Democracy In Albany

You don't honestly think this is the end of story, do you?  How many discrepancies are there in this latest, clear as mud article?  She was under the influence.  Except, wait, she wasn't charged with being under the influence.  She lied about the cell phone.  Except, wait, her friend's story lines up with what the woman is saying.

Mighty big of the chief to be willing to put this behind him.    

Here are my questions:

1.  This case appears to be basically one person's word against another's against some other people's (one easily verifiable fact aside).   All of this could be avoided if there were video cameras in the patrol cars as we have been requesting for years.   We have wasted a whole lot of taxpayer time and money on this case which should have been a non issue if their were video cameras and the officers are correct in their accounts of what happened.    Why hasn't Chief Tuffey taken the lead on making this happen?  I'm glad he is willing to put this behind him and move on.   I'd prefer he took steps to make sure it didn't happen again, regardless of what actually happened.    The truth would be evident from the tape.     No reputations tarnished.  No taxpayer dollars wasted.   Nada.   Facts, conclusion, back to work.

2.  There seems to be one central dispute in this case that  can be very simplied verified and then we would be able to prove one side is lying.    There are two cell phones involved which means there are two records of the call sequence and origination.    I find it unbelievable that no one from the APD's internal affairs, the DA's office, either of the two women who own the phones or the Times Union reporters have tried to get these records.   The cops say they answered the phone.  The women say they cops took the phone and dialed.   The phone records would clear all that up in a hurry.    Someone should get on that.   Someone is either lying or has a bad memory.   At this point, I don't see how any of us could know what happened.   Until we got the phone records and it would be perfectly clear.  

3.  I'm still unclear as to what was in the ex con's testimony to the DA that made it worth giving him the get out of jail free card?   He didn't see the incident.   He claims they were smoking crack and drinking.   From what i've read that is all he brings to this.   So what?   The cops claimed their was an open container in the car.   I'm not a detective but I'd think that would be an indication that someone was drinking.    So, why did this guy get such a light sentence in return for this testimony?   I'm in agreement with Kindlon on this one.  

Terence L. Kindlon, an Albany attorney who specializes in criminal defense and has followed the case, questioned the deal granted to Buxton and whether the district attorney's office should have referred the case to a special prosecutor.

"Here, a recidivist, violent felon has been given a 'get out of jail free card' in exchange for testimony to support a misdemeanor prosecution of a completely harmless young woman," Kindlon said. "It is pretty surprising that the DA is willing to pay such a high price for such a small return.

It is rather surprising.   What is almost as surprising is that Alfred is so willing to let a violent felon off the hook for testimony that adds nothing substantiative to this case.    

4. Is it common for the APD to let people driving with an open container to drive off from traffic stops?  IF so, Chief Tuffey should change that policy so it actually is in compliance with that law, because drinking and driving is illegal.    

5.  It is common for the APD to be "about to arrest" someone and then just let them drive off?  And what exactly was he "about to arrest" her for?   And can anyone tell me what changed where they decided she should be arrested?   All we've been told is that she was pulled over due to a turn signal issue.   Last I checked, you couldn't get arresed for that.

Abrams told internal affairs that Shutter gave him permission to answer the telephone as it rang and that his intention was to have the caller, Mandie Buxton, who is Shutter's best friend and Buxton's sister, make arrangements to retrieve the rental car because Shutter was about to be arrested.

6)  Why is it that in these cases, the officers stories never match up?    

The officers apparently gave conflicting accounts about which of them went to the driver's window and asked Shutter for her license. Abrams admitted using Shutter's phone, but Fargione told police investigators he didn't recall the phone ringing or that Abrams had used it, according to the person briefed on their statements.

Now, I think it is reasonable to believe that officers who make many traffic stops can't remember all of the details of all of them, as is apparently the case here since they have conflicting accounts of what happened.   Fair enough.    So how is it that this woman is accused of lying based solely on the officers' testimony, but they clearly can't remember the details of what happened.   I'd say the District Attorney is looking worse and worse on this one.   Again, get video cameras in the cars.   And check those cellphone records.

7)   And my last question, which really doesn't need to be answered because the Citizen Police Review Board is a complete joke, but I'll ask anyway.   If this is just a case of a woman making false claims against an officer, why did the internal affairs department discourage her from going to the CPRB?   Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to have her talk to them if she was full of shit and they knew it?  

The officers said they zeroed in on Shutter because she was driving a rental car and parked near a suspected crack house on First Street, a source familiar with the case said.

2.)  What is your definition of an "open container"?  Just because the police find an open container in a car, doesn't mean the driver has been drinking.  An open container can be something  simple, like an empty beer can on the floor. It appears that you're assuming facts that you have no knowledge of.  

3.)  What is your definition of an "arrest"?  You don't have to be handcuffed and placed in a jail cell to be arrested.  Being stopped for a traffic infraction and given a ticket is considered an arrest.  The police officers in this case could have stated that they were going to give her a ticket and then decided not to.  It's called discretion.

4.)  Your bias against the police is so clear.  When this story was first reported in the press, you, among others, had no problem believing Shutter's account of the incident.  Now, that she has been charged for making false statements you say that "this case appears to be basically one person's word against another's against some other people's".  You forgot about the fact that she admitted that she lied to investigators.  

5.)  98% of all felonies are plea bargained.

6.)  If you were pulled over by the police, they would have to have probably cause to stop you, so I guess you did do something wrong.  So yes, they do get to question you?  Tell me, how the hell can you say that all your rights are slipping away, when you don't even know what they are?  

7.)  I noticed that there was one subject that you didn't address, which doesn't surprise me.  That is, maybe Shutter is a liar and her accusations are completely false.  That would explain why she didn't testify in front of a Grand Jury.  I know that you don't care if the accusations are true or not.  Your statement "I'd prefer he took steps to make sure it didn't happen again, regardless of what actually happened" says it all about your bias opinions.  You should be so proud, you got to bang your self-righteous drum for a while.  

2.)  The Albany Police Department, along with every other police department in this country, have and use discretion.  An example of this is if the police stop you for committing a traffic infraction.  Some officers may issue you a citation and others may let you go without one.  Or do you prefer that everyone get arrested, for every violation of the law?  So whether you like it or not, they do get to choose, you know that damn discretion thing.  And one more thing, just because the police have probable cause to make an arrest, that doesn't mean they have to make that arrest.  If the police choose, they can make that arrest days or weeks later.  

3.)  You sound just like a lawyer.  When the facts are on your side, you argue the facts.  When they aren't, you argue police misconduct.   And don't give me your garbage about "how does that make the streets safer".  It doesn't.   But that was never the issue here, was it?  You made a decision long ago to take your shots at these 2 police officers and now you can't or won't defend your position.  

4.)  Even if the officer did use her cell phone without her permission, he never violated the New York State Penal Law in doing so.  

5.)  And yes, you can lie to local and state law enforcement.  But when they catch you in a lie, your lies will give them more reasons to inquire about what you were doing.  But if you give them a false statement or testimony, that is a crime.  On the other hand, if you lie to a federal law enforcement officer, that is a crime.  My question to you is, why would you want to lie to law enforcement if you are not doing any thing wrong?  Unless of course, you're a criminal.  And you say, your not "far left".  Yeah, right!  

6.)  And please, show me, at anytime where I have said anything against a balanced budget.  Unlike you, I don't address a lot of topics on this blog that I have little knowledge of.  And I never want to "shut up the far left", I love when they exposed themselves for what they are.  

7.)  And yes, I do believe that Albany Police Department, like every police organization, has its flaws.  But most of your comments about the police department, come from your hatred of Jennings and Tuffey and that's to bad.

So, there is a beer can with beer in it in the back of her rental car.  We know this because the cop said she had an open container.  Perhaps he got distracted searching other things and didn't actually pick up the beer from her backseat and see if there was anything in it.  But, we don't want to imply he is an idiot, so we should give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he picked up the can and poured it out and thus can honestly state she had an open container based on the law.

This blog existed long before Tuffey started lying as the chief.  I didn't like the last police chief either.  But at least he had the balls to come out and admit he was a liar and apologize when he got caught.  Go Aquaducks!  I will certainly go on record and say I do not like Tuffey.  I've only met him a few times but he seems quite unpleasant.  Perhaps I talk to more members of the APD than you do but the ones I've heard from share my position on this matter.

I don't hate Jerry Jennings.  I do feel sorry for him.   He is in way over his head and isn't qualified to do what needs to be done in Albany.  He isn't an honest person.   I do not respect him because, as you know, respect must be earned.    

This isn't an anti jennings blog.  You may have noticed my last post was criticizing Soares for being like Jerry.  I'm trying to point out that we need to hold our elected officials, who we pay, to a minimal standard of doing business. I understand you interpret this as "far left".   Unfortunately, most fail at this.  My point is simply to advocate for honest and competent public servants.   If the APD didn't have such a high level of law breakers in its ranks, I wouldn't mention them.  But they do.  And who leads them?  Christian Mesley.  Please.  He was elected by the union, wasn't he?   Has he endorsed any stalkers lately or did he only do that once?  

if this woman made up this story, let her pay the price.   However, we shouldn't be letting her shotgun riding felon friend off the hook for claiming she smoked crack so that people like Alfred can dismiss the whole thing as just some "crackhead from Ravena".   You law and order types sure are quick to plea bargain a violent felon when it works for you.   I understand it is easier to only apply your values when convenient.  If you think i'm happy about the DA giving that fucker a free ride in exchange for nothing that makes the public safer, you are mistaken.  You may recall I said it was too bad that no one is running against Soares.  You can cross me off the list of people show support him.  I can assure you that sticking to your values and holding everyone to the same standards is hugely disappointing.  I won't be voting for Soares.  Will you?

Remember Paul Clyne?  didn't he also blame the girl?  You know, the one who was raped by shelly silver's lawyer?  I didn't approve of that either.

Like i said, check the phone records.  then we will have some facts to start with and will know who is telling the truth about that part of what happened.  

It is very simple.  Someone is lying.  If it is her, let her be held accountable.  If it is the cop, let him be held accountable.  

That is how the "far left" works.   Honesty and Responsibility for your Actions.

I realize the truth can be uncomfortable.  

I know, now what you'll do is play the victim, like you always do when you are wrong.  You'll be telling us that I'm making you out to be the bad guy.

Shutter was charged because she lied.  Plain and simple.  And yes, the District Attorney's Office will have to prove that in a court of law, not on some blog.  But let me assure you of this, those lies were of material facts, not just some inaccuracies.  

Not only do you owe these 2 police officers an apology, you owe all the members of the Albany Police Department an apology.  Now I know, what you'll do is point out the few police officers that had there own problems with the law and paint the whole police department with that brush.  When was the last time you complimented any member of the Albany Police Department?  The answer is simple, you never have.

I'm on record as being a supporter of beat cops who understand the communities and know the people where they patrol. I can say that I have only had good interactions with the members of the APD who I've gotten to know. I've never had an even slightly negative interaction with any cop that recognizes me when they see me. I will say that there have been several instances where I've dealt with members of the APD and I was someone they didn't know and those typically are a much different experience.

Looks like you painted me with a broad brush.

"The truth is important," Carnevale said. "Harry would've been pursuing the truth, he always was. ... It's not about money, it's about what's right or wrong.

These people lost their son.  They are asking for the truth.   And they are being told they can't have it.  

It is things like this that create a negative public impression of Tuffey and how far he will go to cover up any wrongdoing on behalf of the APD.    

But as he made it clear last week.   If we ask questions and want the truth, he expects us to apologize and/or resign.  

And I don't know how your head fits through the doorway, with that massive ego of yours.  I got news for you, no member of the Albany Police cares who you are.  You only think they do.

And AM hit the nail right on the head, the moment this story hit the news, you had them found guilty.  But you forgot about one inportant fact.  The only person charged after this investigation was Shutter.  

Say no more, my friend. You have summed up justice in Albany.

If you want the truth, you need to get lawyers involved.  Because  you can't get it from Chief Tuffey or his boss Jennings.

You, the Times Union and many of your far left buddies who post here, convicted these 2 police officers from the moment this story hit the press.

The initial investigation was completed by the Office of Professional Standards of the Albany Police Department.  But the majority of this investigation was conducted by the Albany County District Attorney's Office.  Do you believe that the District Attorney's investigation wasn't fair and impartial?   After all, they are the agency that filed charges.  

Since you know the policies of the Albany Police Department, please enlighten us.  What policies did these 2 officers violate?

And what is truly fascinating is how you totally disregard the fact that she admitted to investigators that she lied.  

You stated that one of the reasons that removes credibility from the stop is that the police used her cell phone.  The fact that the police used her cell phone, has nothing to do with why she was stopped.  So how does that fact remove credibility of the stop?

Early, I posted the open container law, in regards to motor vehicles.  It states "the drinking of alcoholic beverages, or the possession of an open container containing an alcoholic beverage, in a motor vehicle located upon the public highways or right-of-way public highway is prohibited.  Any operator or passenger violating this section shall be guilty of a traffic infraction".  Your statement that a person "must show intent to consume" is incorrect, just having an open container containing a alcoholic beverage in a motor vehicle is a violation of the law.