The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

There is something wrong when a guy can walk up to you in a parking lot and hit you before someone else can get between you, make threats on your life, and the lives of your family, and when TPD finally shows up an hour later all they are willing to do is write him a ticket.

[/rant]

Personal experience or did I miss something in the news?

Something that happened to me today, needed to vent off somewhere.

If a ticket was issued, his name (and possibly address) is a matter of public record. I strongly urge you to post that information here. Also, sue the sh*t outta him.

I know his name and where he stays.  He doesn't have an address since his wife kicked em out. And he doesn't have money to sue him for since he spends it all on coke.  Would be nice to take that kind of action but I'm at the point where I don't seem to have any recourse here.

Well post what information you do have and let's give him some well-deserved public scorn.

What type of recourse are you looking for?  ...... that's legal?

I would have been happy if he spent some time in jail.

And you didn't press charges for assault why?

I did, and like I said, all they were willing to do was issue a ticket.  In the end, they wouldn't even do that because the guy wouldn't answer the door.

Next time you call the cops tell them you have a gun and you might be forced to use it.

They will be there in mere minutes instead of hours.

Or you could get a CCL and shoot him next time?    This works only if you are in fear of "imminent peril of death or great bodily harm."
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69782

Then Timmay Harris will charge you with a felony and keep you from ever owning another firearm legally.

actually, I do have a CCL, just wasn't carrying at this point in time (one of the few times I wasn't). 

Well by Gawd, How big a boy are ya ?
Sound's like sombody's gonna get their a** whooped !

Steal his coke!  Ya think he'll report THAT stolen?

But, the jail part comes after conviction, not before, and is up to the judge, not the police officer.

The going to jail part puts that guy in the front door and out the back door before you even get home.  The police officer can't make the arrest, you would have to do that and then you would have to go to the jail to sign your paperwork.  Again, the bad guy is out before you get home from doing the paperwork.

The ticket works the same and the guy gets a court date, where he goes before a judge.  If convicted, the judge determines sentencing.

If it's not up to the police officer, then why do they take people all the time for misdemeanors?  And with DLM, it takes more time to get released then it does for me to get home.  You can pretty much count on him being there for at least 4 hours.  Even more if it's later in the evening when he gets picked up.

Sorry Wilbur, really, but your post is incorrect in so many ways that a discussion is unwarranted.

The court determines whether the offense is arrestable, citable or both, not the police.  In the same way the court determines what the fines are, not the police.

Since you have such a knowledge of the criminal justice system, please share.

so then, when a cop decides to take a guy to jail for public intox because he had a drink and walks down the street, the court determined it in that case?  No, the police make the initial decission.  If they stay there after that is up to the courts

It helps to vent,  and let off some steam when we are wronged.

You are right on the public drunk arrest. I had one glass of Champagne New Years Eve several years back. A friend of mine was pulled over in the complex that my girfriend lived in. I went out to talk to the officer's(B.A.) The officer asked me to step back and if I had anything to drink that night. I said who hasnt it's New Years. He said turn around and put your hands behind your back. I told him I had one glass of Champagne and I would take any field sobriety test he wanted me too. I immediately lifted one leg and started touching my nose rapidly. He informed me that he did not have to administer one that it was up to the discretion of the arresting officer so turn around. I spent 8 hours of sober lockup in the B.A. jail.

If the police take enforcement action, the enforcement action is mandated by the court.  In this instance, you are correct, public drunk is an arrestable offense only.  No citations.

You can go to

http://cityoftulsa.org/media/17866/Title37_000.pdf

These are the directions of the court dealing with traffic offenses.  I couldn't find one on the web site for the penal code offenses, but there is a similar list put out by the court.

This is not unusual but not common knowledge. Both my son and a neighbor's son were both arrested (different occasions) and jailed even though they had only had a beer and were not given a field sobriety test of any kind. The officer "suspected" he was intoxicated and that was enough. All they were guilty of was being smart mouth teenagers which the officers took umbrage with. We figured it out pretty quick. Its the money.

And people wonder why some folks have an attitude problem when it comes to the police.

You said "penal".

With that Beavis & Butthead moment having passed, let's talk about law enforcement and the Court's role. First, your link is to the City of Tulsa's municipal code. There is an entire section in Oklahoma statutes relating to traffic laws (Title 47) and criminal offenses (Title 21) which the police likewise enforce. But more importantly, this thread was about a reported assault or battery and the police officer's refusal to arrest and detain the suspect. That was his call I suppose based upon whatever investigation he did, but the fact is the officer could have arrested this guy and made him post bail to secure his appearance in court. So to your earlier point, the judge does not always determine who gets locked up. As for the judge determining the sentence, that's a big misconception since most cases are plea bargained whereupon a sentence is agreed upon between the DA and the defendant. The Court in nearly all instances basically gives its formal blessing to the deal (unless of course it is an Alford plea).

My hang up in this instance is that this was a physical attack. The guy should have been arrested and forced to post bail to impress upon him the seriousness of the charge. 

That's not surprising; BA police officers for the most part are jackasses.  Every one I've ever dealt with had a power complex big time.  I call it the 'Barney Fife Syndrome'.

Please make sure they're only getting one bullet.

Hoss, here is where we differ. For me, especially in my formative years, I had favorable dealings with the BAPD, and I fondly look at these individuals as trusted advisors and friends. I'd been pulled over in the past (never ticketed by them), for things such as a burned-out taglight, but you know, it was legit. Now, some of the rookie officers, sure, they can be a bit hotheaded, a bit powermad, but they do grow out of it.

But it depends on when that was I think.  My worst recollections of BAPD were from the mid to late eighties.  I think they started getting a complex about growing so much so quickly and usually looked down upon anyone with a city (Tulsa) address as a 'feren'r' (that's foreigner in hick).

Yes, they had problems with their emerging "identity" in the eighties. I was an ad rep for the World stationed there in 1982. Coat and tie job. I got pulled over by BAPD's finest for no reason. I hadn't violated any laws and my Tulsa tags had recently been purchased. The officer simply wanted to know why I was in their city. That really creeped me. The feeling at that time was that most of their crime was coming from Tulsa. It was very much like Mayberry, RFD.

Oh, Guido -

Yes, there are other state charges that mirror city charges, but officers are not allowed to file them (state charges) under many circumstances if there is an equal city charge.  If they do, the DA declines the charge, then sends a note to the officer telling him/her to refile in city court.  Not saying it's right or wrong, it just is...

And you can bet officer Rob Farva just traced your IP and you'll be getting a visit in the near future from their special ops.  Be on the lookout for black helicopters hovering over your house.

Is that anything like Fox News Security (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200603030010)?

 ;D

Was he a rookie, kid cop type?

When I was getting pulled over around the mid/late eighties, that seemed to be ALL they had.  Four consecutive incidents in a year.  First time they pulled me over for a 'dimming' taillight.  I asked what the hell that was and he told me one tail light was dimmer than the other.  Wow.  He then proceeded to search my vehicle because he thought I looked like the pot smoking type.  Was a little more than infuriated that he found nothing, but let me go.  After that it was a series of traffic stops varying from not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign (horsecrap) and 'exhaust too loud'.  I had glass packs, and while they were kinda loud, I heard a guy driving south on Elm with exhaust way louder.  It took everything I had to not ask this guy 'are you gonna cite him as well?'.

I got to know one of the B.A. police officers and his wife who also worked for the B.A.P.D.
He was one in his early years on the department that would generally kind of harass younger people out at night. He was not the kind to rough people up but you could just tell that it was his type of personality.
Anyway my first question to him was, why after 10 P.M. at a light or stop sign do they run your tag ? you can sit there and tell they are doing it. His answer was the same as waterboy's cop. We just want to know what you are doing in B.A. at that hour.

Mr.J, perhaps he was a younger guy, but so was I. I don't remember him specifically. The same thing happened to a fellow friend who was a yellow pages sales rep in Cleveland, OK, only he was black and they told him to be gone by sundown! Remember, BA didn't allow restaurants to serve mixed drinks at that time. Dancing, drinking and just hanging out weren't allowed. That's what Tulsa was for. There was one beer joint on Main that was allowed to operate because they had uninterrupted ownership since forever.

Actually, it was a nice little town, just a little bit anal. ;D

If that's who i think he is, i knew him and his wife. I love them both! He's ok, maybe a little tense and stressed is all.

What makes the difference is whether the misdemeanor (the crime) occurred in the officer's presence or not. Public intoxication is a misdemeanor that occurs in the officer's presence and therefore he can make an arrest. Getting hit and making a report later is what is known as a misdemeanor not committed in their presence and according to the city's municipal court results in a book to court citation. The police have been instructed not to arrest on a city charge if a citation can be issued since the city now has to pay the jail for municipal "prisoners". I do wish people would blame the correct people for the legal system and quit blaming police. Police have rules they have to go by also.