In an Associated Press article reporter Don Babwin wrote about four Chicago cops who pled guilty on Friday, September 18, to a variety of charges, including "official misconduct." That charge was not a departmental charge of the Chicago Police Department; it was a crime!
Of course, this caused me to wonder to what extent Official Misconduct could be involved, if a law enforcement officer intentionally and slowly pulled into an angular parking place next to a driver in the outlying part of a commercial parking lot, for no good or valid reason whatsoever, parked there for 30 seconds and glared at the other driver, and then backed out and drove away.
On the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission website I found a case involving an Illinois attorney who engaged in the alleged unlicensed practice of law in Iowa. Two of the charges against him were: "...6. engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and 7) engaging in conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute."
This caused me to wonder whether there might a similar law regarding law enforcement personnel. Do you suppose there is an Illinois law that requires law enforcement personnel not to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and not to engage in conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or that brings the law enforcement profession into disrepute?
11 comments:
You're assuming no 'good or valid reason' when you had none yourself. Now its a crime to pull into a parking space 'slowly and intentionally'?
You are seriously deluding yourself if you think you cause the sheriff more than a moments annoyance. Good thing there is no "official misconduct" charge for private citizens-which you are and will be forever-they can act just as stupid as they like!
Gus-it is not illegal to look at someone! Get over it the sheriff looked at you. Did you melt or something?
Gussie you really have to get over this thing. It's really taken over your life.
Suppose you recognize a car in the parking lot and think it is a friend. You pull up to the car look inside at the driver, realize it was not your friend and drive away. This could happen to anyone. It's not a crime, when your Sheriff your not going to want your Deputies wasting there time on calls like that.
Pitor, I love how you guys completely misrepresent what happened. I was there; I know what happened.
Gussie, I apologize If I misrepresented your story. I simply read your report of the situation and took it word for word. You are always complaining how police reports misrepresent the actual situation. I would expect your reports to be 100% accurate and leave nothing to the imagination.
And, had it happened as you described at 7:31PM (9/19/09), not a word would have been written or said about it. The contact was intentional, deliberate and with malice. It was intended to be threatening and warning. Get it now? Pass this along to your lawyer-friend.
Thanks to all the comments here, another word has now come to mind: stalking. A good general explanation of stalking can be read on Wikipedia.
stalking, which is what you should be charged with Gus. I dont know about anybody else, but I have a hard time believing you just happened to be at the outskirts of a parking lot making a phone call and not trying to spy on the Sheriff. You and your merry little band of malcontents
Hey, joe. You da man. You get this week's prize!
I'm parked, making a phone call, and I'm the one who should be charged with stalking, because my magnetic personality overpowered Sheriff Nygren's Tahoe and caused it to slowly drive into the parking space next to me and stop?
That's a great one. That one will keep me laughing all week. Thanks, joe.
"And, had it happened as you described at 7:31PM (9/19/09), not a word would have been written or said about it. The contact was intentional, deliberate and with malice. It was intended to be threatening and warning. Get it now? Pass this along to your lawyer-friend."
What lawyer friend? I am a little confused with your rebuttal? Do you possibly have me confused with another blogger?
Pitor, my apologies. Yes, I thought it was you who had commented about getting an opinion from a lawyer-friend. And I thought it was to this article.
Now I can't find that comment, but it's around here, somewhere.
Pitor, I was thinking of Frank's comment on the "Keeping Contemporaneous Records" article.
Once again, my apologies to you.
Post a Comment