Xavier Thoughts: Kuehnlein Continued........

Friday, September 14, 2007

Kuehnlein Continued........

Contact Chief Scott Uhrig
9041 Southview Lane
St. George Missouri 63123
314-631-1295
314-631-2252 fax

Labels: Sergeant James Kuehnlein

15 Comments:

Wadical said...: I don't give a fat rat's ass if this kid WAS pushing the buttons of this officer. HE IS A SWORN POLICE OFFICER. He is held to a higher standard. He is to be a model citizen. He is to keep his cool and maintain a professional demeanor at all times. <--- (that's a big fat PERIOD)

This chief is making excuses and that says a heck of a lot about his dept. This kid obviously has some sort of reason to do watchdog type investigations of abuses of police powers simply by pushing record. It's not his first time catching cops abusing their authority. So what if he goes out looking for cops doing this. I think of him like the "secret shopper" who goes into McDonald's and proves to be an especially demanding customer to see if the clerk will accommodate him as required by company policy. Law Enforcement Officer's are required by law to provide a certain level of service and within the constraints of the law. Here's an example of an exceptionally PROFESSIONAL State Trooper, who despite having his "buttons pushed", DID HIS JOB, and did it well.

I hope he keeps it up. More power to the young chap. If he had a website asking for donations to help him continue his quest to expose corrupt law enforcement, I'd donate!; 6:29 AM
Mark said...: The Chief seems like he is leaning pretty heavily toward the 20 yr old "baiting" the veteran cop. He was just asking questions and was VERY calm the entire time. I think maybe the Chief should be looked at as well? I understand you protect your own, but, this is a pretty clear cut case of police indimidation and steps way over the line. Even if he was baiting the cop, the officer should respond in a responsible way. There are so many quality police officers out there, the power hungry idiots on the force really do ruin it for everyone else. I think meditation should be manditory:); 11:14 AM
Carteach said...: So.... the chief makes no mention of the threat to falsely imprison the young man over made up crimes and false testimony...

I guess that part is Ok with him then.

The Chief and his officer are both a disgrace to the human race.; 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...: I believe threatening arrest without cause is itself a crime. I think a letter to the prosecuting attorney may be in order. Unfortunately, municipal politics may preclude that possibility, i.e. the Prosecuting Attorney, may be unwilling to prosecute even an obvious violation of the law by an LEO. In the State of Texas I believe it is possible to privately seat a grand jury which is not run by the Prosecuting Attorney if enough signatures can be acquired. Maybe that practice should be spread around.; 4:12 PM
Brandon said...: It is the mark of a professional that pushed buttons result in maintained politeness, not an R. Lee Ermey impression (and a bad one at that). It's sad that the chief of police feels the need to make lame excuses on behalf of a guy who clearly either lost his cool or simply decided to berate someone.; 4:14 PM
Anonymous said...: To all those that want to lynch the officer---
Have you ever pulled patrol at night? Have you ever felt like you needed to control the situation by intimidation so you can avoid a physical confrontation?
Don't forget, the kid could have been a drug dealer with nothing to lose.
I'm sure he will be alright after the big mean policeman yelled at him. I'm also sure there will be a lawsuit, and money exchanged, to help him recover. Just remember the money is yours, and it will go to some smartass that was baiting someone that could have been a good officer.; 7:31 PM
Anonymous said...: What if this kid was actually osama-bin-laden in disguise? He could have suddenly flown an airplane into the cop's car! The cop had every right to threaten to make up charges and ruin the kid's life and career (not to mention the implied ass-kicking). I think it's in the Konstitution under the "Government and Police-rights" amendment.

./sarcasm_off

Bullsh*t. This cop is a scum bag, even more so than the 50ish year old cop that pulled up next to me at a stop light, screaming and frothing (spittle actually coming out of his mouth) for going 43 in a 40 on my motorcycle. At least I was apparently breaking the law on a Harley Davidson with a speedometer needle 5 MPH wide on the dial. Give me a f**king break. If the cop was that worried about this kid, he should have called for back-up. If the cop screaming at me and practically having a no-sh*t-f*cking seizure in his seat was that pissed off, he should have pulled me over and calmly given me a damn ticket and sent me on my way (I wish I had a camera mounted on my helmet, it' would make “America's craziest f***ing videos”).

I have not doubt that there are MANY good cops out there (Parker Colorado comes to mind from limited but consistent accounts from friends and one incident of mine), it's a shame that a few really sh*tty cops not only give paint an entire department with a bad name, and yet they will go unpunished and actually get defended by cops like "Anonymous". I don't want to "Lynch" the cop, I simply want this one removed from his job that carries far more responsibility than he can obviously handle. I want our police departments to follow the LAW, not make it up as they go along.

We “Citizens” remember when we call the police and get no response, or get treated like sh*t when we do. We “Citizens” remember when we get treated like sh*t by law enforcement and/or get crappy sarcastic questions from the dispatcher.

I've learned to hesitate before I call the police. If it doesn't involve guns, murder or a corpse, “Take care of it yourself”. Otherwise “You can file a report on our website” and we'll flag you as a trouble maker for calling us about petty crimes (such as burglary in progress). No thanks, I'll bury the damn body myself and take my chances. My good/bad experience with the police is at about 50/50 across the eight states I've lived in (and I don't live in ghettos).

Xavier, sorry about the long post, it just hit a nerve.; 1:14 AM
Wadical said...: Anonymous (7:31) said: To all those that want to lynch the officer--- Have you ever pulled patrol at night? YES I HAVE.

Have you ever felt like you needed to control the situation by intimidation so you can avoid a physical confrontation? YES. BUT NOT FROM A 20 YEAR OLD KID WITH A VERY CALM DEMEANOR WHO'S JUST ASKING QUESTIONS. IF I AM IN FEAR OF A SITUATION ESCALATING TO A VIOLENT CONFRONTATION, I CALL FOR BACKUP! I CERTAINLY DON'T ASK HIM TO GET OUT OF HIS VEHICLE. I ALSO DON'T MAKE THREATS I CAN'T DELIVER ON. IF THERE WAS ANY ESCALATION IT WAS ON THE PART OF THE POLICE OFFICER.

Don't forget, the kid could have been a drug dealer with nothing to lose. YEAH, AND I COULD BE AN ASTRONAUT. SO WHAT?

I'm sure he will be alright after the big mean policeman yelled at him. ...AND MISUSED HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY TO THREATEN THIS YOUNG MAN WITH FALSE IMPRISONMENT (A FELONY)

I'm also sure there will be a lawsuit, and money exchanged, to help him recover. YOU GOTDAMNED RIGHT THERE WILL BE!

Just remember the money is yours, and it will go to some smartass that was baiting someone that could have been a good officer. NO, THAT MONEY BELONGS TO THE TAX PAYERS OF THIS TOWNSHIP AND WILL BE RIGHTFULLY FORFEITED TO THIS KID. SMARTASS?? WHY SMARTASS? BECAUSE HE ASKED QUESTIONS? BECAUSE HE DOESN'T ALLOW HIS RIGHTS TO BE TRAMPLED UPON BY SOME PODUNK F'ING COP WITH A CRIMINAL RECORD ALL HIS OWN? GOOD OFFICER?? ARE YOU FRIGGIN' SERIOUS?

YOU'RE A PUTZ AND IF YOU ARE A POLICE OFFICER AND YOU DO CONDUCT YOURSELF AS THIS OFFICER DID, THEN IT IS A'HOLES LIKE YOU AND HIM WHO MAKE THE JOB UNNECESSARILY DIFFICULT FOR TRUE PROFESSIONALS WHO UNDERSTAND THEIR MISSION TO "PROTECT AND SERVE"! IT IS THE PRECISE REASON WHY YOUR ARGUMENT WOULD NEVER WORK IN A COURT OF LAW.; 2:39 AM
Carteach said...: I am not, and have never done a ride-along, with an officer.

I am a teacher, mostly of high school seniors.

On day one the admin pukes told me a few things, mostly worthless. One bit of advice stuck.

"You never touch a student except to prevent injury. You NEVER lose your temper, EVER. You have to be adult enough for 50 man sized boys who think they know everything. Professionals keep it under control and DEAL WITH IT. Thats what being a professional means."

That's what sabbaticals are for. I always though the whole idea of six-twelve months off at half pay was insane, till I lived the life.
Sabbaticals are time off to regain sanity and recharge the spirit. Without them teachers grow bitter, if not insane, with the pressure of holding in all the emotion we are never allowed to show.

I have witnessed a handful of very good teachers who turned in notice when denied a sabbatical break, because it was the only way they could come back to the job and stay a professional.

In this case the video looks unedited. I think it speaks clearly for itself.

This officer is over the edge... he's long past being a professional.

I understand that officers operate under different rules. They have to. I don't like it.. in fact I truly hate it.... but the simple truth is the sheep dogs can't be expected to act like the sheep they guard.

The problem is... it's a short step from 'sheep dog' to 'wolf'.
Any sheep dog who starts looking at the sheep like they are food needs to be dealt with, and fast.

Officers are armed and operate under the color of law. They often get a pass for actions that would get citizens arrested. Their word is usually taken over a citizens when there is a dispute with no other evidence. This might be necessary for them to do their jobs.

That said.... it leaves open a dangerous avenue for dishonest or burned out people who are officers.
People die over things like this.

Ask yourself... would we have ever heard about this without that video proof? Would we have believed the citizen in this case? would we have given the officer the benefit of the doubt, before the citizen?

How many cases like this happen when there is no camera around?

I have been considering designing and marketing an on-board camera system for citizens to (voluntarily at their own expense) install in their vehicles, much like many police cars have now. Four micro cameras reporting to a simple digital recorder. It would be useful in so many cases... accidents, traffic stops, missing people....

I went so far as to buy the cameras and play with wiring, till my kid borrowed them for his own project.

It's incidents like this that gave me the idea.; 9:10 AM
Anonymous said...: It sounds like Chief Scott Uhrig needs to go as well....; 10:35 AM
Anonymous said...: The tone of Wadical's response sounds very similar to the cop in the video. The same out-of-control tone that you criticized?

No need to get so worked up on a blog. How would you have reacted on the street if someone disagreed with you?; 1:42 PM
Anonymous said...: This particular cop is a problem. But the problem is not only this particular cop. It's the fact that policing is a business like any other. The difference? Police officers get paid by "customers" who are forced to pay (taxes) through force or threat thereof. Essentially, their customers are at gunpoint. Their pay is secure. Hence, they have little, if any, external impetus to be respectful and professional. The only thing that keeps them respectful is A) the officer's own goodwill, or B) that of a diligent supervisor.

However, in a real business, (you know, where private businesses have to please their customers in order to make money?) someone would invariably be fired in a heartbeat for that kind of B.S. No matter whether it was an E.R. doctor in high-stress situations, or a bagger at a grocery store mouthing off to one customer. That is because there is an infinitely more proximate accountability. The customer can take his business elsewhere.

Why do we have police? To protect the rights of individual citizens. Am I wrong there? We should not have police to protect the rights of either God, (morally legitimate as God's rights are) or the "rights" of government. In other words, police would be hired to protect against force, fraud, and coercion. Violations of life, liberty and property. One would pay into it like an insurance policy. I don't see how everyone is against monopolies... UNLESS it's a monopoly on violence, and in that case, a government should have the monopoly, because everyone knows the government is always looking out for your best interest better than you ever could.

Privatize police. It's been done with EMS, water supply, electrical supply, and every other service. They have all gotten cheaper, of better quality, and more efficient. Eliminate the government monopoly on protection services.; 11:06 PM
Wadical said...: The tone of Wadical's response sounds very similar to the cop in the video. The same out-of-control tone that you criticized?

Ummm. Exactly how? The all caps? Relax its just for contrast between your quotes and my response.

I've responded to disagreements on the street countless times. How? With constraint...and within the parameters of the law and agency policy.

PS...you're still a putz!; 9:04 AM
Anonymous said...: There is much left unsaid in the FOX video about his incident. It was covered in much more detail in the St. Louis newspaper during the week following the taping and the information disclosed may put an entirely different perspective on the officer's behavior for those who defended him.

First, St. George is a small "town" of 1,300 or so people on the south edge of the St. Louis metro area. It's about 1/5 sq. mile in area. There are a grand total of four officers including the chief. Any real crime or policing is done by the St. Louis county sheriff's officer. The St. George cops activities are almost entirely limited to traffic enforcement. The town of St. George derives approx. 29% of its yearly revenue from the traffic tickets written by these officers. The "town" is one of several in the metro area with a reputation of bogus tickets and motorists in the know avoid it like the plague whenever possible.

Second, the newspapers dug up old dirt on both Sgt. Kuenhlein and Chief Urlig. It seems that Sgt. Kuenhlein had a judge expunge and seal some old late eighties convictions for assault and burglary because "they were interfering with him getting a job in law enforcement." The Chief, as a police officer for the similar community of Arnold, was censured in 2000 for attempting to solicit sex while on duty from the underage 17-year old girl friend of a known drug dealer. Apparently, he neglected to tell the St. George town council about this particular incident in his past when he was hired as chief.

Finally, a 122 comment blog in the newspaper's website, http://www.stltoday.com, contains many accounts of similar past encounters with this officer by citizens who didn't have a camera in their car to back them up.

Finally, the tape from the officer's cruiser cam was first said to be unviewable "due to a technical glitch" and subsequently said to be "unable to be found." How convenient.

The chief did turn his copy of Mr. Darrow's tape over to the St. Louis county prosecutor's office on Friday, Sept. 14 saying that the prosecutor would take about a week to decide what, if any charges, should be filed against Sgt. Kuenhlein.; 9:10 PM
Anonymous said...: there is no excuse for this officer. And the sad thing is you can find these guys everywhere. I am a law abiding citizen, but even so every time i get stopped and even sometimes when i am polite, the guy asks me a million questions like he is just hoping i get an attitude. This kid did the right thing and as bad as the world is getting i think all of us need to have a wire on us and a camera rolling in our vehicles.....; 11:17 PM