Entries Tagged 'SFPD' ↓
January 21st, 2015 — Humor, Satire, SFPD, Sioux Falls
Hey little guys, you may have a fighting chance.
South DaCola News
By Samuel Coldsweat
The SFPD announced today that they have picked a specific officer to ‘thin the herd’ of deer in Sioux Falls.
“It just made sense to us that this officer needed a little target practice, and what a better way to get it, but to practice on some dumb animals running through the trees and snow?” says Police Chief Darth Cowbell.
Of course Cowbell was talking about Officer Antwon Dickle, who ironically got himself in a pickle in Butthill Park the day after New Years. Dickle shot 8(?) times at a suspect that he believed pointed a handgun at him in a dimly lit area.
“Handgun, I-Pod, Pringles can, slingshot, dildo, what have you, the officer acted on the threat, but we were disappointed he missed the target, so we figured he could practice in the field on real moving targets,” claims Cowbell.
We wondered about the safety of the neighborhood he is shooting in.
“We will have him doing this at night to get the feel of the Butthill incident, but we will also warn neighbors when he is in the area, because we highly suggest they board up windows and go out for dinner and a movie those nights.” warns Cowbell “Just don’t expect us to record his operations or tell you how many shots he has fired, or deer he has killed. The SFPD just doesn’t operate well when we are transparent about our actions and being scrutinized. Cloak of secrecy is the best way to roll.”
We wondered how much ammo Dickle would be given to accomplish eliminating 30 deer.
“We figured with his accuracy, it would take about 20 rounds per deer.” sighed Cowbell, “So we are warning the food banks in advance if they are serving the venison, that they caution consumers that they may bite into a little ‘shot’ . . uh . . . or NOT (chuckling). Yeah, we know we may have better luck jumping out of trees and clubbing the deers to death with pool cues, but I think Dickle is up for the challenge.”
Cowbell estimated it will probably take Dickle about 6 months to accomplish his goal, and at that time he will be awarded a merit badge and advance to Eagle Scout training.
THIS ARTICLE WAS SATIRE. BUT ON A SERIOUS NOTE, I AM WONDERING WHY THE SFPD IS EVEN DOING THIS? THE SD GF & P OFFICE HAS PROFESSIONAL STATE HUNTERS THAT USUALLY TAKE CARE OF THESE TASKS. THEY SHOULD BE RUNNING THE OPERATION, WITH THE SFPD IN TOW. STILL WONDERING WHY THE SFPD HAS HIGH POWERED RIFLES WITH SILENCERS IN THE FIRST PLACE? DON’T BE SURPRISED IF YOU SEE THEIR MILITARIZED VEHICLE ‘THE BEARCAT’ TEARING THROUGH YOUR YARD CHASING BAMBI.
January 16th, 2015 — SFPD, Sioux Falls
I guess we ‘might’ finally be getting answers;
Sioux Falls Police Chief Doug Barthel will be at briefing this morning to talk about the Tuthill Park shooting on Jan. 1
I say it was the butler in the billards room with the candlestick.
January 12th, 2015 — SFPD, Sioux Falls
If you see this man contact either the SFPD or Ripley’s Believe it or Not.
South DaCola News
By Samuel Coldsweat
While the city and Tuthill Park neighborhood has been on the edge since a SF police officer said a suspect attempted to shoot at him, they think they have the answer. While the suspect has not been apprehended, they do know who ‘IT’ is.
He has been identified as ‘Sasquatch Earle Furworthy’ or as his friend’s call him, ‘Harry Balls’ which translates into ‘Harris-lan testicle’ in Latin.
He was believed to be living in the wooded area on top of the park since October, and is a regular on the sledding hill.
“We have been suspicious that it has been him since regulars at the sledding park haven’t seen him since Christmas, and in the last siting, sledders said he was mumbling something about making smoothies and wielding a frozen banana.” Says Chief Darth Cowbell. “The tips have been reliable since it helped us rule out the tooth fairy and a unicorn.”
When Cowbell was asked if they have any ideas of his location, Cowbell responded, “We assume he HEADED FOR THE HILLS!”
If caught, we were wondering if any charges could be brought up against a Mr. Furworthy for wielding a banana at an officer.
Cowbell said he consulted state law and with the help of city attorney Danny Fiddle-Faddle, they found a loop hole in the city charter to bring him up on charges if captured. According to Canon 13-7445 of city charter it is;
‘Illegal to point fruit (frozen or thawed) at officers when they are questioning your eating habits.’
“I really have to hand it to Danny, he really pulled that one, from, well, the air.” says Cowbell “He’s pretty good at ‘slippery’ law (no pun intended).”
As for leads, they are working with authorities from Washington State (Earle’s home state) to see if they can track him down, but he has extended family that looks very much like him, and quite honestly, they ain’t talking.
“Finding a ‘grunting’ interpretor is difficult these days, and if you do, they usually ask for several hundred pounds of beef jerky in payment,” says Cowbell.
We asked if there has been anything similar happen in Sioux Falls in recent years.
“Actually yes. But it turned out to be nothing,” says Cowbell. “There was thought to be a siting of Lochness Monster at Covell Lake but it turned out to be just a giant turd from when we dumped sewage into the lake.”
THIS ARTICLE WAS SATIRE, BUT I WILL LET STU WHITNEY BE THE JUDGE.
January 7th, 2015 — SFPD, Sioux Falls
What smoking gun?
So I was talking to a public official yesterday and he asked me an interesting question;
“Who is doing an independent review and investigation of the Tuthill shooting?”
I told him that it seems they are reviewing it themselves (SFPD). He pointed out to me that since the SFPD doesn’t have an internal affairs department that normally if they have an officer use their firearm in a related shooting incident, the Sheriff’s office or the state DCI investigates it.
Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. Will we ever know what happened?
January 3rd, 2015 — SFPD, Sioux Falls
UPDATE: Now with scanner audio from that night. Most of it happens at the beginning, and you can tell the officer was clearly shaken.
SWAT a fly with a Bearcat? Does it look like it is driving on the sledding hill? (Image, Argus Leader Media)
This is a guest submittal;
The night of our recent police shooting was a glorious Sioux Falls winter evening. The weather was just right for some of us to be outside enjoying the crisp, calm night. There are people in the Midwest who enjoying walking on these types of evenings. There is a head clearing we are able to accomplish like at no other time of day or night. Its why we ski in bitter cold weather, it focuses our minds on what is important. It also brings to light the insanity of our recent police actions.
There is too much BS already involved in the Tuthill Park police shooting trying to justify the basic actions of police departments in the United States including ours. Militarization to protect and serve? Shooting first to ask the dead, questions later? Policing forces driving around in cars, SUVs and Bearcats as if in fear? They see a person walking down a street in a hoodie and shoot first. Why?
Our current policing policies are sick. At what point do we quit killing citizens, maiming them and destroying their property because we have unskilled, undereducated people expressing their small man insecurities while wearing a badge? SWAT driving onto a lawn with a Bearcat, blowing windows out of laundry room just to scare someone into submission? Destroying innocent people’s property because the policing forces are afraid to engage the person holed up behind a stranger’s washing machine? You know the a human being will eventually give up if the utilities are shut-off, it might take longer but no one or property will likely get hurt. It’s this basic.
To everyone trying to justify this random shooting into the dark, it is not a matter to be swept under the rug. Killing in Florida, Ferguson, Staten Island or Sioux Falls out of a perceived fear by a policing force is never right. It is the police who have caused their own fear. The current system creates the mistrust. Police or citizens shooting first because they are afraid? Bullshit. Who made the policing forces the judge, jury and executioner?
What if the random shooting into the dark hurt or killed a very innocent person driving by on Cliff Avenue. Does the person walking through Tuthill Park get charged with murder because the cop was afraid?
We Americans are not respecting our policing forces because they have not earned it. Fire departments earn our respect everyday by running into danger to save us. Our current policing departments demand our respect at the end of a gun barrel or Taser.
Peel’s Principles of Modern Law Enforcement
Written by Sir Robert Peel, when he established the Metropolitan London Police in 1829
1. The basic mission for which police exist is to prevent crime and disorder as an alternative to the repression of crime and disorder by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police existence, actions, behavior and the ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect.
3. The police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain public respect.
4. The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes, proportionately, to the necessity for the use of physical force and compulsion in achieving police objectives.
5. The police seek and preserve public favor, not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to the law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of society without regard to their race or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. The police should use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to achieve police objectives; and police should use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. The police at all times should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police are the only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the intent of the community welfare.
8. The police should always direct their actions toward their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary by avenging individuals or the state, or authoritatively judging guilt or punishing the guilty.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
January 2nd, 2015 — SFPD, Sioux Falls
Like a lost episode of Beavis and Butthead where Todd gets shot at after wielding a TV remote control at officers, it seems we have trouble in Trouble Town;
The officer called out to the suspect to question him about the object in his hand. Clemens said the suspect then appeared to raise his hand in a motion in a way that made it seem as though he had a gun. The officer fired at the suspect, who then fled on foot.
Okay, I know, I try not to comment on crime in Sioux Falls, I strongly believe you are innocent until proven guilty, accept this time, the suspect got away. I will say this also, I am glad the officer was not hurt, and am also happy to hear, apparently the suspect was not injured either, ah, if there was one.
Now, I am not sure what happened, but I am in a speculating mood, so let’s go;
First, what we know;
1) The officer involved has only been on the force for about 2 years and is 27 years old.
2) The suspect was holding ‘something’. Could have been a stick, a box of mac & cheese or a gun.
3) The suspect didn’t respond to the officer’s request (to drop the Hot Pocket Pop Tart).
4) More then one round was fired at suspect (witnesses say up to 6 shots).
5) The officer’s audio recording was working but the patrol car camera was in the opposite direction.
Okay, so the speculation time;
• Could have been a homeless person hard of hearing with a can of Pringles in their hand
• Could have been a jogger with a flashlight
• Could have been Casper the Ghost (the non-friendly version)
At this point nobody knows what it was. But what is troubling is that the SFPD isn’t releasing key information;
1) How many rounds were fired?
2) What was on the audio recording?
3) Should an officer be approaching people in a public park simply because they are walking near a police car? Maybe the person was seeking help, like I said, they may have been hard of hearing, or injured, or confused.
Not sure how this will all turn out, but there is a lot of unanswered questions. Maybe someone needs to hack some emails and work out a sweet ass plea deal to figure this all out, ah, nevermind, that’s the fire department.
I find it troubling that an officer can fire at a person in a public place simply because the officer doesn’t understand the threat. If the suspect ever comes forward, I do think we need to take up a collection to buy him some new drawers.
September 25th, 2014 — 1st Amendment, Code Enforcement, Mike Huether, SF City Council, SFPD, Sioux Falls
I have a little different perspective on it then he does, as I am sure you suspected.
While I do agree with him that work place/school discrimination and domestic violence is intolerable I do draw a line with freedom of speech. While saying ‘naughty hurtful words’ should be discouraged, the 1st Amendment is pretty clear about our constitutional rights. In yesterday’s press conference, Huether referred to a FB comment he read that said (in reference to the man getting punched outside of Wiley’s) “LOL. Maybe he should have minded his own business.” While the LOL was not needed (Lot’s of Laughs, is what Huether said it meant, which made me LMFAO*) I kind of agree with the rest of the comment to a point.
If it was a different situation, I would have definitely said something to the lady, but since the situation occurred while everyone involved was probably tanked outside of Wiley’s (a place known for it’s fighting problems) probably not a time to take a stand. For example, last night me and about 5 other people got doused with beer when someone behind us threw a cup. I turned around and saw some wannabe bikers laughing. I certainly could have went over and asked who the f’ing wise guy was, but you know what? I minded my own business, and guess what, no one got hurt. Did the gentleman outside of Wiley’s deserve to get punched? Nope. Violence is never a solution. Do I commend him for sticking up for himself and friends? Definitely! But like I said, if you put yourself in certain situations, there can be unintended consequences, especially when fueled by alcohol. Just look at the problems associated with drinking at Van Eps Park.
There are situations where you need to turn the other cheek, or you just might get punched in the face. It’s your choice I guess, like I said, the 1st Amendment guarantees us the right to pretty much say what we want as private citizens. It is clear though that employers can’t discriminate in this manner, and assaulting your spouse or bystanders is not included in this right. Please, let’s all stop punching each other over ‘words’. What an incredible waste of time and energy, and also, let’s stop crying over spilt milk.
This is where I disagree with mayor Huether on bullying. He seems to think this is about school kids, minorities, domestic assaults or gays, it is much more encompassing then that.
He lacks to mention peer bullying (most people think of this kind of bullying going on in school between classmates). It is also an issue in the workplace. In fact I believe it is an issue at Carnegie Hall.
I have seen city councilors, the mayor, city directors, city employees and citizens all bully each other at the meetings. In fact on one occasion, which still irks me to this day (the mayor says it is okay to get mad about bullying) is when Councilor Erpenbach bullied the snowgate petitioners and shut down public comment in support of an early election. Each week I have also watched several city councilors bully citizens when they say something they don’t like in public testimony. The mayor on several occasions has cut off councilors during discussions and asked for a roll call vote. They are all guilty, including myself, when I offer ultimatums during public testimony. I apologize.
I have also witnessed bullying by code enforcement officers, police officers and the city attorney’s office. In fact, a former city attorney bullied one of my friends for seven years which cost him over $40K.
Like I said, I am all for free speech, citizens have a right to address their government about concerns, but public officials don’t have a right to bully citizens when we bring up these concerns. I saw this recently when the city refused to pay for damages the SFPD SWAT team created. In another incident a guy is being taken to small claims court over not building a dumpster enclosure fast enough. So if city officials are going to hold press conferences to tackle the problem of bullying, they must first look in the mirror and get their own house in order. I’m glad the mayor brought this issue to light, and I hope he looks at the bullying going on by the employees he manages. If Huether believes in leading by example it is imperative he sets a good example to city employees and directors. The same goes for the council (None of them attended the press conference yesterday).
BTW, Huether mentioned bullying that goes on on blogs. So I thought it would only be appropriate to comment on his press conference, on my blog.
*LMFAO. Which means ‘Laugh my funny arm off’
August 26th, 2014 — SFPD, Sioux Falls, Sioux Falls Parks and Rec
Some friends shot this picture the other night, the SFPD has been doing this for years, I don’t have an issue with it. But I like the ironic difference between the bicycle cops and the cycle cops. Nothing like having a nice ride on the bike trail and being passed by a HD.
August 19th, 2014 — SFPD
Like when our SWAT team blew out the windows of an apartment building to catch an unarmed fugitive, or when they put over 40 bullet holes in houses trying to coax a mentally ill-sucidal veteran from his home. But my favorite was when over 20 of them (My count from an Argus Leader photo) showed up to be Looky-Loos at a murder/suicide scene. I thought to myself, “Isn’t that many officers at a crime scene like that give more of a risk to contaminating the site?” The other part that surprised me, besides the fact that it seems they don’t have a lot to do as patrol officers is that when Chief Barthel was asked during the budget hearing how many officers are on patrol at any given time, he said between 20-40. I thought to myself, “If half to all of our patrol officers are at one scene, where the suspect and victim are clearly dead, who is patrolling the rest of the city.?”
July 17th, 2014 — SF City Council, SFPD, Sioux Falls
During the SF City Council informational meeting open discussion the topic of the landlords that had their property destroyed while police where capturing a fugitive came up. Councilor Staggers argued that they should be paid because they were innocent. City attorney David Fiddle-Faddle said that the city did file a claim with their liability insurance and were denied. Chief Barthel also said that since one of the tenants living in the building knew the fugitive (the fugitive was trying to find them) that doesn’t totally leave the landlord off the hook.
I’m sure we ALL either know or are related to convicted felons or criminals, so does that make us guilty by association? Seems like a strange justification. Chief Barthel also says that if we just give them the money, even if the claim was denied, we would be setting a precedence.
In other words, when the SFPD breaks up innocent people’s property, no matter the circumstance, they won’t pay – EVER.
There is a solution. The city council can write a resolution and put it on the council agenda to award the landlords the money. This is fair for a couple of reasons, first off it shows their is no precedence and these things can be handled on a case by case basis, secondly, there would be public discussion by our legislative body whether it is appropriate to reimburse them.
Of course that would require common sense, prudence and compassion by our city council, something a few of them don’t have.