Comments on: Dewey Police. First His Rank, Then His Name. http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/11/30/dewey-police-first-his-rank-then-his-name/ The WGMD 92.7 FM Delmarva Blog Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:20:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: macb http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/11/30/dewey-police-first-his-rank-then-his-name/#comment-17563 macb Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:46:36 +0000 http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/11/30/dewey-police-first-his-rank-then-his-name/#comment-17563 Don't comments have to be approved here nowadays? How is all the spam getting through? Don’t comments have to be approved here nowadays? How is all the spam getting through?

]]> By: distance learning mba http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/11/30/dewey-police-first-his-rank-then-his-name/#comment-14276 distance learning mba Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:05:02 +0000 http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/11/30/dewey-police-first-his-rank-then-his-name/#comment-14276 <strong> distance learning mba ...</strong> http://distance-learning-mba-08webs.12w.net distance learning mba ... distance learning mba
…

http://distance-learning-mba-08webs.12w.net distance learning mba
…

]]> By: commonsense http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/11/30/dewey-police-first-his-rank-then-his-name/#comment-53 commonsense Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:05:07 +0000 http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/11/30/dewey-police-first-his-rank-then-his-name/#comment-53 So why can we discuss Jeff Balk's sexual predation and John Atkins's wife beating, but not Joe Connor's drunk driving? So why can we discuss Jeff Balk’s sexual predation and John Atkins’s wife beating, but not Joe Connor’s drunk driving?

]]> By: Joe Connor http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/11/30/dewey-police-first-his-rank-then-his-name/#comment-9 Joe Connor Sat, 02 Dec 2006 01:24:11 +0000 http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/11/30/dewey-police-first-his-rank-then-his-name/#comment-9 Jared here is what you Quoted from the Gazette: However, according to the Cape Gazette: Rob Witsil, acting town attorney, said he sees no correlation between the suits. Here are thetwo paragraphs immediately below your quote: The suit says in December 1999, Campbell handcuffed Johnson in front of his student athletes, grabbed him by the back of the neck and pulled him from the Sea Esta parking lot across the street to the police station. Johnson requested damages for emotional distress. A jury found Campbell not liable for violating Johnson’s rights, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed that verdict. “We hold that the evidence demonstrated neither that Officer Campbell had a reasonable, articulate suspicion that Johnson was engaged in criminal conduct when he stopped Johnson, nor that he had probable cause to arrest Johnson for disorderly conduct,” the ruling states. The court found that the stop and arrest violated Johnson’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures and granted him damages. Johnson’s attorneys requested $150,000 for emotional damages in addition to court fees. Haverly said the previous lawsuit has nothing to do with the demotion. I may be a lttle slow but the English words there indicate that the Appeals Court REVERSED the Civil Jury's finding and found that the Officer violated the Plaintif's 4th ammendment rights. The way I read it the Town May be on the hook for 150 Grand if this ruling stands. How can that NOT be relevant? As to "who tipped the Gazette" they have people there who are objective reporters. Jared you are an interesting guy but "objective reporter" you are not, and to your credit you don't claim to be. But by any standard the way you spun your story was clearly a "double standard" Cheers Jared here is what you Quoted from the Gazette:

However, according to the Cape Gazette:
Rob Witsil, acting town attorney, said he sees no correlation between the suits.

Here are thetwo paragraphs immediately below your quote:

The suit says in December 1999, Campbell handcuffed Johnson in front of his student athletes, grabbed him by the back of the neck and pulled him from the Sea Esta parking lot across the street to the police station. Johnson requested damages for emotional distress.
A jury found Campbell not liable for violating Johnson’s rights, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed that verdict. “We hold that the evidence demonstrated neither that Officer Campbell had a reasonable, articulate suspicion that Johnson was engaged in criminal conduct when he stopped Johnson, nor that he had probable cause to arrest Johnson for disorderly conduct,” the ruling states. The court found that the stop and arrest violated Johnson’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures and granted him damages. Johnson’s attorneys requested $150,000 for emotional damages in addition to court fees. Haverly said the previous lawsuit has nothing to do with the demotion.

I may be a lttle slow but the English words there indicate that the Appeals Court REVERSED the Civil Jury’s finding and found that the Officer violated the Plaintif’s 4th ammendment rights. The way I read it the Town May be on the hook for 150 Grand if this ruling stands.
How can that NOT be relevant? As to “who tipped the Gazette” they have people there who are objective reporters. Jared you are an interesting guy but “objective reporter” you are not, and to your credit you don’t claim to be. But by any standard the way you spun your story was clearly a “double standard”
Cheers

]]>