Jump to content

Restrepo

Members
  • Content Count

    723
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Restrepo last won the day on September 15 2018

Restrepo had the most liked content!

4 Followers

About Restrepo

  • Rank
    Veteran Member
  • Birthday 01/01/2000

MTA Information

  • MTA Account
    Restrepo
  • Factions
    Los Santos Police Department
  • Characters
    Scott Murphy, Zachary Wilson

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    United States of America

Contact Methods

  • Discord
    Restrepo#1212

Recent Profile Visitors

2,132 profile views
  1. **Zachary Wilson would stand up repeating his motion** "Your Honor, I'd also like to motion to strike any evidence, statements, and footage provided by Officer Marley Greene or through Officer Marley Greene on the basis of perjury, his admission of untruthfulness, and his credibility. To quote Officer Marley Greene's statement "Sergeant Wilson also took his ride-along, without protection, inside this high speed interceptor vehicle to chase down a 2019 Lamborghini Urus with speeds plus +150MPH." Officer Marley Greene is knowingly making a false statement in a police report, as he was clearly seen by his own body cam footage that he was in the TED garage at the time of the pursuit and had no way of knowing the speed otherwise. Furthermore, Officer Marley Greene put forward the statement stating that I "endangered the public with his ridealong", which again he had no way of knowing due to his location at the time, yet knowingly put forward this false statement. Officer Marley Greene is also completely oblivious to the policies of the department, stating that I was riding "without proper protection", despite the fact that driving the HSIUs requires no protections. It's clear that he had no knowledge of the policies himself, and also did not have a first hand account of the events that occurred yet made assumptions and included them in his affidavit." **BODYCAM FOOTAGE BY OFFICER MARLEY GREENE** (( @Urshankov @Zebulon ))
  2. "Thank you Captain Woodvine, no further questions for the witness. Your Honor, I would still like my motion to be heard concerning Officers Marley Greene's statement and evidence provided before we move forward to closing arguments." (( @Urshankov @Zebulon ))
  3. "Captain Woodvine since you wrote the pursuit policies, do you believe that any of the pursuit policies were violated from the evidence presented forward by the prosecution via the dashcam?" (( @Urshankov @Zebulon @Mogs ))
  4. "The defense would like to cross examine the witness, Captain Woodvine was the vehicle in question approved on the date of April 27th?" (( @Urshankov @Zebulon @Mogs ))
  5. "Your Honor, I'd also like to motion to strike any evidence, statements, and footage provided by Officer Marley Greene or through Officer Marley Greene on the basis of perjury, his admission of untruthfulness, and his credibility. To quote Officer Marley Greene's statement "Sergeant Wilson also took his ride-along, without protection, inside this high speed interceptor vehicle to chase down a 2019 Lamborghini Urus with speeds plus +150MPH." Officer Marley Greene is knowingly making a false statement in a police report, as he was clearly seen by his own body cam footage that he was in the TED garage at the time of the pursuit and had no way of knowing the speed otherwise. Furthermore, Officer Marley Greene put forward the statement stating that I "endangered the public with his ridealong", which again he had no way of knowing due to his location at the time, yet knowingly put forward this false statement. Officer Marley Greene is also completely oblivious to the policies of the department, stating that I was riding "without proper protection", despite the fact that driving the HSIUs requires no protections. It's clear that he had no knowledge of the policies himself, and also did not have a first hand account of the events that occurred yet made assumptions and included them in his affidavit. **BODYCAM FOOTAGE BY OFFICER MARLEY GREENE** (( @Urshankov @Zebulon ))
  6. "Objection your honor, this evidence is irrelevant. The dashcam footage the prosecution has just provided is on the 28th of April where there was no ride along, the pursuit this case is based on is the 27th of April."
  7. "Objection your honor, this is no longer relevant as Chief Bishop has already established that the vehicle in question was authorized and in the TED fleet at the time of the pursuit. If the D.A has issues with Chief Bishop they should settle that on their own accords rather then draw out this case and waste the courts time." (( @Urshankov @Zebulon @Shanks ))
  8. We can't be straight, were forced to either be gay, lesbian or bisexual.
  9. Name: SM Comment: I'm glad to see Commissioner Wunnenberg clamping down on these corrupt government officials. Good riddance, I'm glad that it's finally bite him in the arse. What goes around comes around.
  10. "Objection your honor, leading question isn't permitted on direct examination. Also this question is not relevant as it concerns an administrative matter." (( @Urshankov @Shanks @Zebulon ))
  11. "Your Honor, All LSPD policies and protocols are an administrative matter not criminal. The LSPD has never had "formal notices" of vehicles being added to fleets, furthermore Chief Bishop can also testify to the fact that the vehicle was authorized. The prosecution continues to say that my argument is "invalid" but fails to rebut any of my other points such as the dashcam, or discrepancies within Officer Marley Greene's statement." (( @Urshankov @Zebulon ))
  12. "Your Honor, D.A Spade is clearly basing his arguments purely off the information listed in PD’s own internal policies, rather than addressing the elements of the charges brought forward. Although there are some discrepancies with his argument, it appears to be more of an administrative issue regardless. The prosecution continuously refers to the HSIU used in the pursuit as an “unauthorized vehicle” which is completely false as I’ve already brought up previously in my statements. The vehicle was authorized and was in the Traffic Enforcement’s main fleet, approved by Captain Eileen Woodvine who will attest to the fact later on. It appears that during the course of this investigation, the prosecution has failed to exercise due diligence in the matter. As shown in the vehicle’s dashcam and bodycam provided by the prosecution, it is clear that I did not enter the wrong lane of travel, excessively exceed the posted speed limits or caused any unreasonable danger to myself, the ride-along or any surrounding property or life. Regardless of the fact, in the circumstances there is just cause to exceed the speed limit in order to prevent further risk to life or property, provided that it does not cause any unreasonable danger. I have a certification that allows me to operate the vehicle, and in the policies which the prosecution has quoted multiple times, one of the factors when deciding to continue a pursuit is; “The ability of the pursuing officer to keep control of the their patrol vehicle”. Furthermore, the traffic conditions were also taken into consideration. During the chase, as shown in the dashcam, vehicle and foot traffic was light and weather conditions were clear. The original IA report, Officer Marley Greene claims that I was driving at speeds of 150+ miles per hour. However this is complete speculation. His body cam shows that he was stood in the TED garage at the time of the pursuit which contradicts his claims. Furthermore, the dashcam from the HSIU clearly debunks this accusation as Officer Marley Greene never appeared in the HSIU pursuit. This, again, shows that the prosecution has not properly reviewed the tangible evidence in this case and has shown that Officer Greene, the force behind this case, is not a credible source. I don’t exactly understand the prosecution's reference to my apparent “need for an adrenaline pump”, as this is clearly an assumption with no evidence to support the claim. Look at the dashcam once again, I asked the ride-along if they were okay during the chase to ensure that they were happy to continue under the circumstances. The chase was also called off shortly after as the suspect went out of sight due to their sharp turn, which was in accordance to the pursuit policies and procedures. The prosecution keeps mentioning the fact of the case against William Callahan which in where Mr. Callahan was responding to a non-emergency situation with lights and sirens whilst driving in a reckless manner meaning it is irrelevant. I was responding to an emergency situation and was not driving in a reckless manner as shown by the body and dashcam footage, which means the facts between both cases are inconsistent. Your honor the facts of this case have proven themselves as shown by the evidence the prosecution so kindly provided." (( @Urshankov @Zebulon ))
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and follow our Guidelines.