If an officer knows or assumes that charges would be dropped (I'm talking specifically about this case), what is the arrest actually good for? It doesn't take a criminal off the streets, it's really just a waste of everybody's time, including the officer. So what is the point in making this arrest?

 

How do we know that's the case here? It's not an officers place to determine beyond a reasonable doubt roadside. A good cop doesn't base his decisions on what he thinks the prosecutors will do with the charge

That's a matter of opinion... Maybe in the eyes of the attorney it didn't meet the requirements of that charge, maybe they didn't want to fool with it or maybe he picked the wrong charge. I won't give my opinion cause I wasn't there. Neither were you though to say nothing occurred...

 

What about the resisting arrest charge? It was pretty obvious from the video that there was no resisting going on. He was just a big guy and it looked like the officers were having a hard time getting the leverage they needed to manuver him around. To me that was a completely bogus charge--I had an easier time buying the other charge.

How do we know that's the case here? It's not an officers place to determine beyond a reasonable doubt roadside. A good cop doesn't base his decisions on what he thinks the prosecutors will do with the charge

 

We don't know that... Which is why I asked you earlier what were the chances an officer would know or think charges could be dropped. But as Clyde said, I think we're void of an actual crime here.

 

We don't know that... Which is why I asked you earlier what were the chances an officer would know or think charges could be dropped. But as Clyde said, I think we're void of an actual crime here.

 

You know what they say about opinions...

You know what they say about opinions...

 

You've yet to answer either of my questions. So I guess I know your opinion on the matter.

 

Then again, I knew it before you even posted in this thread.

edit

You've yet to answer either of my questions. So I guess I know your opinion on the matter.

 

Then again, I knew it before you even posted in this thread.

 

What's your questions? I'm not a mind reader so I have no idea what his thoughts were roadside. You're uneducated at best on the legal system, and very naive if you assume that just because charges are dropped or amended, that either A. No crime occurred, B. the officr knew the charges would be dropped, or C. the State Attorney thinks the officer is incompetent.

 

I could care less about this guys charges. The only thing I've been telling you is to not put all your faith in prosecuting attorneys.

 

As you are all knowing on my mindset, please clue me in on what my opinion is on this? I'm dying to hear your brilliant analysis of what you already know my opinion is?

 

Or do you just want to tell me to kill myself since I don't agree with you? :lol2:

What's your questions? I'm not a mind reader so I have no idea what his thoughts were roadside. You're uneducated at best on the legal system, and very naive if you assume that just because charges are dropped or amended, that either A. No crime occurred, B. the officr knew the charges would be dropped, or C. the State Attorney thinks the officer is incompetent.

 

The bolded was one of my questions, so you knew what my questions were.

As to the rest... I didn't assume anything, I was curious, which is why I asked your opinion. A.) Do you believe a crime was committed, and if so, what crime? B.) I simply asked if that were a possibility, I didn't say that was the case, and I was asking your opinion on it. C.) Again, I didn't say that, you put those words in my mouth.

 

I could care less about this guys charges. The only thing I've been telling you is to not put all your faith in prosecuting attorneys.

 

I haven't, I've just questioned the happenings in court, and how this particular arrest may have been viewed in the courtroom. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

As you are all knowing on my mindset, please clue me in on what my opinion is on this? I'm dying to hear your brilliant analysis of what you already know my opinion is?

 

Or do you just want to tell me to kill myself since I don't agree with you? :lol2:

 

You've made your opinion clear. You are glad the officer made the arrest, if for no other reason than to give the guy negative publicity. You must think some crime was committed, I don't. That's where we disagree here.

 

As for the second part, I've never said that to you, so I'm not sure why I would now. People disagree with others all the time, so again I'm not sure why I would say that, especially since we're just having a healthy debate. You seem to be way more put off with my disagreeing with you than vice versa... JMO of course.

You've yet to answer either of my questions. So I guess I know your opinion on the matter.

 

Then again, I knew it before you even posted in this thread.

 

I really don't care whether you agree with me or not. This was my only beef with you in this topic. I wasn't with the guy and I'm not familiar with the laws of that state or more specifically that districts interpretation of certain statutes. Different attorneys and different judges interpret laws differently. It is very common for them to disagree on interpretation of the statutes. Any attorney will tell you that. If it was all black and white, there would be very little need for defense attorneys. You're wanting me to give you a black and white answer. Unfortunately, it's common for things like this to be gray. The officer must've felt it met the statute, the prosecutor either didn't or he felt it was a waste of his time. If you want to see how confusing statutes can read, flip through the KRS. It's been revised, and amended so many times, you'll get a headache reading it sometimes.

I really don't care whether you agree with me or not. This was my only beef with you in this topic. I wasn't with the guy and I'm not familiar with the laws of that state or more specifically that districts interpretation of certain statutes. Different attorneys and different judges interpret laws differently. It is very common for them to disagree on interpretation of the statutes. Any attorney will tell you that. If it was all black and white, there would be very little need for defense attorneys. You're wanting me to give you a black and white answer. Unfortunately, it's common for things like this to be gray. The officer must've felt it met the statute, the prosecutor either didn't or he felt it was a waste of his time. If you want to see how confusing statutes can read, flip through the KRS. It's been revised, and amended so many times, you'll get a headache reading it sometimes.

 

I wasn't really asking for "black and white" answers, so I apologize if it came across that way. I just knew you were more knowledgeable than me in these areas, so I wanted your opinion. As you said, I may be naive to the workings of the legal system, as I've never been involved with it in any way. My questions to you were out of curiosity, that's all.

Morrison is still suspended.

Here is the Florida Law...falls under Obstructing Justice.

 

(4) Any person who intentionally or knowingly maliciously harasses, teases, interferes with, or attempts to interfere with a police dog, fire dog, SAR dog, or police horse while the animal is in the performance of its duties commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

 

Would that law not seem to fit the actions by Morrison?

Some may say that the dog wasn't in the performance of his duties. The officer was out with another person and the K9 was in the cruiser, but most K9 officers have a release button on their key ring that they can push that will open the door for the dog to come to their aid in the case of emergency. If the dog is being distracted by barking idiot there is a good chance that it may not respond to the officer in case of emergency. The K9 IMO is always performing it's duties if it is on patrol whether it is in the car or not.

As far as charges being dropped I've seen charges dropped or dismissed because the little POS in court is the second cousin of the court clerk sitting next to the judge. You don't think the fact that he was a Florida Gator, In Florida could be the reason the Prosecutor dropped the charges.

Here is the Florida Law...falls under Obstructing Justice.

 

 

 

Would that law not seem to fit the actions by Morrison?

 

Not if there was no malice in his actions. Here's the exact quote from the prosecutor:

 

"To be fair, law enforcement officers are not lawyers or fully aware of what the courts require. Nonetheless, fair or not, their decisions must meet those standards. The charge of interfering with a police animal requires malice, and none exists."