User Info
Recent Posts
New Ownership of Argonath RPG by Jcstodds
[August 14, 2024, 21:48:55 pm]
Re: ARPD Promotions & Awards by Tom Adams
[August 16, 2023, 11:28:58 am]
Re: ARPD Promotions & Awards by Shen
[August 12, 2023, 10:05:10 am]
Re: San Andreas Police Department | Recruitment Process [MUST BE READ] by Shen
[August 10, 2023, 16:56:52 pm]
Re: ARPD Promotions & Awards by Khm
[August 08, 2023, 21:42:27 pm]
Who's Online
Search
|
81
« Last post by danigold on September 26, 2022, 17:28:16 pm »
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 occurred
Irrelevant, 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. I'll also not repeat how your excuse (or any, for that matter) for leaving my client, handcuffed, in a locked car in the middle of the day with no air circulation in a display of extreme negligence, is irrelevant.
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". Observe: https://streamable.com/5e79quAnd to add on top of that, I also went ahead and questioned an owner of the Downtown branch of the Well Stacked Pizza Co. (Cillian Murphy) store regarding if the glass is tempered or explosion proof, and he said that his store's windows won't protect anyone from explosions, nor any other store of the same franchise. Mister Murphy's answers: https://imgur.com/a/J49fknj((Also I'd appreciate you avoid calling me a stupid smart-arse, you seem to be taking this roleplay very personally for some reason.))
82
« Last post by Kowalski. on September 26, 2022, 04:06:36 am »
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.
As cute as that is - your footage itself shows the person filming was already inside the building, only to come outside as I was clearing some vehicles. You also don't seem to know the law too well. My defence against the Endangerment claim has literally nothing to do with "big endangerment or small endangerment" but the fact that endangerment is a crime when it puts someone else at risk. For instance, 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. It's another story if I encouraged someone else to do it or something, however. You really need to go read the law again.
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.
Congratulations on asking the same officer who arrested your client about a crime with little to no context about what's actually happening. I've already stated the following rather clearly: 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. Then again - you clearly don't seem to read. The vehicles were a fire hazard and heavily damaged. So much as a spark from a collision and they could go up in flames. Plus, those vehicles were taken care of on the side of the road and away from a populated area. The person filming was inside the store until she decided it was a smart idea to come outside in the middle of it. Again, real convenient that you want to now accuse me of endangering her.
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 just made me laugh, to be frank. I'm not throwing anyone under the bus, the facts are the facts. I said myself rather clearly that Officer Hazard is also seeking to learn and improve his quality of service, and commendably so. Yet you seem to ignore that or just have a problem reading. That's been established throughout this complaint. And for context, Officer Hazard isn't a rookie, he's an Officer. Either way, your client was read his rights before any official proceedings occurred. I ensured that was done, on the record. As for your claims about me failing to bring up a right - this isn't a court, nor is an interrogation a court proceeding. There is no testifying under oath. You're an attorney, apparently - you should know that right applies in a court proceeding and you'd also be obliged to point it out to your client in preparation for their defence. It's also convenient you point it out now instead of then and there - sounds like you don't know the rights too well yourself. Every law enforcer has always read the miranda rights as follows, perhaps with slight wording differences: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used as evidence against you. You have the right to have an attorney present. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you." Either way, back to a point of relevance - your statement is just silly. I've already said before, there were extreme circumstances (yeah, life and death) behind the reason why I went to tend to a criminal situation. Your client was outside a police station. Officers come and go, I'm not the only law enforcer in the country. As for "being there with an officer who is trying to learn, and he made a mistake", that is indeed the case. That's exactly why I read your client his rights before we began. Officer Hazard was handling the arrest, and I was there to assist. It's why I intervened during the interrogation to allow your client his say, as Officer Hazard was planning to escort him to the cells. Again - the Officer was clearly trying to learn and was getting familiar with the way the job works, hence I didn't chastise him over it but simply explained that your client had the right to defend himself as well. It's on the record.
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.
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.
Again, must be read their rights PROMPTLY, which was failed to be done.
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.
I don't know if you either can't read or just seek to ignore common sense. It's hardly blaming someone else by simply pointing out the fact your client was outside a police station. The fact that your client WAS outside a police station makes it rather clear that an officer could have assisted the suspect. As unfortunate as it was to have to leave your client, I had to respond to a call in which the lives of other officers were threatened. I don't regret the fact I responded to a situation in a bid to protect my fellow officers. I do regret that your client feels he was neglected, and that is also why I rather clearly gave him some water immediately upon my return.
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.
The footage shows the person "in proximity" endangered herself by coming toward the scene. She was inside a building until she stepped outside towards the proceeding taking place. It's common sense that you move away from danger, not towards it.
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.
The comparison you've just tried making is contextually different to this situation. It's illegal to commit an aggravated assault or attempted murder by firing at an officer. The person behind the building's tempered glass was protected from what was happening, which also wasn't of a criminal nature as I was clearing a road of a fire hazard. I'm thinking you need the eye test because you're clearly not reading. I said rather clearly that the person filming went inside, and then came outside as I was clearing the road. Your evidence only corroborates that, as I didn't do anything while that person was outside.
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?
Yeah, it might be, if the vehicles weren't already smashed up and posing a fire hazard. That's essentially what your client did, shooting an intact vehicle in the middle of the road. Me? I was clearing smashed-up vehicles that posed a safety risk. Anyone with half a brain would understand that. It's common sense, really. It is funny that you think I'm covering something up though.
((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.))
((Oh so now you want to be a smart-arse? Stop talking out of your arse - he did go AFK, I left when he was AFK and he returned at some stage after I'd already left. Do you even read? I don't even know whether to cringe, laugh or cry at your stupidity half the time.))
83
« Last post by Klaus on September 26, 2022, 00:17:41 am »
The testimonies given, were not from witnesses involved with said court case, but rather written references of one's character. The people who chose to post those references had no actual relevance to the court case in question. For that reason they cannot be defined as witnesses. I'll presume for all involved that we agree they are also not victims either. For that, Section 10: Crimes Against Justice, Article 5 is irrelevant in this case.
The choice to give disciplinary action was explained internally to those involved, in which I see no reason to overrule. Huntsman explained his reasoning, breaking the Chain of Command and using VCPD insignia without permission. Those involved have not personally argued against their disciplinary action, which further enforces the idea that they understand and adhere to what Huntsman has ordered.
I don't see Huntsman's actions are dissuading anyone from giving character references where requested. They simply put, are not allowed to make official statements on behalf of the VCPD, and must act as an individual in these cases. Both Huntsman's and Rafael's statements below leave no evidence of threats, or instilling fear.
Case closed.
84
« Last post by Ellis F. on September 25, 2022, 23:02:05 pm »
Mr. Homero Sanchez' testimony:
They will need to post this themselves, to prove legitimacy. This will not be taken into consideration otherwise.
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.
85
« Last post by Klaus on September 25, 2022, 22:57:49 pm »
Mr. Homero Sanchez' testimony:
They will need to post this themselves, to prove legitimacy. This will not be taken into consideration otherwise.
86
« Last post by danigold on September 25, 2022, 22:41:12 pm »
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.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.
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.
Again, must be read their rights PROMPTLY, which was failed to be done. 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.))
87
« Last post by Kowalski. on September 25, 2022, 22:00:48 pm »
I'll start at minute one.
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.
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.
As for your client:
It is indeed true that he was arrested for the same issue. Officer Hazard made the arrest and I was there to assist. Now, the main discernible difference is that your client did it in the middle of the road where people were present externally. Officer Hazard saw this as well, and was advised of a possible crime. He made the arrest, and this is evident by the fact he made the final decision regarding your client.
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.
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.
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.
((And come off it Dani, he was AFK for a period of time as well. Nobody stands around waiting for an AFK player. He was AFK in the cruiser too, for that matter.))
It is hardly negligent that I got your client a cup of water. It's true I had to leave, given the circumstances, I was forced to move rapidly to assist my fellow officers. I request Officer Hazard to corroborate my statement and reaffirm that I did indeed respond to a smuggling situation in which VCPD lives were at risk, as we worked together in the situation.
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.
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.
Regards,
FBI Special Agent Kowalski.
88
« Last post by danigold on September 25, 2022, 20:26:12 pm »
Report against: Special Agent Kowalski Name(s) of those reporting: Sally Slaughter on behalf of Homero Sanchez (Sup_) Reasons: Negligence, failure to read the Miranda Rights properly, endangerment, misuse of equipment (firearms) and vandalism Evidence:2 videos of Kowalski exploding vehicles and being questioned Today (25.9.2022) FBI Special Agent has broken several laws and part(s) of the Law Enforcement Code of Vice City. We shall with the arrest of my client, Homero Sanchez, who was suspected and arrested for brandishing a firearm, and endangerment by Special Agent Kowalski and VCPD Officer Hazard. My client immediately surrendered, and was cuffed and put into a police cruiser (without being read his Miranda Rights, mind you!). Kowalski then got into the drivers seat, and drove to WBPD, and upon arrival, Kowalski left my client without explanation in the back seat, handcuffed, without any windows open or AC running, in the Florida heat (which peaked at 32C degrees today!), for a total of 10 long minutes. As Kowalski returned 10 minutes later, my client, full of sweat from the heat and probably dehydrated, had to ask Kowalski for a cup of water to avoid dehydration (which can be seen in the evidence). After getting his water, Mr. Sanchez asked for an attorney to be present in the investigation, and called me to WBPD, and upon my arrival, I've asked to have a few minutes alone with my sweaty client to get updated on the situation, and I found out, that my client was never read his Miranda Rights! Luckily he still knew he could call a lawyer to aid and represent him. Then, once the interrogation began, with me, Homero, Kowalski and Hazard present, at 11:24, my client was finally read his Miranda Rights, a whole 33 minutes after his initial arrest and detainment. After explaining the reason of the arrest, where Kowalski said my client endangered people by causing an explosion "in the vicinity where people were present", I questioned him how far away the closest person to the explosion was, which he could not answer. When questioned on why my client was left in a hot car, Kowalski said "a call escalated to a point in which lives were in danger", and may I ask, were those lives more important than the life of my client? Which you endangered by locking him in a hot car, in the middle of the day? I'd call that pure negligence. My Client's testimony is attached with this complaint at the bottom.
Furthermore, I have footage and pictures of Special Agent Kowalski, using his state issued MP5 by shooting it at several vehicles, causing them to be totaled (vandalism and misuse of government issued equipment), as someone is standing just about 5~ Meters from the area, endangering them, and even seeming to injure Kowalski himself! (Endangerment) When asked why he did that, Kowalski said "Just a few vehicles obstructing the road [to] clear the traffic", and when asked why they couldn't have been safely towed, Kowalski gave the cold shoulder and left us with more questions than answers.
Mr. Homero Sanchez' testimony: 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
Isn't it also interesting how when Kowalski blows up vehicles allegedly to clear the road, its ok, but when my client does it for the same reason, he is prosecuted and jailed? Shouldn't the law enforcers be held to the same standard as everybody else?
89
« Last post by Huntsman on September 25, 2022, 18:51:59 pm »
Give me SRT and I'll consider it.
consider it done 
90
« Last post by Huntsman on September 25, 2022, 18:50:54 pm »
|
Inactivity, lack of any meaningful progress in the academy. Failure to aknowledge mendatory academy material, leading to display of misconduct on the field.
Please pick up activity and review the academy material. We cannot keep you as cadet forever. You either go one way, or the other.
Gabriel Adams, Chief of Police
VCPD HQ
|
|
Guests: 694
Hidden: 0
Users: 0
Recent Posts
