To Protect and to Serve II

#9,253
#9,253
#9,255
#9,255
Rickyvol77 said:
"**** the police?" really? Do you not understand what these criminals are doing to people and the need for them to be arrested? These are transient druggies who prey on elderly people and others by taking thousands of dollars and either saying they are doing house work, roofing, etc. and then leaving them without doing any work... You dont believe these people need to be arrested?? It is a crime that happens daily and causes a lot of issues for the victims
Click to expand...
Were the 118 arrested for robbing old ladies of their SSI checks or arrested for not having a license?
 
#9,257
#9,257
Rickyvol77 said:
oh so now the "fake made-up law" is real in your eyes?

The problem is that you really need to educate yourself on law and why police procedures are the way they are.

No one does a police sting for any reason without several directed citizen complaints and/or issues arising from the problem
Click to expand...

Now this is true. We indeed have a battle not only with the police, but with an ignorant populace that thinks the govt/police is the answer to everything.
 
Last edited:
#9,258
#9,258
Rasputin_Vol said:
A cops word vs a live human citizen is air tight as it is, but a cops word vs a dead dog's?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't mind of the cops could use force, or give tickets, or anything where I live. Most neighbors have good pets and take care of their pets.

But I've had a couple neighbors who let their dogs run around unattended all over the neighborhood. The local PD is quick to respond but has no legal ability to do anything unless a dog kills or injures someone. The local animal control has 2 or 3 people total but never shows up til an hour later, and they keep bankers hours, you're SOL after 5 and on the weekend.

I've thought about dipping hot dogs or doggy treats in antifreeze and throwing on in a certain yard now and again, but I'd hate for one of the better neighbors to go for a walk and get their dogs killed instead.
 
#9,259
#9,259
Rickyvol77 said:
What was the material lie if you don’t mind me asking? The medical examiner is a different animal IMO and I have found that 4 of the 5 that I’ve worked with to be a little crazy
Click to expand...
Five lies about the basis for reasonable suspicion: 2 said “headlights were out” when they weren’t, 2 said stop sign was run when it wasn’t, 1 said he paced a guy going 75 in a 60, but it was on the interstate and you could see how many mile markers the defendant passed and of course the camera told the time, so this officer lost to basic mathematics.

Three lies about other events to try to get around constitutional issues: one involved entry into a hotel room when they got to court and learned the manager’s consent wasn’t enough, they said client consented, their affidavit and the security cameras from the hotel both showed client returning to the room while it’s being tossed. One learned that parking behind someone so their car can’t leave is a seizure and tried to lie about it. There’s actually one guy who once fought a police officer. One lied about administering a Miranda warnings.

One about a sensing issue. Jail video showed him in another room with his back turned, drafting his report during the 20 minutes. He’s since made a cameo in this thread.

One is ongoing.

One told a defendant he, the officer, was DEA and that he was going to do 10-15 years in federal prison if he didn’t consent to a search of his hotel. Not only was that not true but the officer swore under oath that he didn’t say that. he didn’t realize it had been picked up on another officer’s microphone.

One lied that he didn’t remember pulling rank on a detective to prevent him from collecting evidence that might have incriminated the liar’s family member. Detective and another officer testified that they had talked about it the day before and the liar had not only remembered it but said he was going to say he didn’t remember it.
 
#9,260
#9,260
RockyTop85 said:
Five lies about the basis for reasonable suspicion: 2 said “headlights were out” when they weren’t, 2 said stop sign was run when it wasn’t, 1 said he paced a guy going 75 in a 60, but it was on the interstate and you could see how many mile markers the defendant passed and of course the camera told the time, so this officer lost to basic mathematics.

Three lies about other events to try to get around constitutional issues: one involved entry into a hotel room when they got to court and learned the manager’s consent wasn’t enough, they said client consented, their affidavit and the security cameras from the hotel both showed client returning to the room while it’s being tossed. One learned that parking behind someone so their car can’t leave is a seizure and tried to lie about it. There’s actually one guy who once fought a police officer. One lied about administering a Miranda warnings.

One about a sensing issue. Jail video showed him in another room with his back turned, drafting his report during the 20 minutes. He’s since made a cameo in this thread.

One is ongoing.

One told a defendant he, the officer, was DEA and that he was going to do 10-15 years in federal prison if he didn’t consent to a search of his hotel. Not only was that not true but the officer swore under oath that he didn’t say that. he didn’t realize it had been picked up on another officer’s microphone.

One lied that he didn’t remember pulling rank on a detective to prevent him from collecting evidence that might have incriminated the liar’s family member. Detective and another officer testified that they had talked about it the day before and the liar had not only remembered it but said he was going to say he didn’t remember it.
Click to expand...
I can honestly say in 20 plus years of law enforcement I have never purposefully lied on a case. I had made a couple of honest mistakes before and I have had some things I didn’t remember Exact details on a call and said as much in court. But never ever have lied. I agree that if those things happen, it is a credibility issue for THOSE particular officers
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and InVOLuntary
#9,262
#9,262
Rickyvol77 said:
I can honestly say in 20 plus years of law enforcement I have never purposefully lied on a case. I had made a couple of honest mistakes before and I have had some things I didn’t remember Exact details on a call and said as much in court. But never ever have lied. I agree that if those things happen, it is a credibility issue for THOSE particular officers
Click to expand...
I disagree. It becomes an issue for law enforcement as a whole because:

A. It’s not just those officers. Those are just the ones that I can honestly say I’m being totally objective about. There’s definitely a culture that told them “it’s okay to break the rules to catch the rule breakers” because most of those guys went on to get promoted.

B. There is a complete lack of acknowledgement that it is a cultural problem within the profession. And

C. (Maybe this infringes on B, but) The fraternal code of silence among officers brooks absolutely no internal dissent or accountability. From what I’ve seen, you’re much more likely to get cast out for speaking out against one of your brothers in blue than you are for beating some grandma to a pulp and shooting her dog, unless the grandma story goes viral and your chief feels the heat. (In which case, even if grandma opened fire with an Uzi and her 90lb dog bit a chunk out of your leg, your ass is grass.)

Those become compounding issues when you look back at this thread and see somebody in the profession sticking up for every single one of these officers with a “totally by the book, nothing to see here.” The response is an increasing number of eye rolls. Whether it’s their chief or a union rep, people are just losing faith in police procedures and are losing faith in the police to tell us straight about what happened.

It’s why cops are being outfitted with body cameras. It’s why some communities are moving to citizen review panels. The community is losing faith in the honesty of the profession and it’s ability to govern itself. Which, IMO, is going to be a bad thing when “the book” gets rewritten without sufficient input from the profession.

Not casting stones from our glass house here in the profession of attorney, not saying you’re bad or you’re all bad, and not saying you have to be the one to do something about it. Just explaining why I don’t agree with your statement about the nature or pervasiveness of the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNfan#2, Orangeslice13, Matt2496 and 4 others
#9,263
#9,263
RockyTop85 said:
I disagree. It becomes an issue for law enforcement as a whole because:

A. It’s not just those officers. Those are just the ones that I can honestly say I’m being totally objective about. There’s definitely a culture that told them “it’s okay to break the rules to catch the rule breakers” because most of those guys went on to get promoted.
I can assure you in the agencies ive worked in or with, promotions have NOTHING to do with rule breaking, and usually has to do with seniority and politics/friendships. If you had a leadership structure that routinely promoted those who were known to be liars, cheaters, etc. purposefully, the rank and file would not support that and many would leave or try to change it.

B. There is a complete lack of acknowledgement that it is a cultural problem within the profession.

And
I think the biggest impediment to change you what are perceiving to be "bad" cops is three things:

1 - Just like in THIS thread, a lot of perfectly legal and understandable police response to certain things are deemed as "brutality, fascist, overreaction, racism" etc. when it really isn't, and because some of the public is uneducated about law/police procedure and stick to their feelings of what they think "should be fair",etc. It's hard for a police officer, supervisor, trainer, chief, etc. to take a complaint of racist police brutality seriously when 95% of all the complaints and stories of such are embellished or half-told or even made up by the media/public/offender. So the LEGIT complaints sometimes get looked at through THAT prism because it's crying wolf every time the police do anything.

2 - In the larger cities especially, because of politics and trouble in recruitment, they have lowered the standards to BE a police officer in the name of diversity and need. So you get officers without much education and training and those with histories of drugs/criminal behaviors, etc. Those officers are likely to have issues for obvious reasons compared to normal officers so in cities like NYC, you have more corruption and bad officers because you are trying to fill 40,000 spots with a "diverse group"

3 - The other legit impediment i have seen a few times (not just in law enforcement but in the private sector as well of ALL businesses) is that agencies would be more transparent with their discipline or investigations if the media and lawyers weren't so eager to jump on the "this rookie officer made a small error, let's sue them for millions and brand him a racist or evil criminal the rest of his life for news clicks".. I have personally witnessed a small county in West TN that wanted to arrest an officer who was caught stealing evidence, that the mayor and sheriff refused to even talk about and simply fired him because they were worried about the reaction, which the public SHOULD be saying "good job for weeding out a bad officer" instead of "man you all are criminal a**holes".

C. (Maybe this infringes on B, but) The fraternal code of silence among officers brooks absolutely no internal dissent or accountability. From what I’ve seen, you’re much more likely to get cast out for speaking out against one of your brothers in blue than you are for beating some grandma to a pulp and shooting her dog, unless the grandma story goes viral and your chief feels the heat. (In which case, even if grandma opened fire with an Uzi and her 90lb dog bit a chunk out of your leg, your ass is grass.)

I don't agree with this...when it comes down to nuts and bolts, the vast majority of officers will not support an officer who truly is committing crimes, doing brutality, etc. because they know those officers aren't going to make it long in the profession, and they get weeded out sooner than you might think. In 20 years, i have personally witnessed 1 (maybe 2 which is a stretch) of officers using inappropriate or unreasonable force and the other officers on scene not only stopped them but wrote in their reports of what happened. I can't speak for every small redneck city police force with 10 good ole boys, but i can speak for most of the larger agencies in Knoxville and the surrounding 20-30 counties, that a rogue officer of that nature would be ostracized pretty quickly.


Those become compounding issues when you look back at this thread and see somebody in the profession sticking up for every single one of these officers with a “totally by the book, nothing to see here.” The response is an increasing number of eye rolls. Whether it’s their chief or a union rep, people are just losing faith in police procedures and are losing faith in the police to tell us straight about what happened.

The thing is, i try to call it fairly down the middle, when i see things like "this officer had no legal right to arrest her", or "this officer shot this poor burglar with a gun" etc. i simply point out what the legal and reasonable standard for the actions of the officers are. If i see a true violation/crime (like Walter Scott shooting), or when i agreed that the restraint chair in the jail was probably unnecessary for that woman prisoner, i will call out things like that....People usually "lose faith" in police procedures due to one of the following points:

1 - They are a criminal or criminal/drug use enabler themselves
2 - They are normal person who one time had a really bad experience with a police officer who may or may not have been in the wrong and are bitter about it
3 - They don't like authority of ANY kind and have those type issues (i.e. same kind who are atheist because their parents made them go to church as a kid)
4 - They are sovereign citizen types (the government has no right to ever tell or make me do anything)
5 - They are emotional and easily swayed by FB and anti-police stories because they don't understand the law or police procedures in general

It’s why cops are being outfitted with body cameras. It’s why some communities are moving to citizen review panels. The community is losing faith in the honesty of the profession and it’s ability to govern itself. Which, IMO, is going to be a bad thing when “the book” gets rewritten without sufficient input from the profession.

I love body cams, they ALWAYS help the officer and it's hilarious to watch a lawyer/criminal complainant tell a judge something and you play the video and show the truth. I have no issues with them at all, and if an officer is seen on there actually doing something wrong, hold them accountable. Citizen Review Panels are ok as long as they are just an advising committee with internal affairs. In the large cities, there are cases where citizen review panels have made agencies not ever arrest any gang members, even for serious felonies, if they are working, going to church, with their families. Some of that stuff is ridiculous and that's why crime soars in those places.

Not casting stones from our glass house here in the profession of attorney, not saying you’re bad or you’re all bad, and not saying you have to be the one to do something about it. Just explaining why I don’t agree with your statement about the nature or pervasiveness of the problem.
Click to expand...

I do not think all attorneys are bad either...i think you seem reasonable with your discussion
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#9,266
#9,266
Rickyvol77 said:
I can honestly say in 20 plus years of law enforcement I have never purposefully lied on a case. I had made a couple of honest mistakes before and I have had some things I didn’t remember Exact details on a call and said as much in court. But never ever have lied. I agree that if those things happen, it is a credibility issue for THOSE particular officers
Click to expand...

And what you fail to understand in this thread is that there are far too many of "THOSE particular officers"... but you somehow get it twisted into thinking that we are accusing ALL cops of being that way. For you to not even acknowledge that police in this country have a problem and that there are far too many of THOSE cops makes you look like you are either a liar or a die hard apologist that is blinded by the blue light.
 
#9,267
#9,267
InVOLuntary said:
I'm no police hater, several really good friends who are cops, but I've seen a few instances where police didn't really have a reason to ask for ID but arrested because the person didn't present it. One case in particular a guy was taking pictures of a county building and some other stuff. It was cold outside so he had a mask on. He didn't produce ID and was arrested. He explained he was a journalist. I'll post a link....



In this case I think the cops overstepped and should be held accountable. The cops shouldn't have carte blanche to know who you are. That's what they do in China.
Click to expand...


A$$hole cops...
 
#9,268
#9,268
Rasputin_Vol said:
And what you fail to understand in this thread is that there are far too many of "THOSE particular officers"... but you somehow get it twisted into thinking that we are accusing ALL cops of being that way. For you to not even acknowledge that police in this country have a problem and that there are far too many of THOSE cops makes you look like you are either a liar or a die hard apologist that is blinded by the blue light.
Click to expand...

*Wrong button*
 
Last edited:
#9,270
#9,270
#9,273
#9,273
Rickyvol77 said:
I agree. I’ve never driven anyone home that wasn’t a block away but I have allowed some to get a ride to come get them and their car
Click to expand...
I find that hard to believe. I'm sorry. If you did this, there was probably a personal connection you had with them.
 
#9,274
#9,274
Rasputin_Vol said:
I find that hard to believe. I'm sorry. If you did this, there was probably a personal connection you had with them.
Click to expand...
Nope. Depends on situation. If it’s a clear bad dui on drugs or they didn’t have license or it’s their 3rd dui or caused a wreck Jail. If it was someone who wasn’t that drunk and was honest and lived close id let them call rides. You can never let someone who is drunk/high drive off but can let someone get them in some cases
 
#9,275
#9,275
Rickyvol77 said:
Nope. Depends on situation. If it’s a clear bad dui on drugs or they didn’t have license or it’s their 3rd dui or caused a wreck Jail. If it was someone who wasn’t that drunk and was honest and lived close id let them call rides. You can never let someone who is drunk/high drive off but can let someone get them in some cases
Click to expand...

Meh, okay.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top