Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

GCPD don't waste time

3K views 47 replies 14 participants last post by  UtiPossidetis 
#1 ·
#7 ·
O.C.G.A. 40-8-25 (2010)
40-8-25. Brake lights and turn signals required


(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell any motor vehicle manufactured after January 1, 1954, including any motorcycle or motor driven cycle manufactured after January 1, 1954, in this state or for any person to drive such vehicle on the highways unless it is equipped with at least one brake light meeting the requirements of Code Section 40-8-26.

(b) If a motor vehicle is manufactured with two brake lights, both must be operational.

(c) No person shall sell or offer for sale or operate on the highways any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer registered in this state and manufactured or assembled after January 1, 1954, unless it is equipped with mechanical or electrical turn signals meeting the requirements of Code Section 40-8-26. This subsection shall not apply to any motorcycle or motor driven cycle manufactured prior to January 1, 1972.
 
#8 ·
O.C.G.A. 40-8-26 (2010)
40-8-26. Standards for brake lights and signal devices


(a) Any motor vehicle may be equipped and when required under this article shall be equipped with the following signal lights or devices:

(1) A brake light on the rear which shall emit a red light and which shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake and which may but need not be incorporated with a taillight; and

(2) A light or lights or mechanical signal device capable of clearly indicating any intention to turn either to the right or to the left and which shall be visible from both the front and the rear.

(b) Every brake light shall be plainly visible and understandable from a distance of 300 feet to the rear both during normal sunlight and at nighttime, and every signal light or lights indicating intention to turn shall be visible and understandable during daytime and nighttime from a distance of 300 feet from both the front and the rear. When a vehicle is equipped with a brake light or other signal lights, such light or lights shall at all times be maintained in good working condition. No brake light or signal light shall project a glaring or dazzling light.

(c) All mechanical signal devices shall be self-illuminated when in use at the times mentioned in Code Section 40-8-20.

(d) All lenses on brake lights and signal devices shall be maintained in good repair and shall meet manufacturers' specifications.
 
#12 ·
Many police are quite knowledgeable about no requirement to use turn signals while changing lanes. I have seen them not bother to use them many times.

Nemo
 
#15 ·
89 cases they were involved in were dismissed.

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/lo...cle_9bfadb6d-191f-5242-bd1d-a669a41707d0.html

Excuses.
The department fired Bongiovanni Thursday evening about two hours after the second video surfaced. Ayers said McDonald apologized for his actions and showed remorse. But Bongiovanni reportedly didn’t.

“(He said) ‘It’s different out there in the streets,’†Ayers said.
http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/lo...cle_d1620462-5985-5c74-9745-ef402d8baf24.html
 
#17 ·
#18 · (Edited)
Saw a report about this on NBC evening news today. Its making the national broadcast. They had a video of when the first cop got the guy out of the car, cop had driver between car seat area and door, busted him square in the face with a good elbow while driver had both hands in the air.

Very clear view of the driver from cop approaching and first strike. Were I prosecuting the case, I would put defendant up to describe injuries, driving before stop and what happened at hospital. That video would convict first cop all by itself.

Nemo

http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news...eaten-by-georgia-cops-speaks-out-921651267517
 
#19 ·
The department fired Bongiovanni Thursday evening about two hours after the second video surfaced. Ayers said McDonald apologized for his actions and showed remorse. But Bongiovanni reportedly didn’t.

“(He said) ‘It’s different out there in the streets,’†Ayers said.
I'm hoping that I'm wrong, but that certainly sounds like an admission of 'street justice'.
Since when is vigilantism acceptable?
 
#20 ·
I'm hoping that I'm wrong, but that certainly sounds like an admission of 'street justice'.
Since when is vigilantism acceptable?
Don't want to sound like some, but it happens all the time when the person taking the vigilante approach wears a badge.
 
#21 ·
#22 · (Edited)
In this instance, employment is the least of their concerns. I suspect criminal indictments are in their future, perhaps even federal charges for deprivation of civil rights under the color of law.

The officers have a right to due process. I guarantee you that the Gwinnett County government has an appeals process and that both officers have an option for a hearing to force the GCPD to actually prove a case for termination. in fact, here it is:

(410.400) Dismissals
Dismissals are discharges made for delinquency, misconduct, inefficiency, deliberate
violation of Merit System Board Rules and Regulations or administrative policies, or
inability to perform the work of the position satisfactorily.
Dismissals of regular status Classified Service employees shall be effective only after the
employee to be discharged has been notified of the specific reasons for the separation, and
has been given the opportunity to respond thereto. However, when in the opinion of the
Department Director circumstances require the immediate departure of the employee from
the work place, the separation may be made effective immediately. In such instances of
immediate separation, the employee shall be given a hearing with the Department Director
within forty-eight ( 48 ) hours of the separation, wherein the charges against him/her shall be
presented in writing and reviewed with the employee and he/she shall be given the
opportunity to respond thereto.
The reasons for the separation and the employee's response shall be forwarded to the
Human Resources Director and Executive Secretary. The discharged employee shall have
the right to a hearing before the Merit System Board as provided herein subject to appeal
as provided by law. (See Chapter II).

https://www.gwinnettcounty.com/portal/gwinnett/Departments/HR/MeritRules
 
#23 ·
I'm hoping that I'm wrong, but that certainly sounds like an admission of 'street justice'.
Since when is vigilantism acceptable?
Its not. Vigilantism is by "not cop" civilians. The "street justice" by a cop is different because they are special.

Nemo
 
#25 ·
One already appealed a prior demotion and won. Yes, they get to appeal, but unlike past instances for at least one officer there is now video evidence of their misdeeds. Good luck with the appeal.....
 
#26 ·
In this instance, employment is the least of their concerns. I suspect criminal indictments are in their future, perhaps even federal charges for deprivation of civil rights under the color of law.

The officers have a right to due process.
I was surprised it wasn't "administrative leave" while investigation takes place. That was the basis of my comment.

I know courts have ruled, but believe the right of due process should only apply when the govt participates in government/governed relationship. An employer/employee relationship ought to be just like any other. No constitutional right should be involved just because it's "government". That should be applied to citizens, not employees.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top