I find the reaction The Frederick News-Post expressed in its July 5 editorial (Hagen wrong to interfere in traffic stop) unreasonable toward Kai Hagen as he stopped to check on the condition of a motorist who was pulled over by the sheriff’s office. The immediate condemnation and subsequent daily poll regarding the incident, in my opinion, was a knee-jerk judgement against a citizen who has worked hard for the best for Frederick County throughout the years.

I don’t see the incident as having a right or wrong outcome. I think we need to honestly look at why Mr. Hagen was compelled to stop. Sheriff Chuck Jenkins has shown himself to be a “wild west” sheriff and there has to be a trickle down effect with the deputies of the department. Many do not abide or adhere to Sheriff Jenkins draconian views or practices, but others do. This is what causes problems in the community. It was not known whether the driver was in duress or not, and as a concerned citizen, Mr. Hagen stopped to offer assistance. If more citizens showed concern, possibly we would have fewer tragedies occur during police road stops. Of course, Sheriff Jenkins remarked, “Who in the hell does he think he is?” This is the typical “type” of statement often used by the sheriff, which I find shows his extreme arrogance and lack of professionalism. It is unfortunate that Sheriff Jenkins has become such an embarrassment to OUR county.

The FNP stated that, “Even Council President M.C. Keegan-Ayer — a fellow Democrat — couldn’t offer much support for Hagen.” Why a fellow Democrat? This makes NO sense. How is this particular situation in any way politically related?

I have never met Mr. Hagen, however, I have read about him for many years in the FNP. The articles have always been positive and reflected a dedicated, community-oriented person.

Kazia Forrest

Frederick

(19) comments

JerryR

It's simple people....do a ride-along sometime with a LEO. You'll get the gist of the job real quick. Although I'm sure Kai Hagen is a nice man, what he did was absolutely questionable (I'm being nice here)! He endangered everyone's lives with his actions - yes, even his and his wife's life! Incredible shortsighted.

HappySeller2014

I am concerned with the welfare of all skin types, to include Black, Yellow, Brown, tanned, freckled, sunburned, tatooed and White.

This is why I leave cops alone when they are conducting traffic stops.

First, it is against the law to interfere. Second, the police are present to protect all of us. And third, if I show favortism towards one or more races of people, I myself am a racist.

What if I only wanted to interfere with police stops invloving women drivers? Or people who look older than dirt? Or people wearing no shirt? Or people with tatoos?

You would think I was sick, prejudiced or stupid.

Same goes for interfering with a cop traffic enforcement stop because the driver is Black. Stupid, illegal, wrong and racist.

Awteam2021

Stopping for a police stop isn’t necessarily interfering. I’ve done it many times and interfering never came up.

HappySeller2014

Stop pulling Kais Awteam2021!

See, now citizens everywhere are thinking they can get away with this.

If you have no connection whatsoever, except that you are both human, with the individual pulled over, then you are interfering Awteam2021. Try again. Simplying stating in this case the pulled over driver is Black, so I need to check in on him, does not pass the smell test.

In Kai's mind, women everywhere might be horrendous drivers and either be threatened or intimidated by cops everywhere. But does not given him the right to stop at every cop traffic stop he sees with a woman driver present to perform a welfare check.

Wake up Awteam2021.

gary4books

Many activities can be "interfering" and be intentional or not. The law is about "obstruction" and to convict they must prove intent. Very little intent with Kai and likely that is why no tickets were issued. Even less proof of intent to obstruct. Really an "open and shut" case.

Dwasserba

Yeah I’m not sure why the fnp chose a side. They don’t endorse candidates. They weren’t defamed or dared in any way (ref: the outrageous Kirby Delauter Kirby Delauter editorial) but in this, chose to set objectivity aside. This was a nothing incident blown up big by a blathering unfortunately publicly executed. The Sheriff’s deputy son was challenged while on the job, and it can be a scary job, chance encounters with citizens are risky. But how curious to continue to feel threatened after actually realizing… this is Kai Hagen. I don’t know him personally. My impression is, this is who flower children grew up to be who were not corrupted by the over riding culture in their intervening years. Nostalgic for me, as I count myself among the corrupted. But how did this escalate so amazingly. Could it be, Hagen said nothing at all about it, but someone else felt compelled. Why. I never understood the hostility toward people offering passive confrontation. Take the flower, already.

pdl603

This LTE just how dumb Frederick Democrats are. Hagen and the motorist were in the wrong, period. What don’t they get?

Dwasserba

Beg pardon. The author is a Democrat?

phydeaux994

I think most people, myself included, believe that Mr. Hagen was out of bounds in this incident. But as the LTE author says, it was done over concern for the Black driver who was pulled over for no obvious reason. And there is concern in this Country for such Police stops. Mr. Hagen told the Deputy why he stopped and the Deputy accommodated Mr. Hagen by asking the driver if he was o.k. and the driver said yes and Mr. Hagen went on his way. There was no confrontation involved. No harm, no foul. No endangerment to anyone as the Sheriff contends. Mr. Hagen admitted his behavior was wrong and apologized. That should have been the end but the Sheriff and his friends won’t let it go. Right piddle??

best words of the whole letter:

"The FNP stated that, “Even Council President M.C. Keegan-Ayer — a fellow Democrat — couldn’t offer much support for Hagen.” Why a fellow Democrat? This makes NO sense. How is this particular situation in any way politically related?"

Beats me? and the dems should be supporting Kai or else they are supporting Sheriff Jenkins and the dems should all know it's time for Chuck to go???

matthewboh

I keep hoping that the sheriff is voted out. Just the fact that he thinks that no citizen should ever ask a detainee a question in the presence of the police screams authoritarianism. There's your evidence!

C.D.Reid

It's not that the sheriff thinks that no citizen should ever ask a detainee a question in the presence of the police, it's the fact that it's illegal for a private citizen to interfere with the lawful duties of a police officer, which is exactly what that idiot Hagen did. There's your evidence!

gary4books

Evidence? Or presumption?

No tickets issued. I call that evidence.

C.D.Reid

What do you mean by "Evidence? Or presumption?" At your age I'm sure you're aware that officers of the law have some discretion as to whether or not they want to cite someone for an offense. In this case the deputy decided not to, which was perfectly legitimate, and quite possibly because the deputy had respect for Hagen's position as a councilman. It's called Professional Courtesy.

threecents

I think Gary's point is we don't have compelling evidence for your assertion that Kai interfered with the deputy.

gary4books

Thank you threecents. I suspect that the facts can take us only so far and then we reach a point of diminishing returns. I can let this one go. Time will tell. As they say "all publicity is good. Just spell my name right." This may even help Hagen. And I have differed with him in the past.

JerryR

It's the law Ding Dong!

C.D.Reid

"Many do not abide or adhere to Sheriff Jenkins draconian views or practices, but others do." OK, just what are those "draconian views or practices," and what evidence can you offer which shows that some of our deputies "abide or adhere" to them?

Awteam2021

CD, I think you mean “Adhere to and abide “ Which means to doing what the rules given say. The officer said move your vehicle to avoid blocking traffic not for interfering. It is possible to adhere to but not to abide, to accept without objection, unless clearly stated. Right?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Already a member?

Login Now
Click Here!

Currently a News-Post subscriber?

Activate your membership at no additional charge.
Click Here!

Need more information?

Learn about the benefits of membership.
Click Here!

Ready to join?

Choose the membership plan that fits your needs.
Click Here!