04 July 2007

KingCast asks: Did Bruce McKay molest suspects, relative to the Franconia shooting tragedy?

More than one youth with whom I have spoken told me that McKay did more touching of their private areas and buttocks than they thought was reasonable, then I read this in yesterday's post on my request for the Bruce McKay personnel file, which obviously should have been copied and maintained by NH AG Kelly Ayotte but apparently was not, or so they claim. I no longer trust them one bit and will be supplementing my ethics complaint tomorrow.

Anonymous said...
Liko's first encounter with McKay was 4 years ago. McKay had already been in Franconia for 8 years. He had his own reputation sealed at that point. Wonder why Liko wanted to know his name?

The younger people know more than we know but I have heard the stories. Grabbing the crotch of boys and their butts. Girls being scared out of their wits and then given "options" to keep out of legal trouble.

The guy was a total pervert.

3:46 PM

I keep hearing many reports of withdrawn spousal abuse charges by McKay's ex-wife and that certainly WOULD fit a pattern, wouldn't it? Beat the Missus and tool the kids. And if he had ever inappropriately touched Liko Kenney, then Liko shooting him would have been manslaugher, Kelly, not murder as you concluded in your email to Attorney X within one business day. But I'm sure you investigated all of that within 24 hours, right?

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Did Bruce McKay molest suspects, relative to the Franconia shooting tragedy?"

A new low, even for a scum-bag ex ambulance chaser like you King. Not content to spew endless speculation and rumor about what did or did not happen on May 11th, now you're stooping to making up pure bullshit.

Once again you're quick to attack the reputation of a dead man when you wouldn't have the stones to even hint at such a thing if he were alive to defend himself from your garbage.

No surprise I guess coming from someone with a documented history of ethical problems.

Anonymous said...

"More than one youth with whom I have spoken told me that McKay did more touching of their private areas and buttocks than they thought was reasonable"

Given the number of weapons and the amount of dope that suspects routinely "crotch", I don't think anyone should be surprised that cops conduct thorough searches. It's not about modesty and certainly not about sexual perversion, it's about survival.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeeeaaahhh!

Christopher King said...

7:57

Try again. I had the stones to whip the State's behind not once, not twice, but three times. Is that part of my "history of ethical problems" you're talking about?

Now I demand an accounting of costs.

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2007/07/kingcast-and-neil-young-say-keep-on.html

HAHAHAHAHA to you, you hater.

Christopher King said...

7:57

I would have attacked his reputation while he was alive, same way I successfully did to Chief Dunn and his idiot lame fool prosecutor Bill Albrecht.

Methinks you should be less concerned about trying to impugn my integrity and more concerned about the integrity of this "investigation," with these hastily-redacted pages of the investigation showing how Floyd was busy terrorizing Caleb:

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2007/07/kingcast-shares-littleton-courier-piece.html

Oh, and if I had impugned McKay's reputation while he was alive what are you implying he would do to me?

I have a clue, and it's probably like Chief Dunn, who laughed at the prospect of me being gang-raped in Prison:

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/06/kingcast-presents-glimmer-twins.html

Called him the "maggot" that he is, and complete with an audio clip of the 1978 Rolling Stones "Lies."

I ain't the scumbag. I just point out scumbags when I see them, dead or alive.

Happy Independence Day.

Christopher King said...

7:57

Just thought of something maybe you should consider:

1. Connie McKenzie refused a McKay memorial on her lawn where he died, even though she tried to administer some CPR/compression to him.

2. Miss Ellie at the the Village market told KingCast cameras point blank that "McKay was a bully," while describing the macing incident with the "98-lb girl who he maced so hard she fell out over there in front of the store and needed an ambulance to take her away."

Bullies like that have been known to touch suspects in an inappropriate manner, that's for certain.

So since you talk about "stones" of which I understand McKay died with his ripped open, perhaps serendipitously, why don't you get your own cameras and head on over to Miss Ellie and Ms. McKenzie and tell them that they are scum for speaking ill of Bruce McKay.

Record what you get and we'll incorporate it into our final production of KingCast movie "Franconia 5/11" because it will be a blast.

Do either of those women have a documented history of ethical problems?

I'll be waiting for your video submission, fool.

Anonymous said...

I see you have convieniently ignored the comments made at 8:27. They make a very valid point about what is a reasonable searh and what is not. Criminals know that cops have been reluctant or uncomfortable to search their groin areas so that's where they're hiding their drugs and weapons.

It's no picnic for the cops either as the bulk of the people they have to deal with aren't exactly pleasant to begin with.

Anonymous said...

"I'll be waiting for your video submission, fool."

You can wait until hell freezes over. You're the only one interested in making self promoting "video". I guess having been a failure at everything else you've got fantasies about being the next Michael Moore.

Anonymous said...

"that certainly WOULD fit a pattern, wouldn't it? Beat the Missus and tool the kids"

LOL sounds like you speak from personal experience! Maybe that's the real reason you ran off from Ohio with your tail between your legs! Makes as much sense as your bullshit allegations.

Want to know who the fool is? Look in the mirror!

Anonymous said...

I don't know what kind of "weapon" can be hidden in your crotch area and not be discovered with a patdown of the inner thighs. As for items other than weapons, that's no-no and a violation of the 4th amendment:

***Police CANNOT conduct frisks for the purpose of discovering evidence other than weapons. The Supreme Court has ruled that suspicious items other than weapons retain their Fourth Amendment protection during a frisk. This means that if a police officer claims that objects in your pocket feel like drugs, the objects cannot be further investigated without your consent.

So 8:47, if you're LE, you're in need of some education in the Bill of Rights

Anonymous said...

lifer:

As for what kind of weapon can be hidden in someone's crotch, don't underestimate what criminals will do. Just a couple of weeks ago a cop in KY was shot and killed by a handcuffed suspect in the rear seat of his car when he pulled a small revolver out of his underwear.

And you're wrong about the 4th Amendment. If someone is being searched incident to their arrest, there is no requirement for a warrant and anything found during that search, drugs, weapons, etc. is admissable as evidence against them. If a frisk for weapons is being conducted with articulable suspicion, and the officer finds something that based on his training and experience he knows to be contraband, it too is fully admissable.

Anonymous said...

6:49

As for the KY incident, a patdown done properly would most likely have found that weapon, do you agree? I don't have an issue with a "pat" down. I do have an issue with grabbing and groping and THAT is what McKay did. How do I know? I have a family member he did that EXACT thing to, during an incident that involved disobeying an officer at a traffic stop. I don't condone what the family member did as it was stupid and he had no fear of the arresting officer (not McKay). He freely admits his rational for disobeying was stupid. However McKay was involved in the transport and booking and he groped him. Literally grabbed both buttocks and squeezed. What do you say to that? Is that necessary?

As for items other than weapons, NOT according to Terry Vs Ohio

Fourth Amendment Supreme Court Cases
Stop and Frisk

Terry v. Ohio (Stop and Frisk)
392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968,
20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)

A police officer witnessed three men pacing in front of a jewelry store and suspected that a robbery was being planned. He approached the men and identified himself, then performed frisks of defendants Chilton and Terry and discovered illegal concealed weapons. Defendants were convicted and appealed, claiming that the frisk violated their Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches and seizures.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that when a law enforcement officer has "reasonable grounds" for suspecting that a criminal suspect may be armed, he may pat down the outer layer of the suspect's clothing for weapons. The ruling held that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a pat-down is performed based on reasonable suspicion for the purpose of ensuring officer safety.

What you should know about stop and frisk law:

The Court's ruling in Terry v. Ohio has been understood to validate the practice of frisking (or patting down) suspects for weapons under diverse circumstances. Generally, law enforcement officers will perform frisks at their discretion, regardless of the "reasonable suspicion" standard established by the Terry ruling. Thus, it is not uncommon for frisks to be conducted for investigatory purposes where no actual evidence of a threat to officer safety exists.

Due to the prevalence of police frisks it is important for citizens to understand the rationale behind police authority to pat down suspects, and the limitations the Court has placed on that authority:

After initiating contact, police officers may pat down criminal suspects for weapons in order to provide for their safety and that of the public. This police practice is rarely, if ever, a violation of your constitutional rights.


If you are frisked, any hard objects the officer detects can be removed from your pockets and inspected.


You can be charged for possession of illegal weapons discovered through a lawful pat down.


Indicate that you do not consent to a full search of your person. Your proximity to the officer creates a limited window of opportunity in which to assert your rights. If you do not wish to be searched following the pat down, verbally indicate your refusal to be searched as soon as possible in order to avoid any misunderstandings.


***Police CANNOT conduct frisks for the purpose of discovering evidence other than weapons. The Supreme Court has ruled that suspicious items other than weapons retain their Fourth Amendment protection during a frisk. This means that if a police officer claims that objects in your pocket feel like drugs, the objects cannot be further investigated without your consent.

Please cite a higher court ruling that contadicts this. If I'm wrong it's good info to know.

Anonymous said...

6:49,

I would like to hear your response to Lifer's post about the Supreme Court and the ass groping he speaks about.

You seem to be the hit and run type that comes on here. You ATTEMPT a smackdown which is unsuccessful and when truly challenged you bolt.

Anonymous said...

Lifer,

Terry v. Ohio set a precedence in a non-custodial search. He was not under arrest. If he was under arrest a full blown search could have been conducted and after the weapon was found and he was arrested a complete search was conducted. So you are correct about Terry v. Ohio. but incorrect about the full full scope of search incident to an arrest. I'll let you google search incident to arrest and you can get plenty of court rulings. As for your relative being groped did it realy happen?

Anonymous said...

7:18. Yes, it's a fact jack.

Why was it not brought up? 2 reasons:

1. Young men do not wish to discuss those moments, embarrassment. McKay knew that.

2. Plea bargain so he could get his license back in a month not 6 as it was needed for employment.

Also, what would you say if McKay routinely came by his appartment building and stopped outside and/or slowed to a crawl, during his 1 month suspension? That's a fact Jack, too, and he has witnesses to that.

So who's the mind game playing control freak here?

Re: Terry Vs Ohio, I'll take your word on it, and I already said I had no issue with pat downs done within the scope of the law. Grope and grab, McKay's MO, I do have an issue with, as should you.

These people are not mistaking a patdown as a sexual perversion as was indicated by a previous poster, it WAS more than that.

Anonymous said...

7:18

Where are you? You got an honest response to your question.

Ignore an it will go away? You must be a Selectman or local LE.