Bill Schurman: Who's he kidding?
Sunday, February 11, 2007
After a full and complete "investigation," the Colorado State Patrol has decided to charge one of its own with the crime of an improper U-turn. The CSP captain claims to want the public to be assured that they do not cover up these accidents when investigating an accident that was clearly caused by one of their members.
Please. Who is he kidding? Why not turn the investigation over to an independent agency such as the Sheriff's Office?
Just imagine that you or I had been driving up the pass when, out of the blue, we pulled a U-turn in front of a vehicle that was legally passing us and caused extensive damage to the vehicle (with the possibility of injury to the passing vehicle's driver). Does anyone believe that we would get only a U-turn citation from the State Patrol? Surely it would be careless driving at the least, if not reckless driving.
Wasn't it just recently that a CSP trooper totaled a cruiser when he rear-ended a log truck on Rabbit Ears Pass? After a full and complete "investigation" by the Colorado State Patrol, the trooper escaped any citation.
Bill Schurman
Steamboat Springs
Comments
kingsride 6 years, 3 months ago
This is pretty strange coming from a defense attorney who has never seen a guilty person in his life.
id04sp 6 years, 3 months ago
If it was prosecuted locally, they could plead it down to a parking violation.
ihatestupidpeople 6 years, 3 months ago
Mr Schurman- you call it recent when something happened over 5 years ago? Plus you need to revisit the "elements of a crime." Perhaps that is something they forgot to teach you in law school.
ID04sp- If there weren't criminals, defense attorneys wouldn't make so much money. Plus where were you during this supposed incident with your friend? Did you witness every single event of the case? How do you know what the cops did or did not do. And what do cops in another state have to do with this particular incident involving the Colorado State Patrol?
JQPUBLIC 6 years, 3 months ago
Come on king....of course he's seen a guilty person...to a defense attorney all cops are automatically guilty of something, makes it easier to get the "innocent" off.
id04sp 6 years, 3 months ago
JQ,
Cops are used to dealing with guilty people. Not everyone is guilty, however.
This turns out to be why normal, respectable and law-abiding people don't trust cops . . . you act suspicious of everybody, and it's a real put-off.
We understand why you are protective and suspicious. We just don't like that in the people who are supposedly there to protect and serve us.
I can tell you this. I know from a very close friend who lost a license over it that a cop did NOT read the "implied consent" warning (the friend was in another state where the law was different), leading to an unwarranted loss of a drivers license and all that goes with it. The cop wrote in the report that he had read the warning from a card (as required by that state's law) when, in fact, he had done no such thing.
This incident occurred after my friend hydroplaned on a freshly paved exit ramp in a rain storm, hit a concrete barrier, and sustained a concussion. No alcohol or drugs were involved.
This friend had been driving for 30 years without a ticket up to that point. The attorney who defended the case recommended a nolo-contendre plea to avoid a trial and the possibility of going to jail because the cop who should have read the warning, and another cop who was not in the room, both wrote in the report that the warning had been read from a card and witnessed by the second cop. The cost of all this has been about $10,000.
If cops didn't do crap like this, defense attorneys wouldn't make so much money.
fish 6 years, 2 months ago
Thats because Rosink values vegtables more than human life.
Requires free registration
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.
Or login with:
OpenID