Previous Post
Next Post

"Police Chief Howard Jordan jokes with the graduates of the 166th Basic Academy as they take a group photo at the end of the ceremony at the Scottish Rite Temple in Oakland, Calif., on Friday, March 22, 2013." (caption and photo courtesy

“Officer Kevin Kelly, 24, [somewhere in the photo above] was cited by San Francisco police and released for allegedly showing a gun to a server in an attempt to impress her about 2:40 a.m. Sunday at the 24-hour IHOP Restaurant at 2299 Lombard St. in the city’s Marina District,” reports, stuffing as much fail as possible into a single sentence. Unfortunately, a single sentence just isn’t enough to git ‘er done . . .

Apparently, a young lady he was talking to, it appeared that he was trying to impress her by letting her know he was a police officer,” said San Francisco police Sgt. Eric O’Neal, a department spokesman. “He brandished a gun. He briefly pointed it in her direction and he pointed the weapon in an upward position, pointing it at the ceiling of the restaurant. That caused the young lady some concern, enough to call SFPD officers.”

I reckon the only reason you’re reading any of this is because Officer Kelly was an Oakland PD cop on San Francisco PD territory. If, for example, Officer Kevin Kelly had decided to impress the IHOP waitrode at 2:40 a.m. in Oakland, the responding officers would have smoothed over the waitstaff’s annoyance at having a gun “briefly pointed” in her direction by an inebriated member of their team. Just a thought.

Here’s another one: brandishing is only brandishing if you’re being mean about it. And working for the police means never having to take a breathalyzer test unless the responding officers can’t possibly avoid it.

Kelly, a Marine Corps veteran, told officers that he had been drinking Saturday night. “It was unknown what level of consumption the off-duty officer had,” O’Neal said.

San Francisco police seized Kelly’s gun, which was not issued by Oakland police, as evidence, O’Neal said.

Kelly’s attorney, Harry Stern, said Friday, “Based on the facts that I know, it sounds like a youthful indiscretion. I don’t see how, under any stretch of the imagination, the crime of brandishing has been committed, which requires the weapon to be displayed in an angry, threatening manner.”

Do I need to say it? If a non-LEO civilian had been the one doing the gun waving thing the cops would have come down on him like a proverbial ton of bricks. Kelly? Not so much.

“Kelly is on paid administrative leave, said Officer Johnna Watson, an Oakland police spokeswoman, pending investigations by San Francisco police and Oakland police internal affairs.

Kelly is one of 38 officers who graduated in March 2013 from the department’s first academy in four years. Kelly’s father, Jim Kelly, is a San Francisco police inspector who pinned his son’s badge at a ceremony at the Scottish Rite Temple near Oakland’s Lake Merritt.

I’m so glad reporter Henry K. Lee added that bit at the end. Otherwise I would think Officer Kelly was a FLAME DELETED who needed immediate suspension, along with any brother officer who tried to cover his tracks.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Good to know that even in San Fransisco, pointing a gun towards a prospective spouse is a social faux pas.

    • Lived in the Bay Area for four years. Worked in downtown San Fran, lived in Hayward, friends in Oakland.

      You would have to be an idiot to believe that in Liberal/Progressive San Francisco showing a female person a pistol, unless you already knew here VERY well, would be a way to break the ice. San Francisco is most likely the hoplophobe capital of California.

      • Tell me, my socially-inept friend, where would be a good city to display a pistol to a waitress as a way of impressing her and therefore, getting her to want to go out with you?

        • Alabama, but it better be bigger and cooler than hers… the laughter will ensue if your mousegun is not impressive…. Part of the reason SYG laws are so popular in the south here is because it takes us soooo long to say STAAAAHHHHP…. /humor off

  2. “Based on the facts that I know, it sounds like a youthful indiscretion. I don’t see how, under any stretch of the imagination, the crime of brandishing has been committed, which requires the weapon to be displayed in an angry, threatening manner.”

    You gotta be kidding me…

  3. What, showing a badge or city id wouldn’t have done to prove you’re a cop? Wonder how drunk he was and whether he drove himself there. Course, successful driving in San Francisco is probably enhanced by alcohol.

  4. Robert, you have written some good stuff over the years, but your recent rash of anti-cop rants are getting old.

    CA penal code for brandishing a gun, PC 417(a)(2), specifically states “Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel is punishable as follows:…”

    By the description you personally listed above, his actions clearly do not meet the definition of the crime. Is his behavior problematic? Damn right it is, and he has been removed from duty while it is being investigated.

    Let the cop hating go a bit.

    • i got a different vibe from it. i think its not hatred for cops, but for hypocrisy and double standards.

      • EXACTLY.

        Hell, even with my CA issued CCW permit San Francisco has been public about how they do not want anyone carrying in their city and they prohibit the act. State law trumps that but either way they would hassle the shit out of me even if someone just spotted it printing. I can’t imagine if I waved it around.

    • and the po-po would allege that a non police officer was acting in a threatening manner. Perhaps you should try it out to see if you get the professional courtesy?

    • You honestly believe that a civilian gun owner would not be going to jail and his guns taken away or would not need ten of thousands of dollars to clear himself?

      I do not care how the law reads, it is applied differently depending if you are a cop or a civilian.

      The point of the story is the double standard. It is not anti-cop its about the double standard. If civilian would go to jail for the same gun offence, then so too should the cop. If civilian would loose his gun permit, then guess what, when off duty he does not get to carry either.

      If the law was consistently applied the same, this post would not even exist and this would be a non-story. Because as we often see, there is a double standard which is why RF posts these stories.

      Cops often have a shit job dealing with a lot BS and needing to a lot of crap follow up work and also dealing with the dregs of society — it is a difficult often thankless job. However, when they screw up, they should not always get a pass.

      If you believe cops are human and makes mistakes, great, civilian gun owners are humans too and they sometimes make mistakes and should be afforded the same opportunity to make a mistake and be given a pass too. The problem is, the law comes down much harder on John-Q-Public when guns are involved.

      That is the point of these posts.

        • Correct. If you’re not drawing a paycheck from DoD and subject to the UCMJ, then you are a civilian.
          I believe the word you meant to use was “citizen.”

          So if he wasn’t “brandishing”, isn’t pointing a firearm at someone “Assault with a deadly weapon”?

    • Umm, would you not say it is rude (which happens to fit the “draws and displays in a rude manner” part) to point a firearm at someone for no reason? Please mind your manners, sir

      • I’d say so. I’d also say that is threatening and, as I understand the law, constitutes an assault. You could easily rewrite the post from the waitress’s position as “It Should Have Been A Defensive Gun Use: IHOP Waitress Edition”

    • Why don’t you try engaging in similar behavior – without LEO credentials – in San Francisco, and see where that gets you.

    • You can be damn sure John Q Public would have been given an anal probing at HQ by interpreting his actions as rude…

      1. discourteous or impolite, especially in a deliberate way
      2. rough in manners or behavior; unmannerly; uncouth.

    • His actions clearly DO meet the criteria of a crime! He was (allegedly) drunk, pulled out a weapon that was not a service issue and pointed it at a person inside a private business establishment and it scared the woman enough to call the police! That’s a crime anywhere. The only reason he got away with it was because his dad is a SF officer.
      This is not anti-cop, it’s anti-illegal and plain bad behavior. Police officers are supposed to be held to a higher standard than civilians; they also state that by being allowed different weapons and behaviors like driving while typing on a lap top computer because they are “highly trained”.
      Guys like this fool give all the good officers a bad name and I would like to think that the good officers, which do vastly outnumber the bad, want people like this off the force.

    • Cop Hating means all cops. This is one individual. He should be in jail. He should have been forced to take a breathalyzer, and if there was any justice he should be fired and no longer able to work in law enforcement. You might quit the cop worshiping. This guy is a turd. He is no hero.

      • The only crime he committed was trusting a woman. No evidence he was intoxicated. She asked to see his weapon and he foolishly showed it to her. That’s not a crime. I’m not a big fan of cops or alcohol but what I’m really not a fan of are women who destroy men’s lives for kicks. Yeah he’s probably a douchbag but he’s not a criminal and doesn’t deserve to lose everything over this. Being an idiot is not a punishable offence. I wouldn’t believe for a second that this waitress felt she was being threatened.

    • I don’t see it as Farago cop hating, but rather double-standard hating. And besides, it’s not like he made anything up, he merely reported the facts of the matter.

    • Having a gun pointed at me or even in my general direction would be a “threatening maner” to me and anyone else with a brain stem. Especially if that person was under the influence. No cop hating going on here, just common sense.

    • Possessing a firearm in public while intoxicated is inherently dangerous. Ipso facto, law boy. Proceeding to present the firearm while intoxicated only further proves the danger involved, as the gross lack of judgment is on display for all to see. That qualifies under this statute as brandishing.

      I know, I know “Where’s the proof he was intoxicated?!” Being alone in the middle of the night at IHOP hitting on the waitress is pretty strong evidence all by itself (were it Waffle House this would be an open and shut case), but you tell me: where’s the Breathalyzer result? Exactly. Blow off the blow test and their comrade-in-crime gets to sleep off the evidence. Curious, that.

      I don’t find an anti-cop motif among Fargo’s TTAG posts. The posts reflect an “I calls ’em like I sees ’em” stance, which is fully disclosed in the very name of this website. Now, I do detect an undercurrent of pro-police apologia in your comments, but so what? Substantially fewer than 2 million unique visitors would land on The Truth About Anything-You-Have-To-Say blog, anyway.

    • I’d like to know in what world intentionally pointing a gun at someone isn’t considered both rude and threatening?

      Also, as others have noted, it’s about the double standard. If you think for a minute this would have ended without arrest for a non LEO you’re a fool.

    • Why not? This appears to be a standard response for this kind of behavior. How do you know ole’ Jim didn’t do something equally “youthfully indiscreet” back in his day?

      • How do you think he got Mama Kelly to lie still long enough for him to shoot his defective seed and produce this lil piggie of his?

        • Eric, it was not nearly even remotely close to being crass enough. There is an upper limit, but this is certainly not it.

        • Wow. Crass, yes. However-and this is directed at Robert-there are some (many) in the world who will always regard hatred of the double standard and hypocrisy as hatred toward cops in general. Some on these pages, yes. That will not change. It’s important to note that and consider its implications.

    • It worked for George W. His alchohol- and coke-fueled exploits at the age of 40 were attributed to “youthful indiscretion” as well.

  5. As long as the police get special treatment and are allowed to skate, they will continue to do stupid things. There is no consequence to their action so they have nothing to fear.

    As long the police are treated differently, they will get no trust or respect. Good cops are shown in the same light as bad cops because of stupid shit like this.

    When there are separate rules for them and regular gun owners, there will be no respect for the police.

    Just like the Bagel King ND story in CT, the police are allowed to slide while normal gun owners would be in jail. If the police are professionals, then they need to be held to a higher standard.

    Stories like this piss me off to no end.

  6. As has been so clearly stated before, the only reason cops wear uniforms is so we can tell them from the good guys.

    Perhaps this officer was trying to compensate for being out of uniform?

    • “the only reason cops wear uniforms is so we can tell them from the other bad guys.”

      Fixed your mistake for you.

  7. Go ahead, keep hating the PO PO and deciding the verdict before its issued. We’re working on taking all of your crackpot fringe group members gun rights away anyway. Good luck with that you small minded haters, he he he!

    • Glad to see that you’re the caliber(pun intended) of those trying to take our guns away, DD. Means we’ll have constitutional carry before long. And machine guns.

    • Good luck taking our guns away, you mean.

      Are you volunteering your mortality unto the eventual failure of that particular faux pas? If not, you may as well hang it up and troll somewhere else. Y’know, a place where people aren’t demonstrably more in control of themselves, more articulate, and a damn site better educated on this than you are, ever were, or ever will be. Further, you do know that is not going to happen now or at any time in the future, right?

      If not, you’ve just been set straight, Sir. You’re welcome. Now, kindly, move along. You have no further business here.

        • Don’t you feel kinda foolish seeing how your baby’s mamma, Shannon Watts, blocks every opinion different from hers but on here, a loud mouthed keyboard commando like yourself can state your opinion, however dimwitted?

        • DD — Oh, so, I see that you are in fact offering yourself on the Altar of Stupidity. Well, when you’re all growed-up and finally have a pair (to even start with) and big enough to let you be that stupid, you’re more than welcome to try. But you and I both know damn well that that day will never come. So, with that being said and done with (HINT HINT), I don’t have anything to fear from you so I won’t wait up for you.

          Or anybody else wearing your uniform for that matter.

          Thanks for playing, troll. Better luck next time. 😉

    • DD – what I find amusing is that the website owners know your Internet address. . . tough guy rules apply only when you are anonymous not when the moderators are involved actively.

      • Matt, In all seriousness, I have to say that I find some of the comments on this site very offensive to me. I like the site a lot and have learned a great deal from some of the contributors but I just cant stand by silently while some of the LEO bashing goes on. Blame it on too many years in the profession, or blame it on my own prejudice towards those I’ve worked with. I’ve been to too many funerals and memorials to let the comments pass unanswered. I believe very strongly in the second amendment but I also believe that those who wish to strengthen our rights to bear arms must embrace the American people and society as a whole and not alienate ourselves from it. If I’ve insulted you or your readers, I don’t apologize, but I ask you to understand that I did so with the intent of forwarding our collective position.

        • “I believe very strongly in the second amendment but -”

          But nothing. The Second Amendment protects our natural and civil right to keep and bear arms. It does not discriminate between rich or poor, black or white, Jewish or Muslim, police or “regular” civilian.

          Equal treatment under the law forms the basis of the American experiment. As the police are charged with enforcing the law, expecting them to do so without bias or favor, with respect to themselves as well as others, is not a “slam.” It is the key to our collective success as Americans, as well as the only morally defensible position.

        • DD, I normally come down on the side of local cops. I’ve called RF out about cop bashing before. But what truly infuriates me is that I live in Alameda County, where Oakland is located. I’m a vet, a grandpa and I have a clean record. I will not be given a permit here simply because of the assholes that run this place.

          Then I see this jackwagon who’s got what I cannot have(for no good reason) acting the fool. I don’t drink and am happily married. I would not be in a bar at 2.30 trying to impress some gal. I am denied my basic rights and if I pulled a stunt like this I’d be in jail.

          So yes, I’m pissed and I hope this jerk gets busted right out of his position of trust which he’s obviously not adult enough to handle.

        • I think you’re mistaking what some people who post are saying vs what the website is posting. Yes, there are people who post absolutely bashing police, no matter what. There are no good police, they’re all elitist, on a power trip, etc. But what I have seen from the website is not “cop bashing”. It is pointing out that there is a definite double standard in terms of how mistakes by police are dealt with and how those same mistakes made by “ordinary citizens” are dealt with. Another thing I’ve seen posted by this site is that all of the SWAT teams/raids are not only not necessary, but not a good thing for our society. And finally, “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away”. That is not cop bashing. That is pointing out the reality that YOU are responsible for your safety during the time before help arrives (which…through legal precedent…is actually not required by law to help you as an individual), and a lot of bad things can happen during that time.

        • DD, what you fail to comprehend is that this is most certainly not LEO bashing. And being that you are physically incapable of telling the difference, allow me to clue you in as to what exactly is going on here: he’s bringing to light the blatant hypocrisy and double-standards in the treatment of LEOs as compared to ordinary citizens.

          There is, for an unarguable fact, a completely different set of rules for them than there is for us. Do you really believe for just one hot minute that if you or I did anything even remotely akin to this that we wouldn’t be invariably skewered alive, while they do for a fact get to skate damn near 100% of the time?

          Misunderstanding something, as you quite clearly have in this case, is one thing. But to go out of your way and do the exact opposite of “forwarding our collective position” and deliberately troll a public forum whose population is on the whole demonstrably correct in this and most other cases, is another thing entirely. I don’t expect you to apologize for it, either, as that’s for damn sure not the M.O. of your profession, Sir. We got far and away too many people like you that absolutely go out of their way to defend stupid people doing stupid things, and we’re every bit as hard on our own, ourselves, and quite literally EVERYBODY else that makes deliberate wrong choices like this cop as a matter of fact did.

          There is not now, has never ever been, and never will be an adequate reason nor excuse for the type of bad behavior displayed here. Period. What you need to do is to stop defending it.

        • Collective implies a homogeneous group to me. As long as our laws are selectively applied depending on your uniform, your gavel, or your press pass…we are no where near being a collective.

          This sight isn’t anti cop. Some commentors may be, but the sight is not. Pro-transparency is more like it.

          And as I’ve heard so many times….why would you be against transparency, unless you have something to hide?

        • I understand exactly what you’re saying, and I can appreciate your feelings about some of the sentiments expressed toward cops, but attacking individuals or the readership here as a whole (“a bunch of cop hating crackpot fringe group morons on this site”) is not going to change anyone’s behavior, and it just invites more abuse.

        • You believe strongly in the second amendment but not the first? Or the second either when the chips are down?

          If you’d pay closer attention you would realize what is being bashed is the double standard for negligence on the part of officers vs. Non officers.

          Do you selectively ignore the posts that have praised officers who have demonstrated heroism in varying forms? Did you miss the post and comments commending the CO deputy who, acting as a school resource officer, stopped that school shooting? Or the sheriffs and police chiefs that have been highlighted for displaying absolute, “no buts” support for the second amendment?

          What you are complaining about isn’t here. If your going to call out people for being “cop haters” make sure you’ve found a group of folks who actually hate cops, not a group of people who are calling out corruption and double standards.

        • It is “bashing” to point out that is is ridiculous that a cop can brandish his gun (which is what it would be called if anyone else’s gun was even showing in public) and get away with the usual paid vacation?

        • You say you are a cop and are gleeful about taking peoples guns away. Do you expect some cop loving for that?. Then you bust out the famous “I support the second amendment BUT” nonsense and you wonder why law enforcement is viewed poorly? You haven’t said a single thing to support your position either.

      • Your wrong and you once again have reduced yourselves to nothing more than small minded members of a crackpot fringe group. Congratulations

        • DD, what’s actually happened here, once again, is that you’ve yet again done absolutely nothing to defend your position and you’re just pissed because you could not possibly hope to refute anything we’ve said and you’ve been called out for defending the bad behavior of LEOs and upholding the double-standards which are interpreted quite distinctly to their advantage.

          That’s in spite of the fact that they’re no better (and statistically a whole helluva lot worse) than us, no more important than us, and for damn sure not even deserving of the protections they get over us. Certainly not a blatant enabler of bad behavior like you in fact are.

          Get thee gone, troll. You’ve lost and you know it, and there’s no more a crushing defeat than to have it happen at the hands of people that know better than you do and that you deliberately antagonized to start with with no fucking less than a pack of damned LIES.

        • I’m supposed to buy the idea that someone who claims to have ‘spent years as a LEO’ and ‘buried several fellow officers’ considers firearms- and self defense-proponents a “crackpot fringe”? Mmmmm….nope!

          False Appeal To Authority spotted.

        • Thank you for your opinion, DD. Now, can you explain to us how he managed to get from Oakland to SF without driving? Teleportation? Astral projection? The drunk bus? Waving his badge to get out of a DUI?

          Just another youthful indiscretion” my @ss. Just another self-important popinjay like yourself, trying to put something over on “the civilians” who pay his vacation salary and your retirement.

          You should be ashamed of yourself.

        • Very droll troll. Sure our small crackpot group can’t have the veracity of the million mom march, but we are working on it. Your cops “better” be good, your life depends on it,lol, Randy

        • If you don’t like being painted with the same brush as Kelly, I suggest you put a bug in the ear of your fellow good cops to clean up their community before it gets cleaned up for them.

        • Well, DD. I have to say, I am less than impressed, with your claim to speak on behalf of an entire group of LEOs.

          I have made a point of saying consider the two sides of a story, and sometimes the tone, but
          I want to thank you for helping clarify-

          whats going on- ie

          its about the hypocrisy of a double standard, not cop-bashing across the board.

          Funny how its your example of groupthink, with an implied threat (take your gunz away…) , joking or not, that made it so.

          I hope you are a troll, because my guess is you have embarrassed the pro’s among your brothers in blue.

    • Before its issued. Wow you are dense. He was not charged the same way others have been. No breatalizer. He does not have to hire a lawyer. He will not lose one dollar of income. This is hardly any different then the ruling class in some crap hole country, where the generals 3rd cousin can race on the streets and kill someone with out penalty. Maybe rape is ok if you are connected?

      The important detail is connected people cannot suffer consequences.

  8. I wonder how disappointed his father is, after pinning his badge on him at the graduation. Of course, being an SF police inspector, you can be sure that he, too, will try his level best to smooth this all over (though I do see where he’s coming from as this is his son we’re talking about after all).

  9. “it sounds like a youthful indiscretion” That is not a reason, it’s an excuse! How about an immature officicer, who should not carry a lethal weapon until he grows up, if ever.

    Favorite saying “you will not always be young, but you can be immature forever”

    Sadly, I think this officer fits that exactly..

  10. About four years ago, in NYC, a friend was on a work break watching a TV news special on US troops in Afghanistan. The AK74 was discussed. My friend did an Internet search for the AK74 and went to a site that sold fully auto AK74s. A supervisor walked by, saw the screen, and lectured him that guns are terrible. Within thirty minutes my friend was in the HR office speaking with two NYC anti-terror cops. The hassled him about being a possible terrorist (and knew he had served as an Army engineer) and accused him of being interested in using guns and explosives in a bad way. When he later returned home to Brooklyn, his neighbors (Orthodox Jews as my friend is) were freaked out since the police had done a search into his apartment. My friend did not own a gun and it would probably be gone if he did. Eventually, his employer fired him.

  11. If a civilian in TN with a carry permit is carrying and has any trace of alcohol in their system, they lose their permit and face possible felony charges, from my understanding. Is it possible that CA laws regarding that combination are more lax than TN?

      • My California CCW has a stamp on it with various restrictions, including one stating I can’t carry while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

    • In alameda county where oakland is and in San Francisco where this incident occured there are no regular citizens with ccw’s so we don’t have to worry about carrying and alcohol. This is only a hazard that cops have to worry about. Sucks to be them.

    • Could be. The legislators are so damned ignorant that outside of highly publicized “landmark”legislation (bullet button ban, ghost guns, etc…) they often don’t know what is or is not already illegal. As far as cigardogs comment, I’m not sure if “under the influence is the usual limit of .08 or if another limit is specified for ccw.

      • It’s not quantified, just states “under the influence.”. It’s a restriction from my local sheriff, not a part of the penal code.

        So far I haven’t been tempted to test it.

  12. LOLOL: “at a ceremony at the Scottish Rite Temple”

    It’s the Free Masons! It’s the Free Masons! It’s always those motherfucking Masons!


  13. I imagine in a couple of weeks ole’ Kevin will get promoted right on over to Oakland SWAT…Operator Division

  14. I’d like to engage in some of this alleged LEO bashing.

    I’ve been pulled over twice. Neither time did I do anything wrong. The first time, local cop threatened to give me a speeding ticket after he admitted the reason for pulling my over was a turn signal problem. The second one was a state cop who told me I was speeding because his partner clocked me at 45 when I hit the “Reduce Speed Ahead” sign. Both of them pulled me over early morning after a holiday (some of us non-LEOs have to work those hours, too. Doesn’t mean I was drinking).

    Let me tell you law enforcement types about my home town’s cops. Several towns in Michigan have this cute little network going where, when someone is due for promotion due to time on force, they get transferred, starting their time on force requirement over again. They’ve got the system down, and it’s entirely legal. The result is a bunch of small town cops in an environment totally unfamiliar to them, bitter because they’re still getting rookie pay years after they should have moved up, and looking to make a name for themselves at any cost. I remember a day when I was an emergency worker, and we heard a call come in. There was a fight reported at the beach. Half a dozen cars called in asking where the beach was, because they honestly didn’t know if they were in proximity. If they went to the station house and looked out the window, they would see the fight reportedly taking place, but that sort of lack of familiarity with the area (and situational awareness) was considered acceptable. I should mention that our town barely has half a dozen cars.

    And then, the state of Michigan has this wonderful system that says LEOs can carry concealed off duty, without exception. They aren’t given any kind of concealed carry training. Never mind that they’re illegally obtaining these firearms under the age of 21, but they often have “accidents” due to thinking that tucking a cheap single action 9mm into their waistband, hammer ready, safety off, is acceptable practice.

    Law enforcement should be held to a higher standard. They should represent what they are supposedly enforcing. At the very least, they should have some sort of clue what the law actually is. “Youthful indiscretion” should never be considered an excuse, and, even if it is, it should end before 24. This officer should feel the full weight of what his neighbor’s punishment would be if caught in the same circumstances.

    • Law enforcement should be held to a higher standard. They should represent what they are supposedly enforcing. At the very least, they should have some sort of clue what the law actually is. “Youthful indiscretion” should never be considered an excuse, and, even if it is, it should end before 24. This officer should feel the full weight of what his neighbor’s punishment would be if caught in the same circumstances.

      ^^^^THIS x 100

  15. From what I’ve read, brandishing seems to be the most apprropriate charge. I don’t see how anyone would point a gun at me in a non-threatening manner. Eveytime I’ve pointed a loaded firearm at someone was either a known or suspected felon (ADW, murder, attempted murder, burglary / robbery in progress, stolen car, high speed pursuit, etc.) It was threatening, and was meant to be so.

    A drunkard waving a gun is unsatisfactory. It is certainly is not worthy of a paid vacation at taxpayers expense. I’m thinking either termination or a 30-day suspension without pay depending upon the totality of the circumstances.

    And it isn’t cop bashing to point out that a cop has allegedly committed a crime, and appears to be given preferential treatment at that. That’s my $.02, and I’ve been a CA cop for 13 years.

    • Its easy to prove. Point a gun at the guy who said its not threatening. Better yet, his mom, wife, or kids.

      It will be threatening when you do it. Its so threatening you would likely be shot!

  16. I would just like to add one thing to this discussion, that there are some of us in LE who want to work with people who hold themselves to the high standard the public deserves, and to hold ourselves accountable as well. I’ve been on for five years in a week, and if some joker tried this in my department, they would be fired. It might take a week or two for the paperwork to be completed, but there is no excuse for this kind of behavior. My department has gotten rid of people for less, and rightly so.

    • I’d like to add, especially given my above rant, that I spent six years in the Air Force, including a stint in Base Honor Guard (lots of retired AF go law enforcement, apparently. Also, Masons, just to get that out of the way), and a couple years as a wildland firefighter. I’ve worked with some amazing LEOs. I do believe that the “good guys” are a minority, but I also hold out hope that the bad ones get cycled out more often than they get a pass. The national news would argue against that, but I’m not a person who takes any of that at face value, either. I think it’s best for all of us that there are people in the system who take their position seriously. It’s not necessary for everyone to anoint themselves Serpico, but it’s nice to have an occasional reminder that the system isn’t totally void of those who know right from wrong.

    • Except the other 99% of depts will cover for their boy. Seriously, this is SOP and has been for the last coupla decades out west. I remember my grandfather wanting to lynch Darrel Gates in the mid 70s, because his popularization of cops doing paramilitary crap would lead to exactly where we are now.

    • Unfortunately, situations like this are SO NYPD…

      Is it the size of the department that allows these knuckleheads to skate on actions that would put us mere mortals behind bars like a Star Trek Transporter ride?

  17. The only people the police protect and serve is themselves! Protect yourself and help others! This is the only way we show others that we don’t need so many police officers!

  18. I’m sorry they give the man a badge and a gun with an understanding that he’d act responsibly – then when he doesn’t they call it a youthful indiscretion. I realize he’s been suspended but their downplaying of the severity of it is bothersome. He pointed what I’m assuming was a loaded gun at someone, how is that not threatening even if done in jest. If he’s immature enough to have youthful indiscretions then he shouldn’t have a badge. Police have a difficult job but part of that job is setting the example something a fair number of them fail to do.

  19. Poor example for your usual double standard rant.
    He didn’t get away with anything. He’s been placed on admin leave, yes, but that’s the cop-speak term for “house arrest.” His gun was taken as “evidence.” And despite the fact that his daddy is an inspector with SFPD, they didn’t let him go (which would be more likely than letting him off for being a cop in Oakland… Jeez, get your “cop favors to other cops” crap straight.)
    I don’t know where you guys are from, but the cops in my neck of the woods don’t get away with anything. “Professional courtesy” here means leaving the squad with more than a half-tank of gas at the end of the shift. The cops-getting-away-with-stuff ended many years ago.
    As another poster said, the anti-cop rants are getting old.

    • As many posters have said, pointed out, and proven, these “rants” aren’t anti-cop. As much you’d like personally like to think they are, and please notice where I added the emphasis because you certainly don’t know, but think they are, they’re not. They’re actually anti-hypocrisy and rightfully point out the very well-documented and very deeply-entrenched double-standards that are — for an unarguable fact no less — still very much in place for the police.

      How else would cops still to this very day damned well get away with straight-up murdering people — ON CAMERA NO LESS — completely scot-free?

      And don’t you fucking dare sit there and try to tell me with a straight face that the era of cops-getting-away-with-stuff ended when it quite clearly has NOT, and you fucking KNOW THAT.

      Things might just so happen to be hunky-dory in your neck of the woods, and even that’s very likely only true from your own particular perspective anyway, but unless you’ve been hiding under a rock or something, that is definitely not what’s been happening and as a matter of FACT continues to happen literally everywhere else.

      If you personally don’t like the fact that we’re just calling it like it really is, which is really all your argument boils down to in the end, then tough shit. Don’t read it and move along. This is the way the world is and you might as well go ahead and bury your head in the sand again because it’s pretty obvious that you don’t like dealing with reality.

    • I’ll give you this. Attitudes are institutional meaning that just like there are good and bad cops there are good and bad departments. Having lived in a few major cities including DC I can honestly say that after a few passing encounters with SPD I get why Seattle has been under justice department scrutiny and if they’ve started to change I would have hated to see them a decade ago.

      Police officers should hold themselves and be held to a higher standard than the ordinary citizen. Some could argue that the nature of their jobs makes them leaders in the community and they should lead by example.

    • And how come it’s “suspended with pay” instead of “riding a desk until this is settled’?

      Or would that incur the wrath of the AFSCME?

Comments are closed.