The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

homeowner is assaulted in his house then arrested for it
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1154		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:52 pm ]
Post subject:  homeowner is assaulted in his house then arrested for it
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20091 ... page=1&c=y

Preferential treatment for cops' kin?
By BARBARA LAKER & WENDY RUDERMAN
Philadelphia Daily News

lakerb@phillynews.com 215-854-5933

IT WAS just after midnight. Brian Westberry and a woman friend sat frozen in his bedroom, hoping the persistent pounding on the front door of his Northeast Philly home would stop. It didn't.

Westberry, 24, slipped his licensed .38-caliber revolver into his pants pocket and crept downstairs to open the door.

There stood Gregory Cujdik, 32, who demanded to see "Jen," his girlfriend. Westberry told him "Jen" didn't want to see him, and repeatedly ordered Cujdik to leave. When Cujdik refused, Westberry threatened to call police.

" 'Do it. My family are cops,' " Cujdik said, according to Westberry.

What Westberry didn't know at that early-morning hour of Palm Sunday, April 5, was that Cujdik's father, Louis, is a retired police veteran and that his two brothers, Jeffrey and Richard, are narcotics officers.

Before Westberry could finish dialing 9-1-1 on his cell phone, Cujdik stepped through the doorway and punched him in the throat, Westberry said.

That's when Westberry pulled out his gun and Cujdik fled, Westberry told the Daily News.

Westberry never fired the gun. In fact, Westberry suffered the only injury when Cujdik staggered him with a punch. But rather than arrest Cujdik, a convicted drug dealer, authorities slapped Westberry with a slew of criminal charges, including felony aggravated assault, possession of an instrument of crime, terroristic threats, simple assault and recklessly endangering another person.

From there, Westberry's life got worse. Westberry believes Cudjik is behind a Nov. 14 arson of his house. Detectives didn't question Cujdik until after a Daily News reporter asked a police captain about the case earlier this month.

Cujdik did not return messages from the Daily News left on his cell phone.

Westberry and his family allege that police considered Cujdik untouchable and gave him preferential treatment because of his family ties to law enforcement.

"From the get-go, they chose to arrest me, not him, only because they knew his family," Westberry said. "I believe the justice system is fair - unless you know somebody."

Seasoned legal experts who reviewed the case say that Westberry's arrest raises serious questions about the integrity of both the Police Department and the District Attorney's Office, which approved the criminal charges against Westberry.

Six months after the incident, on Oct. 6, prosecutors withdrew the charges, but by then Westberry had spent thousands of dollars in legal fees. His record has yet to be expunged.

The Westberry case comes at a time when some police officers are under fire for allegedly abusing their authority in personal matters. The case also seems to bolster recent criticism that the district attorney's charging unit merely "rubber stamps" criminal charges recommended by police.

After Jack McMahon, a defense attorney and former prosecutor, read the police paperwork for Westberry's arrest, he said that the wrong person had been charged.

"The defendant didn't break the law. The complainant did," said McMahon, who did not represent Westberry. "Legally, there's absolutely no basis for Cujdik not to be charged."

Westberry was well within his legal right to use his gun to protect himself in his own home, McMahon said.

"There's no evidence of aggravated assault even under the remotest of criminal theories," he said.

The detective who arrested Westberry, Patricia Eberhart, has close ties to Cujdik's family. Her husband, Richard Eberhart, was Jeffrey Cujdik's partner in the Narcotics Field Unit before retiring in 2006. Together, Richard Eberhart and Jeffrey Cujdik own J&R Dunk Tank Rentals LLC, in Bensalem.

More at link
Author:  Lydiaa [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
I highly doubt that they were just 'talking' in his room, but then I also believe it's human nature to protect one of our own.

So I'm of the mind they are both wrong.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: homeowner is assaulted in his house then arrested for it
I understand the Philadelphia police department has had a lot of problems of late. I would not be at all surprised to discover that he was arrested out of favoritism. That would also indicate thet they're hiring and promoting idiots since not only is this unethical, but if you're going to provide favoritism.. I mean come on. A relative, who is a drug dealer, and in such a clear-cut case?

That's just stupid.
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
Oh the DA keeps getting slapped down by the state for not returning seized property to their owners after they have been cleared. Some firearms are being held for 3 years until the State Pollice show up to retrieve it with a warrant.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Elmarnieh wrote:
Oh the DA keeps getting slapped down by the state for not returning seized property to their owners after they have been cleared. Some firearms are being held for 3 years until the State Pollice show up to retrieve it with a warrant.


In other words, Philadelphia has not changed a lot in 25 years?
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Nope. And they wonder why they can't get people to give them information about crimes. Nobody trusts them at all because they keep abusing the power and trust. Hell even Mayor Nutter who is 4 times better than the last one keeps trying to pass laws that violate state law.
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
"Not just 'talking'" isn't a crime. Trespassing and assault are. So's arson.

Holy ****.

I hope this guy gets a civil suit going against a load of parties, including the city, and wins a boatload for his trouble.

Seriously? The arresting officer's spouse co-owns a business with a family member of one of the persons involved in the incident, and nobody bats an eye at the conflict of interest? And the guy's house burns down, it gets ruled arson, and nobody pays attention when he lists off a guy who might have a grudge?
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
We've got Philly cops stating in public that while they know Open Carry is legal in Pa and Philly that if they see someone without a badge with a gun in any setting they will shoot them as a precaution.

So yeah - this doesn't surprise me at all.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: homeowner is assaulted in his house then arrested for it
I'd love to know what their hiring practices are. I suspect it would be very educational. As far as I can tell, in an attempt to keep people who will become a problem out they actually end up letting them in because certain assumptions and preconceived ideas get perpetuated in the institution of the department.

Essentially, a lot of places hire dumb, good-looking people (or people that fill a quota) with uncomplicated personal histories because dumb people are unlikely to hide anything from the background check. Unfortunately, dumb people are also more likely to buy into the idea that they can do whatever they want because they're the cops.
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
The local philly website Domelights had to close its doors because of the statements cops were making about cases and procedures were causing lawsuits and cases to be dropped.

I mean you're a cop you know that ip records and user files can be subpoenaed.

I have no idea about their hiring practices but they need to work on their IA staff.
Author:  Midgen [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Lydiaa,

What difference does it make what they were doing in his room?
Author:  Hopwin [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
That reminds when of the time my neighbor shot my dog with a bb gun. The dog was in my yard and ran over (wagging his tail) at the neighbor when he got shot. I called the cops and they charged me with dog at large and him with menacing.

They didn't even read my statement, fortunately the judge read both mine and the neighbors (which corroborated my story) and dismissed the charges.
Author:  Lydiaa [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Midgen wrote:
Lydiaa,

What difference does it make what they were doing in his room?



Because reading from that post alone, it seems to indicate cheating which in my mind is morally wrong.

Even though he's used the system to his advantage, I also believe the other cops were willingly participating in the exercise. His acceptance and subsequent usage of that advantage is morally wrong to me.

As for practicality, I'm pretty sure Elmo and DE's been discussing that part fine.
Author:  Müs [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Lydiaa wrote:
Midgen wrote:
Lydiaa,

What difference does it make what they were doing in his room?



Because reading from that post alone, it seems to indicate cheating which in my mind is morally wrong.


And assault is worse. :)
Author:  Lydiaa [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't know.. physical trauma are usually easier to get better from then emotional. It's more an opinion though.
Author:  Raell [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
Damn, I thought things were bad in Detroit...
Author:  Midgen [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Lydiaa wrote:
Midgen wrote:
Lydiaa,

What difference does it make what they were doing in his room?

Because reading from that post alone, it seems to indicate cheating which in my mind is morally wrong.


I hope you aren't implying that because of some perceived moral offense, that he has to give up his rights? It doesn't make what the guy did ok (barging into his house and punching him), or what the prosecutor/police did subsequently.
Author:  Monte [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Elmarnieh wrote:
We've got Philly cops stating in public that while they know Open Carry is legal in Pa and Philly that if they see someone without a badge with a gun in any setting they will shoot them as a precaution.

So yeah - this doesn't surprise me at all.


Where have I heard *that* sort of doctrine before?
Author:  Diamondeye [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Elmarnieh wrote:
We've got Philly cops stating in public that while they know Open Carry is legal in Pa and Philly that if they see someone without a badge with a gun in any setting they will shoot them as a precaution.

So yeah - this doesn't surprise me at all.


I'm really not buying this part Elmo. That's like waing a sign over your head saying "Please Fire Me and Put Me in Jail". How exactly did you learn about this, and what exactly was said?
Author:  Rafael [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Monte wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
We've got Philly cops stating in public that while they know Open Carry is legal in Pa and Philly that if they see someone without a badge with a gun in any setting they will shoot them as a precaution.

So yeah - this doesn't surprise me at all.


Where have I heard *that* sort of doctrine before?


I don't think you've heard it anywhere before. I beileve Elmo was speaking of people specifically on his *property* and not shooting them pre-emptively. Big difference compared to *legally* openly carrying in *public*.
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Diamondeye wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
We've got Philly cops stating in public that while they know Open Carry is legal in Pa and Philly that if they see someone without a badge with a gun in any setting they will shoot them as a precaution.

So yeah - this doesn't surprise me at all.


I'm really not buying this part Elmo. That's like waing a sign over your head saying "Please Fire Me and Put Me in Jail". How exactly did you learn about this, and what exactly was said?



It was posted by a Philly cop on one of Pa's gun forums in the Open Carry section. Yes I know its like doing that - but much worse was done on Domelights (they had to close the site due to admitting to racial discrimination in regards to treatment of suspects). The sites administrators I believe have contacted his department heads and gave them the copy of their MPOETC training which specifically addressed OC. The DA in Philly is gangbusters about seizing any gun they come across in any relation to any report (let alone a crime), with this kind of cover its really made things go downhill in Philly in regards to 21st statement rights (in regards to the PA Constitution).
Author:  Aegnor [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Lydiaa wrote:
Midgen wrote:
Lydiaa,

What difference does it make what they were doing in his room?



Because reading from that post alone, it seems to indicate cheating which in my mind is morally wrong.

Even though he's used the system to his advantage, I also believe the other cops were willingly participating in the exercise. His acceptance and subsequent usage of that advantage is morally wrong to me.

As for practicality, I'm pretty sure Elmo and DE's been discussing that part fine.


There is no indication he was cheating on anyone. She may have been, but we don't know if he even knew that she had a boyfriend. Also we don't know if she had broken up with the guy, and he had gone all stalkerish.

Whatever the situation, there is no right for him to break into someone's house and assault them. And arresting the victim in this case is ridiculous. He did absolutely nothing deserving of arrest, even if he knew the woman had a boyfriend.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Elmarnieh wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
We've got Philly cops stating in public that while they know Open Carry is legal in Pa and Philly that if they see someone without a badge with a gun in any setting they will shoot them as a precaution.

So yeah - this doesn't surprise me at all.


I'm really not buying this part Elmo. That's like waing a sign over your head saying "Please Fire Me and Put Me in Jail". How exactly did you learn about this, and what exactly was said?


It was posted by a Philly cop on one of Pa's gun forums in the Open Carry section. Yes I know its like doing that - but much worse was done on Domelights (they had to close the site due to admitting to racial discrimination in regards to treatment of suspects). The sites administrators I believe have contacted his department heads and gave them the copy of their MPOETC training which specifically addressed OC. The DA in Philly is gangbusters about seizing any gun they come across in any relation to any report (let alone a crime), with this kind of cover its really made things go downhill in Philly in regards to 21st statement rights (in regards to the PA Constitution).


Ok, after the first sentence I'm really not clear on exactly what you're talking about, other than that it seems the DA in Philly wants to seize guns because he doesn't like open carry and is using any report made where a gun is present as an excuse?

As for the first sentence, well...

Anyone can claim to be a Philly cop - auxiliaries (if Philly has them; many large departments do) are known for representing themselves as "police officers" to look cool.

Even if he is actually a cop, that sounds like just shooting one's mouth of on the internet, especially without seeing the rest of the thread. Ok, he shouldn't be doing that, but I doubt very much that anyone is likely to shoot someone just for having a gun as a precaution. Like I said above, that's just begging to end up with a lengthy prison term and a ruined career. There's stupid and then there's "HOLY **** YOU DUMB ****!" and actually doing something like that falls into the second category. To shoot someone just for carrying a gun you need to be really stupid, psychotic, and have no long-term self interest all at the same time.

Frankly, I think the events in your OP are far more cause for concern (especially if this is partly being condoned by the DAs anti-gun agenda) than an ill-advised internet remark.
Author:  Lydiaa [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
I've decided to stay out of this one atm... maybe I'm too cynical on male behaviour lately.

I never said that anyone should get away. I was merely commenting on the OP tone that the dude did NOTHING wrong. I still believe several heavy books need to be thrown in their direction, just can't feel 100% sorry for the "victim" atm.. but maybe thats just me... >.<
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
To me it read the guy (who is in his 50's) was protecting his daughter from an angry ex.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/