Chambersburg man says state troopers storm his home...

[Bob Hubbard]

Chambersburg man says state troopers storm his home, drag him down after he makes parking comment

http://www.publicopiniononline.com/ci_14185308

When a Chambersburg man left the grocery store Sunday afternoon, he thought it was nervy that someone parked a pickup truck in the fire lane beside the entrance, so he asked the driver what gave him the privilege. The driver was an off-duty state police trooper, and by the end of the night the man with the question was in jail with facial injuries and charges pending against him.

The man in the pickup truck flashed a badge from his wallet, saying that badge entitled him to park there.
Doyle replied that the man was "special" since he was not in a patrol car, or in uniform, and had a child with him.

As Doyle came down the stairs, he called 911 and asked for borough police assistance.
"I told them I needed borough cops at my place, that state police were yelling I was under arrest and I didn't even do anything," Doyle told Public Opinion.
By the time Doyle got back to his kitchen door, he said the officers were pounding on the door and yelling at him that he was under arrest for disorderly conduct.
"I kept the phone open with the (911) operator on the line and told these guys that I was going to open the door, to please don't break the glass in my new door," Doyle said.

According to the officers who filed the charges, Troopers Gross and Remington, Finkle told them that Doyle yelled obscenities across the lot of Giant at Finkle and was publicly drunk.
The affidavit of probable cause also states that Doyle yelled obscenities at the officers who came to his house. Doyle said most of his conversation should be on the 911 recording because he left the line open when the troopers were there and Doyle wanted borough assistance.
Public Opinion filed a Freedom of Information request on Tuesday for that tape, and was notified on Wednesday by County Clerk Jean Byers, who is the county's appointed open records officer, that "the public interest in disclosure does not outweigh the interest in nondisclosure."

 

[Sukerkin]

As we've touched upon in other threads before, there are two sides to every story so we should beware of jumping to conclusions but there is also far too much sense of entitlement to "Do what the heck we like" amongst law enforcement.

I've tried to say before that you can only police with the consent of the populous - lost that public confidence and the whole shebang goes down the sewer. In a sense, it doesn't even matter if the multitude of stories of police misbehaviour and abuse of power are true - once that perception becomes imbedded ... back to the sewer scenario again.

 

[Archangel M]

As we've touched upon in other threads before, there are two sides to every story so we should beware of jumping to conclusions but there is also far too much sense of entitlement to "Do what the heck we like" amongst law enforcement.

That sounds like our President.

"I don't have all the facts but I believe the police acted stupidly."

Beware any news article that only tells a story from one sides perspective.

 

[Sukerkin]

It's really my second paragraph that is the point I wanted to convey. In a media age, perception almost outweighs reality and to be accused is to be guilty - that's very hard to counter, especially when there really are abuses of power taking place to provide that kernel to the 'truth'.

Over here in Blighty, the encounters I have personally had with police went a huge way to restoring my faith in them after the diabolical excesses of the Miner's Strike. I can use that 'real' touchstone to ground my opinions with regard to British police and curb my vulnerability to 'belief' about some of the stories that come out.

I am sure that the same must be true for American citizens about their police forces too?

 

[grydth]

There's two sides to everything and this gives us just one.... the evident intent being to convey that a man was beaten and arrested simply for criticizing a cop's parking choice.

maybe.

It is also possible that a cop and his child were subjected to a drunken and obscenity riddled tirade from somebody with a problem with police.

The 911 tape will come out, either in the criminal case or in the lawsuit the arrestee brings.

 

[Archangel M]

There's two sides to everything and this gives us just one.... the evident intent being to convey that a man was beaten and arrested simply for criticizing a cop's parking choice.

maybe.

It is also possible that a cop and his child were subjected to a drunken and obscenity riddled tirade from somebody with a problem with police.

The 911 tape will come out, either in the criminal case or in the lawsuit the arrestee brings.

Exactly.

And perhaps the off-duty did park in a no parking spot and "flashed his badge" to get away with it. Which would be wrong. However that does not automatically mean that the cop then railroaded some innocent person. This is a typical thing I see in complaints. The offender tries to skate on his actions by implying that the officers actions..like parking in a no parking spot..somehow prove that the rest of his actions were wrong. Which is not always the case.

Im thinking (pure speculation) that the off-duty probably parked in the fire lane and was then subjected to a drunken, vulgarity filled tirade. They probably swapped some verbal jabs and the off-duty cop then called for the troopers.

The drunk decides it's time to boogie and gets in his car. The off-duty sees the male drive away (DWI) and follows him to his home where the rest of this incident occurred. I note the wording of the story focuses on the "the officer who charged me with DWI didn't see me driving" statement. Which means that the off duty probably signed a deposition for the observation of DWI and an on-duty officer filled the charges. Another "crafted" message probably designed by the guys attorney.

 

[Archangel M]

It's really my second paragraph that is the point I wanted to convey. In a media age, perception almost outweighs reality and to be accused is to be guilty - that's very hard to counter, especially when there really are abuses of power taking place to provide that kernel to the 'truth'.

Over here in Blighty, the encounters I have personally had with police went a huge way to restoring my faith in them after the diabolical excesses of the Miner's Strike. I can use that 'real' touchstone to ground my opinions with regard to British police and curb my vulnerability to 'belief' about some of the stories that come out.

I am sure that the same must be true for American citizens about their police forces too?

Because this is an American based forum with mostly US focused stories, don't for a minute think that this is a "US only" phenomenon. Take a look at this story.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=89218&sectionid=3510303

The admission by London's police force that their officers horrifically assaulted a defenseless Muslim man was one of the blackest moments in recent British police history.

On Wednesday, the Metropolitan police agreed to pay Babar Ahmad £60,000 as well as his legal costs in compensation for the brutal beating their officers gave him.

Not only does this admission disclose the sadistic brutality and Islamophobia of some serving British police officers, it should open everyone's eyes to a cover-up and a catalogue of lies perpetrated by the highest levels of the police service.

And I would respond to this story in much the same manner as I would if it were a US agency.

or this one..

http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/3699911/police-brutality-in-nottingham.thtml

"Police Taser and Beat Man"

How often have we seen the "US Taser" stories here? I think these Brit officers were perfectly within a reasonable use of force. Yet the "narrator" seems to think that perhaps these officers should have just been asking this punching and kicking drunk to nicely come along.

Same sort of thing there as we see here IMO.

 

[Sukerkin]

Never mind.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

update

The police side of the story has already been contradicted by a pair of witnesses who observed the initial interaction in front of a local grocery store.

Jeremiah Snyder told Public Opinion Monday that narrative did not fit with what he saw as he and his wife walked out of Giant the afternoon of Jan. 10.
He said Doyle walked up to a truck parked in the fire lane, knocked on the truck’s window and said something to the man sitting in the driver’s seat about being parked in the fire lane.
He said the man flashed a badge and told Doyle the badge gave him the right to park there.
“My wife and I looked at each other, but kept walking,” he said.
He said Doyle did not appear to be drunk, “in any way, shape or form.”
He said he also did not hear Doyle swear or even raise his voice at the trooper during the encounter.
​

Doyle is a retired U.S. Marine who has worked as a civilian police officer on military bases. His preliminary hearing on the matter was postponed indefinitely.

Source: http://www.publicopiniononline.com/ci_14226996?source=most_emailed

 

[grydth]

This is one I hope you can keep updated. Some things I'd want to know:

What opportunity did the new witnesses have to see/hear the event? From what distance? Did they see the whole transaction?

The accused says he had drinks at home after driving - were glasses found in his house that would back that up.... or were there open/used containers in the car?

Anybody in the store - other shoppers, staff - have any interaction with the accused? What did they see?

He's a former police officer.... why former? An honorably retired man, or maybe somebody who was drummed out and is nursing a grudge?

Anybody interview the trooper's child?

 

[Makalakumu]

Facts aside for a moment. One good thing that comes out of these stories is that they remind the police to keep their boots off our faces. People are watching and they are going to be held to a higher level of scrutiny given the power society has bestowed upon them. History is chock full of examples when people lost that watchfulness.

 

[Cryozombie]

I wanna know why the 911 tape is being suppressed from the Media if it exonerates the officers? From a PR standpoint, I'd assume the PD would WANT to make it public.

 

[jks9199]

I don't know that I'd be able to make that DWI case; the guy admits drinking inside after he got home, and that would be a major problem in Virginia.

I think that the trooper was wrong to be parked in a fire lane, unless he was working. Doyle admits drinking earlier in the day; he may or may not be intoxicated. The newest witnesses are interesting -- but, as Grydth said, the weight of their testimony is dependent on what they actually could have heard. I also suspect that Doyle was wrong, in that it seems he may well have been driving under the influence.

It's also clear that Doyle had some reason to expect problems; he secured the dogs, called 911, and drank that martini... like he knew what might interfere with a DUI case. Calling 911 when cops show up at your door isn't typical... And, regarding the 911 call, there could be a lot of reasons why it wasn't released. The wordage is simply standard legalese for keeping it... I think it's probably a little premature to jump to conclusions about a coverup.

 

[Carol]

It doesn't sound like the trooper had the gall to just leave his truck in the fire lane and go wandering about the plaza with his daughter in tow.

To me, Dad and child in truck, live parked, in front of a grocery store sounds like Mom was at checkout when Dad agreed to get the car, and daughter followed suit. That happens in my neighborhood on days that end in Y. Fire lanes are typically striped with no accommodation for a pickup/drop-off zone so something as simple as picking up your SO or your parent that's about to leave the store with a cart full of groceries means a technical violation of the law.

Considering the actions that the drunk engaged in after he got home, he certainly sounds adept at manipulating people. Perhaps he was more threatening than simply telling the cop and his daughter to go to blazes.

In the late 1990s Doyle and a woman he was living with separated and she filed a Protection from Abuse order against him through the local courts. He was in court after returning to the property to give the woman back money he had borrowed to get his car fixed -- she had a camera ready when he came on the property with the money and that proof put him before a judge.

 

[Archangel M]

I freely admit to doing the "wait for the wife next to the store" thing myself...for right or wrong...and I admit that I do not ticket others who do unless they were actually "parked" vs simply "standing". Or unless the store called to complain. Even then I just shooed the people off.

 

[jks9199]

I freely admit to doing the "wait for the wife next to the store" thing myself...for right or wrong...and I admit that I do not ticket others who do unless they were actually "parked" vs simply "standing". Or unless the store called to complain. Even then I just shooed the people off.

Oh, I've done it too. I don't deny that. But it doesn't make it right.

I do kind of wonder about the actual discussion at the car... 'Cause if someone had told me I should move, I wouldn't have flashed my badge -- I'd have moved. Somehow, I suspect that the badge was accompanied by advice not to drive...

 

[Tames D]

Somehow, I suspect that the badge was accompanied by advice not to drive...

Possibly, but I suspect that it was a message for Doyle to **** off and mind his own business.

 

[Sukerkin]

Exactly.

I've, as of the past few days, given up trying to put a point of view over that dares to suggest that the mighty 'Thin Blue Line' may be in the wrong about anything but am happy to see that others may see an alternative through the haze.

 

[Archangel M]

Exactly.

I've, as of the past few days, given up trying to put a point of view over that dares to suggest that the mighty 'Thin Blue Line' may be in the wrong about anything but am happy to see that others may see an alternative through the haze.

I can easily recall many of us cops saying that there are bad cops out there and that there are cops that do stupid things (look at the story about the cop fighting over a car stop) so I think you are being a bit melodramatic.

Since most of these stories are already phrased as "look at what the bad cop did", I think that most of us LEO's are simply trying to show what a possible reasonable explination MAY be from a cops perspective since the story is so obviously one sided.

I really don't know what is you you are expecting. Do we have to qualify every post with "I think the cop was wrong"?

 

[jks9199]

I do kind of wonder about the actual discussion at the car... 'Cause if someone had told me I should move, I wouldn't have flashed my badge -- I'd have moved. Somehow, I suspect that the badge was accompanied by advice not to drive...

Possibly, but I suspect that it was a message for Doyle to **** off and mind his own business.

Exactly.

I've, as of the past few days, given up trying to put a point of view over that dares to suggest that the mighty 'Thin Blue Line' may be in the wrong about anything but am happy to see that others may see an alternative through the haze.

Let me explain why I say that I suspect that the conversation wasn't "I'm a cop, I can do what I want, so go take a flying leap."

I'm pretty typical as cops go, and my agency is pretty typical. In fact, at the moment, because of my current assignment, I've got extra-jurisdictional authority that I wouldn't ordinarily. If I'm off duty, with my wife or kid in the car, I'm going to be very careful about what I get myself involved in. After all, if the situation escalates beyond verbal, I have to worry about their safety as well as my own. If I'm off the clock, I'm not carrying all the stuff I usually have; I generally have one form of restraint (a set of regular cuffs or flex cuffs) on me, and one spare magazine, along with my gun. No baton, no OC, no Taser... In short, my intermediate force options are my hands. I don't have body armor. So, while I will act off duty -- I weigh what I'm doing carefully. In all honesty, only a few of my neighbors know what I do for a living. When it comes up somewhere that I don't know the people -- I frequently avoid the specifics and give a general answer like "I work for Blitzentown." In other words, I don't advertise heavily what I do for a living; there are folks who just don't like cops. And folks who don't like this cop in particular.

Now, let's say I'm just doing something mildly stupid like parking in a fire lane while my wife runs in the store. Someone calls me on it... I'm probably going to just move. Maybe do what most people would & say "I'm waiting for my wife; it's just for a minute." If I present my badge & identify myself -- I'm responsible to my agency and have to be ready to answer for what I do. So... let's say a guy goes beyond the "Hey, asshat, you're in a fire lane" routine. I smell alcohol on his breath... and I badge him. Now, I'm responsible for my actions in a way that John Q. Public isn't. I can't necessarily just leave it there. So, before I do something like that, I decide whether it's worth the consequences and hassles.

Now, I've already admitted that the cop was wrong to be in the fire lane. But we only have one, biased side being presented about what happened. I'm not saying that the cops involved were absolutely right. But there are some things that make me suspicious about Doyle. It's absolutely possible that they were dead wrong -- but that means you've got 3 working cops willing to jeopardize their jobs and their families over a fourth cop's bad judgement. Folks, I work with some great people -- but they ain't going to jeopardize their profession and families finances over some stunt I pull. They're not going to risk a false arrest charge or civil suit for something like that. My chief sure ain't going to back me if I'm in the wrong.

Let's look for a moment at who has what to gain here: The cops? Let's start with the off duty guy in the pickup. What did he have to gain? An ego boost in front of his kid... at the risk of civil and criminal action, and destruction of his job? The working cops? Let's give them some benefit of the doubt; they're going on the word of a colleague. OK... so they make an arrest, subjecting themselves to those same professional, criminal, and civil actions. Doyle? He's got the potential for a windfall lawsuit. He's facing criminal charges and, if he's successful, he casts doubt on the credibility of the involved officers.

Obviously, I wasn't there. I don't know what happened. But there's something to think about, huh? If the cops turn out to be in the wrong, they absolutely should be punished. Let me say that again: If the cops were wrong, after a full and fair investigation, they should be disciplined. That may include termination. And Doyle then has every right to sue them, and should be awarded appropriate damages. But -- how do you make right the damage to these officers's reputations if Doyle's wrong? Do they get a sit-down with Obama?