Typical.

Typical Chicago in at #2.

How can video surveillance of him taking shots before leaving the bar not be used as evidence? They didn't say that it was thrown out.

Chicago sounds like a train wreck to me. Lots of corruption.

It makes sense, since the only evidence of his wrongdoing was obtained illegally.

In other words, the cop who got liquored up right before hopping in his car and splattering two people walks free SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE HE WAS FILMED getting liquored up right before hopping in his car and splattering two people.

/it would not surprise me to learn that the owner/operator of the camera will now face felony charges for filming a cop doing something which would have landed a non-cop with at least a twenty year PMITA sentence

Weaver95: homeschooled: How can video surveillance of him taking shots before leaving the bar not be used as evidence? They didn't say that it was thrown out.

Chicago sounds like a train wreck to me. Lots of corruption.

you must be one of those people who still believe the legal system is fair and balanced.

I believe it should be.

homeschooled: How can video surveillance of him taking shots before leaving the bar not be used as evidence? They didn't say that it was thrown out.

Chicago sounds like a train wreck to me. Lots of corruption.

Because he's a cop. Illinois is one of several states where it is illegal to film a cop when the cop is doing something illegal

King Something: homeschooled: How can video surveillance of him taking shots before leaving the bar not be used as evidence? They didn't say that it was thrown out.

Chicago sounds like a train wreck to me. Lots of corruption.

Because he's a cop. Illinois is one of several states where it is illegal to film a cop when the cop is doing something illegal

I think that's only when they're on duty. He was off duty at a bar being recorded by a security camera. That's legal.

homeschooled: King Something: homeschooled: How can video surveillance of him taking shots before leaving the bar not be used as evidence? They didn't say that it was thrown out.

Chicago sounds like a train wreck to me. Lots of corruption.

Because he's a cop. Illinois is one of several states where it is illegal to film a cop when the cop is doing something illegal

I think that's only when they're on duty. He was off duty at a bar being recorded by a security camera. That's legal.

Any lawyer for a police union would argue that cops are on duty 24/7, and pretty much any judge would agree with that argument - especially judges who are elected rather than appointed.

Cops can do pretty much whatever they feel like, legal or illegal, arrest or outright murder anyone who so much as looks at them funny, and over 99% of the time their illegal activities will go unpunished.

I've never rooted for a multi-million dollar civil judgment so hard in my life.

/son of a cop
//fark that shiat

panfried: stop resisting

And that, right there are the magic words. Once a cop utters those words at a non-cop, it's practically legal for the cops to bash that poor fool's head in with a sledgehammer - that person is "resisting arrest" and the cops, who are "frightened for their lives" at this point, have the right and the duty to subdue the resistee by any means necessary.

I don't think he got off due to the law banning citizens from filming police, but rather the judge didn't think the video was evidence that the cop was intoxicated at the time of the crash.

Errk: Guess he wasn't given a breath or blood test?

oh he was,

7 hours after the crash

Meatzilla: Do you know who else comes from the Chicago culture of corruption?

THREAD OVER

/everyone to the politics tab, move along, single file please
// 7/10

Ah, the culture of police corruption strikes again. This idiot should be in jail, yet thanks to his coworkers covering up for their fellow officer he gets a pass. Complete and utter bullshiat.

Fifty bucks says he doesn't even get fired from the police department and ends up with a desk job.

Errk: Guess he wasn't given a breath or blood test?

fta Prosecutors also suggested in pretrial hearings that police the night of the crash turned a blind eye to Ardelean's intoxication. Among other things, he wasn't arrested or given a Breathalyzer until seven hours after the crash. But Gainer ruled in April that the supervising officer who ultimately made the arrest didn't have strong enough evidence to do so. Gainer's ruling also suppressed key blood-alcohol evidence.

See? All the rules were followed.

I am shocked that a cop would get a free pass like this, SHOCKED

/not all cops are bad, etc.

Leather!: I am shocked... SHOCKED

Fark should start a "Police abuse of Power" Tab

...Ardelean -- wearing dark sunglasses and surrounded by four beefy men in casual clothing...

Nice.

karlandtanya: ...Ardelean -- wearing dark sunglasses and surrounded by four beefy men in casual clothing...

Nice.

Bet you dollars to donuts (pun intended) those four beefy men were other cops.

No farking shame.

Okay, I read the Chicago Tribune's take on this story, and came across this choice paragraph:

At a preliminary hearing the next month, an expert on drivers under the influence testified that Ardelean's blood-alcohol level could have been 0.104 to 0.177 at the time of the crash, much higher than the legal limit. But prosecutors did not show Judge Donald Panarese Jr. the security video, and a bartender testified Ardelean was drinking shots of water. Panarese found there was no probable cause for the arrest.

Shots of water? Oh, for fark's sake, that's insane. The fix was obviously in.

Not that it makes it OK, but the guys he killed were drunk mexicans blowing through a stop sign.

It's the Chicago way!

If you ain't cop, you're little people

Only thing you can hope for is Karma....
Maybe Karma with a Kadiliac? Over his farking head!

otto the bull: Not that it makes it OK, but the guys he killed were drunk mexicans blowing through a stop sign.

from this article (new window):

Prosecutors have said Ardelean, who was off duty, drank three beers and four shots at a River North bar just before the crash at Damen and Oakdale avenues that killed Lagunas, 21, and Flores, 22 about 2:50 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007.

According to published reports at the time, Ardelean was driving a Dodge Durango SUV northbound on Damen when a car slowed in front of him. He drove around that car, crossed the center lane and returned to the proper lane before broadsiding a westbound 2006 Pontiac Grand Am. Police said he was travelling about 60 mph at the time of the accident.

The Grand Am, driven by Lagunas, did not stop at a stop sign at Oakdale and Damen before accelerating in front of Ardelean's vehicle, which had the right of way, according to published reports. Prosecutors later said that according to witnesses, the driver of the Grand Am had also been drinking. According to a source, his blood alcohol level at the time of his autopsy was .074.

Officers who had been on the scene later testified they had no indication Ardelean was drunk at the scene.

A police supervisor at the district later ordered Ardelean to submit to a Breathalyzer, but Judge Thomas Gainer Jr. ruled in April that police had no probable cause to arrest and detain him, let along force him to take the test, which showed a blood alcohol level of .032, below the legal threshold of .08.

Gainer harshly criticized police Lt. John Magruder, who ordered Ardelean arrested a few hours after the crash, saying he had detected alcohol on his breath and noticed bloodshot eyes.

None of the four police officers at the crash scene -- or a responding Chicago Fire Department emergency medical technician -- reported noticing any sign that Ardelean was drunk.
_______________


I'm not saying the cop should get off - but it is pretty deplorably crappy journalism that none of this stuff was included in this article.

Can we all agree that the 1920's paper-boy hat needs to go the way of Hammer-pants?

Meatzilla: Do you know who else comes from the Chicago culture of corruption?

No, he comes from Hawaii.

Pathman:
None of the four police officers at the crash scene -- or a responding Chicago Fire Department emergency medical technician -- reported noticing any sign that Ardelean was drunk.
_______________


I'm not saying the cop should get off - but it is pretty deplorably crappy journalism that none of this stuff was included in this article.

/Well here's your problem...

Is it too late to resurrect Mayor Daly?

The only provable crime here is that his arresting and superior officers didn't immediately administer a breathalyzer or blood test. It's possible his BAC was under the limit. A videotape can't determine BAC with certainty, and he's under no legal obligation to help them prove that 5 shots would make him legally drunk.

Fark the department for blowing what should have been an open and shut case, fark the prosecutors who let them get away with this shiat, and fark the judge for not enforcing any semblance of law on these miscreants. Fark the entire system of justice which lets shiat like this get away. And fark us all for putting up with it.

TheyCallMeSirr2:

/Well here's your problem...

clearly. but the article completely left out details surrounding this story to incite further outrage at the po po.

i hope they take him for everything he is worth in civil court - but give us all of the facts and let us make our own decisions.

journalism in this country is dead. when i was a kid it was a respected field - up there w/ doctor, professor. now look at it.

I seriously would like to know why it is illegal to video cops. There is no reason for it. They can always make a video disappear, or forget to submit evidence, and even though you have a video tape that proves what the scumbag did, you can get 2-5 years for showing it or using it as proof, after they toss it out as inadmisable.

Not saying all of the cops are scum, but the ones that aren't don't make the tapes disappear (nor do they usually need to).

\I wonder if it is illegal for a cop to tape a cop?