recordings of Hazard asking Kowalski through the police radio if he minds to "go ahead with it" and Kowalski replying with "aight", to which after Hazard has, and my client is alone with Kowalski.2. Did you take custody of the suspect from VCPD Officer Hazard, and was this properly communicated?2.) I did not. If anything, I communicated the contrary. At the end of the interrogation of Mr. Sanchez, I specifically reiterated that any detainment or release of the suspect in custody was up to Officer Hazard as he was the arresting officer and the suspect was in his custody.
Sounds a bit like one law enforcement official handing over the custody of a suspect to another law enforcement official.Spoiler (Click to expand)(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/436546166855827459/1024045023685247046/2022-09-25_13-52-39-0193.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/436546166855827459/1024045222205870202/unknown.png)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/436546166855827459/1024048507931328542/2022-09-25_13-53-42-0826.png)
I instructed the arresting officer to do so as he was learning to navigate an arrest, as I've previously said, and I was there to assist him in doing so. Now while this order was unfortunately missed by Officer Hazard.You were there during the whole time (except those 10 minutes in which you abandoned my client locked and handcuffed inside a hot car) yet you failed to make sure the Miranda Rights were promptly read to my client upon his arrest. You're still trying to throw the blame on Hazard it seems..
transported [Homero] to the station.Yea you did, after which you promptly and negligently left him alone in a hot car.
I do still deny any claims of vandalism and do wish to point out that while there was no smoke per se, the complainant cannot clearly discern the amount of damage to the vehicle nor can they actually mitigate the risks. The vehicles were smashed up, which the footage shows.So the complainant cannot clearly discern the amount of damage to the vehicles, yet you can? Are you a mechanic or something? How were you able to discern that despite not having any amount of smoke that the vehicles were a hazard to the people? Just because you see a car with a few lightly damaged parts you get to shoot them?
VCPD Officer Hazard
1. Can explain your POV, focusing on the actions prior to 10:51 CET when you and FBI Special Agent Kowalski were involved in the traffic stop.
2. Why did you need to perform a traffic stop at all, if the crime happened prior?
3. Please elaborate on your charges of "Endangerment" and explain in detail why you believed Mr Sanchez's actions were dangerous.
4. Explain why the suspect you arrested, and therefore under your custody, ended up being left with the FBI?
5. Can you provide any recording (logs) from between 10:30 CET and 11:05 CET? Preferably any recording from the Police CB channel.
I was told by Kowalski to suspect Sup_ for the reason "Endangerment / Brandishing a firearm".Hey Kowalski, Why did you instruct Hazard to hand out the suspection if you believe it was due? Was that so in-case something goes wrong and you mess up like you did, you'd have a safety net so it would be easier for you to throw the blame over to someone else?
I was told by Kowalski to suspect Sup_ for the reason "Endangerment / Brandishing a firearm".Hey Kowalski, Why did you instruct Hazard to hand out the suspection if you believe it was due? Was that so in-case something goes wrong and you mess up like you did, you'd have a safety net so it would be easier for you to throw the blame over to someone else?
The plot sure thickens..
| (https://i.imgur.com/TAfYDmR.png) | U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Internal Affairs Division Greetings. Washington DC has appointed Chief of Staff Sir Klaus to evaluate this case, as there is currently no acting Director. The Bureau would like to begin by aplogising to those involved, on behalf of FBI Special Agent Kowalski. Despite the outcome of this complaint, we remain in support of the Special Agent and find him an integral part of what the FBI is trying to achieve in Vice City. Although mistakes have been made, despite these setbacks his commitment and hard work has not gone unnoticed. Although this may not be clear to the general public, the FBI have been able to fight back against organised crime with the help of FBI Special Agent Kowalski. We wanted to make this absolutely clear before evaluating this report. We begin with the evidence posted regarding the reported endangerment. Although SA Kowalski appears to have thought that there were no civilians present in the immediate vicinity, the evidence provided obviously proves SA Kowalski was wrong in his judgement. He should of checked the area more thoroughly before conducting controlled explosions, especially on a busy street such as this. A much safer option was have been to either get the vehicles towed, or move them safely before conducting a controlled explosion. Luckily no one was hurt, but this doesn't excuse the fact that his choices did in fact potentially endanger those around him. This is unacceptable. The reports for misuse of equipment and vandalism will be ignored, as abandoned vehicles, whether owned by the state or not, can be destroyed by Law Enforcement if deemed to be obstructing roads. Now, concerning the report for failure to read the Miranda Rights properly, this depends on who the arresting Officer is at the scene. From evidence submitted, this appears to have been VCPD Officer Hazard. Although there does seem to have been some miscommunication between both SA and the VCPD Officer, it is by default the one who issues the arrest "/sus" who is the arresting Officer. It is therefore the responsibility of VCPD Officer Hazard to have read the Miranda Rights, and not of SA Kowalski. This doesn't however, clear the SA of any wrongdoing. Kowalski is experienced enough to have at least spotted this oversight and should have helped the Officer, as that was his reasoning for being present at the scene initially. Now, I do not think it is the FBI's job to be training VCPD Officer's, and for that I do not agree with Kowalski's idea of interfering with local police matters just to help train their new recruits. Officer Hazard has already passed the Academy, and is therefore trusted enough by his employers that he is capable of making an arrest when needed. FBI should not be involved in traffic stops that have no interest to FBI investigations. You have pulled the FBI into question for no purpose to the FBI themselves. I am disappointed that SA Kowalski was mixed up in local police matters, transporting a suspect that was not in his custody, to the police station. This should have been the job of the arresting Officer. FBI should be focusing their full attention always to their own duties. If Kowalski had done this initially, it would have not caused this mix up and miscommunication. Moving on to the matter of Negligence by leaving a suspect unattended. I will not accept any excuse that it is ok to leave a suspect unattended, wherever you are. SA Kowalski left the suspect handcuffed, inside a car, for a prolonged period. Now, despite it being out side the police station, you still failed to hand over the suspect to another Officer. This is why your excuse of him being left outside a police station is indeed false. No other police officer was aware of the suspect being left in the car. This is indeed negligence. Now you mentioned that you had to leave the suspect because of a "life or death" situation involving a SWAT raid on a drug smugglers boat. I cannot accept this as a good enough reason for an FBI agent to leave a suspect unattended to. It is not the job of FBI to be getting involved in SWAT raids. Yes you may have needed to be involved in some investigative means, but you should have dealt with the suspect first, either putting them into a holding cell (arrest) or letting them out on bail (let them off). In conclusion, Special Agent Kowalski is found to be guilty of Negligence and Endangerment. The Bureau find it necessary therefore, to issue a last warning and a 3 day suspension. Any future Negligence within the next 2 months will result in the immediate sacking of Special Agent Kowalski. I expect the utmost professionalism and zero mistakes from hereon. Regards, Sir Klaus Chief of Staff U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation. |