Schenectady Dirty Cop Conviction Reversals Begin
BoB
Schenectady-- Earlier testimony from cop who committed suicide may
have come up
By KIM MARTINEAU, Staff writer
First published: Thursday, May 9, 2002
Prosecutors have agreed to drop a gun charge against a suspected drug
dealer rather than risk having a jury hear about misconduct Officer
William Marhafer may have been involved in months after he found a
revolver in the man's attic.
At the time of his suicide last fall, Marhafer was under investigation
for seizing a machine pistol out of another suspected drug house.
Shrockie Kirk, 24, was convicted of possessing the revolver, along
with statutory rape and drug charges and sentenced to 52 years to life
in prison, but was granted a new trial earlier this year after an
appellate court ruled he had received ineffective counsel.
Prosecutors had wanted to introduce Marhafer's earlier testimony at
Kirk's second trial, but his defense lawyer insisted that if the
testimony came into court, he should be allowed to raise questions
about Marhafer's credibility. Marhafer was cooperating with the FBI's
police corruption probe at the time of his death in October and was
expected to testify against his fellow officer, former Lt. Michael
Hamilton.
Marhafer also was under investigation by District Attorney Bob Carney
for a 1999 arrest he made with his partner, Joseph Zelezniak.
"Obviously, Mr. Marhafer wouldn't be here to explain himself to either
side,'' said Carney. "So clearly it decreased the likelihood of a
conviction on that charge.''
Kirk faced up to seven years in prison on the gun charge. By dropping
the charge, prosecutors also may no longer need to call Hamilton, who
took a statement from Kirk, to testify. Hamilton is scheduled to be
sentenced on federal drug charges May 16 in Utica by U.S. District
Judge David Hurd.
In August 1999, Marhafer and Zelezniak raided a house on Chestnut
Street based on an informant's tip that a group of drug dealers living
there had a gun. But rather than wait to obtain a warrant, they barged
into the house and conducted a search, which turned up a semiautomatic
pistol stashed in a cabinet, sources said. Two men were later
arrested. In their incident report, the officers reported finding the
gun in "plain view.''
At the time of Marhafer's death, Carney was looking into whether the
officers falsified records and should face official misconduct
charges, sources say. He still is trying to get Marhafer's sealed
testimony before the federal grand jury to help in his review of
hundreds of drug and gun cases that may be tainted by illegal police
work. Specifically, he is trying to decide whether the two men
convicted of possessing the pistol should have their misdemeanor
convictions thrown out.
Ken [NY
>DA drops gun charge
Hey, how ya been, Ofr? LTNS. Still on your meds?
Ken (NY)
Vice Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________
http://www.danielfaulkner.com/
for the truth about Mumia Abu-Jamal
No trees were harmed to bring you
this e-Presentation...
Steve Furbish
<cyp...@punk.net> wrote in message
news:zfLC8.7328$Db5.2...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> In nyc.general Ken [NY <bluesgu...@aol.pantscom> wrote:
> # On Thu, 09 May 2002 10:59:18 -0400, BoB <B...@Bobsmail.com> ejaculated:
> #
> # >DA drops gun charge
> #
> # Hey, how ya been, Ofr? LTNS. Still on your meds?
>
> That's the thing to do, Ken Nutjob: make fun of someone
> who has been harassed by the police.
>
> Oh, you are the police.
>
> Nice going.
Mr. Garrow invites ridicule. He's been at it so long he's perfected a
technique.
Steve
mike
Queens Cop Accused of Assault
The Associated Press
May 10, 2002
A New York City policeman who once killed a fleeing drug suspect had
been accused of an unprovoked assault on a Westchester schoolteacher.
Officer Craig Yokemick is charged with third-degree assault for an
attack that left John Richardson of Yorktown with a broken shoulder, a
bruised head and cuts on his arm.
Yorktown police Lt. Anthony Masi said the attack occurred April 26.
Yokemick, who lives in Queens, was parked with a woman at the end of a
street near Richardson’s home. When Richardson, approaching his house,
got out of his car to collect his mail, the off-duty officer allegedly
identified himself as a policeman, punched him in the head, threw him
down, grabbed his throat and threatened to kill him.
Richardson told The Journal News, “I really did think he was going to
kill me. If I didn’t get back in my car, he wasn’t done.”
He noted Yokemick’s license-plate number and called Yorktown police.
It was unclear why Yokemick singled out Richardson or whether the two
men knew each other.
In 1999, a Manhattan grand jury found that Yokemick had used justifiable
force when he threw his police radio at drug suspect Kenneth Banks,
hitting him in the head and killing him. The city reportedly settled a
civil suit brought by Banks’ family for $750,000.
The New York Police Department has suspended Yokemick, an 11-year
veteran, for 30 days from the Queens warrant squad.
Internal Affairs detectives were at his arraignment Thursday night.
Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc.
mike
Kelly Cracks Down on Drunk-Driving Cops
By Sean Gardiner
STAFF WRITER
May 9, 2002, 7:21 PM EDT
From now on, any New York police officer convicted of causing serious
injury or worse while driving drunk, on or off duty, will face immediate
dismissal, according to a directive issued yesterday by Police
Commissioner Ray Kelly.
In addition, the new policy, which came eight days after ex-officer
Joseph Gray was convicted of vehicular manslaughter in the August crash
that killed a pregnant woman and three family members in Brooklyn,
states that other officers found guilty of driving while intoxicated —
with no resulting injuries — could also be fired.
Prior to the resolution of such officers’ court or admnistrative
hearing, each would be placed on probation and subjected to random
breathalyzer tests.
Refusing to submit to tests or failing any one of them would also be
grounds for dismissal, the policy states.
After Kelly released the directive, Al O’Leary, Patrolmen’s Benevolent
Association spokesman, said union president Patrick Lynch “is concerned
about affording the members of the PBA appropriate due process, and
frankly that directive leaves a great deal open to interpretation.”
O’Leary said the union is seeking clarification of certain terms in the
policy that it considers vague.
Kelly defended the wording but declined to detail the meaning of one
phrase about which the union has raised questions — “absent of exigent circumstances.”
The policy says that certain circumstances, which it calls “exigent,” or
urgent, could lead to a convicted officer’s remaining on the job.
The policy also includes a section encouraging officers with drinking
problems to seek help from the department’s confidential counseling
programs.
Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc.
mike
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-ny-velella0509.story
State Sen. Guy Velella: 'I Am Not Guilty'
By Karen Freifeld and Andrew Metz
STAFF WRITERS
May 9, 2002, 7:59 PM EDT
State Sen. Guy Velella, the head of the Bronx Republican Party and a
power in the state GOP, was charged yesterday with taking bribes from
people who
wanted to influence city and state contracts.
Velella, his father, Vincent, sitting in a wheelchair, and three other
defendants pleaded not guilty at their arraignment before State Supreme
Court Justice
Joan Sudolnik in Manhattan.
“For two years, I have lived under a cloud, with rumors and innuendo in
the press. Now, I’ll have a chance to respond to those rumors, to
explain my
actions in court, and be found innocent,” Velella said after his
arraignment. “I absolutely will run for re-election.”
The two-year reference was to published reports that the first search
warrant in the case was executed about two years ago.
In court yesterday, prosecutors said tape recordings in the case filled
three cardboard boxes for each defendant, and said those would be turned
over to the
defense.
First elected to the Senate from a Bronx-Westchester district in 1986,
Velella went on to become the premier broker among Republican
legislators in Albany
in the past decade.
“Clear it with Guy” had for years been the watchword for lobbyists,
contractors and others who sought to influence state agencies and the Republican-led
State Senate.
The indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Robert
Morgenthau charges Velella, his father and two other men with soliciting
and taking a
number of bribes.
It also charges that the owner of a construction company, Finbar
O’Neill, helped launder the bribes, which allegedly went into the
account of a law firm
controlled by the elder Velella.
Morgenthau said the younger Velella was actually a secret partner in the
law firm, and that his father regularly made payments equal to half of
his share,
from the firm to his son, after deducting income taxes.
Also, the elder Velella allegedly wrote checks from the firm’s account
to cover the purchase of furniture for his son’s home and tuition for
his son’s
daughter, his grandchild, according to the indictment.
The senator intervened on behalf of two housing developments in the
Bronx and one in Poughkeepsie, contracts to paint the Verrazano-Narrows
Bridge in
the city and a bridge in Albany, and a social service contract for the
Hunts Point Multi-Service Center, the indictment said.
All his efforts resulted in the contracts gaining approval, the district
attorney said.
Among those indicted was Hector Del Toro, a former vice president of the
State Housing Finance Agency, and Manuel Gonzalez, a consultant to the Hunts
Point agency, which was founded by anti-poverty czar Ramon Velez.
Morgenthau said Gonzalez told an unidentified Senate staffer that
Velella had made telephone calls to “the city” on behalf of the Bronx
agency, and that two
contracts for social services went through about the same time, allowing
the agency to collect an unspecified amount of city funding.
“More than $250,000 in illegal payments was solicited by the defendants
over the course of the conspiracy, which the indictment charges began in
late 1995
and continued until June 2000,” Morgenthau said in a 10-page statement
accompanying the 64-page, 25-count indictment.
Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-Brunswick), a longtime ally of
Velella, sharply criticized the prosecution of his colleague as
politically charged.
“From the start, this investigation has been tainted by leaked
information supposedly from confidential proceedings that was designed
to inflict political
damage,” he said.
“It reached its lowest point in November 2000 on the eve of the general
election, when information was leaked in a determined effort to damage
his election
prospects,” Bruno said in a statement.
“Now coincidentally, another election approaches and these allegations
resurface. Like before, they appear to be politically motivated,” Bruno said.
Gov. George Pataki, a fellow Republican, has said in the past that he
considers Velella a friend, and yesterday Pataki’s spokesman, Michael
McKeon, said that
the indictment was “obviously disappointing.”
“But we have faith that the system will work. We have faith in the
system which includes the presumption of innocence for those accused,”
McKeon said.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) said recently that he
hoped Velella would emerge “innocent” after court proceedings and that
the senator
“is an upstanding citizen.”
Silver’s spokesman, Charles Carrier, said yesterday that the speaker’s
support is unwavering, despite the indictment.
In court yesterday, O’Neill was ordered to post a $10,000 bond because
he had an open criminal complaint against him on an unrelated matter.
The other
defendants were released without bail.
Conviction on the most serious charges of bribery carry a penalty of up
to 15 years in prison.
Staff writer William Murphy contributed to this story.
Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc.
LED
"mike" <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3CDC176D...@nyc.rr.com...
> http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-cops0510.story
>
> Kelly Cracks Down on Drunk-Driving Cops
>
> By Sean Gardiner
> STAFF WRITER
>
not good enough
mike
Absoultley....no NO COPS WILL EVER be busted for DWI.
LED
Least not that we'll ever hear of it......
jan_49
Not true. A sheriff's deputy locally was busted for DWI after driving
erratically on a country road. He'd done no property damage whatsoever and
was only witnessed by another cop. He was summarily fired.
However, a cop I used to date seemed to have a penchant for drinking and
driving. He pushed it a few times while I was with him, but after we broke
up, I heard that he'd been tagged for DWI in another county and it quietly
went away.
A sheriff's deputy in yet another county near here got ripped on New Year's
Eve, 2000, and wiped out a couple of people. He currently sits in jail.
I guess it just depends.
--
Jan
Atheist #2028
"And so, in my State of the - my State of the Union - or state - my
speech to the nation, whatever you want to call it, speech to the
nation - I asked Americans to give 4,000 years - 4,000 hours over the
next - the rest of your life - of service to America. That's what I
asked - 4,000 hours." -- Pres. GW Bush, in CT, April 2002
Ken [NY
ejaculated:
>> # Hey, how ya been, Ofr? LTNS. Still on your meds?
>>
>> That's the thing to do, Ken Nutjob: make fun of someone
>> who has been harassed by the police.
>>
>> Oh, you are the police.
>>
>> Nice going.
>
>Mr. Garrow invites ridicule. He's been at it so long he's perfected a
>technique.
>
>Steve
Paul changed a lot since the below post. He no longer
advocates the cold blooded murder of police officers.
Cyphershit's comment is yet another example of his own
juvenile style of copbashing. All I was doing was kidding and saying
hi to someone, but he saw it as an opportunity for another attack on
someone who used to be in law enforcement.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&selm=3BCA42BF.4806%40hotmail.com
From: - (None_y...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: - Ken is Right about OFR -
Newsgroups: alt.thebird.copwatch
Date: 2001-10-14 19:08:21 PST
INTHEDOGHOUSE wrote:
>
> >Subject: - Ken is Right about OFR -
> >From: - None_y...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 10/14/01 4:28 PM Mountain Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <3BCA0F...@hotmail.com>
> >
> >Ken is absolutely correct. I have in the past made statements that were
> >questionable.
> >
> >To all of the readers I now would like to apologize for those posts.
> >
> >I have given considerable thought to these actions and find them to be
> >in conflict with my intended purpose.
> >
> >There is no joy to be found in the death of any person. My outrage
> >against law enforcement as a whole was intended to pressure changes from
> >within by shaming
> >them.
> >
> >Killing and abusive targeting of people by police will continue to be my
> >area
> >of concern. This does not mean that I condone any killing, by or against
> >police,
> >legal or not.
> >
> >Again, Let me once again apiologize to all the LEOs and their supporters
> >for
> >any pain that I have given to them by my words.
> >
> >I would also like to thank Ken for forcing me to re-examine my beliefs.
> >
> >My goal is not to add to tremendous amount of pain already in society,
> >but
> >to reduce it. If I deviate from this goal, please feel free to point it
> >out.
> >
>
> OFR? Is that you?
Oops, I forgot.
Paul F.Garrow.
Ken (NY)
Vice Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________
Do you know why they call it "PMS"? Because
"Mad Cow Disease" was taken.
Ken [NY
ejaculated:
>> Absoultley....no NO COPS WILL EVER be busted for DWI.
>
>Not true. A sheriff's deputy locally was busted for DWI after driving
>erratically on a country road. He'd done no property damage whatsoever and
>was only witnessed by another cop. He was summarily fired.
>
>However, a cop I used to date seemed to have a penchant for drinking and
>driving. He pushed it a few times while I was with him, but after we broke
>up, I heard that he'd been tagged for DWI in another county and it quietly
>went away.
>
>A sheriff's deputy in yet another county near here got ripped on New Year's
>Eve, 2000, and wiped out a couple of people. He currently sits in jail.
>
>I guess it just depends.
I also guess the idiot you responded to didn't notice this
case:
Gray Verdict GUILTY
New York City - 5/3/2002
WNBC - New York City
A disgraced ex-police officer was convicted of manslaughter Friday for
mowing down a Brooklyn family of four with his minivan after a 12-hour
drinking binge that started in a precinct parking lot.
A Brooklyn jury deliberated for four hours over two days before
announcing its verdict against former officer Joseph Gray, 41, who
admitted drinking as many as 13 beers before the fatal accident on
Aug. 4, 2001.
Ken (NY)
Vice Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________
Do you know why they call it "PMS"? Because
"Mad Cow Disease" was taken.
No trees were harmed to bring you
this e-Presentation...
LED
"Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote in message
news:41bqdukvr7tjdn88e...@4ax.com...
> I also guess the idiot you responded to didn't notice this
> case:
>
not that I SHOULD talk, BUT, you're quite the hostile one lately Ken. What's
wrong, the local paper boy's been flinging the news through yer window
again?
Steve Furbish
"Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote in message
> >technique.
> >
> >Steve
>
> Paul changed a lot since the below post. He no longer
> advocates the cold blooded murder of police officers.
I suppose Paul does indeed deserve some degree of accolade for dropping his
hate-filled calls for violence, but he's still on a mission that invites
ridicule IMHO.
> Cyphershit's comment is yet another example of his own
> juvenile style of copbashing. All I was doing was kidding and saying
> hi to someone, but he saw it as an opportunity for another attack on
> someone who used to be in law enforcement.
I suppose one should never bypass the opportunity for even a weak attack?
Steve
LED
"Steve Furbish" <sfur...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:mDaD8.11224$sg2.2...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net...
that is so admirably diplomatic of you Steve
Steve Furbish
"LED" <le...@nospamnewyorkled.com> wrote in message
news:bXaD8.13841$Vm2.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> that is so admirably diplomatic of you Steve
Thanks. I was pretty sure someone would appreciate it.
Steve
mike
The Drunk Coward Gray actually quit the force.
Now that cops will be almost automatically shitcanned for DWI,
no NYPD cop is going arrent a "fellow officer" no matter how schnockered
he is!
The Colonel
And how many of his fellow officers knew of his drinking while on the
job, but did nothing about it. From all accounts, quite a number of
cops knew this guy did a lot of drinking and driving but never tried
to stop him. Gray is now a disgraced ex-police officer, but there are
plenty of disgraceful cops still on the job that could have prevented
this. The blue wall of silence wracks up another four victims.
Munn
> In nyc.general Ken [NY <bluesgu...@aol.pantscom> wrote:
> # juvenile style of copbashing. All I was doing was kidding and saying
> # hi to someone, but he saw it as an opportunity for another attack on
> # someone who used to be in law enforcement.
>
> No, KKKen, all you did was post with no context,
> meaning you left yourself wide open.
Ken describes himself as "someone who used to be in law enforcement." He
is more than an ex-cop. He sometimes improperly receives messages
(gossip, rumors, even an occasional fact) from personnel of a law
enforcement agency. Ken continues (even after ceasing to be employed as
a cop) to say false things to try to make LEOs look good. Because the the
NYPD contines to send messages to Ken, and because Ken continues to spread
those messages, Ken is still part of the NYPD in a sense, and the NYPD is
legally and financially liable for all Ken does with those messages, IMO.
Ken wrote "Hey, how ya been, Ofr? LTNS. Still on your meds?".
What does "LTNS" mean?
Were Ken's questions and statement to OFR defamation, an invasion of
privacy, outrageous conduct causing extreme emotional distress, or
negligent? Ken's alleged way of kidding and saying "Hi" is likely to be
misunderstood by normal people. People who know the truth and read what
Ken writes might conclude that his statements violate OFR's rights
(regardless of whether those remarks are merely Ken's way of kidding and
saying "Hi").
>
> And your basis for attacking our Mayor and Police Chief
> are admittedly non-existent, so it's silly for you to
> try and lecture anyone about "copbashing".
Ken often writes things that aren't true, and he often uses vulgar
language (for example, his above use of "cybershit").
Why does Ken write so many false, pro-cop things so often? I guess that
he was once paid to do that (although probably not on Usenet) and now
continues to do that for free. Maybe Ken lives alone, doesn't work, and
has no one to talk to.
By the way, many people who were LEOs continue to illegally get messages
(gossip, rumors, facts) of interest from law enforcement agencies after
ceasing to be paid to work in law enforcement. A California lawyer
(William Roth, in or near LA county) got such messages even after he was
no longer a prosecutor.
Is Stephen (Steve) W. Beigel one of Ken's sources?
McQ
"Munn" <z...@ajm.via.t-online.de> wrote in message
news:zz-120502...@192.168.1.34...
>
> > In nyc.general Ken [NY <bluesgu...@aol.pantscom> wrote:
> > # Cyphershit's comment is yet another example of his own
> > # juvenile style of copbashing. All I was doing was kidding and saying
> > # hi to someone, but he saw it as an opportunity for another attack on
> > # someone who used to be in law enforcement.
> >
> > No, KKKen, all you did was post with no context,
> > meaning you left yourself wide open.
>
> Ken describes himself as "someone who used to be in law enforcement." He
> is more than an ex-cop. He sometimes improperly receives messages
> (gossip, rumors, even an occasional fact) from personnel of a law
> enforcement agency. Ken continues (even after ceasing to be employed as
> a cop) to say false things to try to make LEOs look good. Because the the
> NYPD contines to send messages to Ken, and because Ken continues to spread
> those messages, Ken is still part of the NYPD in a sense, and the NYPD is
> legally and financially liable for all Ken does with those messages, IMO.
>
> Ken wrote "Hey, how ya been, Ofr? LTNS. Still on your meds?".
>
> What does "LTNS" mean?
LTNS="long time no see" you dope. So you can put down your "Code Breaking
For Paranoid Momma's Boys" book now.
>
> Were Ken's questions and statement to OFR defamation, an invasion of
> privacy, outrageous conduct causing extreme emotional distress, or
> negligent? Ken's alleged way of kidding and saying "Hi" is likely to be
> misunderstood by normal people.
I somehow doubt that you have any clue about how "normal people" comprehend
things. More importantly, why do you keep referring to OFR as if HE isn't
YOU?
> Ken writes might conclude that his statements violate OFR's rights
> (regardless of whether those remarks are merely Ken's way of kidding and
> saying "Hi").
Then OFR should get a lawyer and sue Ken, and he can sue me too while he is
at it. Good luck finding a lawyer who would take these blockbuster cases.
>
> >
> > And your basis for attacking our Mayor and Police Chief
> > are admittedly non-existent, so it's silly for you to
> > try and lecture anyone about "copbashing".
>
> Ken often writes things that aren't true, and he often uses vulgar
> language (for example, his above use of "cybershit").
>
> Why does Ken write so many false, pro-cop things so often? I guess that
> he was once paid to do that (although probably not on Usenet) and now
> continues to do that for free. Maybe Ken lives alone, doesn't work, and
> has no one to talk to.
Lives alone? Doesn't work? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
>
> By the way, many people who were LEOs continue to illegally get messages
> (gossip, rumors, facts) of interest from law enforcement agencies after
> ceasing to be paid to work in law enforcement. A California lawyer
> (William Roth, in or near LA county) got such messages even after he was
> no longer a prosecutor.
>
> Is Stephen (Steve) W. Beigel one of Ken's sources?
It's Spring. Put down your keyboard and go outside and try to make a
friend. You embarrass yourself here every day. Find a willing woman, rent
one, or inflate your vinyl Goddess and maybe you will loosen up a bit,
assuming you are back on your medication.
Michael Zarlenga
: And how many of his fellow officers knew of his drinking while on the
: job, but did nothing about it. From all accounts, quite a number of
: cops knew this guy did a lot of drinking and driving but never tried
: to stop him. Gray is now a disgraced ex-police officer, but there are
: plenty of disgraceful cops still on the job that could have prevented
: this. The blue wall of silence wracks up another four victims.
It's a terrible shame, isn't it?
Same thing for brutal cops ... many of their coworkers know they're
brutalizing suspects but they turn a blind eye and deaf ear their way
for years.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
A good friend will help you move.
A best friend will help you move a body.
Ken [NY
ejaculated:
>Ken wrote "Hey, how ya been, Ofr? LTNS. Still on your meds?".
>
>What does "LTNS" mean?
Long
Time
No
See
Asshole.
Ken [NY
>In nyc.general Munn <z...@ajm.via.t-online.de> wrote:
>#
># Ken describes himself as "someone who used to be in law enforcement." He
># is more than an ex-cop. He sometimes improperly receives messages
># (gossip, rumors, even an occasional fact) from personnel of a law
># enforcement agency. Ken continues (even after ceasing to be employed as
># a cop) to say false things to try to make LEOs look good. Because the the
># NYPD contines to send messages to Ken, and because Ken continues to spread
># those messages, Ken is still part of the NYPD in a sense, and the NYPD is
># legally and financially liable for all Ken does with those messages, IMO.
>
>Well, no, Ken doesn't like the NYPD and never worked for them.
>
>Previously...
>
>Ken lives on Long Island, retired in September 2000.
>
>Ken's still badass:
>
># I am willing to offer myself (for a reasonable fee) as a bodyguard.
>
>Ken was with the Fifth Precinct in Elmont, NY, and with the
>Nassau County Police Department on Long Island for 32 years.
>
>Born: January 24th, 1942.
>
>So, the old fart is 60 years old.
>
>He loves when dogs try to eat him while jogging.
>
>So much so, he pepper sprays them.
>
>Hopefully the disoriented dogs don't get hit by cars
>when subsequently encountering the street blindly.
>
>Konrad has a number of choo-choo sets, he cherishes them so.
>
>Konrad has had problems with glue involving the choo-choos.
>
>Heh-heh-heh: gluehead Ken Konrad.
This guy is really in outer space.
LED
"Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote in message
>
> Asshole.
I think I'll be chucklin' all evening.....heheheheheh.....
LED
"Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote in message
> >Born: January 24th, 1942.
> >
> >So, the old fart is 60 years old.
> >
Note to self: listen to Mom and respect my elders, listen to Mom and respect
my elders, listen to Mom and respect my elders, listen to Mom and respect my
elders, ;-)
Ken [NY
ejaculated:
Just responding to the KKK copbashers miKKKe and cypher@punKKK
in kind. They flame me, I return fire. They don't flame me, I don't
return fire. What's wrong with that?
Ken [NY
Colonel) ejaculated:
>> Now that cops will be almost automatically shitcanned for DWI,
>> no NYPD cop is going arrent a "fellow officer" no matter how schnockered
>> he is!
>
>
>And how many of his fellow officers knew of his drinking while on the
>job, but did nothing about it. From all accounts, quite a number of
>cops knew this guy did a lot of drinking and driving but never tried
>to stop him. Gray is now a disgraced ex-police officer, but there are
>plenty of disgraceful cops still on the job that could have prevented
>this. The blue wall of silence wracks up another four victims.
The so called "blue wall of silence" resulted in locking him
up and putting him in prison. Nobody mentions that the cops are the
ones who locked him up.
LED
"Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote in message
> Nobody mentions that the cops are the
> ones who locked him up.
errrr, Ken, how long would I last trying to perform a citizen's arrest on a
cop?
Ken [NY
ejaculated:
>
When one of your idiot KKK brothers says that no cop will ever
be busted for DWI, ONE WEEK AFTER POLICE OFFICER GRAY GOT CONVICTED OF
DWI, I have to point that out. Funny you didn't notice that.
Michael Zarlenga
:>And how many of his fellow officers knew of his drinking while on the
:>job, but did nothing about it. From all accounts, quite a number of
:>cops knew this guy did a lot of drinking and driving but never tried
:>to stop him. Gray is now a disgraced ex-police officer, but there are
:>plenty of disgraceful cops still on the job that could have prevented
:>this. The blue wall of silence wracks up another four victims.
: The so called "blue wall of silence" resulted in locking him
: up and putting him in prison. Nobody mentions that the cops are the
: ones who locked him up.
He was locked up IN SPITE of the Blue Wall, not because of it.
He had to kill someone first. Every cop who looked the other way
when he was drunk now has blood on their hands.
The Colonel
> In alt.law-enforcement The Colonel <opressed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : And how many of his fellow officers knew of his drinking while on the
> : job, but did nothing about it. From all accounts, quite a number of
> : cops knew this guy did a lot of drinking and driving but never tried
> : to stop him. Gray is now a disgraced ex-police officer, but there are
> : plenty of disgraceful cops still on the job that could have prevented
> : this. The blue wall of silence wracks up another four victims.
>
> It's a terrible shame, isn't it?
>
> Same thing for brutal cops ... many of their coworkers know they're
> brutalizing suspects but they turn a blind eye and deaf ear their way
> for years.
Like all the NY cops now hailed as heroes were deaf, blind and dumb
while a man was sodomized in a police station. Certainly if all the
experts say a majority of crimes go unreported, even more incidents of
police misconduct go unreported. Kind of hard to file a complaint
against a cop when you know a fellow member of the Blue Wall is going
to do the investigating.
Cyrus Afzali
<bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote:
>On 12 May 2002 03:55:13 -0700, opressed...@hotmail.com (The
>Colonel) ejaculated:
>
>>> Now that cops will be almost automatically shitcanned for DWI,
>>> no NYPD cop is going arrent a "fellow officer" no matter how schnockered
>>> he is!
>>
>>
>>And how many of his fellow officers knew of his drinking while on the
>>job, but did nothing about it. From all accounts, quite a number of
>>cops knew this guy did a lot of drinking and driving but never tried
>>to stop him. Gray is now a disgraced ex-police officer, but there are
>>plenty of disgraceful cops still on the job that could have prevented
>>this. The blue wall of silence wracks up another four victims.
>
> The so called "blue wall of silence" resulted in locking him
>up and putting him in prison. Nobody mentions that the cops are the
>ones who locked him up.
Ken, I hope you've gathered from my postings here that I'm no cop
basher. But I have to take issue with your remark. The blue wall
doesn't really work in a case like Gray's because the crime he
committed was much harder to disguise. After all, people saw him mow
down the Herrera family, so what were they going to do?
And reports said there were some cops that did their best to put a
good face on it by not giving a prompt, unbiased blood alcohol test.
In a case where a cop is going to require a BA level check, they
shouldn't have regular cops doing the testing. They should either
bring in medical professionals, have internal affairs do it, etc.
Lenny Stover
> Same thing for brutal cops ... many of their coworkers know they're
> brutalizing suspects but they turn a blind eye and deaf ear their way
> for years.
Many, Michael? How "many" cops condone brutality?
LED
"Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
news:8mhudu0umphlnefqr...@4ax.com...
>
> Ken, I hope you've gathered from my postings here that I'm no cop
> basher. But I have to take issue with your remark. The blue wall
> doesn't really work in a case like Gray's because the crime he
> committed was much harder to disguise. After all, people saw him mow
> down the Herrera family, so what were they going to do?
>
....and I hope you've gathered Cyrus that every other person is a cop basher
in Ken's eyes.
Cyrus Afzali
wrote:
People in Ken's position are going to be more sensitive to the issue
because they see themselves and the many people practicing their
profession as they're supposed to as unfairly tainted. And I can
understand that.
Things like this depend greatly on the pool you want to draw from.
IOW, either side can trot out evidence that will make their opinion
look valid. The thing is, when cops do their job and nothing goes
wrong, nobody says anything about that because it's not
sensationalistic or exciting.
LED
"Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
> On Mon, 13 May 2002 05:06:14 GMT, "LED" <le...@nospamnewyorkled.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
> >news:8mhudu0umphlnefqr...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Ken, I hope you've gathered from my postings here that I'm no cop
> >> basher. But I have to take issue with your remark. The blue wall
> >> doesn't really work in a case like Gray's because the crime he
> >> committed was much harder to disguise. After all, people saw him mow
> >> down the Herrera family, so what were they going to do?
> >>
> >
> >....and I hope you've gathered Cyrus that every other person is a cop
basher
> >in Ken's eyes.
>
> People in Ken's position are going to be more sensitive to the issue
> because they see themselves and the many people practicing their
> profession as they're supposed to as unfairly tainted. And I can
> understand that.
unfairly tainted? tainted as far as I know means corrupted, contaminated,
soiled. Is that what you meant? or did you mean "unfairly affronted"?
regardless, I know what you're trying to say and I respect it and Ken does
have my sympathies to a point.
But I'd love it if Ken would and could recognize that Cops ARE human! and
not supermen free of error or rather, ERRING.
>
> Things like this depend greatly on the pool you want to draw from.
> IOW, either side can trot out evidence that will make their opinion
> look valid. The thing is, when cops do their job and nothing goes
> wrong, nobody says anything about that because it's not
> sensationalistic or exciting.
We'd have to be saying something about it every single day
then.....actually, it's when cops do something above and beyond the call of
duty that they're recognized......isn't that so?
Cyrus Afzali
wrote:
>
>"Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
>news:dfiuduskr1lb43ups...@4ax.com...
>> Things like this depend greatly on the pool you want to draw from.
>> IOW, either side can trot out evidence that will make their opinion
>> look valid. The thing is, when cops do their job and nothing goes
>> wrong, nobody says anything about that because it's not
>> sensationalistic or exciting.
>
>We'd have to be saying something about it every single day
>then.....actually, it's when cops do something above and beyond the call of
>duty that they're recognized......isn't that so?
Yes, but in the case of cops and many other professions, no one
notices the things they do well on a consistent basis. They only pay
attention to screw-ups. Of course, part of the reason for that is the
ordinary isn't interesting or newsworthy after a while, so you get
situations of the opposite type consistently.
Munn
> # Ken describes himself as "someone who used to be in law enforcement." He
> # is more than an ex-cop. He sometimes improperly receives messages
> # (gossip, rumors, even an occasional fact) from personnel of a law
> # enforcement agency. Ken continues (even after ceasing to be employed as
> # a cop) to say false things to try to make LEOs look good. Because the the
> # NYPD contines to send messages to Ken, and because Ken continues to spread
> # those messages, Ken is still part of the NYPD in a sense, and the NYPD is
> # legally and financially liable for all Ken does with those messages, IMO.
>
> Well, no, Ken doesn't like the NYPD and never worked for them.
Thank you for the correction.
LED
<cyp...@punk.net> wrote in message
news:qcJD8.14819$Db5.4...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> In nyc.general LED <le...@nospamnewyorkled.com> wrote:
> #
> # But I'd love it if Ken would and could recognize that Cops ARE human!
and
> # not supermen free of error or rather, ERRING.
>
> Not while he's wearing his Superman outfit!
>
> http://members.aol.com/roadkill2/superken.jpg
>
> What's he holding, rolling papers? ;-)
Oh Swell! Just when I thought I'd finally get some sleep tonite.......!
Michael Zarlenga
: Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote
Many = more than one. I didn't say most.
Michael Zarlenga
: Yes, but in the case of cops and many other professions, no one
: notices the things they do well on a consistent basis. They only pay
: attention to screw-ups. Of course, part of the reason for that is the
Welcome to the REAL WORLD!
Cyrus Afzali
<zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>In alt.law-enforcement Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>: Yes, but in the case of cops and many other professions, no one
>: notices the things they do well on a consistent basis. They only pay
>: attention to screw-ups. Of course, part of the reason for that is the
>
>Welcome to the REAL WORLD!
Don't know what world you think I'm normally in, but anyway... In the
corporate world, the opinion of masses -- who are sometimes uninformed
-- carries no weight.
mike
"Ken [NY" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 May 2002 15:09:56 GMT, "LED" <le...@nospamnewyorkled.com>
> ejaculated:
>
> >
> >"Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote in message
> >news:41bqdukvr7tjdn88e...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> I also guess the idiot you responded to didn't notice this
> >> case:
> >>
> >
> >not that I SHOULD talk, BUT, you're quite the hostile one lately Ken. What's
> >wrong, the local paper boy's been flinging the news through yer window
> >again?
>
> Just responding to the KKK copbashers miKKKe and cypher@punKKK
> in kind. They flame me, I return fire. They don't flame me, I don't
> return fire. What's wrong with that?
>
KKKen, we all know that you are a "flamer". Please come out! ;-)
mike
"Ken [NY" wrote:
>
> On 12 May 2002 03:55:13 -0700, opressed...@hotmail.com (The
> Colonel) ejaculated:
>
> >> Now that cops will be almost automatically shitcanned for DWI,
> >> no NYPD cop is going arrent a "fellow officer" no matter how schnockered
> >> he is!
> >
> >
> >And how many of his fellow officers knew of his drinking while on the
> >job, but did nothing about it. From all accounts, quite a number of
> >cops knew this guy did a lot of drinking and driving but never tried
> >to stop him. Gray is now a disgraced ex-police officer, but there are
> >plenty of disgraceful cops still on the job that could have prevented
> >this. The blue wall of silence wracks up another four victims.
>
> The so called "blue wall of silence" resulted in locking him
> up and putting him in prison. Nobody mentions that the cops are the
> ones who locked him up.
Pretty hard for "Blue Wall" to cover up FOUR DEAD BODIES.
mike
"Ken [NY" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 May 2002 15:09:56 GMT, "LED" <le...@nospamnewyorkled.com>
> ejaculated:
>
> >
> >"Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote in message
> >news:41bqdukvr7tjdn88e...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> I also guess the idiot you responded to didn't notice this
> >> case:
> >>
> >
> >not that I SHOULD talk, BUT, you're quite the hostile one lately Ken. What's
> >wrong, the local paper boy's been flinging the news through yer window
> >again?
> >
>
> When one of your idiot KKK brothers says that no cop will ever
> be busted for DWI, ONE WEEK AFTER POLICE OFFICER GRAY GOT CONVICTED OF
> DWI, I have to point that out. Funny you didn't notice that.
KKKen, you ignorant slut.
Get the story straight.
After Kelly said that drunk cops whould be shitcanned automatically,
I said that now no cop will ever report another as DWI since they
will lose thier jobs.
This was all AFTER Gray's murders.
Get it straight, KKKen.
mike
Since there is no record of ANY cop turning in a "fellow officer"
for "tuning up" a person, I gues have to say ALL of them.
mike
But they fail time and again to recognize issues and situations
that exist within the department.
Cyrus Afzali
Yes and that's one of the reasons why the CCRB exists, but of course
it's only as effective as the powers that be allowed. It was virtually
useless during Giuliani's days because he limited the information they
got and basically ignored them.
I think the CCRB could help, but I believe the framework around it has
to be strengthened so that it doesn't have to depend on cooperation
from the mayor or cops themselves. If they've got something to worry
about, it's no surprise they won't be sharing it.
Michael Zarlenga
: <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
Don't know what you think the issue is, but anyway ...in the real
world, and that includes the corp world, when someone screws up, it
gets noticed, even if they're otherwise perfect people/employees.
Michael Zarlenga
Be fair ... there are SOME cases, but they are greatly outnumbered
by those cases where only after someone is killed or maimed does a
cop get fingered by other officers.
Steve Furbish
"LED" <le...@nospamnewyorkled.com> wrote in message
news:9ZED8.18108$Vm2.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
That would depend on your own physical abilities and the amount of luck you
carry at any given time...
Steve
Cyrus Afzali
<zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>In alt.law-enforcement Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>: On Mon, 13 May 2002 13:43:32 -0000, Michael Zarlenga
>: <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>
>:>In alt.law-enforcement Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>:>: Yes, but in the case of cops and many other professions, no one
>:>: notices the things they do well on a consistent basis. They only pay
>:>: attention to screw-ups. Of course, part of the reason for that is the
>:>
>:>Welcome to the REAL WORLD!
>
>: Don't know what world you think I'm normally in, but anyway... In the
>: corporate world, the opinion of masses -- who are sometimes uninformed
>: -- carries no weight.
>
>Don't know what you think the issue is, but anyway ...in the real
>world, and that includes the corp world, when someone screws up, it
>gets noticed, even if they're otherwise perfect people/employees.
Have you worked for any large corporation? If you have and have seen
behavior like you describe, I'd love to know about it. I've worked for
the largest media company in the world and I saw countless people
shuffled around rather than canned because, through an act of genius,
they'd managed to move up through the ladder, largely by just sticking
around. Once they got to a certain level, it would have been such a
headache to get rid of them, they just let them float through.
Steve Furbish
> In alt.law-enforcement mike <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> : Lenny Stover wrote:
> :>
> :> Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote
> :> >
> :> > Same thing for brutal cops ... many of their coworkers know they're
> :> > brutalizing suspects but they turn a blind eye and deaf ear their way
> :> > for years.
> :>
> :> Many, Michael? How "many" cops condone brutality?
>
> : Since there is no record of ANY cop turning in a "fellow officer"
> : for "tuning up" a person, I gues have to say ALL of them.
>
> Be fair ... there are SOME cases, but they are greatly outnumbered
> by those cases where only after someone is killed or maimed does a
> cop get fingered by other officers.
Interesting use of the term "fair". Let's see, there are far fewer cases
than you expect to see so there must be cases that are not reported...
Steve
Ken [NY
># >Konrad has a number of choo-choo sets, he cherishes them so.
># >
># >Konrad has had problems with glue involving the choo-choos.
># >
># >Heh-heh-heh: gluehead Ken Konrad.
>#
># This guy is really in outer space.
>
>Ken had a choo-choo train for Christmas! Just like Jesus did...
From: cyp...@punk.net (cyp...@punk.net)
Subject: Re: ANOTHER UNARMED BLACK SHOT DEAD!
Newsgroups: ny.general, ny.politics, nyc.announce, nyc.general,
nyc.politics, alt.government.abuse
Date: 2000/03/25
# Gulianai is white.
On the plus side, he has a lisp
Note: So Cyphershit likes people with lisps. Interesting.
From: cyp...@punk.net (cyp...@punk.net)
Subject: Re: Help make New York a Gay State! Elect Hillary Clinton!
Newsgroups: alt.government.abuse, ny.general, ny.politics,
nyc.announce, nyc.general, nyc.politics
View: Complete Thread (7 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2000/04/04
In nyc.general li...@ork.net wrote:
# In nyc.general Daniel Pi <d...@nycreative.com> wrote:
#
# > Actually Giuliani has done quite a lot for homosexual rights. He
does a
# > press conference in drag annually, too...
#
# And now you are comparing guys who dress up in drag to
homosexuals?
Only those with lisps. ;-)
Note: Again, the lisps turn Cyphercrap on. Hmm. Wonder what
else he is into?
From: cyp...@punk.net (cyp...@punk.net)
Subject: Re: SAN implementation on Sun boxes
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris
View: Complete Thread (5 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-06-14 07:26:48 PST
<snip>
# From: Jim Choate <rav...@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
# Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 09:42:13 -0600
#
# Infants hunger for physical affection; adolescents
# are strongly driven to sexual activity.
Oh! He's a pedo too?
Note: So Cypherprick is interested in pedo's too? A pattern is
forming...
From: cyp...@punk.net (cyp...@punk.net)
Subject: Re: IPSec
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris
View: Complete Thread (11 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-11-20 17:39:15 PST
<snip>
# The Saudi government, which is extremely sensitive about the
# participation of its citizens in the plot, has not granted visas
# to reporters for major U.S. publications to trace the hijackers'
# roots.
Oh, well, thanks a lot.
Now bugger off.
Note: Bugger off? Buggering is another interest of Cyphercunt?
> cyp...@punk.net wrote:
> >>If there were more gay kids, there'd be less suicide and less crime.
> > The other guy wrote:
> >YIKES!
> >Is CypherPuke one of those sick gay pedophiles?
Note: Cypherjerk's pattern is not only forming, it is getting
pretty sick! He is into little boys too!
> cyp...@punk.net wrote:
>Are you 5 years old?
If you look at all of CypherPuke's other posts, he seems to have a
liking for 5 year old boys. And then he tries to NetKKKop everybody on
usenet. What a pathetic life he must live.
<end paste>
Note: Five year old boys? Tsk tsk.
># So that is what all the attention you are paying to my costume
># is all about! Sorry to break this to you, but I am happily married and
># blatently heterosexual.
>
>Not in that Superman costume, you aren't!!!
Note: Cypherweird is the first person I know of who equates a
Superman costume with homosexuality. That speaks volumes about him
that we really didn't need to know.
># I am surprised that none of you have talked about something
># else in the photo, which I have been kidded about in work. You see, I
># didn't even give a thought to what to wear under the costume, so that
># is why I am called Superman at where I used to work.
>
>You do look well preserved for an old fart,
>I'll grant you that.
Note: notice the reverence given to a 60 year old man's body.
I suppose that's better than his usual 5 year old boy victims.
From: Hillary KKKlinton (xer...@yahoo.com)
Subject: "cyp...@punk.net" has intercourse with his rabbits!
Newsgroups: alt.government.abuse, ny.politics, nyc.announce,
nyc.general, nyc.politics
Date: 2002-04-11 02:03:20 PST
We have seen the posts about how this queer little loser freind
(CypherPuke) of Freedom Fighter, and fellow moron loser, Robert
Lederman, has talked about his rabbits. Maybe someday the S.P.C.A.
will come down on him for having perverted sex with his rabbits. Of
course he always fails to mention the gerbles he stuffs up his ass.
mike
Oh, Please Furbish! You don't do the "coy" thing very well.
Cops don't turn in other cops. Period.
Ken [NY
ejaculated:
>Ken describes himself as "someone who used to be in law enforcement." He
>is more than an ex-cop. He sometimes improperly receives messages
>(gossip, rumors, even an occasional fact) from personnel of a law
>enforcement agency. Ken continues (even after ceasing to be employed as
>a cop) to say false things to try to make LEOs look good. Because the the
>NYPD contines to send messages to Ken, and because Ken continues to spread
>those messages, Ken is still part of the NYPD in a sense, and the NYPD is
>legally and financially liable for all Ken does with those messages, IMO.
I was never a member of the NYPD, nor do I personally know
anyone who is or was a member. The only messages I get from the NYPD
are what I read in publications. You ought to do some reading before
displaying your ignorance.
>Ken wrote "Hey, how ya been, Ofr? LTNS. Still on your meds?".
>
>What does "LTNS" mean?
Lessons for newbie Munn:
LTNS = Long Time No See
Here is another for you:
Newbie = someone who has not been involved with the internet long
enough to know what LTNS means.
And another:
Lurk = to read but not post until you are not a newbie anymore and
know what LTNS means. I suggest you take my advice and lurk a bit
before you respond with idiotic references.
Ken [NY
<zarl...@conan.ids.net> ejaculated:
>:>this. The blue wall of silence wracks up another four victims.
>
>: The so called "blue wall of silence" resulted in locking him
>: up and putting him in prison. Nobody mentions that the cops are the
>: ones who locked him up.
>
>He was locked up IN SPITE of the Blue Wall, not because of it.
The usual bullshit spin. Clinton couldn't have said it better.
If there is a blue wall that does not permit the arrest of DWI cops,
then how in hell did he get locked up at the scene by cops? Duh.
>He had to kill someone first. Every cop who looked the other way
>when he was drunk now has blood on their hands.
He was not locked up for DWI until he was caught DWI by the
police at the accident scene. Are you now calling for preemptive
arrests of those who have not committed any crimes yet? The
constitution does not allow it.
Hell, if a cop had arrested you for posession of illicit drugs
before you actually posessed them, you would be screaming bloody
murder, Michael.
Regards,
Ken [NY
ejaculated:
>On Sun, 12 May 2002 21:47:07 -0400, "Ken [NY"
><bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote:
>
>>On 12 May 2002 03:55:13 -0700, opressed...@hotmail.com (The
>>Colonel) ejaculated:
>>
>>>> Now that cops will be almost automatically shitcanned for DWI,
>>>> no NYPD cop is going arrent a "fellow officer" no matter how schnockered
>>>> he is!
>>>
>>>
>>>And how many of his fellow officers knew of his drinking while on the
>>>job, but did nothing about it. From all accounts, quite a number of
>>>cops knew this guy did a lot of drinking and driving but never tried
>>>to stop him. Gray is now a disgraced ex-police officer, but there are
>>>plenty of disgraceful cops still on the job that could have prevented
>>>this. The blue wall of silence wracks up another four victims.
>>
>> The so called "blue wall of silence" resulted in locking him
>>up and putting him in prison. Nobody mentions that the cops are the
>>ones who locked him up.
>
>Ken, I hope you've gathered from my postings here that I'm no cop
>basher. But I have to take issue with your remark. The blue wall
>doesn't really work in a case like Gray's because the crime he
>committed was much harder to disguise. After all, people saw him mow
>down the Herrera family, so what were they going to do?
>
>And reports said there were some cops that did their best to put a
>good face on it by not giving a prompt, unbiased blood alcohol test.
>In a case where a cop is going to require a BA level check, they
>shouldn't have regular cops doing the testing. They should either
>bring in medical professionals, have internal affairs do it, etc.
Police Officer Gray was offered a breathalizer test and took
it within the two hours required by the courts. The results were ruled
admissable by the court and was what convicted him along with what the
cop in charge of the scene witnessed. What is your problem with that?
Also, the breath test was administered by certified
technicians just like for any other DWI suspect. It would not be fair
to have someone not certified administer the test. Who would you
suggest administer it instead of the technicians? Someone who does not
know anything about it? Maybe a PBA representative? An armchair chief?
He got the same treatment by the same techies that any other DWI would
get, which I would think would be fair.
What would you want to happen to him? He was convicted and he
will not see the light of day for years, again, just like any other
first offense convicted DWI.
Ken [NY
>But I'd love it if Ken would and could recognize that Cops ARE human! and
>not supermen free of error or rather, ERRING.
You did not see me defending Gray anymore than I ever defended
that asshole Volpe. I just do not believe that someone should get more
prison time for committing a crime than anyone else just because he is
a cop - and I have the US Constitution to back that up.
Ken [NY
>In nyc.general LED <le...@nospamnewyorkled.com> wrote:
>#
># But I'd love it if Ken would and could recognize that Cops ARE human! and
># not supermen free of error or rather, ERRING.
>
>Not while he's wearing his Superman outfit!
Cyphergoof has a thing about men's bodies. But I guess you all
knew that.
mike
"Ken [NY" wrote:
> Hell, if a cop had arrested you for posession of illicit drugs
> before you actually posessed them, you would be screaming bloody
> murder, Michael.
It happens all the time KKKen.
People are popped for ATTEMPTED POSESSION all the time in
sting operations.
Jesus! KKKen, are you REALLY this dumb?
mike
"Ken [NY" wrote:
>
> Police Officer Gray was offered a breathalizer test and took
> it within the two hours required by the courts.
He was forced to, by a court order.
>The results were ruled
> admissable by the court and was what convicted him along with what the
> cop in charge of the scene witnessed. What is your problem with that?
> Also, the breath test was administered by certified
> technicians just like for any other DWI suspect. It would not be fair
> to have someone not certified administer the test. Who would you
> suggest administer it instead of the technicians? Someone who does not
> know anything about it? Maybe a PBA representative? An armchair chief?
> He got the same treatment by the same techies that any other DWI would
> get, which I would think would be fair.
> What would you want to happen to him? He was convicted and he
> will not see the light of day for years, again, just like any other
> first offense convicted DWI.
Just "like any other" killer of four people, one a pregnant woman?
mike
"Ken [NY" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2002 05:27:00 GMT, "LED" <le...@nospamnewyorkled.com>
> ejaculated:
>
> >But I'd love it if Ken would and could recognize that Cops ARE human! and
> >not supermen free of error or rather, ERRING.
>
> You did not see me defending Gray anymore than I ever defended
> that asshole Volpe. I just do not believe that someone should get more
> prison time for committing a crime than anyone else just because he is
> a cop - and I have the US Constitution to back that up.
But you certainly condone cops getting LESS, don't you?
LED
"Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
Cyrus, why do I get the feeling you're going to tie this in somehow with the
DOT.coms you're always bitching about?.....
oh, and btw, it'd be nice if you stopped talking as if you're the only
person anywhere who's ever worked at a goddamed corporation, big or small.
Ken [NY
>In nyc.general LED <le...@nospamnewyorkled.com> wrote:
>#
># But I'd love it if Ken would and could recognize that Cops ARE human! and
># not supermen free of error or rather, ERRING.
>
>Not while he's wearing his Superman outfit!
>
> http://members.aol.com/roadkill2/superken.jpg
>
>What's he holding, rolling papers? ;-)
What is it about your facination with my cock? I told you
already, Tinkerbell - I am heterosexual, married and not available. Go
scope out the local elementary schools for your next victims.
Michael Zarlenga
:> Be fair ... there are SOME cases, but they are greatly outnumbered
:> by those cases where only after someone is killed or maimed does a
:> cop get fingered by other officers.
: Interesting use of the term "fair". Let's see, there are far fewer cases
: than you expect to see so there must be cases that are not reported...
It's not really that there are fewer that I expect, it's that
there are so many that only come to light after some innocent
suspect is killed or maimed (or raped with a plunger).
Be honest; do you think that was the very first time Volpe was
brutal and at least one other officer saw it?
Michael Zarlenga
:>He was locked up IN SPITE of the Blue Wall, not because of it.
: The usual bullshit spin. Clinton couldn't have said it better.
: If there is a blue wall that does not permit the arrest of DWI cops,
: then how in hell did he get locked up at the scene by cops? Duh.
"Doesn't permit it" are YOUR words.
I would say "usually tries to prevent it."
See the difference?
: He was not locked up for DWI until he was caught DWI by the
: police at the accident scene. Are you now calling for preemptive
So how many times do you think other cops saw him weave, or smelled
the booze on his breath, or heard him slur his words? Never? Maybe
he just started drinking and driving THAT night? Ya think?
Or do ya think that this was probably not the first time he drank
and drove?
What say you, Ken?
Michael Zarlenga
I'd like to see LEOs get double the normal sentence others do. They
get much more protection under the law than others, so they should pay
much higher prices when they break the law.
That's what I would like to see.
Do you agree?
mike
Michael Zarlenga wrote:
>
> In alt.law-enforcement Ken [NY <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote:
> :>He was locked up IN SPITE of the Blue Wall, not because of it.
>
> : The usual bullshit spin. Clinton couldn't have said it better.
> : If there is a blue wall that does not permit the arrest of DWI cops,
> : then how in hell did he get locked up at the scene by cops? Duh.
>
> "Doesn't permit it" are YOUR words.
>
> I would say "usually tries to prevent it."
>
> See the difference?
>
> : He was not locked up for DWI until he was caught DWI by the
> : police at the accident scene. Are you now calling for preemptive
>
> So how many times do you think other cops saw him weave, or smelled
> the booze on his breath, or heard him slur his words? Never? Maybe
> he just started drinking and driving THAT night? Ya think?
>
> Or do ya think that this was probably not the first time he drank
> and drove?
>
> What say you, Ken?
>
Drank, drove on duty with a firearm and made judgment calls.
Yeah the "nobuddy saw nuttin'" mentality.
Nobody RATS on a fellow officer, no matter how drunk he is.
Cyrus Afzali
wrote:
>
>"Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
>news:tn40eu0r08qc41aaq...@4ax.com...
>> Have you worked for any large corporation? If you have and have seen
>> behavior like you describe, I'd love to know about it. I've worked for
>> the largest media company in the world and I saw countless people
>> shuffled around rather than canned because, through an act of genius,
>> they'd managed to move up through the ladder, largely by just sticking
>> around. Once they got to a certain level, it would have been such a
>> headache to get rid of them, they just let them float through.
>>
>
>Cyrus, why do I get the feeling you're going to tie this in somehow with the
>DOT.coms you're always bitching about?.....
It has nothing to do with dot-coms. I don't bitch about them, I was
smart enough to avoid that train wreck. I applaud people who had the
guts to try and make some money off others' stupidity during the
bubble. But it wasn't me.
>
>oh, and btw, it'd be nice if you stopped talking as if you're the only
>person anywhere who's ever worked at a goddamed corporation, big or small.
>
Never said I was. Don't know what caused you to get an inferiority
complex, but it wasn't me. You weren't originally involved in the
conversation, but chose to get involved only to promote more petty
bickering. Kind of sad.
Cyrus Afzali
<bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2002 04:55:04 GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz>
>ejaculated:
>>And reports said there were some cops that did their best to put a
>>good face on it by not giving a prompt, unbiased blood alcohol test.
>>In a case where a cop is going to require a BA level check, they
>>shouldn't have regular cops doing the testing. They should either
>>bring in medical professionals, have internal affairs do it, etc.
>
> Police Officer Gray was offered a breathalizer test and took
>it within the two hours required by the courts. The results were ruled
>admissable by the court and was what convicted him along with what the
>cop in charge of the scene witnessed. What is your problem with that?
I never said I had a problem with that. However, it's now a pretty
solid allegation that's under investigation that several other cops
tried to help Gray pass the breath test.
> Also, the breath test was administered by certified
>technicians just like for any other DWI suspect. It would not be fair
>to have someone not certified administer the test. Who would you
>suggest administer it instead of the technicians? Someone who does not
>know anything about it? Maybe a PBA representative? An armchair chief?
>He got the same treatment by the same techies that any other DWI would
>get, which I would think would be fair.
Funny, any time there's a conflict of interest in private business, an
executive or employee has to recuse themselves. I don't see why this
should be any different. And if you'd read my other post, I was not
proposing "someone who doesn't know anything about it," although I
don't know how much intelligence it takes to read an LED readout.
My proposal would be for a medical representative (e.g. doctor, nurse)
to do it or something similar. They have no vested interest in the
case.
> What would you want to happen to him? He was convicted and he
>will not see the light of day for years, again, just like any other
>first offense convicted DWI.
What?? This is NOT, NOT, NOT like any first offense DWI. This MORON
killed people. This was vehicular homicide in addition to DWI. He was
convicted, and rightly so, because he killed people. The fact you
don't see the distinction between him and any other DWI offender
scares me to no end.
LED
"Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
> On Mon, 13 May 2002 22:59:32 GMT, "LED" <le...@nospamnewyorkled.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
> >news:tn40eu0r08qc41aaq...@4ax.com...
>
> >> Have you worked for any large corporation? If you have and have seen
> >> behavior like you describe, I'd love to know about it. I've worked for
> >> the largest media company in the world and I saw countless people
> >> shuffled around rather than canned because, through an act of genius,
> >> they'd managed to move up through the ladder, largely by just sticking
> >> around. Once they got to a certain level, it would have been such a
> >> headache to get rid of them, they just let them float through.
> >>
> >
> >Cyrus, why do I get the feeling you're going to tie this in somehow with
the
> >DOT.coms you're always bitching about?.....
>
> It has nothing to do with dot-coms. I don't bitch about them, I was
> smart enough to avoid that train wreck. I applaud people who had the
> guts to try and make some money off others' stupidity during the
> bubble. But it wasn't me.
--------------
> >
> >oh, and btw, it'd be nice if you stopped talking as if you're the only
> >person anywhere who's ever worked at a goddamed corporation, big or
small.
> >
> Never said I was. Don't know what caused you to get an inferiority
> complex,
oh and how does that figure?
> You weren't originally involved in the
> conversation, but chose to get involved only to promote more petty
> bickering. Kind of sad.
no moron, in case you haven't noticed most people who ARE normally involved
in this NG ARE involved in this thread.
Cyrus Afzali
wrote:
>
>"Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
>news:54r0eu04960kuvt7l...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 13 May 2002 22:59:32 GMT, "LED" <le...@nospamnewyorkled.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> It has nothing to do with dot-coms. I don't bitch about them, I was
>> smart enough to avoid that train wreck. I applaud people who had the
>> guts to try and make some money off others' stupidity during the
>> bubble. But it wasn't me.
>
>--------------
>
>> >
>> >oh, and btw, it'd be nice if you stopped talking as if you're the only
>> >person anywhere who's ever worked at a goddamed corporation, big or
>small.
>> >
>> Never said I was. Don't know what caused you to get an inferiority
>> complex,
>
>oh and how does that figure?
You bother butting in a discussion of which you weren't a part -- I
wasn't talking to you and really had no interest in doing it. Now, one
has to ask why would a person do that if their contribution was going
to be the type to do nothing but criticize others.
And, oh, by the way, you and others were the once that prompted my
original post about my employment background because you questioned my
credibility. Yet, you've provided nothing to prove you're the least
bit credible. You continue to cowardly hide behind an alias. Sad, sad,
sad. You know, if you can't afford counseling, there are free or
low-cost resources. Please seek them.
>
>> You weren't originally involved in the
>> conversation, but chose to get involved only to promote more petty
>> bickering. Kind of sad.
>
>no moron, in case you haven't noticed most people who ARE normally involved
>in this NG ARE involved in this thread.
Yes, but being involved in a thread is different from responding to a
post by another person only to bicker and belittle. Making a
contribution, regardless of whether it's in agreement or against, is
one thing. Butting in only to criticize is another and it's
completely, utterly pathetic.
Please, for the love of all that's holy, seek help for you and the
others who live in your head.
LED
"Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
> On Tue, 14 May 2002 02:14:46 GMT, "LED" <le...@nospamnewyorkled.com>
> wrote:
>
> You bother butting in a discussion of which you weren't a part
butting in? that's what being on usenet is all about Cyrus, you're not going
to start crying like a babe the way you did the last time are you?
> And, oh, by the way, you and others were the once that prompted my
> original post about my employment background because you questioned my
> credibility.
Funny, I never asked you about your employment background and I don't recall
anyone else doing so either. You see, that was the entire point of my, as
you call it, butting in. You volunteer this information as if you're the all
important OZ. You've done it before. It's your approach Cyrus which is what
I was critiquing (sp?).
> Yet, you've provided nothing to prove you're the least
> bit credible. You continue to cowardly hide behind an alias.
and what alias might you be speaking of?
> Sad, sad,
> sad. You know, if you can't afford counseling, there are free or
> low-cost resources. Please seek them.
If you can't handle it then tune me out. Or start bawling like you did the
last time. Ya' big crybaby.
> >no moron, in case you haven't noticed most people who ARE normally
involved
> >in this NG ARE involved in this thread.
>
> Yes, but being involved in a thread is different from responding to a
> post by another person only to bicker and belittle. Making a
> contribution, regardless of whether it's in agreement or against, is
> one thing. Butting in only to criticize is another and it's
> completely, utterly pathetic.
Again you're showing how much of a big baby you are. If you can't handle the
critiques then too bad. You copped out the last time we had a debate (hello,
I DID say "debate" did I not?) with no need to do so. You couldn't handle it
then anymore than you're able to handle it now. But you're right in as far
as my critiquing of you.
> Please, for the love of all that's holy, seek help for you and the
> others who live in your head.
we're quite happy together, thank you very much.
LED
"Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
btw, we were involved with this very conversation as recently as 1am today
and I was following up by noting your 'bitching'....of course such a thing
wouldn't be obvious to you. You're so taken up with yourself that you'd
never notice.
gosh, I guess that means that I just don't like you period. Duhhhhhhhh.
Cyrus Afzali
wrote:
>
>"Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
>news:i711eug1mjl1kq14f...@4ax.com...
>If you can't handle it then tune me out. Or start bawling like you did the
>last time. Ya' big crybaby.
I chose the former until you can converse intelligently. Wasted time
is never recovered. I take that fact very, very seriously.
>
>> >no moron, in case you haven't noticed most people who ARE normally
>involved
>> >in this NG ARE involved in this thread.
>>
>> Yes, but being involved in a thread is different from responding to a
>> post by another person only to bicker and belittle. Making a
>> contribution, regardless of whether it's in agreement or against, is
>> one thing. Butting in only to criticize is another and it's
>> completely, utterly pathetic.
>
>Again you're showing how much of a big baby you are. If you can't handle the
>critiques then too bad. You copped out the last time we had a debate (hello,
>I DID say "debate" did I not?) with no need to do so. You couldn't handle it
>then anymore than you're able to handle it now. But you're right in as far
>as my critiquing of you.
I'm not a gerbel stupid enough to keep running on a wheel. Debates
that don't involve factual issues aren't debates. That's something you
don't understand. You do nothng but launch attacks. Who has time for
that?
Cyrus Afzali
wrote:
>btw, we were involved with this very conversation as recently as 1am today
>and I was following up by noting your 'bitching'....of course such a thing
>wouldn't be obvious to you. You're so taken up with yourself that you'd
>never notice.
>
>gosh, I guess that means that I just don't like you period. Duhhhhhhhh.
>
I could give two shits whether you like me or not. My life will see no
benefit or detriment to whether an anonymous person on a screen likes
me or not.
What prompted the most recent conversation was a response I made to
Mike Zarlenga. I was not responding to you and generally avoid it. I
have disagreements with many in this group, but I respect a person's
beliefs as long as he can be civil throughout a discussion.
You, on the other hand, apparently lack that ability. Should you
regain it, I'll consider carrying the discussion further, but until
then, I consider it to be a collassal waste of time.
LED
"Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
I never attacked you the last time....and am only attacking you
today.....someone else was busy attacking you...but you couldn't handle his
comments nor could you handle my continued attempt to carry out a
conversation with you.....so you ran.
So are you gerbel stupid? yes, we'll all know when you respond to this post
of mine....you're predictable.
L.B.
Same thing for brutal cops ... many of their coworkers know they're
> :> > brutalizing suspects but they turn a blind eye and deaf ear their way
> :> > for years.
You are right on this one Mike. If anyone gets a chance
watch the movie called "Glass Cage." Talk about
cover ups and thugs. BTW, this is a trie story about the
LAPD.But it happens all over.
L.B.
mike
Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>
> I'm not a gerbel stupid enough to ....
It's "GERBIL", Cy.
Hehehe.........
Cyrus Afzali
Regardless, that crazy exchange was a waste of time and it's time to
move on. I think I've proven I can very well co-exist with people who
disagree with me.
But debating with some people is not worth the investment in time.
Steve Furbish
"mike" <moo...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3CE01ED7...@nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> Steve Furbish wrote:
> > Interesting use of the term "fair". Let's see, there are far fewer cases
> > than you expect to see so there must be cases that are not reported...
> >
>
Likewise.
> Cops don't turn in other cops. Period.
You've already made your unproven assertion. No need to repeat it.
Steve
Steve Furbish
>
>
> "Ken [NY" wrote:
>
> > Hell, if a cop had arrested you for posession of illicit drugs
> > before you actually posessed them, you would be screaming bloody
> > murder, Michael.
>
> It happens all the time KKKen.
>
> People are popped for ATTEMPTED POSESSION all the time in
> sting operations.
I didn't know attempted possession was prosecuted anymore?
> Jesus! KKKen, are you REALLY this dumb?
Pot Kettle Black
Steve
Steve Furbish
<cyp...@punk.net> wrote in message
news:yq_D8.15624$Db5.4...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> Well, that wasn't the best way to counter him.
>
> Trying to buy drugs is illegal. ("attempted possession")
It seems a waste of resources to me, but at least you seem to grasp the
concept?
Steve
Steve Furbish
"Michael Zarlenga" <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote in message
news:ue0moe5...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Doesn't permit it" are YOUR words.
>
> I would say "usually tries to prevent it."
>
> See the difference?
One being absolute, the other merely possible?
> So how many times do you think other cops saw him weave, or smelled
> the booze on his breath, or heard him slur his words? Never? Maybe
> he just started drinking and driving THAT night? Ya think?
I doubt it, but it is possible. And if that were the case then all of your
pretty little aspertions would be erroneously cast, wouldn't they?
> Or do ya think that this was probably not the first time he drank
> and drove?
>
> What say you, Ken?
Another possibility is that he was an efficient closet drunk and managed to
hide it from his peers up to that point. The last DWI course I took they
said that NHTSA estimated that 1 in 10 drivers encountered between 2200 and
0200 have consumed alcohol yet only a small fraction of those folks account
for all arrest made for DWI. DWI enforcement is a specialty and it's
difficult to say the least. Perhaps they should have known there was a
problem, but that's impossible to say for sure based on what's known so far.
It is therefore purely a case of the glass being half empty for you and half
full for Ken at this point.
Steve
Ken [NY
Cypher@Punk's interests:
From: LED (lcerura...@newyorkled.com)
Subject: Re: "cyp...@punk.net" says he is into BUTT-PLUGS.
Note: Into butt-plugs? Ok. Different strokes... <grimace> Then
there is also:
From: cyp...@punk.net (cyp...@punk.net)
Subject: Re: Bullets Flying in NYC -Courtesy of Bloomberg/Kelly
Administration
Newsgroups: nyc.general, alt.law-enforcement
Date: 2002-04-22 13:32:39 PST
<snip>
See the happy dancing penis named Ken Konrad:
http://home.nyc.rr.com/cypherpunk/ken.jpg
Note: I will have to add crude and juvenile dancing penis
cartoons to his list of online interests.
So let's summarize: Cyphergarbage is interested in:
1. men who lisp - especially white men
2. young boys
3. pedophilia
4. a retired cop's penis
5. buggery
6. sex with animals.
7. butt plugs
8. dancing penis cartoons
Quite a list of... er... diverse interests. What a wonderful
NY citizen we have in CypherTinkerbell.
Ken (NY)
Vice Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________
The inherent vice of capitalism is
the unequal sharing of blessings;
the inherent vice of socialism is
the equal sharing of miseries.
- Winston Churchill
Steve Furbish
>
>
> "Ken [NY" wrote:
> >
> > Police Officer Gray was offered a breathalizer test and took
> > it within the two hours required by the courts.
>
> He was forced to, by a court order.
Screwups happen all the time Mike. I don't know the law in NY, but here in
Maine the law requires persons involved in fatal or probable fatal accidents
to provide a blood sample for alcohol testing. We had a local case a short
time ago where a young girl was killed by an individual suspected of drunk
driving. The doctors refused to draw the forced sample absent a court order
even thought the law clearly said they must and an ADA errantly failed to
advise them properly of their obligations. No test and no prosecution were
the result. So far an apology to the victim's family by the ADA is the only
repercussion.
> Just "like any other" killer of four people, one a pregnant woman?
We all have to play by the rules. Were it any other criminal defendant
besides a cop I don't see you complaining when he tries to invoke a possible
right.
Steve
Steve Furbish
> In alt.law-enforcement Ken [NY <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote:
> : What would you want to happen to him? He was convicted and he
>
> I'd like to see LEOs get double the normal sentence others do. They
> get much more protection under the law than others, so they should pay
> much higher prices when they break the law.
>
> That's what I would like to see.
>
> Do you agree?
Nope. I sure don't. They get no special protections in spite of your jealous
notions to the contrary and they certainly do not deserve double sentencing
any more than defense lawyers, judges or doctors do.
Steve
Ken [NY
<zarl...@conan.ids.net> ejaculated:
>In alt.law-enforcement Ken [NY <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote:
>:>He was locked up IN SPITE of the Blue Wall, not because of it.
>
>: The usual bullshit spin. Clinton couldn't have said it better.
>: If there is a blue wall that does not permit the arrest of DWI cops,
>: then how in hell did he get locked up at the scene by cops? Duh.
>
>"Doesn't permit it" are YOUR words.
>
>I would say "usually tries to prevent it."
>
>See the difference?
Sure do. Problem is, that is not what you wrote:
"He was locked up IN SPITE of the Blue Wall, not because of it."
>: He was not locked up for DWI until he was caught DWI by the
>: police at the accident scene. Are you now calling for preemptive
>
>So how many times do you think other cops saw him weave, or smelled
>the booze on his breath, or heard him slur his words? Never? Maybe
>he just started drinking and driving THAT night? Ya think?
>Or do ya think that this was probably not the first time he drank
>and drove?
>
>What say you, Ken?
Until I see evidence to the contrary, I have to go with what
we know for sure, and that is what happened the day of the accident
and arrest. Anyway, did you ever try to get a drunk's keys away from
him or her? Go down to the nearest ginmill this evening and try it on
one of the drunks at the bar. Make sure you are as drunk as he is
first.
The only person that is guilty here is the cop himself. He
knowingly drove drunk and killed innocent people. He was arrested and
now will pay according to the law.
Next you will be trying to blame his family too. Why didn't
his wife take his keys? Why didn't his kids take his keys? What about
his neighbors?
LED
"Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote in message
news:i2d2euobj64gjp936...@4ax.com...
>
> Cypher@Punk's interests:
>
> From: LED (lcerura...@newyorkled.com)
> Subject: Re: "cyp...@punk.net" says he is into BUTT-PLUGS.
>
> Note: Into butt-plugs? Ok. Different strokes... <grimace> Then
> there is also:
>
> From: cyp...@punk.net (cyp...@punk.net)
> Subject: Re: Bullets Flying in NYC -Courtesy of Bloomberg/Kelly
> Administration
> Newsgroups: nyc.general, alt.law-enforcement
> Date: 2002-04-22 13:32:39 PST
> <snip>
> See the happy dancing penis named Ken Konrad:
> http://home.nyc.rr.com/cypherpunk/ken.jpg
>
> Note: I will have to add crude and juvenile dancing penis
> cartoons to his list of online interests.
hahahahaha.....Dancing penis cartoon.......
btw, if you're looking to mess with Cypher, then why did you include the
link to that picture? I mean, that is a picture of you, isn't it?
also, I'm no expert, but did you attribute this post correctly?
Steve Furbish
> In alt.law-enforcement Steve Furbish <sfur...@gmx.net> wrote:
> :> Be fair ... there are SOME cases, but they are greatly outnumbered
> :> by those cases where only after someone is killed or maimed does a
> :> cop get fingered by other officers.
>
> : Interesting use of the term "fair". Let's see, there are far fewer cases
> : than you expect to see so there must be cases that are not reported...
>
> It's not really that there are fewer that I expect, it's that
> there are so many that only come to light after some innocent
> suspect is killed or maimed (or raped with a plunger).
What do you call that tactic Mike? Changing crimes in mid stream to suit
your purpose is at best misleading, don't you think? One minute we're on DWI
cops and the next it's back to plungers at the stationhouse. Do you know how
many times I heard Rodney King screamed at me just because the person I was
arresting was black? I've never even been to LA, but the best they could do
was use some incident that was totally unrelated to what I was doing to
create an uncomfortable distraction. Fair is using the facts at hand and not
extrapolating from thin air.
> Be honest; do you think that was the very first time Volpe was
> brutal and at least one other officer saw it?
Probably not, but was he DWI? Was it ever reported? The question itself
suggests an answer, doesn't it?
Steve
Ken [NY
># >Not while he's wearing his Superman outfit!
>#
># Cyphergoof has a thing about men's bodies. But I guess you all
># knew that.
>
>No, I just always remember some comedian goofing on the "manly" outfit
>Superman has...wearing his underpants on the outside.
>
>And putting up a picture of yourself wearing it, and a photo of
>yourself jogging with three women behind your pace ("Proof that
>women chase me.") indicates that you have a "thing" for exhibiting
>your own body.
I am not ashamed of my body. One picture was of me in a 5k
race wearing running shorts. Everybody wears running shorts in races.
I wore tights in high school football too, just like all football
players do. So what?
But what I really wonder about are all the homosexual
references and commenting on the size of my penis. That's just weird!
>That's what's getting commented on.
>
> You look most at ease in the Giant Pink Penis costume.
There ya go again, Tinkerbell. Penis penis penis... like a
broken record. If you like flogging your monkey while drawing penis
cartoons with grown men's faces pasted over it, you are one pretty
sick individual.
Ken [NY
ejaculated:
>>> You weren't originally involved in the
>>> conversation, but chose to get involved only to promote more petty
>>> bickering. Kind of sad.
>>
>>no moron, in case you haven't noticed most people who ARE normally involved
>>in this NG ARE involved in this thread.
>
>Yes, but being involved in a thread is different from responding to a
>post by another person only to bicker and belittle.
I'm sure by now that you can see where you screwed up when you
announced that you were not a cop-basher. That was about when he began
to flame you. Welcome to the club.
Ken [NY
>
>
>Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not a gerbel stupid enough to ....
>
>It's "GERBIL", Cy.
From an expert on the topic.
Ken [NY
ejaculated:
>
>
>"Ken [NY" wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 13 May 2002 05:27:00 GMT, "LED" <le...@nospamnewyorkled.com>
>> ejaculated:
>>
>> >But I'd love it if Ken would and could recognize that Cops ARE human! and
>> >not supermen free of error or rather, ERRING.
>>
>> You did not see me defending Gray anymore than I ever defended
>> that asshole Volpe. I just do not believe that someone should get more
>> prison time for committing a crime than anyone else just because he is
>> a cop - and I have the US Constitution to back that up.
>
>But you certainly condone cops getting LESS, don't you?
No, you stupid ass. When the hell did I write anything like
that?
Ken [NY
ejaculated:
>> Police Officer Gray was offered a breathalizer test and took
>> it within the two hours required by the courts.
>
>He was forced to, by a court order.
Wrong, bird brain. He was given the offer and accepted it,
figuring he had nothing to lose. Why do you make all that shit up?
Ken [NY
<zarl...@conan.ids.net> ejaculated:
>In alt.law-enforcement Ken [NY <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote:
>: What would you want to happen to him? He was convicted and he
>
>I'd like to see LEOs get double the normal sentence others do.
So much for your fairness. I hope every citizen gets equal
treatment under the law.
Phil
> Were Ken's questions and statement to OFR defamation, an invasion of
> privacy, outrageous conduct causing extreme emotional distress, or
> negligent? Ken's alleged way of kidding and saying "Hi" is likely to be
> misunderstood by normal people. People who know the truth and read what
> Ken writes might conclude that his statements violate OFR's rights
> (regardless of whether those remarks are merely Ken's way of kidding and
> saying "Hi").
I recall OFR printing up the names, addresses and phone numbers of
police officers in usenet. I guess this isn't an invasion of privacy
and doesn't cause emmotional distress. Hell, the son-of-a-bitch even
did it with me, posting everything everything he could about me. Some
of it was wrong and some of it was out of date. Working under the
assumption he knew what he was doing, he had no problem doing it.
Phil
========
visit the New York City Homebrewers Guild website:
http://www.pipeline.com/~dogglebe/nychg.html
Ken [NY
ejaculated:
>On Mon, 13 May 2002 16:36:38 -0400, "Ken [NY"
><bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 May 2002 04:55:04 GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz>
>>ejaculated:
>
>>>And reports said there were some cops that did their best to put a
>>>good face on it by not giving a prompt, unbiased blood alcohol test.
>>>In a case where a cop is going to require a BA level check, they
>>>shouldn't have regular cops doing the testing. They should either
>>>bring in medical professionals, have internal affairs do it, etc.
>>
>> Police Officer Gray was offered a breathalizer test and took
>>it within the two hours required by the courts. The results were ruled
>>admissable by the court and was what convicted him along with what the
>>cop in charge of the scene witnessed. What is your problem with that?
>
>I never said I had a problem with that. However, it's now a pretty
>solid allegation that's under investigation that several other cops
>tried to help Gray pass the breath test.
The world abounds with "Solid allegations". I even heard that
the Mayor bombed the WTC. If you mean his fellow officers offered him
legal advice, that is perfectly legal. That is what his union
representatives and lawyer are paid to do.
>> Also, the breath test was administered by certified
>>technicians just like for any other DWI suspect. It would not be fair
>>to have someone not certified administer the test. Who would you
>>suggest administer it instead of the technicians? Someone who does not
>>know anything about it? Maybe a PBA representative? An armchair chief?
>>He got the same treatment by the same techies that any other DWI would
>>get, which I would think would be fair.
>
>Funny, any time there's a conflict of interest in private business, an
>executive or employee has to recuse themselves. I don't see why this
>should be any different. And if you'd read my other post, I was not
>proposing "someone who doesn't know anything about it," although I
>don't know how much intelligence it takes to read an LED readout.
I suggest strongly that you research the science first, then
comment. I am sure that it does not take much intelligence to read a
thermometer either, but medical science is more involved than that.
>My proposal would be for a medical representative (e.g. doctor, nurse)
>to do it or something similar. They have no vested interest in the
>case.
Once more, he was offered a breathalizer test pursuant to
state law and he accepted it. Are you seriously suggesting that a
nurse be brought to central testing to learn how to calibrate a
machine she never saw before, administer the test and later testify in
court as an expert? He would have gotten off easily.
>> What would you want to happen to him? He was convicted and he
>>will not see the light of day for years, again, just like any other
>>first offense convicted DWI.
>
>What?? This is NOT, NOT, NOT like any first offense DWI. This MORON
>killed people. This was vehicular homicide in addition to DWI. He was
>convicted, and rightly so, because he killed people. The fact you
>don't see the distinction between him and any other DWI offender
>scares me to no end.
Ok, correction: He was convicted of DWI and vehicular
manslaughter and he will not see the light of day for years, again,
just like any other person convicted of first offense DWI/vehicular
manslaughter. Mike Zarlenga doesn't think that is enough and he should
get twice the time because of his former profession.
Regards,
Ken [NY
>KKKen, are you losing it, or what?
No way I take advice or comments from Tinkerbell.