False Arrest Suit

[Shay-Pari'e]

This is the definition of daunting. You guys are ganging up on me but, more significantly, you don't digest anything I say. I'll proceed as best I can. Don't get me wrong, this has been inordinately edifying and I can't remember having this much fun. Alas, I am frustrated and demoralized by your collective lack of comprehension and, ultimately, acceptance of the facts and truth of this case.

I was set to buy a new house and move 3 months after he moved in. I ended up, the day of signing, in the hospital with subsequent surgery. Fate fouled us up. After that the markets. We're moving in three months.

I have petitioned this city to enforce codes against the storage and nuisances of the neighbor/cop's RV's. All code considerations were ENDED in September 2006. He won on all counts and the city allows him to place any and RV's on his property. He won, get it? I know that I have a right to petition my government. You'd think a cop would know, understand and defend that right. In any case that is ALL OVER, COMPLETED, DONE WITH, TERMINATED. That is the source of his adversity. I DO NOTHING TO HIM. PLEASE HEAR ME PEOPLE. He got mad, he stayed mad because he is mad and he can't stop being mad! And he's a "sworn police officer."

What he has done includes the petty - throwing a handful of Crayons at me - and the serious - hit my wife's parked car while attempting to scare her by coming dangerously close. He has trespassed against a court ordered agreement, pounded open my door, yelled, "I'm a cop" and unlawfully detained my daughter's friend whom the responding police would cite much less arrest. He has jumped from his car up into my garage and put his face directly into my wife's face (assault). He tore down my fence, replaced it by city order and caused $1000. of damage. Most recently, he sprayed me with water, disappeared into his house and had his wife call the cops and say I did it (conspiracy to falsely and maliciously indict another for any crime). Hello! This is a "sworn police officer."

I have 17 points of major offenses (with exhibits) thoroughly documented. He can't stop himself. And, by the way, this goes to his potential irrationality on duty.

As I said long ago, this whole event is on the neighbor/cop's security surveillance video. He did not provide and the keystone cops did not obtain this damning (to him) evidence. What's that tell ya? I don't have a video system, though I have very much on hand held video, because I never expected to have to spray water in self defense as I retreated. I never have had any INTENTION of committing an aggressive or illegal act. I let him do it all. And he does. I would dearly love to see the neighbor/cop stop his petty attacks, such as he just now did, washing a ton of mud and debris into my driveway apron since his wife told the DA 3 days ago that she would "rein him (her husband/cop) in on washing the gutter down to them" and with his recently mounted klieg lights on the side of his house and up high, he lights my bedroom windows and the entire side of my house ALL NIGHT LONG. We're lit up like a Christmas here.

Alas, I'm not going to win in a court and I can't possibly win with you guys. What can I say? They let OJ off. You'd let OJ off. OK. Touche! It's challenging and exhilarating. Thanks.

Also, call me stupid, what are C/A's and OP?

These proceedings are closed.

You are mental for bringing up OJ Simpson. This country did not get him off, I do not know one person who thought he was innocent, but now again, you are derailing your own stupid, PATHETIC, MORONIC, thread.

Ok, I think I'm done now.

Silver, I need Rum really bad right now.

 

[>Charlotte<]

That reference was a patent admission that you know what the video would show. It demonstrates clearly that you know the facts but you tell yourself you don't.

See, that statement right there should be enough to convince anyone reading this thread that trying to talk sense into this guy is a waste of time. How many times has it been explained that there is a difference between believing what's on the video, being told what's on the video, or even knowing what's on the video, and the legal requirements to actually obtain the video? CdwJava has patiently (extremely patiently) explained this quite clearly, and in response Johnmelissa says "you know the facts but you tell yourself you don't."

We don't listen, and we refuse to see the facts, and he's frustrated? Wow.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

See, that statement right there should be enough to convince anyone reading this thread that trying to talk sense into this guy is a waste of time. How many times has it been explained that there is a difference between believing what's on the video, being told what's on the video, or even knowing what's on the video, and the legal requirements to actually obtain the video? CdwJava has patiently (extremely patiently) explained this quite clearly, and in response Johnmelissa says "you know the facts but you tell yourself you don't."

We don't listen, and we refuse to see the facts, and he's frustrated? Wow.

I'm frustrated just by reading this, (My choice of course). I still think the pressure washer on him will do wonders. (It will clean off all the cobwebbs, dirt, sidewalk, and driveway also).

 

[Johnmelissa]

Who's Obsession?

This should be the Carl Forum. The rest are vindicative, arrogant and egotistical. Which, when you add it all up equals irrational incoherence. One, apparently, excited wannabe simply cuts and pastes Carl's missives. And girls, go light the candles on your Affimative Action Shrines. You should charge admission, Carl. But we persist in our digression. I can't keep up with you but I'll try to present a few salient counterpoints.

The Chief and the Judge, in the case of a complaint and ex jury, must use their intuition when all else fails. They know the druggies won't show their video because it incriminates them. PERIOD. The jury has rational folks with common sense. Maybe you bring priors in through the back door, or maybe by precedent setting but once those everymen get hold of a lie or attempt to conceal the truth, they'll slice it up like chopped liver.

The cops are fine with me being guilty. How does this work, "we're not gonna obtain that evidence because it's a misdemeanor?" We will know what's on the video tape when we see it. The neighbor/cop's camera is directed precisely where the event took place. I know the system is functioning because he remotely honks vehicle horns at us when he sees us on his system and he is inside. It's like magic, huh? We also know that most systems have recording, most cops have and are familiar with recording and the need for it. This system would be useless 99% of the time if it didn't slow loop 24/7 because much of the time they sleep or vacate the premises. The cops should have at least ASKED for the video. He's a cop and he should have provided it. The cops didn't care if evidence was obtained. On the other hand, I, the accused could have used that evidence. They should have asked for it. What is the responsibility of those charged with evidence gathering?

Without the video it's he and his minor son against my wife, adult daughter and myself.

It looks weak for the suit but I will file the complaint and it will come down to the chief. He won't be able to sit on the fence. He'll have to make a decision to sustain or not and in a "he said she said," he'll be compelled to employ some intuition. That good ole "experience." I'm confident that he'll sustain because I'll reintroduce the entire history, including the complaints that the Chief sustained himself last year. At some point, this is all gonna come back and haunt a cop that thinks he's above decent behavior, enjoys uncommon privilege and is above the law.

Thanks, Carl.

 

[Eekamouse]

So this neighbor just saw you cleaning off your driveway and walked over and blasted yiou with the hose? He didn't say anything and you didn't say anything, he just blasted you with the hose out of the blue and then when you sprayed him back, he ran into his house like a little sissy girl and he hid in a closet while his wife and his son called the police to have you arrested. Hmmmm. Is there any chance of you going next door and giving your neighbor the link to this site so he can come on here and tell us his side of this story? I, for one, would really like to hear his side. People don't just spray their neighbors with the hose out of the blue for absolutely no reason, at least not on my planet. Of course, I live on Earth and they probably do things a little differently on your planet. Maybe you should just let this whole ridiculous episode go and in the future try not to antagonize the man when he's armed and dangerous.

 

[CdwJava]

The Chief and the Judge, in the case of a complaint and ex jury, must use their intuition when all else fails.

They must use the law and the evidence presented. They are not allowed to consider facts not in evidence. And in the case of the Chief he cannot consider a personnel complaint if he cannot assert jurisdiction over the employee. I'm not saying the Chief cannot make the case, only that it will be tough and any discipline will likely result in a lengthy proceeding as the officer challenges any punishment for lack of jurisdiction.

As for the judge, much of what you point out cannot even be brought up. His past acts - inadmissible. His possibly possessing a video that he did not give up voluntarily - largely inadmissible, and likely would have no effect on a judge ... a jury, maybe - but only if they could somehow squeeze it in and somehow infer that it contained incriminating info.

Maybe you bring priors in through the back door, or maybe by precedent setting but once those everymen get hold of a lie or attempt to conceal the truth, they'll slice it up like chopped liver.

You can't bring in priors at all. Unless the other side testifies that he is pure as the driven snow and has never had a sustained complaint could his past be brought up. If he does not testify, then his past cannot be brought up.

But, again, there has to be a court hearing - currently there is no criminal or civil proceeding to move ahead on, so it is simply a theoretical exercise.

The cops are fine with me being guilty. How does this work, "we're not gonna obtain that evidence because it's a misdemeanor?"

No. They're not going to obtain it because state and federal law prohibits them from doing so.

And, no, they are NOT going to spend hours and hours of their time, and the time of the DA and the court to write a warrant for a tape in a low level misdemeanor. They might, but I doubt it. And I know I wouldn't be too keen on my officers spending that much effort on something that is not likely to see the inside of a court one way or the other.

The cops should have at least ASKED for the video.

Perhaps. But, by not asking for it they tend to have weakened their case against you.

As I said, it is a moot point now anyway.

The cops didn't care if evidence was obtained. On the other hand, I, the accused could have used that evidence.

In all honesty, the responding officers probably thought the whole thing was annoying. neighbor disputes are a royal pain, no one is ever happy, and one or both parties behave like cranky toddlers.

If you had been brought to court, your attorney could have sought the video via subpoena.

They should have asked for it. What is the responsibility of those charged with evidence gathering?

They should have, but they didn't. Since it would presumably have been evidence for the prosecution, it only weakened their case against you as all they had was the neighbor's word (and his family's) versus yours (and your family's).

It looks weak for the suit but I will file the complaint and it will come down to the chief. He won't be able to sit on the fence. He'll have to make a decision to sustain or not and in a "he said she said," he'll be compelled to employ some intuition. That good ole "experience."

Actually, a personnel complaint can only be sustained with proof of the allegations. Granted, the proof can be light and can even be circumstantial, but he can't just base it on intuition assuming that the officer probably did it because he did it before. That would be a great way for the Chief and the agency to get their tails handed to them in a lawsuit.

And, the Chief has four choices: Unfounded (no proof that anything happened), Unsubstantiated (something happened, but no wrongdoing or policy violation could be sufficiently demonstrated), Sustained (the accused violation occurred and the officer is liable for the violation), and Exonerated (the action occurred but was within policy).

I'm confident that he'll sustain because I'll reintroduce the entire history, including the complaints that the Chief sustained himself last year.

And if the Chief and the IA investigator have had the proper schooling they will know that the past events don't prove the current complaint.

Once again, I don't support anything the neighbor did. But, it is not likely so clear to everyone else who does not know you or him and only has to look at the scene from the outside. They have you and your claims on one side, and his claims or explanations on the other. By and large, this is generally seen as a civil issue and the cops hate getting in the middle of these.

- Carl

 

[>Charlotte<]

And by the way, the answer to your question? Can you sue for false arrest?

The answer is no, because you weren't falsely arrested.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

This should be the Carl Forum. Yah, I'm sure Carl would love to take this task on, but between arresting and spendinig time with his three boy's, I'm sure this is at the bottom of the list.
The rest are vindicative, arrogant and egotistical. Crayon fights and water hoses fights, only describes you, so therefore your opinion of us really doesn't matter, I mean, look who this statement is comming from, lol. Which, when you add it all up equals irrational incoherence. If we had crayons and a water hose, would that make it more coherant for your little brain? One, apparently, excited wannabe simply cuts and pastes Carl's missives. And girls, go light the candles on your Affimative Action Shrines.I light candles in my bubble bath, and affirmative action has nothing to do with your insane thread. Would you like some bubbles to blow at your neighbor?

You should charge admission, Carl. But we persist in our digression. I can't keep up with you but I'll try to present a few salient counterpoints.

The Chief and the Judge, in the case of a complaint and ex jury, must use their intuition when all else fails. They know the druggies won't show their video because it incriminates them. PERIOD. The jury has rational folks with common sense. Maybe you bring priors in through the back door, or maybe by precedent setting but once those everymen get hold of a lie or attempt to conceal the truth, they'll slice it up like chopped liver.

The cops are fine with me being guilty. How does this work, "we're not gonna obtain that evidence because it's a misdemeanor?" We will know what's on the video tape when we see it. The neighbor/cop's camera is directed precisely where the event took place. I know the system is functioning because he remotely honks vehicle horns at us when he sees us on his system and he is inside. It's like magic, huh? We also know that most systems have recording, most cops have and are familiar with recording and the need for it. This system would be useless 99% of the time if it didn't slow loop 24/7 because much of the time they sleep or vacate the premises. The cops should have at least ASKED for the video. He's a cop and he should have provided it. The cops didn't care if evidence was obtained. On the other hand, I, the accused could have used that evidence. They should have asked for it. What is the responsibility of those charged with evidence gathering?

Without the video it's he and his minor son against my wife, adult daughter and myself.

It looks weak for the suit but I will file the complaint and it will come down to the chief. He won't be able to sit on the fence. He'll have to make a decision to sustain or not and in a "he said she said," he'll be compelled to employ some intuition. That good ole "experience." I'm confident that he'll sustain because I'll reintroduce the entire history, including the complaints that the Chief sustained himself last year. At some point, this is all gonna come back and haunt a cop that thinks he's above decent behavior, enjoys uncommon privilege and is above the law.

Thanks, Carl.

Carl, between me and you,****************************...I'm glad this freak doesn't live in our area.

 

[pixeltwistr]

ok you say no one is understanding this case but I think everyone understands it pretty well
you honestly sound like you are determined to get everyone to agree with you. There is a difference between understanding and agreeing.

[/QUOTE]Also, after 10 seconds of drenching I sprayed back and RETREATED up my driveway into my garage which made further spraying impossible. I sprayed back to counter his attack and enable my escape. I did not join the battle, I endeavored to exit the theater. THAT IS SELF DEFENSE. And Ron, this baby threw a handful of his kids Crayons over the roof at me on my patio. Ron, that was an extremely childish act and he is a policeman. Do you get it, Ron? He is a cop with a psychosis. And a seriously deep one.[/QUOTE]

You keep saying you were defending yourself againts the neighbor. Ok now for one minute PLEASE think about what you are saying PLEASE!!!
The neighbor/cop (we all get that he is a "sworn officer of the law and this seems to be what concerns you most but hey they are people too and some have crappy personalities I have lived next door to a cop who beat his wife every night and never got arrested for it not right but it happens and to stay sane sometimes you gotta let it GO) sprays you with his hose so in self defense you spray him back in order to escape.
Come On!!! Ok I am not a lawyer so not even gonna try to give legal advice but for GOD sakes even I know that the definition of self defense is if you feel you life is in immediate danger then you have the right to defend it...unless you are a cube of sugar your life was not in danger! Your ego yes your life no...you could just have easily just walked into your garage without spraying back!!! I understand that it pissed you off when he sprayed you and that he had no right to do it and that he shouldnt act like that being a cop and I would have been pissed off too....but when you go to court understanding has nothing to do with it...they have to follow the written law period.
You said the reason you happened to have you own hose in your hand is because he wash the debris from his driveway into your driveway and you were trying to clean it....ok....so when you wash the debris out of your drive way...where does it go? into someone elses driveway? My guess would be that you were washing the debris right back into his driveway which is why he started to spray you....you notice I said my guess not I Know you were.
So you say the courts KNOW what is on his video but wont use it...ok how do they KNOW??? and when you go to court and say that you KNOW it is on his video tape dont they ask you how you KNOW? Did you break into his house and watch it? Because then you have a whole new set of charges against you.....I just KNOW does not work in court....they HAVE to get a warrant to get the tape or it is not legal period.
They said they would not prosecute because it is a misdemeanor....YES sorry it is a fact of life that you will have to accept that the courts do not prosecute every single case that comes up. It costs the state tons of money to prosecute cases (or should i say the taxpayers) and there are sooooooo many cases....would you rather they let a child molester go so they can take the time to make your neighbor/cop stop throwing crayons???? They decided that the case was not worth the amount of money it takes to prosecute it. And sorry but personally I agree.
Does that mean that you just have to take the crap from your neighbor/cop?? Well not necessarily but first you have to STOP retaliating (and yes you are retaliating not defending...if hes holding a gun then you are defending) it wont do you any good or get you anywhere. Second stop worrying about his video tape...go get your own and turn everything over to the courts...then they might see it differently. Third talk (nicely not irrationaly) to his commanding officer...make a trip over there and then keep him posted each time your neighbor/cop does something to you(but it is important not to retaliate or you look like a looney too) Third if his commanding oficer isnt interested try internal afairs every department has one i believe. Third try mediation...most courts have mediation programs.
I know you dont want to hear this but if you just ignore him like he aint there he will eventually get bored and stop harrassing you...right now its fun for him!!!

One more thing...if I were you I would stop trying to get them to confiscate his video....for what ever reason your neighbor/cop decided it was necessary to install surveillance equptment...you on the other hand dont seem to be threatened enough to do so your self....when you get to court and his video footage comes up what do you think will be on it??? Lots of picture of you "Defending yourself" and probably no footage of him at all!!!!

Sorry its not what you want to hear...but yes he is an as* and no it is not worth the courts time
pixeltwistr

 

[Johnmelissa]

I'm Wrong and You're Right, Right?

Gotcha. Every injury subordinate to death is not to be defended against. For example, some Neanderthal is beating me senseless, I'm bloody and missing some teeth, and I do nothing. Perhaps that is a time to employ the negotiating skills I learned in sensitivity class? I responded naturally to a threat to my physical safety with like force. Do you also fault me for allowing my eyelids to close and to assume somewhat crouched posture. I believe those responses are involuntary.

Let's back up. I unequivocally guarantee that he sprayed me with water. That is battery. He is a "sworn police officer." In a perfect world, he would have immediately dropped his hose and arrested himself. He did not. He left the scene and conspired with his wife to indict me, maliciously, falsely.

I get your position. A policeman can fill my driveway apron with mud. And an inferior citizen may not wash the gutter? Brilliant. Trust me. This neighbor/cop is a PSYCHO and will not stop. I don't DO ANYTHING. I respond, primarily I clean my property. Are you a "brother?" Is it the cop commandments? Thy neighbor shall have a muddy driveway apron constantly? I don't do it, Brainiac, he does. AND HE WILL NOT STOP. Try this. Oh, great cop please just stop. That don't work.

To reiterate, HE RETALIATED 45 days after having my complaint sustained against him.

To reiterate, no one KNOWS what's on the tape. What we do know is that his system functions. We went all through that. We KNOW that he doesn't want what's on the tape to be seen. This is an indicator of guilt. It is important when considering ALL the evidence. At some point, Judges and Police Chiefs are tipped off the fence. The DA was.

Like I said this is a productive exercise but it is infinite. That is pointless. Go through all this discussion and tell me you think cops should batter people. If the Judge in the TRO against him had listened, he would not ever have sprayed me with water. If his agency had disciplined him meaningfully, he would not have sprayed me with water. In this "he said, she said," It's 3 adults to 1 and a minor on his side. I ask for the video and he hasn't provided it. He retaliates subsequent to 3 sustained complaints.

I'm not sure if I don't want to hear it or you don't want to hear it. Next time someone sprays me with water, I'll be sure to force my eyelids to remain open during the assault since you dictate that I not defend my physical safety. How's that? No reaction, right?

 

[Johnmelissa]

It's All Good, CARL!

Believe it or not, I agree with what you say, Carl. In the main, I am bouncing ideas off of you and I think you know that.

I think you touched on the "back door" possibilities. If he claims to be pristine it comes in. That only says one needs a superior attorney and those are hard to come by.

I was told directly that video is not pursued by the detective in a misdemeanor.

Now that the DA has elected not to file charges and this was termed a "done deal," I will try a complaint with these points: 45 days after complaints were sustained against him and in RETALIATION for said sustained complaints, the neighbor/cop sprayed me with water. He committed CPC 242 Battery. He fled the scene in a CONSPIRACY to maliciously and falsely indict an innocent person for a crime. And he egregiously violated the Police Officer's Code of Ethics which state, "I will keep my personal life UNSULLIED as an example to all."

Retaliation for Sustained Complaints
CPC 242 Battery
Conspiracy to falsely indict
Ethics Violation - Unsullied Personal Life

Gotta go. Thanks.

P.S. TWIMC - That name calling is appropriate and contributory. Kudos.

 

[CdwJava]

Believe it or not, I agree with what you say, Carl. In the main, I am bouncing ideas off of you and I think you know that.

Of course.

I think you touched on the "back door" possibilities. If he claims to be pristine it comes in. That only says one needs a superior attorney and those are hard to come by.

Not really. But, you need a court case to raise them in any event. You don't have one pending at the moment.

I was told directly that video is not pursued by the detective in a misdemeanor.

Common practice. It's a matter of limited resources.

Now that the DA has elected not to file charges and this was termed a "done deal," I will try a complaint with these points:

I presume you mean you will pursue a personnel complaint?

45 days after complaints were sustained against him and in RETALIATION for said sustained complaints, the neighbor/cop sprayed me with water.

Another legal point - "retaliation" requires some proof. Did he say anything to indicate it was due to the prior complaints? "Take this, you rat!" If not, you can still assert in your personnel complaint that this is your belief, or simply that he sprayed you with water without provocation.

The other issue that came to my mind when I was thinking about this is HOW were you sprayed? Did he lift the spray up and hit you? Or were you standing in the driveway when he was hosing off his driveway (into yours or not) and the splash from the ground struck you? THAT would explain why he was not accused of battery and you were. Intent is a requirement of PC 242.

He committed CPC 242 Battery.

As did you. And, apparently, the DA and the local cops do not agree with you as to the determination of a crime.

He fled the scene in a CONSPIRACY to maliciously and falsely indict an innocent person for a crime.

Again, you would be making assumptions for which you have no support only your assumption. Simply stating the facts is sufficient ... he left the yard, his wife called, or whatever the circumstances were. Inferring motive or actions without any PROOF only makes you sound like the fool. When I receive a complaint alleging motive for an action without some kind of support, it immediately brings up questions about the complainant's motivation or perceptions.

And he egregiously violated the Police Officer's Code of Ethics which state, "I will keep my personal life UNSULLIED as an example to all."

Sadly, the Code is not something that most agencies can cite in a personnel complaint. Unless these elements are built into their policies and procedures (and I know of no agency that has them so built in) then they cannot apply it to behavior - particularly off-duty behavior. If I had it my way, officers that step out on their wives and commit adultery would be held to account by the same Code (and a higher one to which I aspire). But, we cannot hold them legally accountable for something so nebulous by legal standards.


- Carl

 

[outonbail]

This system would be useless 99% of the time if it didn't slow loop 24/7 because much of the time they sleep or vacate the premises.

So all this water spraying, crayon tossing, mud slinging and horn honking is happening during the 1 % of the time this neighbor is actually home and awake?

But you're hoping to have him fired because you believe he doesn't deserve to wear a badge?

If he loses his job and can no longer go out on patrol to spray water on the rest of the population that he is supposed to protect, then he would be home the other 99% of the time and have a real good reason to despise you!

Watch out what you wish for, you may just get it!


My last 2 cents:

You sound like the neighbor from Hell, not this neighbor. You're the one calling the police, looking to press charges, calling the zoning department, searching the internet to test your idiotic, self serving theories of how the law should work and now, even though at the hearing you were told this would all stop, you're still planning you're moves to make this guy's life miserable. I believe it is YOU who is the common denominator in all this trouble! Which would explain why the courts haven't awarded you any wins and why the police arrested YOU and why they don't take your petty legal theories and claimed harm serious. You obviously like to argue everything. It doesn't seam to matter to you whether you're correct in your ideas/theories or not. Just as long as you can argue some irrelevant point, your content. I'm also fairly confident that YOU are the reason that this neighbor invested in a video system. But you're arguement, here again only helps to prove to me, how far out there you really are. Because you believe he did it to incriminate himself, while he helps prove your claimed position? But that's not all, you also believe the law should assist YOU, by somehow forcing him to cough up a tape that may not have ever existed. But's that's all right, because if it never existed, you would then want that fact to be used as evidence of his destroying it bwecause it would then hurt you're case.

Trust me on this, you should seriously consider seeking some professional help. Not from a lawyer or the police, but from a psyche doctor. Judging by what you've been posting on this thread, you're the local nut, not you're neighbor!

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

So all this water spraying, crayon tossing, mud slinging and horn honking is happening during the 1 % of the time this neighbor is actually home and awake?

But you're hoping to have him fired because you believe he doesn't deserve to wear a badge?

If he loses his job and can no longer go out on patrol to spray water on the rest of the population that he is supposed to protect, then he would be home the other 99% of the time and have a real good reason to despise you!

Watch out what you wish for, you may just get it!


My last 2 cents:

You sound like the neighbor from Hell, not this neighbor. You're the one calling the police, looking to press charges, calling the zoning department, searching the internet to test your idiotic, self serving theories of how the law should work and now, even though at the hearing you were told this would all stop, you're still planning you're moves to make this guy's life miserable. I believe it is YOU who is the common denominator in all this trouble! Which would explain why the courts haven't awarded you any wins and why the police arrested YOU and why they don't take your petty legal theories and claimed harm serious. You obviously like to argue everything. It doesn't seam to matter to you whether you're correct in your ideas/theories or not. Just as long as you can argue some irrelevant point, your content. I'm also fairly confident that YOU are the reason that this neighbor invested in a video system. But you're arguement, here again only helps to prove to me, how far out there you really are. Because you believe he did it to incriminate himself, while he helps prove your claimed position? But that's not all, you also believe the law should assist YOU, by somehow forcing him to cough up a tape that may not have ever existed. But's that's all right, because if it never existed, you would then want that fact to be used as evidence of his destroying it bwecause it would then hurt you're case.

Trust me on this, you should seriously consider seeking some professional help. Not from a lawyer or the police, but from a psyche doctor. Judging by what you've been posting on this thread, you're the local nut, not you're neighbor!

I think everyone reading this thread shares the exact same thought as you do on this.

 

[Johnmelissa]

Personnel Complaint With Agency

When the complaints were filed and during the investigation the neighbor/cop laid low. After the 3 were sustained he was antagonistic. I, as you point out, don't have truck loads of tangible evidence but I will PRESENT the spraying as RETALIATION. The chief will see the pattern, in my opinion, and will know, intuitively, that it's true. It remains to be seen, what constrains his official response will be.

He sprayed willfully, deliberately and maliciously. He and his son were robustly laughing and enjoying spraying the neighbor. That's my point. It's the Twilight Zone. How does a "sworn police officer" make a conscious decision to spray/batter someone with water?

The DA considered my case and elected not to file charges. We move on to the neighbor/cop's agency's consideration of a complaint against him. 3 adult witnesses say he sprayed/battered me with water. Are you ignoring 3 witnesses?

The neighbor/cop was seen by 3 witnesses and WAS NOT PRESENT when the police arrived thought the time they left. What's that tell you? 3 witnesses are lying or he sprayed told his wife to call and disappeared. 3 witnesses saw him and the police did NOT see him. He's here; he's not here.

I'll try again and here's the nexus. "I will keep my PERSONAL (i.e. off duty) LIFE UNSULLIED as an example to all." Come on. That's clear as a bell. Relations with wives, children, acquaintances and NEIGHBORS. Carl, when this Jekyll and Hyde applied for employment at two local police agencies, they each sent a representative to my door to get my opinion of the "neighbor." They got information on the neighbor/cop from many neighbors. THEY DID NOT HIRE HIM.

Thanks