Connecticut State Troopers Caught Plotting to Charge Open Carrier

[ryknoll3]

https://photographyisnotacrime.com/...abricate-charges-against-open-carry-activist/

So much for "Protect and Serve."

 

[SteveM4A1]

I personally couldn't hear a dang thing they were saying in that video, so I don't know if the subtitles were accurate. That said, there are some who are just unfit to wear a badge.

 

[rhino]

Why aren't the officers involved facing criminal charges?

I hope this guy prevails in court. Unfortunately, the guilty parties won't be footing the bill. It will be the CT tax payers.

 

[ryknoll3]

I personally couldn't hear a dang thing they were saying in that video, so I don't know if the subtitles were accurate. That said, there are some who are just unfit to wear a badge.

I listed on my computer when I got home with the volume turned up. They definitely transcribed the audio properly.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Why aren't the officers involved facing criminal charges?

I hope this guy prevails in court. Unfortunately, the guilty parties won't be footing the bill. It will be the CT tax payers.

THIS!

You dont just make up stuff that will ruin a person and just walk away.

 

[in625shooter]

That's what makes a problem for LE. When some interject their own personal al opi ion and ego into it. Doesn't matter if you agree or not if it's legally allowed that's the end of it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

That's what makes a problem for LE. When some interject their own personal al opi ion and ego into it. Doesn't matter if you agree or not if it's legally allowed that's the end of it.

My question would be, given how blase' they were about coming up with something to fraudulently charge the man with... how often have they done this before? How many people have they charged with crimes they did not commit, who didn't have audio/video evidence to disprove the charges? The presumption of truth given to officers, absent absolute, concrete proof of falsehood, is a problem. I don't know what the solution is, other than to remove their limited immunity against prosecution if it is discovered that they have abused their power. That or, since the presumption is given to all LEOs, when one is found bearing false witness, having that officer and others pay the penalties the court assigns, creating an environment of shared responsibility; that is, if Ofc. Daniel Harless is found to have filed a false report, and his partner reports it, the partner is exempt from paying any judgment against Harless. Might even extend it such that if one officer on a dept. reports the wrongdoing, ALL of the officers of that dept. maintain their immunity. Don't want reported? Ball's in your court: Don't lie about the actions of the public you're supposed to be protecting and serving.

I'm not a cop. I don't pretend to have all the answers. I propose THIS answer as a possibility. If any of our local officers (or others, but especially LEOs) want to comment/shoot holes in my suggestion, feel free. If it won't work, I'd like some perspective as to why.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[PRasko]

Any defense attorney worth his salt would be able to use this against them in cases where they got convictions based on officer testimony.

In short, anyone they arrested prior to this, and was convicted based on officer testimony, is free to go.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

What PRasko said. It's a prosecutor's nighmare, and chills any willingness to use officer testimony in the future. In this state that may be a good thing.

 

[ATM]

Sometimes, it's not just anything you say that will be used against you, suggested fabrications from anyone who rolls up during the detainment may also be used against you.

Disgraceful.

 

[oldpink]

I would place a major part of the blame for this squarely on the nature of the state where it occurred, an authoritarian leftist utopia.

 

[RMC]

I would place a major part of the blame for this squarely on the nature of the state where it occurred, an authoritarian leftist utopia.

I think the major part of that type of attitude is the result of the Sandy Hook killings and similar incidents. Regardless of the roots, behavior like this is atrocious and should carry very harsh penalties. Fabricating falsehoods against a person by any authority is a disgrace IMHO.

 

[VUPDblue]

Any defense attorney worth his salt would be able to use this against them in cases where they got convictions based on officer testimony.

In short, anyone they arrested prior to this, and was convicted based on officer testimony, is free to go.

It's called the Brady rule. If an Officer is found to have been untruthful, its exculpatory evidence that must be given to defense counsel and basically makes that officers' testimony worthless. Where I work it'll likely cost one their job.



Also, I don't know why the Troopers would care that he's got a sign warning about a DUI checkpoint. The first sobriety test at a checkoint is the inability to avoid said checkpoint

 

[Hookeye]

Protests (even when done legally) are not without risk.
Cop seems to have a grudge from it.

Got no problem with a cop not cutting a person a break because of that.

Making up charges? We know that crap happens but geeesh, its still disturbing..............esp how blase' they were about it.

 

[rhino]

It's called the Brady rule. If an Officer is found to have been untruthful, its exculpatory evidence that must be given to defense counsel and basically makes that officers' testimony worthless. Where I work it'll likely cost one their job.

In Indiana, would conspiring to file false charges be a criminal act?

 

[VUPDblue]

In Indiana, would conspiring to file false charges be a criminal act?

It could....

 

[Bill of Rights]

It's called the Brady rule. If an Officer is found to have been untruthful, its exculpatory evidence that must be given to defense counsel and basically makes that officers' testimony worthless. Where I work it'll likely cost one their job.



Also, I don't know why the Troopers would care that he's got a sign warning about a DUI checkpoint. The first sobriety test at a checkoint is the inability to avoid said checkpoint

I know that in Indiana, there has to be a way to avoid the checkpoint. I'm not sure that's the law in other states as well (I thought it was at the state, rather than federal level) If the law does not require that, would your "first sobriety test" still apply?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rhino]

I think the next time I see one, I'll stop and turn around.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

The officers involved should be tried, convicted, and punished under 18 USC 241 and/or 18 USC 242. Essentially, these laws prohibit conspiracy to infringe the rights of others which are secured by the Constitution.

 

[Manan]

Filing a false official complaint IS illegal and prosecutable. It will up to the states prosecuting attorney to do his/her job now!