A man claiming to be "Sergeant Bill" of the FBI staged a series of drug raids in Gerald, Missouri, "a Meth capital of the United States."
Sergeant Bill, it turned out, was no federal agent, but Bill A. Jakob, an unemployed former trucking company owner, a former security guard, a former wedding minister and a former small-town cop from 23 miles down the road.
Mr. Jakob, 36, is now the subject of a criminal investigation by federal authorities, and he is likely to face charges related to impersonating a law enforcement officer, his lawyer said.
The strange adventures of Sergeant Bill have led to the firing of three of the town’s five police officers, left the outcome of a string of drug arrests in doubt, prompted multimillion-dollar federal civil rights lawsuits by at least 17 plaintiffs and stirred up a political battle, including a petition seeking the impeachment of [Mayor Otis] Schulte, over who is to blame for the mess.
It's quite an interesting story.
Shouldn't this have been a huge red flag for the local authorities? I'd be interested to hear what any LEOs reading this board have to say about this.
The only difference in criminal behavior is whether the thug's badge is real, a fact impossible for the gun owner to determine at the time.
Sure, he had a badge of some sort. Did it say FBI or DEA or similar on it? Did he have a federal ID of any sort? The article doesn't say, but it seems unlikely. They called an number he gave them to confirm his identity, but did they call any independant numbers (like the local FBI field office or US attorney's office)? Again, no.
They did no independent checking, even after numerous arrests with no involvement by the a federal attorney, no additional aid. Hell, they were considering making him a "reserve" local cop. This is ridiculous.
Recently I've seen what I believe were legitimate LEOs with their "badges" embroidered on their shirts. In one case is was an INS agent, the other IIRC was a BLM ranger. This bugs the heck out of me, even though I know that metal badges can also be pretty easily faked.
If at any time he touched any of those 'arrested' then there should be quite ample evidence in the police reports (filed by the real police) to document battery. I don't get why law enforcement and prosecution is dancing so timidly around him. They need a scapegoat and he is the perfect fall guy.
These people need to learn how it's done.
They don't want to charge him with battery, because they don't want to admit their officers stood around and watched someone batter a suspect. Remember that battery for criminal purposes is more than just an unconsented to touching.
Puleeze - that any of the
moronslocals fell for either of those idiocies (which any 12-year-old who watches TV would know are baloney) just further supports my belief that "too stupid to live" really should be a valid diagnosis.These clowns give a whole new meaning to "wotta maroon."
(1)
(2)
I'm deadly unserious.
The batterings and the like will probably come in under the Guidelines as relevant conduct and can jack up his sentence.
Sgt. Bill seems to have more on the ball than
Sgt. SchultzMayor Schulte.If you want someone on duty 24/7, that's 168 hours per week. 4 officers working 40 hours per week gives you 160, with an extra shift for someone. Oh, plus the Chief to provide the excellent management skills so clearly in evidence.
Not an excuse, mind you, but the psychology isn't too puzzling and doesn't necessarily rely on everyone being idiots.
Maybe not, JBL, but it certainly helped.
A friend of mine who grew up in a town just that size told me that in high school, the principle recreation was beating up the local cop.
I still think 5 is a lot. Maybe it really is Sin City.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.