United We Stand - uwsboard.com

For OT.

The Arrest Was a Bust. The Officers Got Overtime Anyway.https://nyti.ms/2BDdxbm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So Tammany Hall is alive and well.

Ghetto people call police officers "pigs".

Okay, so it's an adjudicated fact that, on some occasions, police officers have engaged in fraudulent behavior to boost overtime. But that doesn't mean that THIS PARTICULAR CASE is an instance of fraudulent conduct.

This entire piece sounds like it was written by Cordero's lawyer. Is this a press release???

Moving in on what seemed to be a crack deal, they seized two packets, which turned out to contain little more than a residue of the drug. Two men — said to be the buyer and the seller — were arrested, but the charges against one of the men were eventually dismissed.

You know how much drug residue is in any plastic baggie I might be in possession of? None. They may not have had sufficient evidence to prove guilt, but that doesn't mean that he was innocent. And it certainly doesn't mean that the whole thing was fabricated to create overtime - if it was fabricated to create overtime, there wouldn't be any drugs there at all.

Mr. Cordero was arrested within minutes, according to the papers, but when he was searched, the police did not find any drugs or drug paraphernalia. He did, however, have $580 in his pocket, which he said was “for emergencies.” Both Mr. Cordero and the owner of the store, Fausto Tineo, told the police that he had never left the market and had been serving customers when the drug deal supposedly occurred. Mr. Cordero was held for several hours, but five months later — on March 4, 2015 — the Brooklyn district attorney’s office dismissed the charges against him.

The encounter led Mr. Harvis to conclude that the arrest was a sham and had been orchestrated to generate overtime.

Or, more likely, they didn't believe his bullexcrement story. What cashier carries $580 "for emergencies" while working as a cashier??? He might as well have a sign that says, "please rob me".

I assume that the officers didn't believe his story and didn't believe that the owner of the store was telling the truth (or perhaps suspected the store owner of being an accessory).

And is it just me or is this really bad writing? How could they have arrested the two men in the midst of what they thought was a drug deal AND one of them is claiming that he wasn't even there at the time of the deal - he was in the store serving customers? I went back and read it several times just to make sure that these two quotes aren't about two different cases. But they're definitely both about Cordero. How could the police have arrested him in the middle of what they thought was a drug deal, but he claims and the store owner claims he wasn't even there??? If he wasn't there, then I guess he wasn't arrested. It's like if I get a speeding ticket and then claim in court that I wasn't there - if I wasn't there, then to whom did the officer give the ticket and how did I get it?

BigDave wrote:Okay, so it's an adjudicated fact that, on some occasions, police officers have engaged in fraudulent behavior to boost overtime. But that doesn't mean that THIS PARTICULAR CASE is an instance of fraudulent conduct.

This entire piece sounds like it was written by Cordero's lawyer. Is this a press release???

Moving in on what seemed to be a crack deal, they seized two packets, which turned out to contain little more than a residue of the drug. Two men — said to be the buyer and the seller — were arrested, but the charges against one of the men were eventually dismissed.

You know how much drug residue is in any plastic baggie I might be in possession of? None. They may not have had sufficient evidence to prove guilt, but that doesn't mean that he was innocent. And it certainly doesn't mean that the whole thing was fabricated to create overtime - if it was fabricated to create overtime, there wouldn't be any drugs there at all.

Mr. Cordero was arrested within minutes, according to the papers, but when he was searched, the police did not find any drugs or drug paraphernalia. He did, however, have $580 in his pocket, which he said was “for emergencies.” Both Mr. Cordero and the owner of the store, Fausto Tineo, told the police that he had never left the market and had been serving customers when the drug deal supposedly occurred. Mr. Cordero was held for several hours, but five months later — on March 4, 2015 — the Brooklyn district attorney’s office dismissed the charges against him.

The encounter led Mr. Harvis to conclude that the arrest was a sham and had been orchestrated to generate overtime.

Or, more likely, they didn't believe his bullexcrement story. What cashier carries $580 "for emergencies" while working as a cashier??? He might as well have a sign that says, "please rob me".

I assume that the officers didn't believe his story and didn't believe that the owner of the store was telling the truth (or perhaps suspected the store owner of being an accessory).

And is it just me or is this really bad writing? How could they have arrested the two men in the midst of what they thought was a drug deal AND one of them is claiming that he wasn't even there at the time of the deal - he was in the store serving customers? I went back and read it several times just to make sure that these two quotes aren't about two different cases. But they're definitely both about Cordero. How could the police have arrested him in the middle of what they thought was a drug deal, but he claims and the store owner claims he wasn't even there??? If he wasn't there, then I guess he wasn't arrested. It's like if I get a speeding ticket and then claim in court that I wasn't there - if I wasn't there, then to whom did the officer give the ticket and how did I get it?

I use that excuse about being in Cleveland that weekend. Seems legit.