Knox County Sherriffs Deputy chokes out handcuffed suspect.

[DaveTN]

I don’t know the whole story, but it appears to me deal was struck that lets the Sherriff still say he fired the guy and lets the Deputy have a retirement he earned. Taking his retirement wouldn’t be justified unless he committed a criminal act; not a violation of department policy.

The perp is free to sue the Deputy and the Sheriff’s office if he thinks he can win.

Wasn’t it Knoxville where they let a Judge keep his pension after pleading guilty to official misconduct and then having Federal charges brought? The one that was using illegal pain killers during a big murder trial. I would guess if a deal was struck with this cop it included no criminal charges.

[Oh Shoot]

Dunno what the rules are regarding behavior and pension. If you can be fired for cause and still collect pension under the rules, then so be it. If not, then JJ needs some heat.

 

- OS

[DaveTN]

Dunno what the rules are regarding behavior and pension. If you can be fired for cause and still collect pension under the rules, then so be it. If not, then JJ needs some heat.
 
- OS

I don't have much information on this, but from what little info we do have, the Deputy was fighting the dismissal. Maybe JJ didn’t want to run the risk of having his decision overturned.

If Knoxville County allows a Judge that was committing a felony that caused a family to have to go through a new trial about the murder of their children, and they let him keep his pension, why not a cop that was acting on a suspect resisting?

[Oh Shoot]

I don't have much information on this, but from what little info we do have, the Deputy was fighting the dismissal. Maybe JJ didn’t want to run the risk of having his decision overturned.

If Knoxville County allows a Judge that was committing a felony that caused a family to have to go through a new trial about the murder of their children, and they let him keep his pension, why not a cop that was acting on a suspect resisting?

 

Again, I suppose there are binding policies in place about that. Pensions are basically just contracts, with terms specified. I know there was a flap about Baumgartner (the judge), so dunno if maybe some of the written policies were gray or what.

 

Btw, his shenanigans affected other previous trials too.

 

- OS

[101]

Taking his retirement wouldn’t be justified unless he committed a criminal act; not a violation of department policy.

 

It's good to know that when you have a badge, choking someone isn't aggravated assault or simple assault at the least (which i believe both are criminal acts) in your book.

 

It's funny how two people can see the same thing and think two different things.  I see a human assaulting and commiting a crime under the color of authority.

 

You see......well...something that's not a crime.  

[Chucktshoes]

I don’t know the whole story, but it appears to me deal was struck that lets the Sherriff still say he fired the guy and lets the Deputy have a retirement he earned. Taking his retirement wouldn’t would be wholly justified unless because he committed a criminal act; not a violation of department policy.

The perp victim is free to sue the Deputy and the Sheriff’s office if he thinks he can win.

Wasn’t it Knoxville where they let a Judge keep his pension after pleading guilty to official misconduct and then having Federal charges brought? The one that was using illegal pain killers during a big murder trial. I would guess if a deal was struck with this cop it included no criminal charges.

FTFY. 

[DaveTN]

It's good to know that when you have a badge, choking someone isn't aggravated assault or simple assault at the least (which i believe both are criminal acts) in your book.
 
It's funny how two people can see the same thing and think two different things.  I see a human assaulting and commiting a crime under the color of authority.
 
You see......well...something that's not a crime.

You have no idea what I think. I was commenting on some here claiming choking someone out is a violation of department policy. If it’s a criminal act; charge him. As I understand it this case was given to the DA.

Without seeing video or hearing the interviews of the Officers and witnesses involved I cannot make an intelligent decision. I understand that all we are doing is arm chair quarterbacking and that our opinions mean nothing, but all we have is some pictures with no statements from anyone.

As I said, if it’s a clear cut case of criminal assault the guy will have no problem finding an attorney to take the case.

[Dolomite_supafly]

The deal with the pension was like I said earlier. His "pension" isn't really a pension. It is money HE, the officer saved, into a savings account that the county matched. I believe the county matched up to 6% of his income as it went into the savings account but the officer could put any amount into the account. Now the account could be tied to stock, bonds or a mixture of both. And even if a person committed a criminal act they are entitled to the entirety of that savings account under the old county "retirement" system. Think of it as a 401K because that was basically what it was. How would any of us feel if we got fired and the company you worked for got to keep your 401K?

 

The only time you cannot get the entirety of the account is before you have become fully vested. If you leave after three years, regardless of reason, you are entitled to the full amount in the account but if you leave the department before that time you only receive what you put into the account and the county gets its share back. Because he worked for the country for 22 years he can get the entirety of his savings account back.

 

This is how the old system ran and some, like this officer, were grandfathered in. 5-6 years ago he had to make a choice to either give up his entire savings account, which likely held 100's of thousands in it, for the new system or he could choose to keep what he had. From the article it sounds like he kept what he had which was a smart move on his part because had he went tot the new system and got fired he would have been out the 100" of thousands of dollars in his retirement account. The new system is for those who have no self control and want to spend every red cent they can rather than save. Under the old system it forces officers to save their retirement.

 

Officers that join today get screwed over. They are still required to contribute to the retirement account but if they leave, even a day before their retirement date, they loose all the money they contributed. Under the old system they could at least get the money they contributed back. I think it will lead to corruption and be used as a tool to control officers. Good officers will be afraid to do what is right for fear of loosing their retirement.

[KahrMan]

The deal with the pension was like I said earlier. His "pension" isn't really a pension. It is money HE, the officer saved, into a savings account that the county matched. I believe the county matched up to 6% of his income as it went into the savings account but the officer could put any amount into the account. Now the account could be tied to stock, bonds or a mixture of both. And even if a person committed a criminal act they are entitled to the entirety of that savings account under the old county "retirement" system. Think of it as a 401K because that was basically what it was. How would any of us feel if we got fired and the company you worked for got to keep your 401K?

 

The only time you cannot get the entirety of the account is before you have become fully vested. If you leave after three years, regardless of reason, you are entitled to the full amount in the account but if you leave the department before that time you only receive what you put into the account and the county gets its share back. Because he worked for the country for 22 years he can get the entirety of his savings account back.

 

This is how the old system ran and some, like this officer, were grandfathered in. 5-6 years ago he had to make a choice to either give up his entire savings account, which likely held 100's of thousands in it, for the new system or he could choose to keep what he had. From the article it sounds like he kept what he had which was a smart move on his part because had he went tot the new system and got fired he would have been out the 100" of thousands of dollars in his retirement account. The new system is for those who have no self control and want to spend every red cent they can rather than save. Under the old system it forces officers to save their retirement.

 

Officers that join today get screwed over. They are still required to contribute to the retirement account but if they leave, even a day before their retirement date, they loose all the money they contributed. Under the old system they could at least get the money they contributed back. I think it will lead to corruption and be used as a tool to control officers. Good officers will be afraid to do what is right for fear of loosing their retirement.

 

That makes sense.  If it was not a true pension and more like a 401k that he contributed to, then he should get to keep it.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="KahrMan" post="1149064" timestamp="1400163760"]That makes sense. If it was not a true pension and more like a 401k that he contributed to, then he should get to keep it.[/quote] That.

[101]

You have no idea what I think. I was commenting on some here claiming choking someone out is a violation of department policy. If it’s a criminal act; charge him. As I understand it this case was given to the DA.

Without seeing video or hearing the interviews of the Officers and witnesses involved I cannot make an intelligent decision. I understand that all we are doing is arm chair quarterbacking and that our opinions mean nothing, but all we have is some pictures with no statements from anyone.

As I said, if it’s a clear cut case of criminal assault the guy will have no problem finding an attorney to take the case.

 

I do understand we are arm chairing.  Let's break it down.

 

Two of officers have one man restrained in handcuffs.

Victim does not appear to be resisting physically in any manner.

Third officer approaches from the rear, clearly not in any danger from the already restrained and under control victim.

Third officer begins to choke restrained and physically passive victim to point of becoming unconscious.

 

I am missing the "grey" area that needs to know the whole story leading up to the choking.  The victim was already under control and cooperating therefore the use of force continuum is done.  Even if the victim was verbally running his mouth and being a douche, where in any department in the Country is it OK to choke someone for being a pain in the ass?  Especially after he is already under control?

 

What could we possibly be missing that would make the choking acceptable?  I can't think of any circumstance that would justify choking a restrained person who is not out of control!?

Edited May 15, 2014 by 101

[DaveTN]

I do understand we are arm chairing.  Let's break it down.

 

Two of officers have one man restrained in handcuffs.

Victim does not appear to be resisting physically in any manner.

Third officer approaches from the rear, clearly not in any danger from the already restrained and under control victim.

Third officer begins to choke restrained and physically passive victim to point of becoming unconscious.

 

I am missing the "grey" area that needs to know the whole story leading up to the choking.  The victim was already under control and cooperating therefore the use of force continuum is done.  Even if the victim was verbally running his mouth and being a douche, where in any department in the Country is it OK to choke someone for being a pain in the ass?  Especially after he is already under control?

 

What could we possibly be missing that would make the choking acceptable?  I can't think of any circumstance that would justify choking a restrained person who is not out of control!?

Someone put those pictures together in that little “flip” thing that makes it appear he pulled his hands away and was resisting. But I don’t know. Hindsight being 20/20 he should have been taken to the ground and subdued. However, I have been in that situation and in a split second done something some might think brutal. I was not big on choking or going hands on, I was more into stepping back and using a weapon that would cause more immediate compliance. However, I had a more compassionate fried that use to say “They can’t fight if they can’t breathe”. Pull away or resist and you roll the dice. As I said, if the department has a policy against what the Officer did or if the perp thinks his rights were violated he has recourse.

 

If he was standing there doing what he was told and not resisting being cuffed, and the Officer choked him out for no reason; you are absolutely correct.