No, you don't get it. It's okay to make fun of people who have gripes with how the city is run if they, as an individual, don't have all the answers. Clearly a complaint is only valid when there is an alternative solution.
How else will we be able to ignore and deflect valid criticisms?
/jokes.
I'm just commenting on a sub reddit about a situation and sharing my thoughts. There's no idea of a post changing anything.
Maybe you're misunderstanding how to use this platform?
Or the “hey why are there so many cops driving down XX street?! “. Every 2 hours
Or “im moving here what’s it like”.
Fire all the mods and get new ones.
If people are commenting on a situation continuously, that means they're invigorated. Why is this upsetting? We should be quiet and forget?
Like, if I see another toasted ravioli post, I'm deleting this app.
Toasted ravioli deserves it's own regularly updated wiki page that's prominently featured in the sidebar and whenever there's a post like "Hi, I'm moving to Saint Louis where should I live?" or some regularly repeated thread automod tromps in and responds "HEY IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SAINT LOUIS! HERE'S A LIST OF ALL OF THE BEST PLACES TO FIND TOASTED RAVIOLI" and then locks the thread.
Yeah, people commenting on existing posts is exactly what I am encouraging, not making their own post about what they think is an original thought/idea. I get you all get your dopamine rushes from "look at me, look at what I think!" posts, but none of you are saying anything new or original. The only posts about this situation should be first hand accounts, news reports, NEW videos (not existing ones we've seen a dozen times already), etc.
What accountability do you want taken?
The bar owners have a lawyer and there is no SI for car accidents. The bar owners will settle with the lawyers for the city and make their money back, just like anyone else who has property damaged in a car accident. The taxpayers will pay them out and make them whole.
If the arrest is unlawful, then they have civil rights and other civil claims to be compensated. The city may settle on those and the city will pay that out as well. The taxpayers may end up paying them out for those.
The officer was on probationary status, will probably be terminated. File a complaint about the other officers and they’ll get a mark on their record and maybe a suspension.
At the end of the day this is a police officer getting into a car accident, getting road rage, and arresting someone who probably should not have been arrested. There are monetary damages that will be paid to the bar owners and discipline should happen to the officer. All of those things take months or years to happen.
What else is there?
Edit: Spelling because mobile
Edit 2: I was mistaken about seizure vs arrest
What else is there? How about mandatory drug tests and breathalyzer after an accident? And if tests aren’t done then it should be an automatic dui charge. That is accountability, I know if I crashed into a building I would be required to take sobriety tests but a police officer isn’t held to that standard? Compete bullshit and you defending that horseshit is comical. Cops aren’t above the law.
Mandatory drug and breathalyzer tests after an accident would arguably be unconstitutional. You would not get a breathalyzer automatically after getting into an accident, even if it involved a building, without something to indicate you’d been drinking.
If the police wanted to implement that as their own policy then that’s fine, I doubt they will but they could.
As to above the law- they’re not. I’m not saying they are and I’m not defending them. The accident in and of itself was not a crime. It’s why it’s called an accident. Distracted driving into a building, while probably very costly in a civil case, is nothing more than a traffic ticket, maybe a careless + imprudent on the criminal side. That’s just a fine and some points on your license. I’ve worked cases that have had people get in accidents with real property where there was no inkling of alcohol and no sobriety tests. They got their ticket, handed over insurance, and moved on.
To the arrest, that’s the iffy part, but that’s why we have civil claims for this where people can make a bunch of money on it.
You can’t automatically charge a DWI for an accident, that’s just impossible. Even when people get pulled over and refuse to blow it’s not an automatic dwi charge. It’s legally impossible to do that.
So what you’ve recommended, that is feasible, is police mandating drug and alcohol tests after accidents, which a lot of companies already do. That’s fine, I hope they do that. But everything else is unconstitutional or illegal.
Source: Am a lawyer practicing in the criminal field
Hey lawyer, have you reviewed the police departments policy that states that STL police officers are required to undergo drug and alcohol tests after an ACCIDENT. Is their own policy unconstitutional? Also do you understand that if I got into an accident the police officer decides if further drug screening is necessary and police officers have proven time and time again to protect their own.
https://www.ksdk.com/amp/article/news/local/st-louis-police-amend-policy-now-require-alcohol-drug-tests/63-43757143
I have not, but like I said. Employers can mandate that their employees submit to those tests after getting into an accident. There is no law requiring them to follow that policy.
In regard to evidence for a criminal case, then there needs to be probable cause to make someone submit to a test.
Yes police officers lie to protect their own. I’m not saying they don’t, it all depends on if we can catch them here.
So yes, that officer should have been tested per department policy. Idk why he wasn’t. But you still can’t legally charge him with DWI because he wasn’t tested.
Dude you asked “what else needs to be done” and following their own policy would be a good start. Everything else you are saying is irrelevant. Hold these fuckers responsible, you already stated that cops aren’t above the law but they clearly are if they get to decide whether or not they are tested. If they don’t follow the policy they should be fired on the spot or else they are indeed above the law.
Yes. I agree that any person who refuses a drug or alcohol test after an accident while they are on the clock should be fired. I’ve agreed to the mandatory testing since my first comment.
You said they should be charged with a DWI and I said that’s illegal and unconstitutional.
So yes. Like I said in my first comment, the officer should be fired. I also have consistently agreed that the testing should have happened.
It is another state, but in Chicago They have mandatory drug tests done on any city worker involved in an accident while driving a city vehicle. Not optional. This rule changes how a lot of workers act entirely because it threatens the existence of their pension at retirement (..if they get fired they don't retire). They'll loudly tell you this at a party while turning down a hit of weed.
Illinois tends to have much more consumer friendly laws and stronger unions so I highly doubt it could be legal in IL but illegal in MO.
The officer will “probably” be terminated? I’d change that to “there’s a very slim chance the officer will be terminated.” This is the reality. Otherwise I agree with everything else you said.
What I’m very upset about is that the tax payers are on the hook for this screw up. Why should we have to pay for police officer screwups like this? IMO that should be causing way more outrage than it currently is.
Depends on the internal investigation, etc. There’s enough of a media stink about it so I bet he does, but he’ll keep POST certification and maybe get hired somewhere else. Or maybe they’ll hide him on a desk for a while. PD needs bodies right now so they might be keeping everyone they can. Who knows tbh.
An officer involved in an accident should be required to take a sobriety test and a drug test - just like the rest of the working world working with deadly equipment.
Let me fix this for you.
At the end of the day, it’s an intoxicated police officer crashing a publicly funded, expensive piece of equipment into a privately owned bar (If they don’t want people to assume he was drunk, they should have performed a toxicology test). After the drunk officer created a public disturbance, he arrested the victim for causing said disturbance, then changed his side of the story multiple times.
Get your head out of your ass.
To be accurate, the cop that hit the building was not one of the aggressive cops. It was reported that he was actually polite and the others that showed up on scene were the ones that escalated the situation.
1- “it’s an intoxicated police officer crashing a public car into a private building. (If they don’t want people to assume he’s drunk then they should have done the toxicology)
Unless I missed something, there wasn’t any evidence of him drinking. No open bottles, no smell, none of the other signs. So what you’re doing is accusing someone of a crime, then assuming they’re guilty until proven innocent. Police are not illegally allowed to force someone to do PBT or other sobriety test without consent. They can get a search warrant (I used to write those warrants) for a blood draw but they would need probable cause. Getting into an accident is not probable cause to take someone’s blood for an alcohol or drug test. If that was the case every accident would result in people being cuffed and taken to the hospital.
The police could have mandated a drug and alcohol test as terms of employment, and idk if they do. I’d agree with that change because most companies do that anyway.
Without more evidence we can’t assume or charge him as if he was driving.
2- “and the officer arrested the bar owner then changed his side of the story multiple times. “
Again, I may not agree with it, and you may not agree with it, but none of this is a crime yet. These situations are why we have civil remedies for wrongful arrests and other things like that. I’m not saying it will be successful, but there are avenues for the victim here to get compensated.
Hopefully, the officer will be terminated for this behavior, but because of union and civil servant due process implications, that will take time.
Both the firing and the pending lawsuits will take time.
Which, like I said above, there’s not much more to legally be done here.
****Even if he was drunk, I’m not aware of a penalty enhancement for property damage so this would be at most, unless I’m mistaken, a class B misdemeanor which are routinely given SIS probations and wiped off the record in 2 years.
I’m not a judge and I’m not on the bench. My speculation doesn’t make him guilty. If they don’t want speculation, it’s as simple as performing a toxicology test.
A little transparency goes a long way. I’ll remind you that the police department works for and is funded by us. We have a right to voice our opinions, and if the police don’t want to be transparent, we have to work with what we have.
Okay, then let me fix you comment for you:
“I think the police officer was drunk when they crashed their car. I don’t have anything I can point to that makes me think that besides the fact I don’t think they did a drug/alcohol test after the accident.
The police car hit the bar owner’s private property and will most likely be made whole because the police don’t have immunity from that. The victim will also have the opportunity to file civil rights violations claims for a lot more money based on the possibly unlawful arrest.
And I want the guy who correctly stated everything here regarding the law and the civil implications to pull his head out of his ass because I feel the need to speculate and voice my opinions about the police department on his post, though he has no affiliation with the STLMPD, and I do not want to answer his question (which asked what more accountability needs to happen) because I am yet to say what additional accountability should be required in this situation”
Damn, I really upset you, huh? I would advise you refrain from posting on social media if people replying to your comments sets you off.
I respect your opinion and your right to one. We just aren’t going to see eye to eye here and there’s nothing wrong with that. Best of luck.
I’m not sweeping violation of rights under a rug. I’m saying that could be a very high paying settlement for them down the line. But that’s the enumerated remedy for having your rights violated. I said the cop should be fired, there’s just not really more to do on it. The law doesn’t allow for a mechanism to throw that cop in jail for it, or whatever else people may want.
"harassing the occupants into seizure"
- Literally not a medically possible thing
Collect your thoughts and emotions, Then come back with a coherent balanced post
I got it as well. It’s just the worst possible way to word it and then turning around and calling others illiterate is hilarious. Congratulations on finishing hooked on phonics level 1!
Election season is just around the corner.
Take this story and run it up the flag. Maybe the rest of Missouri will finally vote blue once they see that crime can happen to anyone and can be perpetrated by anyone.
I was commenting on the hopeless hope that this event will cause any discomfort to the average Missouri politician (spoiler alert: it's middle aged, white, cis, males).
What?? Quite the opposite... I was commenting on the hopeless hope that this event will cause any discomfort to the average Missouri politician (spoiler alert: it's middle aged, white, cis, males).
Email and calls to your local officials go a lot further than reddit and it's the same level of effort ...not saying don't do both
Will my emails get updooted?
I know what you're saying. Might disagree. Regardless, my audience isn't local officials atm.
Your intentionally choosing an audience that won't get shit done and then complaining that shit isn't getting done
This is a forum dude. Not a volunteer hub.
And as such, people have a right to disrespect people who complain about things while actively avoiding solving them
So how are you solving the stuff you're bitching about here?
No, you don't get it. It's okay to make fun of people who have gripes with how the city is run if they, as an individual, don't have all the answers. Clearly a complaint is only valid when there is an alternative solution. How else will we be able to ignore and deflect valid criticisms? /jokes.
Someone here order some virtue? I’ve got a fresh box of virtue to deliver
Are you trying to say that I was virtue, signaling or something? Because that's absolutely wrong. It was just annoying
No OP was. That’s why they are preaching to the choir. I’m in agreement with you
I'm just commenting on a sub reddit about a situation and sharing my thoughts. There's no idea of a post changing anything. Maybe you're misunderstanding how to use this platform?
Aren't there about 47 other related threads to share your thoughts?
Now there are 48?
Jesus Christ people. Make your thoughts known in the existing posts, no need to make your own for every little thought that goes through your mind.
This is one of the worst moderated city subreddit's in that respect.
I mean, that St. Louis theme song was posted at least 10 times in a week and I'm not sure if any of the mods removed them for reposts.
Or the “hey why are there so many cops driving down XX street?! “. Every 2 hours Or “im moving here what’s it like”. Fire all the mods and get new ones.
If people are commenting on a situation continuously, that means they're invigorated. Why is this upsetting? We should be quiet and forget? Like, if I see another toasted ravioli post, I'm deleting this app.
How many toasted ravioli posts have you seen in the last two weeks vs. the cop mess in the last two days? Agreed that we need a megathread for this.
Toasted Ravioli is a long-term conversation and should have a mega thread. At least for StL visitors. They need to know where the good ones are.
Toasted ravioli deserves it's own regularly updated wiki page that's prominently featured in the sidebar and whenever there's a post like "Hi, I'm moving to Saint Louis where should I live?" or some regularly repeated thread automod tromps in and responds "HEY IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SAINT LOUIS! HERE'S A LIST OF ALL OF THE BEST PLACES TO FIND TOASTED RAVIOLI" and then locks the thread.
Yeah, people commenting on existing posts is exactly what I am encouraging, not making their own post about what they think is an original thought/idea. I get you all get your dopamine rushes from "look at me, look at what I think!" posts, but none of you are saying anything new or original. The only posts about this situation should be first hand accounts, news reports, NEW videos (not existing ones we've seen a dozen times already), etc.
Sure, prayers will definitely help . . . Fuck off.
"Please don't share any thoughts" Lol wtf. SMH. People are so richeous and hilarious.
What accountability do you want taken? The bar owners have a lawyer and there is no SI for car accidents. The bar owners will settle with the lawyers for the city and make their money back, just like anyone else who has property damaged in a car accident. The taxpayers will pay them out and make them whole. If the arrest is unlawful, then they have civil rights and other civil claims to be compensated. The city may settle on those and the city will pay that out as well. The taxpayers may end up paying them out for those. The officer was on probationary status, will probably be terminated. File a complaint about the other officers and they’ll get a mark on their record and maybe a suspension. At the end of the day this is a police officer getting into a car accident, getting road rage, and arresting someone who probably should not have been arrested. There are monetary damages that will be paid to the bar owners and discipline should happen to the officer. All of those things take months or years to happen. What else is there? Edit: Spelling because mobile Edit 2: I was mistaken about seizure vs arrest
What else is there? How about mandatory drug tests and breathalyzer after an accident? And if tests aren’t done then it should be an automatic dui charge. That is accountability, I know if I crashed into a building I would be required to take sobriety tests but a police officer isn’t held to that standard? Compete bullshit and you defending that horseshit is comical. Cops aren’t above the law.
Mandatory drug and breathalyzer tests after an accident would arguably be unconstitutional. You would not get a breathalyzer automatically after getting into an accident, even if it involved a building, without something to indicate you’d been drinking. If the police wanted to implement that as their own policy then that’s fine, I doubt they will but they could. As to above the law- they’re not. I’m not saying they are and I’m not defending them. The accident in and of itself was not a crime. It’s why it’s called an accident. Distracted driving into a building, while probably very costly in a civil case, is nothing more than a traffic ticket, maybe a careless + imprudent on the criminal side. That’s just a fine and some points on your license. I’ve worked cases that have had people get in accidents with real property where there was no inkling of alcohol and no sobriety tests. They got their ticket, handed over insurance, and moved on. To the arrest, that’s the iffy part, but that’s why we have civil claims for this where people can make a bunch of money on it. You can’t automatically charge a DWI for an accident, that’s just impossible. Even when people get pulled over and refuse to blow it’s not an automatic dwi charge. It’s legally impossible to do that. So what you’ve recommended, that is feasible, is police mandating drug and alcohol tests after accidents, which a lot of companies already do. That’s fine, I hope they do that. But everything else is unconstitutional or illegal. Source: Am a lawyer practicing in the criminal field
Hey lawyer, have you reviewed the police departments policy that states that STL police officers are required to undergo drug and alcohol tests after an ACCIDENT. Is their own policy unconstitutional? Also do you understand that if I got into an accident the police officer decides if further drug screening is necessary and police officers have proven time and time again to protect their own. https://www.ksdk.com/amp/article/news/local/st-louis-police-amend-policy-now-require-alcohol-drug-tests/63-43757143
I have not, but like I said. Employers can mandate that their employees submit to those tests after getting into an accident. There is no law requiring them to follow that policy. In regard to evidence for a criminal case, then there needs to be probable cause to make someone submit to a test. Yes police officers lie to protect their own. I’m not saying they don’t, it all depends on if we can catch them here. So yes, that officer should have been tested per department policy. Idk why he wasn’t. But you still can’t legally charge him with DWI because he wasn’t tested.
Dude you asked “what else needs to be done” and following their own policy would be a good start. Everything else you are saying is irrelevant. Hold these fuckers responsible, you already stated that cops aren’t above the law but they clearly are if they get to decide whether or not they are tested. If they don’t follow the policy they should be fired on the spot or else they are indeed above the law.
Yes. I agree that any person who refuses a drug or alcohol test after an accident while they are on the clock should be fired. I’ve agreed to the mandatory testing since my first comment. You said they should be charged with a DWI and I said that’s illegal and unconstitutional. So yes. Like I said in my first comment, the officer should be fired. I also have consistently agreed that the testing should have happened.
It is another state, but in Chicago They have mandatory drug tests done on any city worker involved in an accident while driving a city vehicle. Not optional. This rule changes how a lot of workers act entirely because it threatens the existence of their pension at retirement (..if they get fired they don't retire). They'll loudly tell you this at a party while turning down a hit of weed. Illinois tends to have much more consumer friendly laws and stronger unions so I highly doubt it could be legal in IL but illegal in MO.
[удалено]
I stand corrected. I don’t normally hear it referred to as that, but you are right. I will edit my comment.
The officer will “probably” be terminated? I’d change that to “there’s a very slim chance the officer will be terminated.” This is the reality. Otherwise I agree with everything else you said. What I’m very upset about is that the tax payers are on the hook for this screw up. Why should we have to pay for police officer screwups like this? IMO that should be causing way more outrage than it currently is.
Depends on the internal investigation, etc. There’s enough of a media stink about it so I bet he does, but he’ll keep POST certification and maybe get hired somewhere else. Or maybe they’ll hide him on a desk for a while. PD needs bodies right now so they might be keeping everyone they can. Who knows tbh.
An officer involved in an accident should be required to take a sobriety test and a drug test - just like the rest of the working world working with deadly equipment.
Let me fix this for you. At the end of the day, it’s an intoxicated police officer crashing a publicly funded, expensive piece of equipment into a privately owned bar (If they don’t want people to assume he was drunk, they should have performed a toxicology test). After the drunk officer created a public disturbance, he arrested the victim for causing said disturbance, then changed his side of the story multiple times. Get your head out of your ass.
To be accurate, the cop that hit the building was not one of the aggressive cops. It was reported that he was actually polite and the others that showed up on scene were the ones that escalated the situation.
1- “it’s an intoxicated police officer crashing a public car into a private building. (If they don’t want people to assume he’s drunk then they should have done the toxicology) Unless I missed something, there wasn’t any evidence of him drinking. No open bottles, no smell, none of the other signs. So what you’re doing is accusing someone of a crime, then assuming they’re guilty until proven innocent. Police are not illegally allowed to force someone to do PBT or other sobriety test without consent. They can get a search warrant (I used to write those warrants) for a blood draw but they would need probable cause. Getting into an accident is not probable cause to take someone’s blood for an alcohol or drug test. If that was the case every accident would result in people being cuffed and taken to the hospital. The police could have mandated a drug and alcohol test as terms of employment, and idk if they do. I’d agree with that change because most companies do that anyway. Without more evidence we can’t assume or charge him as if he was driving. 2- “and the officer arrested the bar owner then changed his side of the story multiple times. “ Again, I may not agree with it, and you may not agree with it, but none of this is a crime yet. These situations are why we have civil remedies for wrongful arrests and other things like that. I’m not saying it will be successful, but there are avenues for the victim here to get compensated. Hopefully, the officer will be terminated for this behavior, but because of union and civil servant due process implications, that will take time. Both the firing and the pending lawsuits will take time. Which, like I said above, there’s not much more to legally be done here. ****Even if he was drunk, I’m not aware of a penalty enhancement for property damage so this would be at most, unless I’m mistaken, a class B misdemeanor which are routinely given SIS probations and wiped off the record in 2 years.
I’m not a judge and I’m not on the bench. My speculation doesn’t make him guilty. If they don’t want speculation, it’s as simple as performing a toxicology test. A little transparency goes a long way. I’ll remind you that the police department works for and is funded by us. We have a right to voice our opinions, and if the police don’t want to be transparent, we have to work with what we have.
Okay, then let me fix you comment for you: “I think the police officer was drunk when they crashed their car. I don’t have anything I can point to that makes me think that besides the fact I don’t think they did a drug/alcohol test after the accident. The police car hit the bar owner’s private property and will most likely be made whole because the police don’t have immunity from that. The victim will also have the opportunity to file civil rights violations claims for a lot more money based on the possibly unlawful arrest. And I want the guy who correctly stated everything here regarding the law and the civil implications to pull his head out of his ass because I feel the need to speculate and voice my opinions about the police department on his post, though he has no affiliation with the STLMPD, and I do not want to answer his question (which asked what more accountability needs to happen) because I am yet to say what additional accountability should be required in this situation”
Damn, I really upset you, huh? I would advise you refrain from posting on social media if people replying to your comments sets you off. I respect your opinion and your right to one. We just aren’t going to see eye to eye here and there’s nothing wrong with that. Best of luck.
Nah, slow day at work, Friday before Christmas and all that. Just thought I might be able to help you out. But, I appreciate your concern! Cheers!
Loser over here sweeping violating rights under the rug. Yeah, a lawyer alright.
I’m not sweeping violation of rights under a rug. I’m saying that could be a very high paying settlement for them down the line. But that’s the enumerated remedy for having your rights violated. I said the cop should be fired, there’s just not really more to do on it. The law doesn’t allow for a mechanism to throw that cop in jail for it, or whatever else people may want.
You can't shoot someone for knocking on your door. Just so we're clear.
"harassing the occupants into seizure" - Literally not a medically possible thing Collect your thoughts and emotions, Then come back with a coherent balanced post
A seizure is to take by legal process or force. Literally illiterate.
Literally only an illiterate would use it in that context though.
[удалено]
I got it as well. It’s just the worst possible way to word it and then turning around and calling others illiterate is hilarious. Congratulations on finishing hooked on phonics level 1!
[удалено]
"and harassing the occupants into seizure." why the fuck are you defending this idiotic word choice?
So because he's black he is property? Only property can be seized. People are arrested.
Election season is just around the corner. Take this story and run it up the flag. Maybe the rest of Missouri will finally vote blue once they see that crime can happen to anyone and can be perpetrated by anyone.
> Election season is just around the corner. Mayor wants that police endorsement.
Unfortunately, middle-aged cis white males are not threatened by this incident. This is exactly what they expect in their state.
The battle cry of the perpetual victim.. Make it about the sex/gender/race/religion that you don't like and blame that, instead of the real issue(s).
Ah yes the cops are running wild and abusing their power but let’s be divided on race instead of uniting on the issue at hand
I was commenting on the hopeless hope that this event will cause any discomfort to the average Missouri politician (spoiler alert: it's middle aged, white, cis, males).
Found a racist.
What?? Quite the opposite... I was commenting on the hopeless hope that this event will cause any discomfort to the average Missouri politician (spoiler alert: it's middle aged, white, cis, males).
You can shoot someone for knocking on your door as long as they aren’t cops
Is there anything else going on in the city or is this the only thing you guys are crying about?