advertisement

Columbia Councilman Dudley cited in connection with selling alcohol to minor

Wednesday, June 13, 2012 | 5:41 p.m. CDT; updated 6:14 p.m. CDT, Thursday, June 14, 2012

COLUMBIA — Fourth Ward Councilman Daryl Dudley was issued a citation Tuesday for selling alcohol to a minor, said Stephanie Drouin, Columbia police public information officer.

Daryl Dudley

MoreStory


Related Media

Dudley manages a Hy-Vee convenience store at 3120 W. Broadway. He was issued the citation at 1:20 p.m. after police conducted a compliance check at the store, Drouin said. During the compliance check, a minor, accompanied by a plainclothes police officer, was authorized to purchase alcohol using his or her actual ID.

Drouin said Dudley was issued the citation because the councilman directly sold alcohol to the minor involved.

A city ordinance prohibits the sale of alcohol to those who are under the age of 21, habitual drunkards or any person who is under the influence. According to the city charter, a council member’s seat “shall immediately become vacant” if he or she is convicted of a crime.

Drouin said the Columbia Police Department conducts between 12 and 15 compliance checks a year in accordance with a grant and criteria provided by Missouri's Department of Public Safety. During the checks, Drouin said, minors who are between the ages of 18 and 19 and “look their age” are authorized to use their own IDs to attempt to purchase alcohol.

Dudley, who was elected to the Columbia City Council in 2010, could not be reached for comment.

Supervising editor is Celia Darrough.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Louis Schneebaum June 13, 2012 | 6:09 p.m.

"the councilman directly sold alcohol to the minor" - we all make mistakes, and I'm sure Dudley thought the buyer was 21, but JEEZ, when you're a city councilperson, you have got to be more careful than the average bear...

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 13, 2012 | 7:40 p.m.

@..."a minor, accompanied by a plainclothes police officer..."

There is no law on the books that says the law enforcers can break the law (or facilitate the law breaking). Cite it for me, if there is.

The law e3nforcers should, in fact, be held to the same high standard as the rest of us, as well as be the example we all follow.

When an underage person is sent in by the law to purchase alcohol, then the law is violating its own premise and endangering an underage person with the push to act illegally.

Entrapment of the clerk.

That is hardly the fault of our alderman, Mr. Dudley who has proved to be an excellent/honest servant to our community.

If the police want to catch law breakers, why do they not go into bars where underage drinkers congregate, instead of breaking their own laws they state the rest of us follow.

Is there not a convicted killer in prison now, who could have been stopped if the officers had caught him in time, when he was being illegally plied drinks by his sibling?

I know a man who was a clerk, and he was really busy and failed to I.D. a decoy. He was an honest family man and needed his job. He had I.D'ed every person that night and had failed to I.D. the decoy. I know of an incident in which a member of my family I.D.'ed the person, and put the I.D. down and then went on, and barely missed the same fate.

The person who was hit by the decoy stood between an armed robber and a member of my family, while the robber held the family member at gun point. He risked his own life to save the family member. He would never contribute to the delinqency of a minor.

His name made the arrest column in the paper, and a lot of people were upset by the duplicity/entrapment of what this did to a really nice, good person when the column stated as if he had sold ligour to a minor, which is not the truth. The truth was he failed to I.D. a decoy.

Yet when the police send in an underage decoy, that is what they are doing - breaking their own law.

This needs to be changed, and Mr. Dudley is not to blame for this, any more than anyone else who is entrapped.

People can get in the arrest column for things they do not do. I hav e seen in happen. It almost happened to me, while people who really do break the law do what they want, and the police do not stop them for a minute.

This needs to change.

Either tell the truth or just stop. Either get the ones who are breaking the law, or hand over your jobs to someone who can.

This is ridiculous!

You are ruining lives and reputations and still not getting the underage drinkers or the ones who are causing all the trouble!

I would suggest you leave Mr. Dudley alone, and the rest of us who are not bothering anything.

Thank you.

~Delcia Crockett

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams June 13, 2012 | 10:49 p.m.

Delcia: While I am a huge police supporter, I (too) am uncomfortable with this. I simply cannot see how attempting to commit an illegal act (underage person trying to purchase liquor, and hiring him to boot) is a thing we want our police to be doing.

It is true, tho, that we give a free pass to the police when it comes to fencing stings, murder-for-hire stings, purchasing drugs via undercover cop, and the like. Hmmmmmmm. What am I uncomfortable with?

I'm surprised there is little comment on this issue. Of course, Mr Dudley isn't on the "most favored" list of many freedom-fighter liberals in this place, so those folks are probably "passing" on this one.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum June 14, 2012 | 1:24 a.m.

Nice jab at 'liberals'. Very brilliant. The fact is, we all read about these 'stings' multiple times every year - it is a fear that every minimum wage convenience store clerk knows. As a city council-person, Dudley should be extra careful, and it should be expected that he be held to, at the very least, an equivalent standard.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 3:17 a.m.

@Michael Williams:

I have been a huge supporter in the past, but after a 10-year toleration of a certain situation in which I thought I was being a good neighbor/friend by tolerating that certain situation, then posting a note on a vehicle in a public street to state that I no longer wanted to have that on my property or near me, and explaining why, I was nearly arrested under the false charge of vandalism.

The bad behavior of the person continued, and every time I tried to document it with the police, I was finally told not to call. My call could have takenno more than 30 seconds, at most. They sent an officer into my home to tell me that.

And I have complied completely.

One year later, I am awakened at night, and all my civil liberties are stripped. My computer is hacked, and my phone is listened into. The two Missouri statutes that are supposed to protect me - the right to be left alone and the right to privacy are violated 24/7.

I am a private citizen. I have done nothing to harm anyone. I never have. I never will. I fear for my very life, and I am virtually a prisoner in my own home, as far as my street is concerned. I do not speak to neighbors for fear of inadvertently involving them, and I do not look toward the direction of the trouble nor even look up when I go to my vehicle to go to work, church or to my volunteer events in this town. I cannot even water my flowers at pre-dawn without this voyuerism upon me.

Yesterday, this person backed out in front of us, blocked us just as we were leaving to go to the hospital for an appointment for my husband. We had to wait until she decided to drive away. I never looked up. There is gossip/rumor flying around of things I have not done, and have no intention of doing.

No one supported the police more than I have. When all this began, I was all for the chief, for the 42 addtional officers and for the substations. By now we could have blogged in and all the writers collectively have gotten the attention of the powers-that-be. Instead, as I tried to hold that toehold in writing, I go distracted by all this negativity. I can no longer be there. I have to help bring back the kids from the street, and try to help with overcoming the crime in this town through another route.

I am among those now who no longer trust (nor support) the way Columbia Police handle things.

If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone.

We are not safe, when the ones we count on the most let us down - and it is like waiting for the other foot to fall.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 3:37 a.m.

@Louise Schneebaum:

#1 - Mr. Dudley is also a private citizen, and Hyvee is his livelihood.

#2 - He did not commit a crime - but was inticed into one already in action - a minor purchasing alcohol, at non-legal age.

#3 - Every citizenship right one of us loses, then we all collectively lose.

#4 - The police do not have absolute power, but they are our public servants. They work for us, and they should protect us from crime, not try to draw us into it in any way nor allow someone to continue to hurt us in any way.

#5 - Even people of faith will tell you that they are required to submit to authority figures, and when the officers storm their private lives, they are to submit peacefully.

I fear for my life if a certain party does not get counseling and if I do not get protection that does keep her from coming across here, mentioning my name all the time, or constantly watching me until I am praying all the time just for grace to bear the stress load that falls on me and my family and took our immune systems down until we were sick, literally shooting blood pressure into danger zone and causing chest pains. Sleep deprivation can be lethal, and the acts of aggression into one's private space can be horribly harmful.

There is no where to turn, or anyone to help when police do not want to know about it. They simply cannot be bothered.

It is not important enugh to them. The publicity is that they report when they do something like this to a figure who serves the community though.

I should file to protect my life and I should ask for the counseling for that person so that person might stop, and I emphaszie "might."

But why should I have to do that? What has happened to common courtesy and to being able to call the police and trust them?

Have we, indeed, lost our civil liberties when the police can come into our homes in such a fashion, or on our job and place us in a compromising situation, such as what Mr. Dudley experienced?

Mr. Dudley is one of those rare public servants that anyone can contact, and he responds and is always polite, no matter what is thrown his way. He just wants to serve. We need more of his caliber.

Ms. Crayton was like that when she served. I have often wondered if part of her physical illness derived from the stress load she carried in that service for this town/community.

Doing this to our quality public servants is asinine.

Let's change that. Please?

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith June 14, 2012 | 4:44 a.m.

"Louise Schneebaum" must be a new poster. Perhaps she's related to Louis Schneebaum, either by blood or marriage. Always a good thing to have new posters.

Don't Columbia police have anything more productive to do than the operation in question? We might sort of hope so.

As for selling alcohol to minors, I'm sure the Nanny State will soon come up with a solution - once it solves the obesity problem. The Nanny State knows all and sees all. BTW, how do we solve the problem of kids getting smashed on alcohol that's already been legally purchased by their parents and is readily available at home? Do we enter the home (hopefully with a warrant), arrest the parents, and seize the alcohol? Where is Eliot Ness when we need him?

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin June 14, 2012 | 9:30 a.m.

As a parent of school-age children, anything we can do to keep alcohol, drugs, smokes, etc. out of their hands, especially when they are not at home, is welcome. Dismissing this as a "non-issue" and blaming the police is missing the boat.

As for Mr. Dudley, he is not a "private citizen," but a Columbia City Councilman, held to a higher standard of scrutiny. Do I think this rises to the level of an offense that should remove him from the Council? No, because I think it was an honest mistake, not an intentional offense.

As for why there's not much comment here on this story, in contrast the Trib has lit up with comments:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012...

It seems like the Missourian has more out-of-area commenters who are less interested in Columbia issues than the Trib has.

One for instance: Missourian columnists like George Kennedy who cover local issues get far fewer comments than Missourian columnists like Col. Miller, who cover national issues. I also think the online Missourian commenter population skews older, retired, and no longer with children at home, which may also dampen interest in this story.

The lack of pay wall here may also contribute to this difference. People more interested in local stories are more likely to pay to comment on them.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor June 14, 2012 | 10:13 a.m.

I guess the drug dealers have to chase down the undercover officers and make them buy some drugs from them. After all, if the undercover officer asks to buy drugs, then it's entrapment?

Much ado about nothing here IMHO. The police have been doing this for at least 25 years and a councilperson who makes this mistake once has not shown themselves to be a problem IMHO.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 11:55 a.m.

@Mike Martin:

Mr. Dudley was not on the job when he was confronted with this; that is where his private citizen hat enters the picture.

I have worked with undercover officers, and I know they do not entrap. They collect evidence and they are looking so un-coplike they could be the janitor at the school where your kid goes or they could be the person so unshaven and unkept that sits next to you anywhere you are. They observe, and they collect evidence for months, documenting as they go. When you assist, you are kept in the utmost of safety and confidence - so much so that anyone will not even know when you pick them out of a line-up or when you give your statement of facts that back-up what the undercover officers do.

Here is a thought for parenting, and none of my children smoke cigarettes nor drink and have ever been in trouble with the law, but are honor graduates, model citizens and have creative strong work ethics:

#1 - It is your responsibility to never leave your child alone.

#2 - It is your responsibility to know where your child is and what your child is doing.

#3 - It is your responsibility to know if drugs are in your house or not.

That's how you keep them out of the hands of your children. You talk to your children by the time they can walk and you tell them how people are going to try to get them to do things that are not right. You teach them to walk away from trouble and don't go near it. You listen to your child, you check at the school, you visit the school, you work with the teachers, and you raise seven kinds of hell when a drug dealer comes near your child or even offers your child a cigarette.

No, you don't blame the police, but you call them out when they are wrong, too. And you should be able to call them, when someone is not doing the right thing. You should never be told not to call. You should feel safe on your job and in your home and on the street and anywhere you go.

Can we trust the police to do that any more - or have they become a part of the problem in taking away our civil liberties, instead of trying to help us to peaceful solutions by helping us stay quiet and safe in our own homes and on our jobs?

Breaking the law themselves is not an option they have in the job we hired them to do.

Letting other people break the law is not an option for them either.

Using someone to break the law is not an option.

If I am keeping the law and not bothering anyone, then - by golly - why should I not be able to expect the same common courtesy and respect from anyone else?

As far, as the Trib, I do not read and comment there any more. Maybe these folks who read here just like it better here. I do.

I left there on my own accord. I chose to. That said, I do not think I should have to pay to blog, and it got kind of old one day with one comment too many.

Here, civility is held, and the editors are the greatest!

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 11:56 a.m.

Again, I think Mr. Dudley's charges should be dropped, a public apology made, and this manner of entrapment and citizens not feeling safe from people who make trouble in this town, should just stop.

Done.

(Report Comment)
Richard Saunders June 14, 2012 | 12:05 p.m.

Well, according to the logic of Mr. Martin, we should put ALL people in solitary confinement, as I can clearly demonstrate how that would help keep government approved drugs out of the hands of minors. (See, because "anything" is a very big area, there Mr. Totalitarian-worshipper.)

Given that Mr. Dudley checked the ID, he is likely a victim of his own poor math skills, or inattention to detail while trying to run a store.

Does anyone here really believe a sitting Council member would jeopardize their position within the community by intentionally selling to a minor?

Did he make a mistake? Yes. However, as pointed out in this thread, it was the police that perpetrated the actual crime, NOT Mr. Dudley.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum June 14, 2012 | 12:12 p.m.

Wow. The wing-nuts are out in force. Sorry, I don't have the time to read your treatise on law and order -- this is an online newspaper comment board, keep it brief... Dud broke the law, I don't see you freaks complaining when Joe Schmoe gets nailed in the same sort of 'sting'.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 12:23 p.m.

@..." I don't see you freaks complaining when Joe Schmoe gets nailed in the same sort of 'sting'."

Yes, I have. I even talked to the nicest officer about it, at the time I could still talk to officers, and that time got a nice one.

I called to tell them, more or less, exactly what I posted here, and the person it happened to was not a Councilman, or public figure, by far.

Entrapment is wrong, no matter who it happens to.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 12:24 p.m.

@Richard Saunders:
Exactly!

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis June 14, 2012 | 1:18 p.m.

I don't understand why peolpe think this is entrapment the kid walked in to the store with their i.d. not a fake i.d.. The transaction was witnessed by an officer standing by. I have been in that store many times and seen that man sell cigrettes to people I could not believe he did not card or just glanced at the i.d.. If this had been just any ho-bo-joe would this be as big a deal? No. I for one am glad the police do this it does help teach clerks to check ages and pay attetion because I don't want people selling to my kids. Do you?

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis June 14, 2012 | 1:27 p.m.

@ Delcia it is the law to not sell to anyone under the age of 21 and to card anyone who looks under 40. He broke the law. No matter how you look at this he was wrong... Sorry that's his job, and that's a kid

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro June 14, 2012 | 1:40 p.m.

("Missouri's drinking age has been 21 since 1945. That is, Missouri law prohibits minors from possessing or purchasing alcohol.")
How many first ward minors are breaking the law and how many bars and music venues in "The District" break this law as well?
Considering the circumstances for the councilman, I'd say his "friends" understand his mistake much more than his political adversaries.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum June 14, 2012 | 1:42 p.m.

It's funny when people throw around the word entrapment like they know what they're talking about. Here's a very simple explanation:

"However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person (see sting operation)"

Buh bye!

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 1:58 p.m.

en·trap (n-trp)
tr.v. en·trapped, en·trap·ping, en·traps
1. To catch in or as if in a trap.
2.
a. To lure into danger, difficulty, or a compromising situation. See Synonyms at catch.
b. To lure into performing a previously or otherwise uncontemplated illegal act.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 2:05 p.m.

The above is an unbiased, stated-for-fact definition of entrapment.

The word is not thrown around lightly nor is this act against Mr. Dudley taken lightly or tongue in cheek.

Mr. Dudley did not contemplate an illegal act, therefore he did not committ an illegal act.

The person who does the crime must have been the orignator/preformer of the act.

The police actually not only made the act of the underage purchase, but the police contemplated the illegal act and carried it out to lure Mr. Dudley into a trap. Were there no comtemplation on the part of the police, and the act of the illegal age person there at the act of the police, there would be no crime.

It's that simple.

The police should be upholding the law, not breaking it for any reason.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 2:07 p.m.

@ Ray Shapiro:

Exactly!

Aren't there plenty of people who break the law all the time, and the police must be turning their heads to?

But they lure into entrapment a Councilman?

Uh-hummmmmmmmmm....

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 2:11 p.m.

Maybe we need a new Chief, after all!

:)

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 2:16 p.m.

The 1992 Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v. United States -- that law enforcement "may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the government may prosecute"--

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 2:17 p.m.

I have more precedent-set cases to cite.

Get the picture?

Some things are not up for grabs and there is a certain moral/ethic question here.

Really.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro June 14, 2012 | 2:33 p.m.

I wonder if this was the first and only time Mr. Dudley got "tested?"
How many times did he pass?
Who's keeping score?
(If they're really out to get you, it's not paranoia anymore.)

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 2:39 p.m.

@..."because I don't want people selling to my kids. Do you?"

Simple solution: Make sure what your kids spend money on and have a pact with them very young that they never smoke the first cigarette.

There! Then clerk does not have the headache of having to deal with your child and your child's fake I.D., too.

Do you have any idea what clerks have to do on one shift? Why should they have to babysit a child whose parents don't even know where that child is, or what that child is doing?

If you knew, would you allow your child in there to spend his (or her) money on cigarettes?

A stranger (a clerk just trying to work hard and pay his/her bills) is not responsible for your child's poor choices, you and that child are.

A clerk can I.D. hundreds of times and then get really hit with a volume of customers and someone can look legal age that that clerk has never seen before.

Clerks do not need to be harassed with entrapment. Entrapment proves nothing, when kids all over town are drinking underage and nothing is done to stop them in the bars.

Entrapment is wrong. This is embarrassing that this is even happening. And so wrong.

And, I assure you, no clerk sells to a child - they are not that ready to lose their jobs they work hard to keep - in an honest way.

If a clerk does not I.D. then there is a very good reason for it - the person looked the age.

If you don't want your kid doing something wrong, breaking the law, then keep up with them. If the police think someone looks underage, then stop them and I.D. them.

Something some people need to really work on in this town is parenting.

You had the kid, you raise it, or you should be held responsible, too, for their breaking the law.

The police are responsible for this one, too.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 2:44 p.m.

@"(If they're really out to get you, it's not paranoia anymore.)"

Never thought I would say this, but that is so right! Even we model citizens cannot feel safe any more.

It is like waiting for the other foot to fall.

You never quite get your feeling of safety back.

Though you forgive, and forget. Trouble just will not let it go, and you know and you do not feel safe.

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis June 14, 2012 | 2:49 p.m.

Delcia simmer down he sold to a minor! That is against the law honey! Wow why are you having such a hard time with this? I get he's you friend, he still sold to a minor no one made him do it, he chose to. That puts it on him. these stings are done all over, not just here so calm down. Dang ya'll are getting all worked up. He broke the law. According to your deffination Delcia road blocks are entrapment to huh?

Delcia for you

entrapment: the luering by a law-enforcment angent of a person into committing a crime

he was not luered he chose to do sell said product:)

(Report Comment)
mike mentor June 14, 2012 | 2:50 p.m.

@Delcia
Let's just stop and think about this for a minute. If you follow through with your line of reasoning, the store clerk/bartender will never be guilty of breaking the law unless they are actively conspiring to sell to a minor. If any underage kid buys liquor, you have the same situation of the clerk/bartender not going out of their way or any preconceived plans to break the law. Yet, we the people, decided that it should be against the law for a bartender or store clerk to sell to a minor. It is what it is...

Now, if we can get drugs legalized and regulated, we can make it as hard to buy a joint as a six pack for these same minors.

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis June 14, 2012 | 3:09 p.m.

This is not an artical about parenting. I agree parents should be parents. This man had a job to do he worked in a facility that sold products that came with restrictions. This man was also well aware that sting operations were performed by the police department to catch individules not following the these restrictions and still did not follow them himself, and no it was NOT A FAKE I.D.. If for any reason he was unable to comly with the guidlines he should have notified management before the problem. Again I say I myself have been amazed at seeing him sell to youth that were obiously not of age when you are supposed to card anyone who does not look 40!

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 3:13 p.m.

@"This is not an artical about parenting..."

You borught in the mention of what parents should do, in question.

I only responded. I stand by what I said.

Know where your kid is and there will be no problem with the clerk, by the clerk and for the clerk.

:)

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 3:24 p.m.

@"the store clerk/bartender will never be guilty of breaking the law"

The police broke the law and contributed to the deliquency of a minor, in every sense of the word.

Do you know that manager have daily audits, and they can (and do) double check their employees for honesty on all counts.

Did you know they can take any register tape and go right to pin point any sale on the daily video camera tape and catch the dishonest?

Managers do this all the time. No manager worth his (or her) salt will allow the sale of illegal act in his (or her) store.

That is how people get fired, and how the honest employees stay. Some companies even have their own detectives that view and take care of this very thing.

A manager no more wants a person who sells illegal to a minor, than the honest employee who works with that employee would do.

If a person contmeplates this act and carries it out, then that person is not long going to be there, and that person will find it very difficult to find a job in that field any more when any legitimate references are needed.

I have been a manager, and I have gone through an extensive management training. I know.

And I have worked with a couple of the best managers in the world. Does not take them long to spot it.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum June 14, 2012 | 3:31 p.m.

LOL @ the dictionary definition of the word entrapment and your irrelevant citations. Just accept that fact that you're wrong. We're talking about the U.S. system of law enforcment / justice. This was not entrapment. Bye.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 3:32 p.m.

Road blocks catch speeders who are already breaking the law.

I think not only should the sheriff have roadblocks but he should not have to announce them.

If someone is already breaking the law and gets caught that is completely different from someone who would have no intent of breaking the law and the police breaking the law by setting up something illegal in a place and time where it would not be happening had the police not set it up.

Actually, I have not met Mr. Dudley. I only know how he has behaved when I have see him on newscasts.

I think we need more Councilmen like him, and we need to maybe lose the rest of the Council. Maybe even the Mayor himself, though the more I read that he does, the more I would tend to support him now.

Maybe we do not need to blame everything on the Chief. Maybe, instead, he is the answer to what is wrong.

This is so humiliating to think that this can happen - that perhaps we need some sort of addressing it, and doing something to change it.

Think? Maybe? Sort of? Perhaps?

I have beenn told not to call.

Any volunteers?

:)

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis June 14, 2012 | 3:39 p.m.

Delcia you are making me laugh! He was already breaking the law NO ONE MADE HIM DO THIS he sold to the minor the officer was just there THIS TIME to watch! GET IT? Entrapment would be if they talked him into it or made him do it. Do you understand that or is this just to personal?

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 3:42 p.m.

@"If you follow through with your line of reasoning, the store clerk/bartender..."

Let's follow through with your line of reasoning then; if the FBI came to your house and offered you a certain amount of money to help them gather information, and it meant tapping the phone or computer of someone who did not know who would never even think intentionally of breaking the law, would you then consider that lawful - and later they came to arrest you and said that you took a bribe and acted illegally, how would you feel?

Can you honestly say you would not take the money and try to do what the FBI said?

We deal with ethical questions all the time, and yet we automatically follow through on so many things that sometimes our honesty could be blurred.

If someone is really breaking the law and hurting someone, then we should be able to call the police, and if someone is breaking the law then law enforcement should pull them over, but if someone is not breaking the law, then that person's rights should be honored.

We have certain Constitutional rights, and we have Missouri statutes that state that we have the right to be left alone and the right to privacy.

Mr. Dudley is a person who would never intentionally break the law. It was a set-up, just like an FBI bribe would be.

FBI offer no bribe and then set up the situation, then there would be no arrest/charging of you.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor June 14, 2012 | 3:43 p.m.

If you have experience (incidentally, I have had two good friends who owned bars in this town. The one who has retired and sold his still thriving business used to sit in his office and watch the camera's on his bartenders. I can assure you, I was there with him on many occasions, he was looking more for bartenders giving away drinks to friends and skimming from him by not ringing up drinks. He was not looking for minors...) you should know the law. Here it is. He is guilty. But as I said before, no big whoop if it happens once...

311.310. 1. Any licensee under this chapter, or his employee, who shall sell, vend, give away or otherwise supply any intoxicating liquor in any quantity whatsoever to any person under the age of twenty-one years, or to any person intoxicated or appearing to be in a state of intoxication, or to a habitual drunkard, and any person whomsoever except his parent or guardian who shall procure for, sell, give away or otherwise supply intoxicating liquor to any person under the age of twenty-one years, or to any intoxicated person or any person appearing to be in a state of intoxication, or to a habitual drunkard, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, except that this section shall not apply to the supplying of intoxicating liquor to a person under the age of twenty-one years for medical purposes only, or to the administering of such intoxicating liquor to any person by a duly licensed physician. No person shall be denied a license or renewal of a license issued under this chapter solely due to a conviction for unlawful sale or supply to a minor when serving in the capacity as an employee of a licensed establishment.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 3:46 p.m.

@"LOL @ the dictionary definition of the word entrapment and your irrelevant citations. Just accept that fact that you're wrong. We're talking about the U.S. system of law enforcment / justice. This was not entrapment. Bye."

They who cannot debate, insult.

(It's okay, editor. I took debate in high school and college in some classes.)

I know the difference.

:)

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 3:50 p.m.

There you go, Mike. Manager at work!

Then there is parental responsibility, what some folks seem to lack in this town - convicted murderer in prison who was illegal impaired by drinks, schoolage.

Thank you, Mike!

Great points! And observations!

Thing is, police should be looking where the illegal is taking place, nor inventing the illegal elsewhere.

:)

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro June 14, 2012 | 3:50 p.m.

Peppers Nightclub did all kinds of stuff and its owner will most likely make a pretty penny on the sale of that place and the other pleasure house and business sites.
Also at Camp Zoe:
("Tebeau pleaded guilty Tuesday to one felony count of maintaining a drug-involved premises in exchange for an agreed-upon prison sentence of 30 months. He has also agreed to forfeit the campground property to the government, but gets $188,000 back that had been seized by authorities, his lawyer said.
The events attracted an average of 5,000 fans. In addition to live bands, the festivals featured 100 to 200 dealers selling roughly $500,000 worth of marijuana, psychedelic mushrooms, ecstasy, cocaine, LSD, opium, moonshine, and hash brownies and cookies, prosecutors said.")
http://addins.whig.com/blogs/hartofthema...

So the gas station guy who aspires to Councilman gets exposed for apparently selling to a minor. The legal process will now unfold. However, why doesn't HyVee just sell alcohol from their Grocery/Main Building Liquor Department which is awfully close to the the gas pumps?
And who's not aggressively after the bars and music venues in the first ward?
Why not just make the downtown area a dry zone and free up the police to target all the council members you don't like and police the outer zones of town for liquor violations.

He is accused of a screw up.
Why make more of it then it really is, unless you're against his political office or jumping on the bandwagon of public humiliation and moral outrage.
(Almost makes me regret supporting Skala when he was reeling from his most recent Councilman political campaign. And note that I said almost.)
Dirty politics and shenanigans, if you ask me.
I'm not impressed.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 3:53 p.m.

Sure, Sally, we all know that the Councilman wanted so much bad publicity that he found that underage person, made sure that undersage showed up in there and told him, "Have at it!"

Uh-no, that would be the police who did that!

:)

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 4:06 p.m.

@"Why not just make the downtown area a dry zone and free up the police to target all the council members you don't like and police the outer zones of town for liquor violations."

Excellent points!

Then all the Council people can rest easy about what the police are arresting people for next, things they might not have done, and then we have the officers who think on their feet and represent us all. Those are the ones we can be proud of. They take time to listen and they care. They are not going to be taken in by someone getting someone else in trouble, when it is someone who would not break the law in a million years, and someone else just wants them arrested rather than take responsibility that they are, in fact, the source of all the trouble and continue to be.

I think those sort of officers have it the hardest, because they really want to do the right thing, and we know there are some angry, mean people and we need that sort of officer on the job to help us against.

The fear is that we will get one who might entrap us or not want to be bothered, or who is a whiner and insists he (or she) has low morale.

The more I think about it, the more I think we should listen to the Chief and get the 42 offices, and the substations.

I think it must take one great person like the officer who stopped and listened and did not arrest me, but went back and told that person that I did not want her over here, I did not want her to speak to me, and that I wanted nothing else to do with her after that ten years.

I only regret that the trouble never stopped after thar.

I feel for Mr. Dudley because I know that he would not break the law, and I know he has a good soul and heart, and I know that this must hurt him very deeply.

I know that hurt.

I have forgiven, I became a prisoner in my house, and I never look toward that person again. I want to forget.

I know he must be hurting because he is a good citizen, and so then my thoughts and prayers are with him and our really good officers.

May the tribe increase!

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum June 14, 2012 | 4:21 p.m.

Wow, troglodytes... SURROUNDING ME !

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro June 14, 2012 | 4:41 p.m.

Louis:
This one's for you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfBPjRp81...

(Report Comment)
Richard Saunders June 14, 2012 | 5:16 p.m.

To add to my first comment, the CPD reported that the minor was 20, making the math error that much easier (the off by one mistake). I'll bet many people have made the same mistake (some even while trying to come up with their own age (or someone else in their family))

Sure, he should've been more diligent, but he failed. As I said before, I find it highly unlikely that he intentionally sold to a minor (which is supposed to be what the program is aiming to catch) AFTER checking the ID. If there's been complaints regarding any particular establishment, then I can understand an investigation.

Random checks though? That's just trolling, as evidenced by the big fish they caught in this dragnet.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith June 14, 2012 | 5:55 p.m.

@Ray and Louis

Troglodytes aedon = common house wren (highly territorial)

Birds of a feather...

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 11:11 p.m.

Isn't it illegal if we lie to police? What about police being deceptive to us?

How much trouble can a person get into legally (and what fine can be imposed) for attempting to purchase underage by a minor?

How much trouble can a person get into by lying about one's age concerning a driver's license?

Sorry, folks, as much as I would like to say that it just did not happen, it did this time.

The burden falls on the one who allowed self to be used in breaking the law, and the ones who broke the law by setting up the illegal age person for the purchase.

Laws are put in concrete for a reason. Does it matter who the law breaker is? Level ground as far as the law is made when it is written.

Sad day when the law enforcers break the law - much like when the men who make the laws break the law.

Get tired of it sometimes? I do.

And, answer to an earlier question in this comment section on this article: No, it is nothing personal against the police - I think the officer who talked to me so nicely about the clerk I knew will verify that I held this same perspective long before the incident happened to me.

And, when I was almost arrested just because someone wanted me to be and under false charges from her, it took the officer 45 minutes to get to my residence after he was called, because no police had ever been called on us and he had gone to another address that was similar, a distance away, when he got the call - that evidently received a lot of calls.

I am so proud of that officer, and though the events have been horrible since, I can recall that officer and how he listened and took care of it, to protect my rights as a private citizen. I think the other officers, after that, should have supported him in that asking her to leave me alone, and I think that I can always remember him and the officer of rank, downtown, who took time to talk to me when I went down there to ask how I could handle this to keep peace on my street for all concerned, and he gave me the excellent advice of just not looking her way, just saying she does not exist, and saying that anyone who participates in it does not exists. I think both of them are very wise, and that they both could have saved violence at that time. Given that angry/hatred mindset, the violence could have escalated and someone could get hurt. Even though I have cooperated fully and given up my civil liberties to do so, I fear yet.

Where there is something coming after you, can you ever be safe? It should stop. I have gone inside. I cast my eyes and thoughts away from what happened. I have forgiven and I try to forget. If a certain party will stop the crap that would be possible even more so.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 11:20 p.m.

I hope that Mr. Dudley is able to forgive quickly and to forget this sad thing. It is not easy when people remind you all the time, no matter how hard you try to tune it out and not be involved in it - when they try even more to pull you back in.

Like pulling out in front of you, blocking you and not going until they are good and ready - when you are just trying to go down the street to the doctor's office.

I was asked not to call the police, that she could use the car to block my space and that she could use it 24/7 and even pull it up and do it even more.

I think that the police should take very call and protect every citizen to the fullest against people who want to make them stressed and sick and do them harm. I think that no call should be considered unimportant, when the person does not call that often and does not stay on the phone that long, but just wants to document what is happening.

I think residential ordinances should be cited and used for residents to prot ecty those of us who are quiet and never bother anyone from those who are not, and attempt to bother us.

I think the officers should fully back that up for us, and I think the first officer did. The officer she called to have me arrested for her. I think, once an officer makes a request like that, the other officers should back him from there on out, reminding the person when bad behavior surfaces, that "the police officer has said..."

All crime is preventable. The one that happened to Mrs. Dudley was, and the one that happened to me, was.

Aren't the police into preventive crime in a proactive stance? Maybe they should be.

This, too, is now in my writer file for future reference. The pen of First Amendment rights is something no one can take away. Or should try, in word or deed. The writer'e pen is also proactive/preventive in nature for the good of all.

And, clerk Mike C., hope you read this and see that the promise I made to you and the officer I discussed upir ordeal with at that time, when I say that I would file this away in my mind and bring it back up again, in my writing, if it could help someone else.

This entrapment thing should change; the law is one-size-that-fits-all in a free country.

This is not spy work, and it stopped no crime in Columbia.

In fact, entrapment of a citizen could be considered to be so.

All about integrity, moral decisions of right and wrong, and how deception hurts innocent people.

(Would loved to have gone to law school, if had not majored in English and jornalism, instead.)

I would have so many pro bono cases it would not be funny - and most of them I would, no doubt, volunteer for working through in defense for the one whose life was invaded with this sort of thing.

I trust Mr. Dudley knows how much he is respected, and how much he is held up in our thoughts and prayers.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 14, 2012 | 11:21 p.m.

I think the officers who are trustworthy might like this one changed, too. That is my experience with the great officers that I have known all my life that I have associated with in my work -they listen, they care, and they want to be fair in anything they do while enforcing the law.

God bless.

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 16, 2012 | 7:24 a.m.

Ray,

How are you today?

Trust Mr. Dudley is getting to sleep these nights, and his family does not hurt too much over this - plus the fact that he and his family should receive a letter of apology from the police.

I know I will never get one, but it is nice to remember the nice officers who risk their lives for us every day, going after the real crime in this town, while not invading the life of innocent citizens.

Time for all of it to concentrate on the real crime, and stop trying to hurt the good people in this town.

Maybe Mr. Dudley's case can become the classic textbook example for how change is need in policy of how police behave in this town.

I would like to talk to an "your honor," someday soon and ask for counseling for a certain person - and for a court order to make certain she does not cross the street to over here, does not mention my name, does not even look my way.

I fear for my life. If that does not happen.

Everyone can count on me not even looking that way, not even speaking to anyone around me while on this street, and just staying to myself, other than my family, my church, my work and my closest of closest of friends.

My parents taught me common courtesy, and I have taught my children. Maybe it is too much to consider other people have taught their children and, as a result, those children become immature as chronilogical-aged adults.

After all, I have cooperated more than a year now.

I pray for the safety of our private citizens who are only trying to work at their/our jobs, pay their/our bills, and serve their/our community in all ways good.

I not only know that Mr. Dudley should receive a letter of apology, but this practice of entrapment should stop at once.

And, if any police tell a private citizen not to call, that that is not what the police are there for, then the source of that should be found and immediately released from the service job we hired him/her to do - even if that is a dispatcher at a Joint Communication staff that we don't need anyway.

Our taxpayers can do without the staff of telephone operators that feed our calls through.

What we need are the 42-plus additional officers and the sub-stations in our neighborhoods. We need that access to our excellent officers. Put the money from the Joint Communications staff to the extra officers and sub-stations for us.

It is time.

In the meantime, stop trying to draw us innocent citizens into the negativity of the criminal shadowing. Go after the ones really breaking the law. That is what we hire you for!

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 18, 2012 | 7:00 p.m.

Personally, I have begun to turn off the news when the PR comes on about the police and what they are doing.

I have forgiven and I am on my way to forgetting, though the trouble be in my face day and night that started it all and keeps it going.

I tune it out and I have friends who really make me laugh. And I am meeting new people all the time, completely away from my street, so that I do not have to participate in anything that goes on here!

but I will be the first one to write about it forever!

And the first one to support innocent people who are entrapped and/or used/stalked/harassed by others to meet their own selfish needs!

Mr. Dudley is held in the highest esteem!

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements