Results 21 to 30 of 36
-
05-16-2019, 02:08 PM #21UnregisteredGuest
Aren’t we leaving something out?
Some things that are obviously missing in this case. What about excessive use. HE WAS OPENLY DRUNK AT A PUBLIC VENUE ACCORDING TO 11 WITNESSES. That is still a violation of our G.O’s. Why wasn’t he hit with that? Did they interview his wife? WE HAD A DUI HOMICIDE LEAVING THE PARK THAT DAY. DID THE MAJOR DRIVE HIS VEHICLE HOME? That is a violation of our G.O’s. WAS IT HIS PERSONAL VEHICLE OR WORK VEHICLE?
If these questions were not addressed during the IA, then the IA is not complete! If it was a regular Deputy I Guarantee that those questions would’ve been asked and the deputy would’ve been terminated.
-
05-16-2019, 02:58 PM #22UnregisteredGuest
Misfeasance in public office
PAUL RICHARD DRANK 5 AND 1/2 BEERS IN ONE SITTING (IN SIX PACK TERMS):
Mr. Knight, let's break this down into lay terms that are easy to understand:
- Paul Richard told you that he drank four 16 ounce beers.
- From a six-pack point-of-view, where each beer is 12 ounces, Richard drank 5 and 1/2 beers in one sitting.
Mr. Knight, your statement that Paul Richard "only had 4 beers" is a conniving malfeasant minimization of the facts. People cannot take you as a credible arbitrator because you minimize and stretch facts to suit your desires.
DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE:
We have the following witnesses, all testifying that Major Paul Richard was "drunk and disorderly" in public:
- 1 on-duty NPPD police sergeant
- 1 off-duty BPD sergeant
- 2 children (why would kids lie?)
- 11 WITNESSES IN TOTAL
Mr. Knight, your misfeasant statement that there is "no definitive or credible evidence" that Richard was drinking is disingenuous.
INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY:
- QUESTIONS: (1) Did Richard drive himself home and (2) was this question asked during the IA?
- MISFEASANT ANSWER: Mr. Knight said that there is no credible evidence that Richard was drinking. Therefore, Mr. Knight has concluded that Richard was authorized to drive himself home [sic].
-
05-16-2019, 03:59 PM #23UnregisteredGuest
This is indicative of the current leadeship of the SSO. If caught doing something wrong lie about it. If questioning continues blame somebody else. Paul, it's called integrity and you don't have it. By promoting people like PR, DT, JW, Sheriff Knight does not only support this behavior but encourages it.
-
05-16-2019, 07:35 PM #24UnregisteredGuest
-
05-16-2019, 07:37 PM #25UnregisteredGuest
-
05-16-2019, 08:11 PM #26UnregisteredGuest
Was that question asked during the IA interview?
1. A CD audio of the interview would have to be obtained.
2. Then it would have to be transcribed (put into writing into a Q&A form) ***OR*** does a secretary transcribe that stuff? If so, then getting a copy of it will be easy.
-
05-16-2019, 09:49 PM #27UnregisteredGuest
-
05-17-2019, 10:36 AM #28UnregisteredGuest
One thing is clear here, no matter what admin does they are protected. If a road deputy acted this way I can only imagine how bad it would be. This Major apparently has a really bad history, it may be time for the public to demand action.
-
05-17-2019, 01:01 PM #29UnregisteredGuest
From experience
Civilian employees get the BOOT for doing a lot less. If a civilian speaks up about upper Brass, a case is built and eventually they find a reason to get rid of them. Each level is afraid if the level about finds out anything bad, they will not look bad in Knightmares eyes.....like they are not supervising properly. Firing civilians get fired often for speaking bad of the Brass.
-
05-18-2019, 07:02 PM #30UnregisteredGuest
Shug Knight
We use to call him Knightmare on Ringling blvd since you guys move what do you call Knightmare on what street. Sign Shug Knights homies !!
Bookmarks