PINKERTON VS. COUNTY OF KAUAI, KAUAI PROSECUTORS OFFICE AND MARC E.
GUYOT
|
"In 1981, the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights recommended that all police departments create an early
warning system to identify problem officers, those “who are frequently
the subject of complaints or who demonstrate identifiable patterns of
inappropriate behavior.” |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Police Malfeasances: Police misconduct is impropriety of office, not misuse of authority. It's wrongdoing, the appearance of wrongdoing, or puzzling behavior that violates standards usually set down in departmental policies and procedures, for good reasons, that the employee may or may not be cognizant of. Misconduct is bad because it leaves the public free to speculate and draw sweeping generalizations about the profession of policing as a whole. The different types of misconduct are often classified as follows: Malfeasance -- intentional commission of a prohibited act or intentional unjust performance of some act of which the party had no right (e.g., gratuity, perjury, use of police resources for personal use) Misfeasance -- performance of a duty or act that one is obligated or permitted to do in a manner which is improper, sloppy, or negligent (e.g., report writing, unsafe operation of motor vehicle, aggressively "reprimanding" a citizen, improper searching of arrestees) Nonfeasance -- failure to perform an act which one is obligated to do either by law or directive due to omission or failure to recognize the obligation (e.g., failure to file report, improper stop & frisk, security breach) Police deviance is a much broader term than corruption. It includes all activities which are inconsistent with norms, values, or ethics (from a societal standpoint or even from the police standpoint). A theorem in criminology is that it's always fruitful to study when people not only break society's norms, but the norms of their own social group too. The following definitions may be helpful: Deviance -- behavior inconsistent with norms, values, or ethics Corruption -- forbidden acts involving misuse of office for gain Misconduct -- wrongdoing violations of departmental procedures Favoritism -- unfair "breaks" to friends or relatives (nepotism)
|
1. Asuncion says he did his investigation as thoroughly as he did as thoroughly as he could, made an investigation that showed Mr. Pinkerton needed to be arrested for a certain charge.
Why issue a BOLO if he did an investigation?
Why not go arrest Pinkerton, after all, Asuncion lives three blocks from
Pinkerton, has all his contact information, etc. etc. Asuncion does not
interview witnesses. And his investigation is closed. In his audio
statement, he explains he did a thorough investigation several times.
POLICE REPORTS BELOW
WHEN ASUNCION HAD ME ARRESTED THE SECOND TIME WITHOUT AN ARREST WARRANT DECEMBER 14, 2:30AM, I WAS CHARGED WITH TERRORISTIC THREATENING AND INTIMIDATING A WITNESS; BOTH AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER. (2 FELONIES) HE IS SAYING HE IS THE STATES WITNESS IN THE IMPERSONATING CHARGE. THIS WOULD BE HEARSAY! THIS IS VERY MALICIOUS, MALFEASANCE, AND OBVIOUS THAT SUPERVISING KAUAI POLICE SERGEANTS ALLOW THESE CRIMES AGAINST ME TO CONTINUE. THE SAME SUPERVISING OFFICER FOR THE FIRST TWO ARRESTS WAS THE SAME POLICE SERGEANT WHO THRUST HIS KNEE INTO MY NECK ON THE THIRD ARREST.
CLICKING ON POLICE REPORTS OPENS IN NEW WINDOW
NOTE: Officer Asuncion specifically states I was sitting in an oxidized green colored ford pickup.
DOES THIS LOOK LIKE AN OXIDIZED GREEN FORD RANGER PICKUP?
There are discrepancies in these reports.
For one. I never made a statement. Two, there was no admitting to “IMPRERSONATING AN OFFICER” because I never “IMPERSONATED AN OFFICER”.
Compare reports to the left where it shows “SUSPECTS STATEMENT” with “INVESTIGATION”.
Does owning a Radio Shack Scanner justify me being arrested and charged with this “IMPERSONATED AN OFFICER”.
Officer David Banquel did not even spell my name correctly either.
Why did Drapessa say Miranda rights given verbally by Officer David Banquel via cue card October 24, 2005 but no statement was taken? Drapesa knew David Banquel K01884 did not file a report because Drapessas went first, Banquel should have filed his report first. How could he assume Miranda Rights given verbally via cue card?
Now compare the police reports with the screen capture of the image to the left. Comparing with the other police reports you can determine something is wacky. Does this prove malicious prosecution? What do you think? |
