Mon Apr 28, 2014, 01:55 AM
DeSwiss (27,137 posts)
Sheriff's office fires deputy in Ft. Sanders party incident
Source: WKRN-TV News2
![]() [font size=1]Frank Phillips (source: Knox County Sheriff's Office)[/font] By KAYLA STRAYER 6 News Reporter Posted: Apr 27, 2014 5:03 PM CST Updated: Apr 27, 2014 10:20 PM CST KNOXVILLE (WATE) - The Knox County Sheriff's Office says they have fired the deputy involved in Saturday night's block party in Fort Sanders. Frank Phillips, 47, has been with the Knox County Sheriff’s Office since 1992. A statement posted on the Sheriff's Office website reads:
“This incident provides a perfect example of why we are in the process of purchasing officer worn body cameras (video and audio recordings) so incidents like this will be fully documented.” Jarod Dotson, 21, who is seen in custody in the pictures, was charged with public intoxication and resisting arrest. He was released from jail on a $500 bond Sunday morning Video link Read more: http://www.wkrn.com/story/25353809/sheriff-investigating-pictures-released-of-ft-sanders-party-arrest
|
19 replies, 2863 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
DeSwiss | Apr 2014 | OP |
DRoseDARs | Apr 2014 | #1 | |
SoapBox | Apr 2014 | #2 | |
Jesus Malverde | Apr 2014 | #3 | |
FreedRadical | Apr 2014 | #4 | |
Jesus Malverde | Apr 2014 | #5 | |
FreedRadical | Apr 2014 | #6 | |
DeSwiss | Apr 2014 | #7 | |
7962 | Apr 2014 | #10 | |
LiberalFighter | Apr 2014 | #15 | |
Stuart G | Apr 2014 | #8 | |
7962 | Apr 2014 | #9 | |
Earth_First | Apr 2014 | #11 | |
Uben | Apr 2014 | #12 | |
TinkerTot55 | Apr 2014 | #13 | |
tclambert | Apr 2014 | #14 | |
chrisa | Apr 2014 | #16 | |
DeSwiss | Apr 2014 | #18 | |
alp227 | Apr 2014 | #17 | |
Adrahil | Apr 2014 | #19 |
Response to DeSwiss (Original post)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 02:00 AM
DRoseDARs (6,810 posts)
1. If by "resisting arrest" you mean falling to the ground unconcious from a chokehold...
Pretty sure Jarod Dotson has a case against both the officer and the sheriffs department.
|
Response to DeSwiss (Original post)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 02:23 AM
SoapBox (18,791 posts)
2. That face is fucking creepy!
Hope the student guy sues the hell out of the department.
|
Response to SoapBox (Reply #2)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 03:15 AM
Jesus Malverde (10,274 posts)
3. He looks the part and played it to a T.
Good for them to react so quickly.
|
Response to DeSwiss (Original post)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 03:24 AM
FreedRadical (518 posts)
4. In my city they take some dramatic action like this.
Then the police union steps in, go through some arbitration and show for the media. Then after the heat is off they give the cop back his job. Hell we even had the head of the police union pull his gun on a lady in a road rage confrontation. He lost his cushy job but not his badge. 5 bucks says this ain't the end of it. Another says he won't be punished.
|
Response to FreedRadical (Reply #4)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 03:31 AM
Jesus Malverde (10,274 posts)
5. You forgot the words "paid administrative" leave.
And retraining.
![]() The speed at which he was dealt with is surprising. |
Response to Jesus Malverde (Reply #5)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 03:37 AM
FreedRadical (518 posts)
6. You're right, I did.
Plus medical pay for the stress.
|
Response to FreedRadical (Reply #4)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 03:38 AM
DeSwiss (27,137 posts)
7. Knowing this part of the country as I do........
...I'd expect that these UT frat boys' parents are well-heeled and connected. The UT cops are there to protect the University's rep, first. Because they're mindful about their ''important alumni'' relations in those parts. Sometimes that mean ''protecting'' these affluent pranksters from themselves. But the college coppers couldn't handle this party and so they called in some Real Police© whom, as we saw, don't have as much sophistication and aplomb and tend toward the strangle-hold for solving most problems first, and then they let God sort everything out later.
![]() |
Response to FreedRadical (Reply #4)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 07:27 AM
7962 (11,841 posts)
10. I doubt it. Hes been fired already and not put on paid leave and that nonsense.
But what you describe is exactly the type of thing that turns people against unions.
|
Response to 7962 (Reply #10)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 09:22 AM
LiberalFighter (44,311 posts)
15. Unions in private sectors are required by federal law to fairly represent their members.
Public sector unions operate under state laws.
In the private sector, union members that have been suspended or terminated might get all, some or none of their pay back if they return to work. Depending on the outcome of the grievance procedure. I am unaware of any union that operates in the private sector that has provisions for suspension with pay. In my experience a member that is suspended is for a period of usually the remainder and 2 days (3 days) that follows the steps like a written warning. It gets progressively worse up to 30 days which generally doesn't happen. And then they return to work. Usually without lost wages. Back pay might be recovered in termination cases depending on the outcome of the grievance procedure or at the worse the employee is allowed to return to work without back pay. If they are allowed to return there may be stipulations that must be followed for a period of time that could last as long as 2 to 3 years. Even within the public sector for each state there may be differences in grievance procedures for their unions. |
Response to DeSwiss (Original post)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 06:54 AM
Stuart G (34,818 posts)
8. K and R nt
Response to DeSwiss (Original post)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 07:24 AM
7962 (11,841 posts)
9. Looks like the typical power-hungry type we see in these incidents. nt
Response to DeSwiss (Original post)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 07:31 AM
Earth_First (14,910 posts)
11. I'm sure the authoritarians who gave this officer the benefit of the doubt
will pour into this thread to issue their retraction...
|
Response to DeSwiss (Original post)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 08:17 AM
Uben (7,719 posts)
12. He's in the wrong business....
...looks like a good candidate to press some license plates!
|
Response to DeSwiss (Original post)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 08:27 AM
TinkerTot55 (198 posts)
13. Seems things got even more out of hand!!!!!!!!
Quoting from the article,
"I feel like they just used excessive force, DOGS TAZING PEOPLE, there's no point in that." That's some mighty fine writing there! ![]() |
Response to TinkerTot55 (Reply #13)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 08:58 AM
tclambert (10,919 posts)
14. Dogs with tasers!
Imagine if cats get hold of them. . . .
|
Response to TinkerTot55 (Reply #13)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 09:46 AM
chrisa (4,524 posts)
16. Next the dogs will have 'frickin' laser beams' on their heads.
Response to DeSwiss (Original post)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 04:06 PM
alp227 (31,471 posts)
17. That was fast. Imagine if the officer's victim were Latino or black.
I wonder if any disciplinary action would have happened at this point? A sad fact of American life: "Tough on crime" leads to scooping innocent people up for no good reason, because race.
|
Response to alp227 (Reply #17)
Tue Apr 29, 2014, 06:55 AM
Adrahil (13,340 posts)
19. You may well be right....
... But good on this Sheriff for acting quickly in this case.
|