St. Louis Police Officer calls the job of Ferguson Activist to get her fired. She gets his number &

[kpete]

St. Louis Police Officer calls the job of Ferguson Activist to get her fired. She gets his number and calls him back.

&feature=youtu.be

A Saint Louis community officer calls the employer of a local activist @stacksizshort in an attempt to intimidate and cause her to lose her job.

https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/522600491793276928

[Octafish]

1. Practiced by authoritarians everywhere since J Edgar Hoover.

Now it's standard "police work."

[belzabubba333]

2. any chance she can sue him in civil court?

[azureblue]

10. yes, she can sue

but will she win and does she have solid grounds to sue?

A good attorney could frame this as a personal matter- that is, the cop was acting outside of his official duties, but on work time, but she endured no loss, except for slander. So she would have to sue the cop personally, for slander, for punitive damages. A bit weak, but I bet the discovery phase would get interesting, as it could be used to dig for evidence of a pattern of intimidation and maybe approved of actions. .

But OTOH, it could be framed as attempt at intimidation, "under color of authority", and sue the dept as a whole with the cop as the agent. That probably would not end in monetary award, but could end in some sort of sanction against the dept, or be rolled into another suit as another example of intimidation to deprive of rights, and maybe escalated to a federal level.

I think that a good civil rights attorney should use this build a suit to expose a pattern of discrimination and intimidation.

[jtuck004]

37. One would have to show real damages, and here the boss gave her the phone number.

Which...pardon me...






Sniff...cough...sorry, that was just funny. Anyway, I think it would be hard to get a jury to see how she got damages when the person officer rock-for-a-brain tried to contact turned out to be more-or-less an ally.

Going forward, however, it could sure contribute to anything else that happens. I think he sounds like he feels more comfortable in his job than he should, and that kind of arrogance can lead to mistakes, and tragedy.

[tabasco]

41. Wrong answer

Perry Mason

[jtuck004]

42. Well, there is that <G>.

Did you listen to that phone call? I don't think he is smart enough to realize what position he is in, which is unsettling.

Further action seems likely, and I only hope it makes her wealthy and not hurt.

[riqster]

3. Kick.

[JEB]

4. Cut the police budget at least in half.

There are much better ways to spend that money.

[cstanleytech]

17. Actually I would recommend doubling it.

They are going to still need police after all but clearly they need better trained ones and thats going to take money as the training isnt cheap plus to get the best you need to offer them a decent wage.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

20. Yes. Clean house of the scum and reward ($$) the real police.

Low wages and creating a lack of engagement with the community contribute to thugs with badges. Money and training can help create a culture of real community policing.

[R.Quinn]

23. No.

Give them more money, and they will find ways to waste it. Let the taxpayers invest in themselves with the extra money they won't be paying to the cops.

It is the cops' JOB to engage with the community. Do not pay them extra money for not doing their job. Furthermore, money should NOT EVER be a motivation to be a cop. That creates a severe conflict of interest (see "politician" for further reading).

Cops need less money, not more. Money tends to attract thugs in droves.

[cstanleytech]

27. Quinn its not just wages they clearly need better training and training costs money.

And I hate to break it to you but this is the real world, if this was the land of gumball bushes and wishes we wouldnt even need the police but sadly it isnt so since they are needed they need a decent wage.
That doesnt mean a 6 figure one but something that will give them incentive to do as good a job as possible or risk losing said wage.
Plus not all the money has to go to the police or their training some of it can and should be diverted to some sort of citizens review board thats charged with investigating and patrolling the police rather than relying on the police to police themselves.

[R.Quinn]

29. We will have to agree to disagree.

I don't believe more money will provide "better" training because it's not a lack of funding that causes the police to behave inappropriately in the first place; the root problem is the mindset they are preached that it's "us" (police) against "them" (citizenry).

The police need to be reminded that they are civil servants, and the taxpaying citizenry is their master. This is no exaggeration, but simple fact. This goes for all government and public jobs. The police at large must recognize that they have no power and no authority over the governed without the consent of the governed, and they need to act accordingly. We are not peasants to be lorded over by badge-wearing thugs.

What do you define as a "decent wage"? Police officers are not required to have college degrees in all but two states (Minnesota and Wisconsin require at least associate's degrees). Do you believe they should get paid more than those who worked hard for college degrees? And how could a person without a college education possibly know the Constitution and law well enough to do a decent and fair job as a cop? I shudder to think about it.

[cstanleytech]

30. Ya but that issue you raised of their attitude is part of what better training would

and should address.
And I am not talking a 6 week or even a 6 month training rather I think a 2 year training course might be needed.
Something where they sign a contract of course to stay with the city for atleast a 10 year period after they graduate that way the cost of the training isnt wasted and this way the city gets better trained police plus it might help weed out of the problems before they are put on the street.
As for the wage it would depend but for starting out I would think 30k would be pretty fair for a first year rookie.

[delta17]

46. Funny how Democrats turn into tea partiers when it comes to one group of state or city employees.

"Why do cops get paid so much?"
"Why do they get a hearing?"
"Why do they get paid leave?"
"We need to bust up their union!"

And so on and so forth.....

[Enthusiast]

62. Actually Democrats do not turn into tea partiers when it comes to state or city employees.

Actual Democrats, that is.

[R.Quinn]

66. Oh please.

Don't trivialize the epidemic of police brutality by politicizing it. I will ask again, how can a cop without a college degree possibly have a good enough understanding of the Constitution and common law to adequately protect my rights? It's obvious (and disturbing) that our government sets the bar as low as possible for law enforcement and follows it up by rarely prosecuting corrupt cops; I've seen and read about more examples of ignorant, violent cops than I can even count.

If you want to protect the police state just so you can keep toeing the party line, then fine, you are free to do so... but I would politely suggest to start thinking outside the box.

[Hekate]

35. However lack of money attracts bribes in droves. Pay your civil servants a living wage.

Lack of an adequate police force also attracts private security firms who are employed by those who can pay them privately and are answerable only to their immediate employers and not to the tax-payers of the community.

Tax-funded police forces are ultimately answerable to the community. When they fail in their sworn duties it is definitely time for an overhaul, and increased oversight by decent appointed/elected commission. Overhaul and reform, including outright firing of the incompetent and corrupt, are what is needed.

[panader0]

40. Don't they make more than teachers already? And with less schooling. FTP

[onecaliberal]

45. That ^^^

[quakerboy]

55. You make a persuasive argument

for raising teacher pay.

[JEB]

25. The cops are getting plenty of money.

They waste money on fancy equipment and Swat teams. If you want to reduce crime, fully fund our Public Schools and create jobs for people to have hope.

[cstanleytech]

26. I will agree

that education does need a vast amount of increase spent on it.
Jobs are a tricky one, the government can create some though with hiring police and fire fighters as well as some construction jobs but not all of them.

[valerief]

44. The only correct answer, so, of course, it'll never be employed. nt

[lob1]

33. Unfortunately, training doesn't cure racism.

[cstanleytech]

34. Nope but make the course and or school long enough

and they just might be able to filter more of the assholes who believe in that kinda shit out before they they are given the badge.

[whereisjustice]

52. You are correct. Stop funding the insanity. +1

[MineralMan]

5. Some right wing moron called one of my clients once

to tell the client I was a socialist, commie liberal. My client responded with, "Who the fuck are you?"

The client called to tell me about the call. Gave me the caller ID number, too. I checked a reverse sort directory and found out who had called. I filed that information away for possible future use. Some people are really stupid.

[heaven05]

6. good for her

putting it back in keiths FACE!!!! The gestapo must be confronted. I applaud her courage. She epitomizes, "NO FEAR".

[valerief]

7. k&r

[PeoViejo]

8. "Ownership Model"

You got until Sundown to get out of Town....is more like it.

[mountain grammy]

9. Good for her! Exposure of intimidation is critical. nt

[drm604]

11. What does "ownership model" mean in this context?

Is it similar to "neighborhood watch" or is it something different?

[csziggy]

53. It's seems to be sort of a neighborhood watch with less "watch"

And more neighborhood involvement. Here is the outline of the plan, but the synopsis of what they are trying to achieve only comes at the end:

Significant and lasting crime reduction and increased quality of life are only achieved with persistence and courage. The time is now to decide that you want to live in a safe neighborhood where children can play outside safely without fear of being struck by a random bullet, where the elderly can walk home from the grocery store without getting ambushed by street gangs, and where your home is your sanctuary free of predators. The simple truth is this: a neighborhood is only as safe as its residents permit. Every neighborhood has the ability to be safe and productive. Every neighborhood has the potential to reduce crime. This isn’t a rich or poor issue. It’s not about who has influence in the community and who doesn’t. Keeping your neighborhoods safe is about citizens working together, partnering with law enforcement, implementing a plan and taking
ownership for your safety.
http://www.circuitattorney.org/docs/Neighborhood%20Ownership%20Model%20Detailed.pdf

[etherealtruth]

12. Does the police department not have any policies against intimidation?

I am not naive enough to believe they would follow these policies .... but, if they exist perhaps public pressure and outside enforcement could intervene. this is yet another gross abuse of power ..... the only "good" thing is that this particular abuse did not involve lethal force

[Cha]

71. You would think so! Everyone except the St Louis PD that is.

[KingCharlemagne]

13. The constabulary forces in this country have declared war upon the citizenry (or at

least a portion thereof).

I would merely remind them of Mao's observation that "all oppression breeds resistance."

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

22. Yes they have.

here's a link to their group. It's scary.

http://cspoa.org/

[greatlaurel]

14. Wow, great post!

That woman was absolutely amazing how calm she was. She is a very impressive woman. She is a brave and smart person. I hope this exposes the cowards and thugs for what they are.

[gordianot]

15. St. Louis reputation goes deeper in the mud of outrageous Police behavior!

[alfredo]

16. They're scared

[McCamy Taylor]

18. Wow. Beyond scary. I hope she is lawyered up.

[avebury]

19. Update posted on youtube:

UPDATE: The Police Union and Roorda have hired an attorney and other trolls are trying to get Leigh Maibes fired. Please help her out here if you can:
http://t.co/ZaaFP0tXNz

[ChisolmTrailDem]

39. Where does the link go? nt

[druidity33]

48. real good question

i'm not clickin' it, so i can't tell ya.....

[Hassin Bin Sober]

51. Here is a story on the officer now being investigated:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-police-officer-under-investigation-following-call-to-protester/article_ea435efc-f814-5bd8-8f10-2e0bbc40dc2d.html



I thought she did a pretty good job fencing the douche bag cop in to hanging himself.

The cop admits, on tape, he was doing this as part of his job as a government employee. Now, of course, the pig is claiming he has a first amendment right like everyone else. Which is it? Was he a cop or a citizen when he called to get her in trouble with her employer? It sure sounded like he was wearing his cop hat when he called (was he on police time and phones???).

I want to know what the cop's employer's policy is on such matters. I want to know what the police department's policy is regarding conducting "private" political actions on company time and phones (if that is the case)?

[Major Nikon]

57. The first amendment won't protect his job

Government employees certainly have first amendment rights like everyone else, but government employers also have employer rights which dictate what employees can and can't say. So the government can't stop the cop from saying whatever he wants, but they can stop him from being a cop while doing so and he can enjoy his first amendment rights on the street corner all he wants while unemployed.

I would venture to guess he has violated a number of employment policies including such things as using private information obtained from his job for personal uses and using his official position for unauthorized use (abuse of power).

[Hassin Bin Sober]

58. It does get a little tricky-er when the employer is also the government.

A private sector employee has almost no 1st amendment rights protecting their employment because a private entity, by definition, can not violate The Constitutional rights of a person.

The government employee has more speech rights regarding their employment because sanctions imposed by the employer can also equal punishment by the government.

An example that comes to mind:teacher publicly criticizes her employer's ( superintendent or board of Ed) stance on revenue bond = protected speech. Teacher complains about internal employment policy or personnel issue = non-protected.

I agree policy infractions is where this guy may be in trouble. She did a great job drawing him out. Almost as if she was coached.

[Major Nikon]

59. There may be a constitutional right to talk politics,...

but there is no constitutional right to be a policeman.
-- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr 1892

You have a right to free speech, but employment by the government is a privilege.

The cop was stupid for doing what he did and even stupider for admitting it and thinking the 1st amendment is going to protect his employment.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

60. That opinion is woefully outdated:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/publicemployees.htm

Pickering v Board of Education considered the case of a public school teacher fired for writing a letter to a newspaper critical of the local school board. In ordering the teacher reinstated, the Court found that a public employee's statements on a matter of public concern could not be the basis for discharge unless the statement contained knowing or reckless falsehoods, or the statements were of the sort to cause a substantial interference with the ability of the employee to continue to do his job.

Mt. Healthy v Doyle also involved a fired school teacher. Doyle lost his job after calling a radio station disc jockey to complain about a memo sent to school teachers concerning a new teacher dress code. Because Doyle had given the district other reasons for terminating him (such as giving "the finger" to two students), the Court remanded the case for a determination as to whether Doyle would have been fired even if he hadn't engaged in the protected expressive activity of calling the radio station. If he would have been fired anyway, the termination could stand, the Court said.

Connick (1983) and McPherson (1987) both discuss the important issue of what constitutes speech "of public concern." The issue is important because, as the Court says in Connick, if speech does not relate to a matter of public concern, "absent the most unusual circumstances" the discharge will not present a First Amendment question for court review. In Connick, a 5 to 4 majority of the court concluded that speech about the internal operation of a district attorney's office is generally not of "public concern." Moreover, the Court held, distribution of a questionaire by the discharged employee raising questions about management of the office could be reasonably seen as sufficiently damaging to close working relationships to justify discharge. In Rankin, on the other hand, a 5 to 4 majority concluded that the statement "If they go for him again, I hope they get him," made immediately following news of Hinckley's attempt to assassinate President Reagan, was speech on a matter of public concern. The Court ordered the deputy constable's reinstatement, noting that the remark--made only to a fellow employee--was not likely to affect either her ability to perform her largely clerical duties in the constable's office or public confidence in the office.

Branti (1980) is one of a series of cases in which the Court has prevented discharges based on the political beliefs of employees. Branti was one of six assistant public defenders fired from a county defender's office simply because they were Republicans and the newly appointed County Defender was a Democrat. The Court noted that sometimes may be permissible to use political affiliation as a basis for hiring and discharge decisions (for example, no one would doubt the right of the President to hire only Cabinet officers or speechwriters that share his or her political affiliation), but said that assistant county defenders did not hold the type of decisionmaking power that made political affiliation an appropriate consideration. Ten years later, in Rutan v Republican Party of Illinois (a case involving the staffing of Illinois prisons), the Court extended protection for political beliefs to initial hiring decisions, as well as decisions relating to promotions and transfers.

[Major Nikon]

61. Not so much in this case

Working for the government is still a privilege and the government is allowed to place reasonable restrictions on free speech as a condition of employment. So as a government employee you certainly have a right to free speech so long as you are working in your own interests and the government doesn't have a reasonable interest in preventing it, but when you use your official capacity to exercise your "free speech", the cost can be your job.

[tooeyeten]

64. How so?

You equate his actions against a private citizen and a teacher publicly criticizing her employer/school board, how are they the same and how is that action of his protected speech?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

67. Go back and read this entire sub-thread.

I'm not equating his actions with those of a teacher criticizing her employer. I brought up the teacher example as an example of case law that spells out how a government employee has MORE free speech rights where their employment is concerned - not the same or less as the other poster was implying (even posting outdated Supreme Court quotes to support that argument).


Let me make myself clear:

I think the cop is in trouble. How much depends on how much heat his employer gets and whether they want to sweep this under the rug..

I think she did a good job of roping him in and letting him hang himself on tape.

I think he is going to claim he has first amendment rights to exercise political speech. I think he should be fired because he admitted he used his position as a police department employee to get contact information and/or bolster his argument/position to her employer. If he did these "private speech actions" on police department phones and during his working hours that will make it all the worse for himself.

[tooeyeten]

73. Ok

I'm with you, think you're entirely correct. If this gets sufficient coverage or enough pressure is brought to bear on the department and/or the officer, this could lead to suspension and/or his firing. As well she could have a decent suit against the officer and department with the cop's own words recorded doing himself in.

[tooeyeten]

65. You're right

He's in trouble.

[malaise]

21. Is it fascism yet?

Rec

[NutmegYankee]

24. This is clearcut violation of First Amendment rights by a government figure.

This Officer and those who authorized him to do this must be fired. Not should, MUST!

[byronius]

28. Keith desperately needs to be a bagboy at the Piggly Wiggly.

He's clearly not cut out for law enforcement. Launching a smear campaign against a citizen activist -- bizarre and childish behavior from anyone, but from law enforcement?

Cleanup on aisle 6, Keith.

[niyad]

49. except, I would not want him near my groceries--not sure I could wash off the contamination.

[duhneece]

31. Gotta hear this...can't now nt

[secondwind]

32. "So.... were you doing it for my benefit?" LMAO n/t

[Cha]

72. Seems to me.. Keith chose the wrong citizen to intimidate with his bully tactics and is only

exposing himself for what he is.

[Enthusiast]

36. Unbelievable!

[millijac]

38. I have had this happen to me.... by an infamous FB bully named Brian Kolfage Jr.

I encountered Sr Airman (ret) Brian Kolfage, Jr on FB in Dec 2013 after he began a harassment and stalking campaign against a retired union worker, Jan Vrotsos, who was obiviously innocent of the charges he made against her. She received hundreds of calls, emails, messages, some of them were death threats.

A PI found that Kolfage's accusations along with her personal information had been shared on over 1000 internet sites, pages, groups, etc. They suggested she sue for defamation. It was and is obvious to me that it was nothing but a publicity stunt for Kolfage to grow his FB page (66k+ at that time) and presence on the internet in order to gain fame and glory and to run for political office. His followers are asking him to run for President.

As soon as I saw what was happening, I tried to defend the woman and was very vocal on FB trying to quell the hate directed toward her due to what was obviousy a photoshopped lie. Within a month after the incident, I had found Jan, connected her with a blogger who told her story and then helped tell the story on FB. As as a result of my trying to help Jan, Kolfage, his father, and his followers came after me, threatened me, harassed me, paid for background checks on me, published private information about me, and Brian Kolfage personally contacted my employer to try and get me fired.

While researching the Dec incident, I discovered a number of individuals that had received much of the same treatment from Kolfage. In almost every case, Kolfage or one of his followers or father had contacted the individual's employer. Now Kolfage is suing his own victims and bloggers/journalists who have told his story. One of his victims he is suing, has already initiated an independent federal law suit against Kolfage, his wife, his father, and his lawyer.... and there are others in the works.

These people will stop at NOTHING. NOTHING. In this case, they hacked FB accounts. They pay for background checks. The things I've seen them do boggle my mind. One victim of Kolfage's father and gang was a cardiac patient and after hacking her email account they discovered that and harassed her incessantly with fake FB pages of hearts and cardiac medical equipment. She was finally admitted to the hospital and through the hacked email was able to discover where she had been admitted and published that information. Her teenage children were so distressed they slept on the floor of her hospital room in the doorway to protect her. It was AFTER this that her husband found the tracking software on her computer installed through her email account.

Even in posting this, I worry. My health has been affected and I'm now under medical care from a number of physicians. The Kolfages and their followers will know who I am. I put nothing past these people.

[City Lights]

43. WTF! nt

[MannyGoldstein]

47. Kpete, you should be *ashamed* of yourself

Posting this video is inciteful.

Holder is conducting a review. It's theoretically possible that, after said review is complete, there will be a report that has some suggestions for improvement. What more do you people want?

Nothing is EVER enough for you Lefties.

Regards,

TWM

[kpete]

68. Thankyou MannyGoldstein

that is quite the complement

peace,
kp

[niyad]

50. k and r for continued visibility. these roaches need sunlight!!

[blkmusclmachine]

54. ,

,

[Cha]

56. WOW! She is Amazing! Good on her! At first I thought they were saying she was "insightful"..

.. then I got it.. "inciteful"!

She was very respectful, patient, and the facts on her side.. she won! Officer Keith gave up.

mahalo kpete~

[kpete]

70. mahalo

back at you Cha

love to shine the light,
peace,
kp

[Enthusiast]

63. This is a job for the ACLU.

The cop should lose his job and never work in law enforcement again.

[Rex]

69. So what is up with the PDs in that area? Are they all commited to being jackbooted thugs?

Don't like their identity being known, arrest reporters for doing their jobs, don't write police reports when it suits them, tries hard to incite the local populace.

Sounds less like cops and more like some gestapo goon squad trying to hold the people down with intimidation and violence against innocent people.

Seems like their scare tactics are starting to work against them, they seem shocked we live in a free society.