# Troopers Use Cars To Ram Suspects



## MJS (Mar 20, 2008)

I guess this gives a new meaning to pursuit.  There is a video to go with this post, which shows the scene unfolding from the dash-cam in the police car.  

Personally, I don't think ramming a suspect with your car is the best option.  I can see maybe following the suspect, if he had got out of his car and started to run, before you reached his car with yours.  Then getting out and continue on foot.

Thoughts?



> COLUMBIA, S.C. - Federal authorities launched an investigation into the South Carolina Highway Patrol after dashboard camera videos showed a trooper using a racial slur and two others ramming their cruisers into fleeing suspects, a prosecutor said Thursday.


 
Link


----------



## tellner (Mar 20, 2008)

Let's take a closer look:



> "You better run," then-Lance Cpl. Daniel C. Campbell said to a suspect, using a derogatory term for blacks, "because I'm fixin' to kill you."


 
The scumbag should have been up on charges of attempted murder with a deadly weapon, not given a vaction with pay and "diversity training". At that point, if the suspect had shot Officer Campbell smack through the pimple it would have been justified. The pig was trying to kill him, not arrest, not apprehend, not prevent a crime. The fact that he carried tin and wore an unattractive suit of polyester clothes issued by the city doesn't make him any less of a murderous racist.

Shame on him.

Shame on the department for standing behind him.



> This week, the Highway Patrol released two more videos, both from 2007, showing troopers using their cars to ram suspects.
> In one of those tapes, Lance Cpl. Steven C. Garren drives after a black man on foot, striking him when he crosses in front of Garren's cruiser. The man is sent flying into high grass on the roadside.
> "Yeah, I hit him. I was trying to hit him," Garren, who is white, can be heard telling another trooper. Garren received a three-day suspension, which he has appealed.
> Another video shows Lance Cpl. Alexander Richardson chasing a running man at an apartment complex, driving between buildings and on sidewalks, passing onlookers, including a small child. The suspect appeared to be hit at a slower speed and kept on running.
> Richardson was reprimanded and completed a stress management course, disciplinary records show.


 
Hitting a man with a car is the same as shooting him. If you're not justified in doing the second you sure as hell aren't justified in doing the first. Even if it is South Carolina "Bumper Coons" is not a sport. 

Again, this pair of racist asshats deserves plenty of jail time in General Population for attempted murder, reckless endangerment of innocents, and the big one "Conspiracy to deprive a person of his civil rights" probably "based on race, color, creed or place of national origin". 

If this keeps happening and the department keeps letting it slide we need to get the FBI off its fat butts and do what it's supposed to - investigate corruption and lawlessness by law enforcement agencies - not setting up fake kiddie porn websites so it can add extra raids to its statistics.


----------



## tellner (Mar 20, 2008)

MJS said:


> Personally, I don't think ramming a suspect with your car is the best option. I can see maybe following the suspect, if he had got out of his car and started to run, before you reached his car with yours. Then getting out and continue on foot.


 
To reiterate: It's only "the best option" if shooting him in the back of the head is also a "best option". If it isn't, you're a murderer acting under the color of law, not a police officer.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 20, 2008)

Waitaminnit.....so if I'm reading this right this ISN'T car-on-car stuff but running someone down who is on foot,...WITH the cruiser?

Hmmmmmm......*shakes head*........About the only justification I could see for that would be if they were armed, or I had *VERY* good reason to believe they were fleeing to retrieve a weapon or otherwise would obviously continue to pose a deadly force threat to the surrounding community.


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 20, 2008)

Well if they where not criminals maybe they would not be running.


----------



## MJS (Mar 20, 2008)

tellner said:


> To reiterate: It's only "the best option" if shooting him in the back of the head is also a "best option". If it isn't, you're a murderer acting under the color of law, not a police officer.


 
Well, I hope that you didn't think that I was condoning what happened here.  As I said, it was certainly not the best option.  Whatever happened to the old fashioned foot pursuit?  I realize that it may piss a cop off when the suspect runs, but I don't think abuse is the answer.  Now, if they resist once you catch them, then yes, I see nothing wrong with taking them down and cuffing them.  Use the force necessary.  Beating someone ala Rodney King or hitting them with a car...well, it shouldn't be rocket science to see that should not be done.

Mike


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 20, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Well if they where not criminals maybe they would not be running.


 

That's true, but I'd sure as hell hate to find out I'd run someone over for littering.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 20, 2008)

As an aside to Tellner's initial point: At least here in MA, a vehicle IS considered a "dangerous weapon" for purposes of a charge of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and it *has* come up as such a charge in court when anyone has willfully hit another person with their vehicle,and rightly so.


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 20, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> That's true, but I'd sure as hell hate to find out I'd run someone over for littering.


 
I am sure that is not the case here, I remember when criminals was dealt with plain and simple. Do they have rights Hell no, they gave them up when they decided to be a criminal. I know I will catch hell here for that commit, but why do we beleive every single person can be a positive reflection on society. We all know that is not true.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 20, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> I am sure that is not the case here, I remember when criminals was dealt with plain and simple. Do they have rights Hell no, they gave them up when they decided to be a criminal. I know I will catch hell here for that commit, but why do we beleive every single person can be a positive reflection on society. We all know that is not true.


 

The point I was making is that while it IS generally true that "Innocent people don't run", there's still the question of whether it is known at the time of ramming whether the subjects pose a threat of the type to warrant said pizzafication.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 20, 2008)

tellner said:


> Let's take a closer look:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tellner, while I agree that the officer(s) was totally out of line and using racial epithets, I might remind you that there are several LEO's on this forum who would probably appreciate it if you wouldn't use the word PIG in reference to another officer no matter how distasteful he may be and the shame that he brings to those working Law Enforcement. 
Be assured that we'll be hearing a lot more about this in the days to come. I doubt that the NAACP will sit idly by and let this happen without a word of dissent. 
All of your charges are most likely will be filed and probably by the U.S. attorney general since it stands to reason that the area where the officer in question lives is most likely of the same mind bent that he is. 

It's stuff like this that fuels the fires of racism and hatred. It also fuels fires against LEO's all across the country. It shows that the so called "superior white race" is constantly showing it's inferiority with incidents like these. There's nothing superior about those guys to be sure. In fact I'm of mind there's no one superior, period, in this world. 
So much for those officers living up to the constitutional words "...that all men were created equal..."


----------



## MJS (Mar 20, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> I am sure that is not the case here, I remember when criminals was dealt with plain and simple. Do they have rights Hell no, they gave them up when they decided to be a criminal. I know I will catch hell here for that commit, but why do we beleive every single person can be a positive reflection on society. We all know that is not true.


 
Well, I think the only ones who will think that people can be reformed are the bleeding hearts.  I've seen quite a few repeat offenders, and their rap sheets speak volumes.  30, 40, 60 arrests!!!  You really have to wonder why the hell these people are still walking the streets!  

I was reading an article in todays paper about the 3 strikes law in CT and how it got shot down.  Personally, it shouldn't just apply to violent offenses, but any offense.  If someone can't get the message and turn their life around, they should be in jail for many years.

But, not to get too far off topic here...it doesnt say why they were chasing them or what the nature of the crime was, but I don't know why they couldnt just get out and chase them on foot.  All the more reason to be in top shape.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 20, 2008)

For me, living in a different 'climate', it's not the supposed racial slur that astounds me (because that's no different than picking any other convenient handle for verbal abuse) but it's the act that is jaw-dropping.

Get the fellow out of the force and into the 'house' where he belongs.  I usually try to see a thing from all angles but running a chap down is not part of police work as far as I can tell.

Now that's not bleeding heart liberalism (American version).  I've grown quite right-wing as I've progressed into my middle years (altho' still politically Liberal (English version)) and am quite in favour of very radical criminal punishment regimes for the ludicrously OTT repeat offenders.  Thirty or so arrests and no sign of a willingness to join society?  Then it's a lifetime in the army or the '38-pence cure' for you (or exile to France).  What you cannot have is those supposedly enforcing the law acting so far outside the scope of common-sense, let alone the legal aspects.


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 20, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> The point I was making is that while it IS generally true that "Innocent people don't run", there's still the question of whether it is known at the time of ramming whether the subjects pose a threat of the type to warrant said pizzafication.


 
I agree Andy, but for agreement sake people that are not guilty need not run.


----------



## MJS (Mar 20, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> For me, living in a different 'climate', it's not the supposed racial slur that astounds me (because that's no different than picking any other convenient handle for verbal abuse) but it's the act that is jaw-dropping.
> 
> Get the fellow out of the force and into the 'house' where he belongs. I usually try to see a thing from all angles but running a chap down is not part of police work as far as I can tell.
> 
> Now that's not bleeding heart liberalism (American version). I've grown quite right-wing as I've progressed into my middle years (altho' still politically Liberal (English version)) and am quite in favour of very radical criminal punishment regimes for the ludicrously OTT repeat offenders. Thirty or so arrests and no sign of a willingness to join society? Then it's a lifetime in the army or the '38-pence cure' for you (or exile to France). What you cannot have is those supposedly enforcing the law acting so far outside the scope of common-sense, let alone the legal aspects.


 
By all means, I don't consider someone who thinks running someone down with a car is a bleeding heart.  I'm talking about the people that sit here and say that prison isn't an answer, but instead rehab.  Sorry, but its a 2 way street.  You have to want rehab.  Believe me when I say, there are a ton of programs out there.

I used to work in corrections here in CT.  I'd see groups of people leave the block every night for AA, Bible study, drug programs, etc.  I'd sit here and think, yeah, thats right...just one more excuse to get some free time.  I'm sorry, but if someone really wanted help, they a) wouldn't wait until they land in jail to get it and b) they'd honestly make an effort to change their ways.  

As I said...why didn't these cops get out of their car and chase on foot, like every other officer does?  I've been a dispatcher for 5yrs. and not once have I heard a cop say that he's chasing someone on foot, in the cruiser.  What they do say is...FOOT PURSUIT!!!  a bunch of times into their radio.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 20, 2008)

I think we're on the same 'page' really, Mike.

The following is very general and not at all on topic so I accept any disapprobation I receive as a result of my wandering - I think it is loosely related because it deals with what may colour (no pun intended) an LEO's views but really it's just me spouting .

In my younger years I used that think that criminals were just people who'd caught some bad luck and were getting-by in whatever way they could.  Can't blame a human for surviving after all.  A bit of re-education and a chance to live life 'straight' and most of them would turn-around ... as I implied, I was *young* and idealistic .

As the decades accrue, I find that my feelings are more that _some_ who are criminals made some bad choices and ended up in the 'mill' from which they could not escape (I'm betting getting a job with a criminal record is torturously hard).  Some realise that they've trodden the wrong road and turn themselves around. But many make crime their career and have no intention of reforming.

Hence my very simple binary solution - be drafted into the military and serve the foreign policy interests of the government or take the quick route to the next incarnation of the soul.  Either way is a societal net gain.

Like any 'simple' solution this is fraught with pitfalls and generally atrocious moral flaws.  Sadly, I can see the backlash building in popular culture whereby it is starting to be seen that to be honest and hardworking is a 'mugs game' (the fictional media glamourisation of crime does not help in this) - letting that build is the start of a major decline in the quality of a culture.  Can we afford that?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 20, 2008)

No.


----------



## The Master (Mar 21, 2008)

It is good to see that I am not alone in being offended by this "Tellners" use of inflammatory language in describing the officers in questions.  While I find their behaviour as written here reprehensible, I am equally disgusted by the lack of tact shown by this wretched individual.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 21, 2008)

_*Admin Note:*_

Ladies and Gentlemen, this area is new to our boards, however the rules are essentially the same. Tough questions can be asked, best practices shared.

But we all must be clear on one important point:

MartialTalk does not allow, condone, organize, support, ignore continued derogatory comments pointed at any group.  "Pig" for instance is a pejorative for police officers who conduct themselves in ways or who use tactics disagreeable with some of the population.

Please be clear: if you cannot make an intelligent (or even unintelligent) point without the use of these words, we don't want you here.  

If you find another member's post rude, distasteful, hateful or containing an epithet such as this, PLEASE report the post to the staff by using the RTM feature. If you are unsure of what this is, just send one of us a PM. 

DO NOT respond in kind, DO NOT conduct a riot upon the person, DO NOT feel justified in spewing forth further diatribe irrelevant to the topic which glorifies the offender. Please also understand that should we take disciplinary action with a user we will NOT share this with any other member. Do not expect to see a red flag or demerit, a public flogging nor scarlet letter.

Now let's keep it on topic and polite. 

Thank you.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Administrator


----------



## tellner (Mar 21, 2008)

Lack of tact, master?

When a murderous racist tries to kill someone and says that he intends to do so because of the color of a person's skin he is scum. When a cop does it we refer to it as "murder under the color of law". Murder or attempted murder under the color of law is worse than a regular crime. It degrades the Law and reduces respect for it. It causes police officers to betray their Oath by covering up for criminals and turns the whole profession into accomplices. The particulars of these cases indicate a pattern of crime with the very real possibility that it includes "conspiracy to deprive a person of civil rights based on race, color, creed or place of national origin". That is the sort of felony which lets the Feds get out the really big hammer. 

These guys deserve exactly the same degree of _tact _and consideration as the Ku Klux Klan, the National Socialist White People's Party, Asian Pride or La Raza Unida. They abused their trust and make a mockery of the very concept of the Law and its servants.

I note that a few people have said "He gave up all his rights when he did a crime." Apply the same standard to these particular thugs. Anyone who believes the police did him wrong would have a right to kill the officer then and there. Do you really want police held to a higher standard than that? At least I'm willing to give them a trial before sending them to prison. Their defenders here are saying anyone with a badge has the right to be judge, jury and executioner and that _*suspicion*_ of committing *any *illegal act should carry an automatic death sentence with no trial or appeal. That is straight out of the Idi Amin school of law enforcement.

The law on apprehending fleeing felons is very, very clear. Tennessee vs. Garner hasn't been overturned. A person doesn't forfeit his right not to be murdered the moment a cop decides the guy doesn't deserve to live. You can only shoot him in the back or run him down in defense or if you personally have ironclad probable cause to believe that he has committed or is about to immediately commit a crime of unusual heinousness with callous disregard for human life. That's the standard. Every police officer is supposed to know it.


----------



## Imua Kuntao (Mar 21, 2008)

Using the car is a very old practice to stop fleeing suspects, however they nolonger teach this.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 21, 2008)

Imua Kuntao said:


> Using the car is a very old practice to stop fleeing suspects, however they no longer teach this.


Well how can they bring the guy to court if he's in traction or has died because the car was sitting on him while being read his miranda??


----------



## redfang (Mar 21, 2008)

Imua Kuntao said:


> Using the car is a very old practice to stop fleeing suspects, however they nolonger teach this.


Since I've moved to the South, I've come to realize that it takes longer to get the word down here about some things. In fact, many people don't seem to have gotten the word that the War of Northern Aggression has ended, let alone have heard of civil rights. These people are a small minority, but they are out there. They exist in all areas, including law enforcement. I had never heard the word "yankee" actually being used by someone outside of a history class or baseball context until I moved out of Ohio to NC.


----------



## The Master (Mar 21, 2008)

tellner said:


> Lack of tact, master?
> 
> When a murderous racist tries to kill someone and says that he intends to do so because of the color of a person's skin he is scum. When a cop does it we refer to it as "murder under the color of law". Murder or attempted murder under the color of law is worse than a regular crime. It degrades the Law and reduces respect for it. It causes police officers to betray their Oath by covering up for criminals and turns the whole profession into accomplices. The particulars of these cases indicate a pattern of crime with the very real possibility that it includes "conspiracy to deprive a person of civil rights based on race, color, creed or place of national origin". That is the sort of felony which lets the Feds get out the really big hammer.
> 
> ...


While I may agree with you on the idea that said officers should not have done these actions, and should be held fully accountable for them, I still am in disagreement with you on the use of a derogatory term which members of the law enforcement community may be offended by. Your points are easily made without it, and much of the other angst and venom that your recent forum contributions have indicated you are suffering from.

I have little patience nor respect for oath breakers, and those caught doing so while in a position of authority deserve censure. It matters not if they are law enforcement, military or governmental.

I also have little patience and respect for rabid bigots and closed minded cretins, either in my limited electronic realm life or my real world one. You sir, are coming across as such. Whether this is an intentional defect or simply a poor choice of words on your part is irrelevant. Your concerns, opinions and positions can easily be made without insulting countless good men and women who are equally as offended by these situations as you are, and who are more directly effected by their repercussions than you or I.

I might suggest that you use more logic and less emotion in the future. It will only aid your position.

Good Day.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 21, 2008)

I think that any good, responsible officer finds these actions unacceptable and wrong.  *Clearly the State authorties do as well* and that is why they are investigating.  A vehicle is a lethal weapon if used to hurt someone.  If a suspect is running away I can think of no justification for using a car to ram them unless they in turn are carring, brandishing a firearm and shooting at the officer in the vehicle or posing a lethal threat to the surrounding citizens. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I imagine that this particular officer's comrades found this wrong and disgusting as well.  If they did not then that department needs an overhaul at the top. 

The reality is simple in that notorious things always make the news in every field.  Almost all the officer's that I know are good guy's and ladies and work hard to do their very, very difficult job in a professional and responsible manner.  *That truthfully is the reality!*


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 21, 2008)

These Troopers were wrong, period. They should be disciplined according to department policy and the law of their state .

However referring to them as "pigs" is as offensive as if someone used the "N" word to describe an African American who committed a heinous crime. It doesnt matter how offensive the crime was, resorting to those terms just points you out as being biased against the whole group IMO.


----------



## Guardian (Mar 22, 2008)

*First one was just plain wrong, endangered innocent civilians in that housing area, kids especially.*

*2nd one is not much better especially what he said, which made his intent all to clear.*

*We'll see what happens, it's not over with yet.  Had plenty of foot pursuits also, we also called them foot pursuits or were out on foot.*


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 27, 2008)

tellner said:


> To reiterate: It's only "the best option" if shooting him in the back of the head is also a "best option". If it isn't, you're a murderer acting under the color of law, not a police officer.


 You're mistaken, tellner......striking someone with a car at low speeds is NOT 'likely to cause death'......and simply causing physical injury is NOT considered lethal court by several supreme court decisions. Is it a good tactic?  Depends on the situation.....but we don't know why these guys were running or why the officers were chasing them....KEY to discussing the objective reasonableness of their actions.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 27, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> As an aside to Tellner's initial point: At least here in MA, a vehicle IS considered a "dangerous weapon" for purposes of a charge of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and it *has* come up as such a charge in court when anyone has willfully hit another person with their vehicle,and rightly so.


 Simply striking someone with a 'dangerous weapon' is not necessarily lethal force.....a BATON strike is not considered lethal force.  Moreover, we cannot really have an intelligent discussion of the incident without knowing specifics.....if the guy was an ARMED ROBBERY suspect fleeing with a gun, the officer would be JUSTFIED in hitting him with the vehicle.....I note a striking LACK of detail about the incident which would lead me to believe that media intentionally left it out as it would likely reduce the incendiary nature of the allegation. 

You better DARN WELL believe if they were chasing the guy for a MISDEMEANOR non-violent crime, THAT FACT would be proudly displayed in the ARTICLE!

I've learned over the years that media can 'lie' without actually ever telling one single lie......what they do is OMIT certain details....but what they do say is ENTIRELY true.....it's what they DON'T say that completes the TRUE story however.



I will only respond to the racial epithet by saying this.....it was incredibly poor choice of words, but in and of itself does NOT equal any sort of crime....ESPECIALLY when muttered to oneself!  NOR does it, in and of itself, change something OBJECTIVELY reasonable in to 'murder' by simple virtue of a 'word'......it sounds bad, but if the officer was OBJECTIVELY reasonable in hitting the guy with his car in the first place, it doesn't become unreasonable simply because he said something offensive to himself.

If someone finds out WHY these guys were fleeing, let me know.....WITHOUT knowing that, we are really just peeing in the dark.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 27, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Simply striking someone with a 'dangerous weapon' is not necessarily lethal force.....a BATON strike is not considered lethal force. Moreover, we cannot really have an intelligent discussion of the incident without knowing specifics.....if the guy was an ARMED ROBBERY suspect fleeing with a gun, the officer would be JUSTFIED in hitting him with the vehicle.....I note a striking LACK of detail about the incident which would lead me to believe that media intentionally left it out as it would likely reduce the incendiary nature of the allegation.
> 
> You better DARN WELL believe if they were chasing the guy for a MISDEMEANOR non-violent crime, THAT FACT would be proudly displayed in the ARTICLE!
> 
> ...


 

I'm gonna assume you mean the racial epithet originally posted in the article in question, as I did not and do not use them.

As far as what is or isn't "lethal force", well it varies on how wacky one's state is. Right here in my very own wonderful state  You get a felony charge of assault with a deadly just for kicking someone while wearing a shoe. Now you know, and I know, that merely kicking someone isn't automatically deadly force by any means, but nonetheless that is what you will be charged with, even if cleared later.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 27, 2008)

Incidentally.....does anyone ever notice that when the media wants a 'law enforcement expert' they go to some local university and dig up some 'Criminal Justice' major to give them their 'professional' opinion on police practices.....the opinion of a CJ Masters or Doctorate holder who's lived their entire lives in academia and the closest he's ever gotten to police work is a couple ride alongs and visiting the inmates at the state prison.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 27, 2008)

I know. Some egghead college-boy/girl doesn't even understand the concept of what goes on at street level.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 27, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I'm gonna assume you mean the racial epithet originally posted in the article in question, as I did not and do not use them.
> 
> As far as what is or isn't "lethal force", well it varies on how wacky one's state is. Right here in my very own wonderful state  You get a felony charge of assault with a deadly just for kicking someone while wearing a shoe. Now you know, and I know, that merely kicking someone isn't automatically deadly force by any means, but nonetheless that is what you will be charged with, even if cleared later.


  These guys aren't going to be charged with anything in State court if charges are to be filled......cops don't really have to worry about that unless someone dies.  The charges folks push in these incidents and the lawsuits that follow are all FEDERAL charges.....and several federal courts have concluded that 'Lethal Force' is different for the suspect and the officer......Lethal force for a SUSPECT is described as 'Any force likely to cause DEATH....or Serious Physical injury'...... For the officer, Lethal Force is described as 'Any force likely to cause DEATH...period!'.

What does that mean?  It means that simply using force likely to cause serious physical injury to arrest a suspect isn't considered 'Lethal Force' on the part of a police officer....why?  The concept of 'Disparity of Force'.  If a suspect attempts to use force against an officer or another person 'Likely to cause serious physical injury'.....THAT justifies lethal force from the officer, which as we discussed was 'Any force likely to cause DEATH'.

Moreover, an Officer, unlike a private citizen, has NO DUTY to retreat when attempting to arrest a suspect.  Now, we learned in Tennessee v. Garner that simply being 'a fleeing felon' does not justify 'Lethal Force'....but what did other federal courts define as 'Lethal Force'?  Force likely to cause 'DEATH'.  Now, is bumping someone with a car at low speed, say 15 miles per hour likely to cause 'Death'?  No.....likely to cause 'Serious Physical Injury'.....that's probably closer.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 27, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I know. Some egghead college-boy/girl doesn't even understand the concept of what goes on at street level.


  I noticed one of those 'eggheads' quoted as saying 



> "They're just lazy," said Alpert, a University of South Carolina criminal justice professor who consults with police on pursuit policies. "Rather than get out of their car or get in a foot race, or tackle someone ... they'll just hit them with the car door, with the bumper, and hope they don't run them over." http://citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080319/NEWS/80319102/1188


 
'Lazy' he says.....as if he views Law Enforcement as some sort of sport......what is Mr. Alpert's credentials again?  Oh, that's right, his job consists of arriving to class on time, avoiding getting caught by his wife flirting with young co-eds and writting the occassional paper to justify his existence....LAZY?!

Oh well, Alpert likes to call himself an expert....so bet it.


----------

