Cops Right or Wrong?

[Joe Williams]

Dude, whatever. Posting news links is not insulting, degrading or "trolling."
snip

There has been at least one member banned for posting news links.

 

[Joe Williams]

Cop was wrong, and he's going to be toast. I cannot imagine a legitimate reason for this behavior. The cops are toast.

 

[smoking357]

Why do people feel the need to interpret everything I say in the most one-dimensional way possible? It is far more difficult for a policeman to be convicted of the same crime than a member of the general population, that's what I'm asserting. I don't mean that no cop has ever been convicted of a crime. Clearly that isn't true, and no one thinks that.

Great post.

 

[sporter]

I see at least 2 former officers in that video.

 

[smoking357]

When a cop gets charged with a crime the whole system turns against them.

Well, Eddie, you're not being completely patent in your response. You talk about when a cop gets charged with a crime. Indeed. When. Such an occurrence is highly infrequent. The cops are masters of the complaints received by the citizens. The cops have unfettered access to the Prosecutors. The Prosecutor stays on the good side of cops so the Prosecutor can run for reelection on the "get tough on crime" slogan. The Prosecutor is master of the grand jury necessary to indict the cop and runs the process so collusively that few cops will be indicted. The Judge is also a governmental employee and runs for reelection. He also fears the cops and runs the gateway with the same favoritism practiced by the Prosecutor. No Mayor, Prosecutor, Councilman or Judge wants to be targeted for attack ads by the FOP, so they give police preferential treatment and a high level of deference. Further, whistleblower cops run tremendous risks.

When the occasional cop is charged for something too outrageous to ignore,the cop faces the same system all of us face. Getting there is terribly difficult and infrequent. Further, the type of crime for which cops are prosecuted is not necessarily that for which the public would like to see the cops sanctioned. Rare, indeed, are the cops who are in jail for police brutality. Peddling drugs or weapons forces the attention of the Prosecutor.

Still, when the cop is charged, they do not face the same system. The typical game plan is for the Prosecutor to get the indictment and the press release. He then buries the case for a while and quietly pleas it out, many months later, while nobody is looking.

Cop attorneys are simply dissatisfied with a batting average that would allow Jim Voyles to triple his fees.

Tuoder is exactly right. The police are protected with a powerful government employees union that disserves the public, no different from any other government employees union. Where Conservatives express uniform distaste for unions, they oddly forget their principles when it comes to the police and the FOP.

If I had an employee who acted like this, I could fire him, on the spot. The FOP has imposed a mandatory suspension and hearing process on employers to which no private-sector employee is entitled.

 

[Eddie]

Well, Eddie, you're not being completely patent in your response. You talk about when a cop gets charged with a crime. Indeed. When. Such an occurrence is highly infrequent. The cops are masters of the complaints received by the citizens. The cops have unfettered access to the Prosecutors. The Prosecutor stays on the good side of cops so the Prosecutor can run for reelection on the "get tough on crime" slogan. The Prosecutor is master of the grand jury necessary to indict the cop and runs the process so collusively that few cops will be indicted. The Judge is also a governmental employee and runs for reelection. He also fears the cops and runs the gateway with the same favoritism practiced by the Prosecutor. No Mayor, Prosecutor, Councilman or Judge wants to be targeted for attack ads by the FOP, so they give police preferential treatment and a high level of deference. Further, whistleblower cops run tremendous risks.

When the occasional cop is charged for something too outrageous to ignore,the cop faces the same system all of us face. Getting there is terribly difficult and infrequent. Further, the type of crime for which cops are prosecuted is not necessarily that for which the public would like to see the cops sanctioned. Rare, indeed, are the cops who are in jail for police brutality. Peddling drugs or weapons forces the attention of the Prosecutor.

Still, when the cop is charged, they do not face the same system. The typical game plan is for the Prosecutor to get the indictment and the press release. He then buries the case for a while and quietly pleas it out, many months later, while nobody is looking.

Cop attorneys are simply dissatisfied with a batting average that would allow Jim Voyles to triple his fees.

Tuoder is exactly right. The police are protected with a powerful government employees union that disserves the public, no different from any other government employees union. Where Conservatives express uniform distaste for unions, they oddly forget their principles when it comes to the police and the FOP.

If I had an employee who acted like this, I could fire him, on the spot. The FOP has imposed a mandatory suspension and hearing process on employers to which no private-sector employee is entitled.

Are you speaking from experience?

 

[smoking357]

Are you speaking from experience?

Have I been a Deputy Prosecutor or a Judge? No. I have brought and worked on civil cases against the police, so I am very familiar with the home-court advantage police enjoy.

I would like to see brutality and ethics cases handled by special prosecutors and special judges, at which point, I'd be happy to add my name to the pool.

 

[Eddie]

Have I been a Deputy Prosecutor or a Judge? No. I have brought and worked on civil cases against the police, so I am very familiar with the home-court advantage police enjoy.

I would like to see brutality and ethics cases handled by special prosecutors and special judges, at which point, I'd be happy to add my name to the pool.

So the extent of your experience with LEO's and rhe criminal justice system is that you have "worked on civil cases against the police"? Nice.

 

[jsgolfman]

So, who are the 10 people who say the police were right in this instance?

 

[jbombelli]

While the cops may have been wrong, for those of you who are unaware there have been many local attacks on police in Seattle. The local gang populous has outright declared war on the SPD, and the local government sort of has there fingers in there ears about it all.

I wonder why that might be.

If you go around stomping on people's heads, don't act surprised when they hold a grudge and come back later to administer their own justice.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I remember sitting in class during the police academy when the guys from Internal Investigations were instructing us in how to keep our noses clean.

We were told that once a guy began resisting arrest or tried to hurt us that we should start hitting him and KEEP ON hitting him (this was decades before the taser came into use) until he was down and/or surrendered, and once that was the case to STOP hitting him, and to be damned sure to not call him a nigxxx or a hillbilly while we were doing it, as use of such language would put a fatal taint on the use of force no matter how totally justified it might be. As long we adhered to these rules and were only doing what we had to do they'd back us 100%.

In this video ALL the rules were clearly violated and the conduct is unjustifiable.

 

[Indy317]

Why do people feel the need to interpret everything I say in the most one-dimensional way possible?

So how many meanings of untouchable are there? Can you give us the definition you attributed to the word when you wrote "Union + Government = Untouchable"?

Even if you didn't mean your comment in a very narrow focus, the simple fact is that cops are getting in trouble _constantly_. It doesn't take much to find articles about cops in trouble.

 

[Denny347]

 

[Son of Liberty]

While the cops may have been wrong, for those of you who are unaware there have been many local attacks on police in Seattle. The local gang populous has outright declared war on the SPD, and the local government sort of has there fingers in there ears about it all.

Why is it than when cops get caught doing wrong, there is always someone who says the statement above. It's simply if you can no longer do your job in a professional manner, and you go over the top, you should quit, period. They know the dangers when they apply for the job. It's an excuse. And there is no excuse for it.

 

[lashicoN]

Some people deserve to be kicked.

Yes, unfortunately we can't legally hold a cop on the ground, kick him in the head, yell "Take that you pig!", stomp on his knee and then say "oops, you're a cop? Sorry dude, wrong guy. Oh gee, here let me help you up, man...sorry, dude." And then let him go while he just kind of laughs it off in a daze.

 

[Eddie]

Well, Eddie, you're not being completely patent in your response. You talk about when a cop gets charged with a crime. Indeed. When. Such an occurrence is highly infrequent. The cops are masters of the complaints received by the citizens.
As is shown in the video that you posted? No one ever saw that right?

The cops have unfettered access to the Prosecutors. The Prosecutor stays on the good side of cops so the Prosecutor can run for reelection on the "get tough on crime" slogan. The Prosecutor is master of the grand jury necessary to indict the cop and runs the process so collusively that few cops will be indicted.
A grand jury is not required to file a criminal charge against a police officer. Where are you getting your information, from T.V. shows?

The Judge is also a governmental employee and runs for reelection. He also fears the cops and runs the gateway with the same favoritism practiced by the Prosecutor. No Mayor, Prosecutor, Councilman or Judge wants to be targeted for attack ads by the FOP, so they give police preferential treatment and a high level of deference.
If this were true then wouldn't all criminal trials result in convictions? After all, the judges are afraid of the cops right?

Further, whistleblower cops run tremendous risks.
Maybe in T.V. shows but in real life it happens pretty frequently that a cop gets turned in and punished, even charged criminally, by fellow cops.

When the occasional cop is charged for something too outrageous to ignore,the cop faces the same system all of us face. Getting there is terribly difficult and infrequent.
Cops get arrested all the time. How infrequent is it to hear about a cop getting an OWI?

Further, the type of crime for which cops are prosecuted is not necessarily that for which the public would like to see the cops sanctioned. Rare, indeed, are the cops who are in jail for police brutality. Peddling drugs or weapons forces the attention of the Prosecutor.
And yet probably the most common things I see cops charged with are the run of the mill offenses; OWI, Domestic Battery and Shop Lifting.

Still, when the cop is charged, they do not face the same system. The typical game plan is for the Prosecutor to get the indictment and the press release. He then buries the case for a while and quietly pleas it out, many months later, while nobody is looking.
You just don't have any practical experience in this area. Plea bargains are public records and cops getting in trouble makes for a good news story. As you showed with the article in the O.P. even if one news source buries the story, another is giong to pick it up.

Cop attorneys are simply dissatisfied with a batting average that would allow Jim Voyles to triple his fees.

Tuoder is exactly right. The police are protected with a powerful government employees union that disserves the public, no different from any other government employees union. Where Conservatives express uniform distaste for unions, they oddly forget their principles when it comes to the police and the FOP.
Yup, the FOP is all powerful. That is why the cops earn those outrageous salaries and have great benefits right?

If I had an employee who acted like this, I could fire him, on the spot. The FOP has imposed a mandatory suspension and hearing process on employers to which no private-sector employee is entitled.
Lots of private sector jobs have a grievance procedure, it is nothing unique to police officers.

From the tone of your posts it appears that you have an axe to grind from some past incident with the police and not real practical experience. I have worked the table from both sides and I have a lot of experience in this area. I can't really tell what you did from your post where I asked about experience but I have been a cop, been the subject of complaints, been investigated, been sued, arrested other cops, been a witness in court against other cops and been a part of the FOP and negotiated contracts for the FOP. As a lawyer I have investigated police misconduct and advised merit boards and town boards on whether or not to retain officers accused of wrongdoing. I've represented cops who have been charged with crimes. I've helped city and county departments write policy. I've been called in as a consultant by the plaintiffs in a brutality case. Other than for maybe traffic offenses the systematic protection that you imagine police officers receiving really isn't there.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Eddie,

I value you're opinion very much. I think there are two areas where I, and many others, might disagree. One is officer deference in testimony and the other is the way a department "circles the wagons" around it's officer's actions.

I am not at all a fan of our infraction system, especially related to moving violations. Especially now, as jurisdictions turn up the feet for officers to write more tickets, an officer's word is enough to find a person guilty of an infraction (which there is often no evidence was even committed) and deprive that person of their property (cash) and potentially driving priviliges based upon a simple allegation. This allows an officer to wield a tremendous amout of power, and as has been evidenced in the past, this power can be corrupting. This is patently unfair, IMHO.

We have all seen videos like Rodney King, the guy who was spread eagled and an officer kicked him in the face, the current issue of the dogs shot in Missouri, MP shot in California, the mayor's dogs shot in Maryland, and the list goes on and on and on. How often does the department spokesman, without ANY knowledge of the incident stand and unequiviently back their officers? I am not suggesting that they throw their officers under the bus, but a simple "we are investigating the allegations and don't have all the information available to comment" type of statement could help control community temperatures at times.

Take the case of an officer like Scott Morales in Fort Wayne. How can an officer be investigated for excessive force 14 times? At what point do you say this guy is not motivated, he's dangerous. How many officers have been convicted of DUI? What about the Danville guy who was the number one DUI writer in the state who was himself arrested for DUI? In many cases involving DUI or official misconduct officers are suspended for a few days without pay then have their pay effectively restored through overtime assignments.

LEOs need to be beyond reproach. My point is not to beat up on LEOs, but there are perception problems in communities that are not just based on highlighted news reports. Many reasonable people believe cops get favoritism by and in the system. I think 2 things could help fix this.

1. Upgrade the standard for a guilty finding in an infraction case. Most cars are equiped with video. Require the video be shown as part of the prosecutor's presentation.

2. If an LEO is arrested and charged with a crime, any crime, suspend them without pay pending adjudication. If they are found guilty, fire them. If they resign, during pendency of their case (as happens often) note that on their official records held by ILEA so that future jurisdictions will be aware they were under indictment at the time of their resignation.

I am a firm believer that good officers should receive accolades for their service, and bad officers shouldn't be.

From the tone of your posts it appears that you have an axe to grind from some past incident with the police and not real practical experience. I have worked the table from both sides and I have a lot of experience in this area. I can't really tell what you did from your post where I asked about experience but I have been a cop, been the subject of complaints, been investigated, been sued, arrested other cops, been a witness in court against other cops and been a part of the FOP and negotiated contracts for the FOP. As a lawyer I have investigated police misconduct and advised merit boards and town boards on whether or not to retain officers accused of wrongdoing. I've represented cops who have been charged with crimes. I've helped city and county departments write policy. I've been called in as a consultant by the plaintiffs in a brutality case. Other than for maybe traffic offenses the systematic protection that you imagine police officers receiving really isn't there.

 

[Eddie]

Eddie,

I value you're opinion very much. I think there are two areas where I, and many others, might disagree. One is officer deference in testimony and the other is the way a department "circles the wagons" around it's officer's actions.

I am not at all a fan of our infraction system, especially related to moving violations. Especially now, as jurisdictions turn up the feet for officers to write more tickets, an officer's word is enough to find a person guilty of an infraction (which there is often no evidence was even committed) and deprive that person of their property (cash) and potentially driving priviliges based upon a simple allegation. This allows an officer to wield a tremendous amout of power, and as has been evidenced in the past, this power can be corrupting. This is patently unfair, IMHO.
I would agree here and if you look at my post, I did say "except for traffic offenses". Cops can generally get out of a traffic offense. I did not address or attempt to address officer credibility in court, that is a whole nother thread.

We have all seen videos like Rodney King, the guy who was spread eagled and an officer kicked him in the face, the current issue of the dogs shot in Missouri, MP shot in California, the mayor's dogs shot in Maryland, and the list goes on and on and on. How often does the department spokesman, without ANY knowledge of the incident stand and unequiviently back their officers? I am not suggesting that they throw their officers under the bus, but a simple "we are investigating the allegations and don't have all the information available to comment" type of statement could help control community temperatures at times.

Take the case of an officer like Scott Morales in Fort Wayne. How can an officer be investigated for excessive force 14 times? At what point do you say this guy is not motivated, he's dangerous. How many officers have been convicted of DUI? What about the Danville guy who was the number one DUI writer in the state who was himself arrested for DUI? In many cases involving DUI or official misconduct officers are suspended for a few days without pay then have their pay effectively restored through overtime assignments.

LEOs need to be beyond reproach. My point is not to beat up on LEOs, but there are perception problems in communities that are not just based on highlighted news reports. Many reasonable people believe cops get favoritism by and in the system. I think 2 things could help fix this.

1. Upgrade the standard for a guilty finding in an infraction case. Most cars are equiped with video. Require the video be shown as part of the prosecutor's presentation.
I would agree that the current traffic court system is unfair. I think that it is particularly problematic when you see a person like a truck driver who has to depend on his CDL and insurance to make a living, stand to lose it in a five minute hearing in front of a magistrate.

2. If an LEO is arrested and charged with a crime, any crime, suspend them without pay pending adjudication. If they are found guilty, fire them. If they resign, during pendency of their case (as happens often) note that on their official records held by ILEA so that future jurisdictions will be aware they were under indictment at the time of their resignation.
That is the policy with most departments around here, as soon as the crime is charged, the officer is suspended without pay until the case is resolved through the courts. Maybe things are still like the 1970's up in Fort Wayne, I just haven't seen it around here.

I am a firm believer that good officers should receive accolades for their service, and bad officers shouldn't be.

I can generally agree with your post. I think that there are departments that are very protective of their officers, but as far as that protection extending to the courts, I have not seen that.

 

[Prometheus]

So, who are the 10 people who say the police were right in this instance?

16 people now.

A guy who is completely innocent and is let go, first has to endure insults, threats and kicking / stomping...

In what bizarre world is that anywhere close to ok?

I see 2 cops who need to be in prison and at least 4 others who should be fired for not intervening.

 

[patton487]

16 people now.

A guy who is completely innocent and is let go, first has to endure insults, threats and kicking / stomping...

In what bizarre world is that anywhere close to ok?

I see 2 cops who need to be in prison and at least 4 others who should be fired for not intervening.

^^^^What he said. Where are the comments from all the brave souls that think the guy got what he deserved??? Are you cops too? If you are, that bothers me.

to the retired cop that stated the cops were wrong. you are a good man. Rep inbound,