Why Americans should reconsider their contempt for today's police (v2.0)

[czech6]

When I broke my leg, I got sent to the sex crimes unit. A major part of working the cases was separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, and sorting out truths, half truths, misrememberings, and flat out lies. Despite the number of complainants that would come in, give outright false written statements (which could have sent an innocent person to prison), it was made very clear by the department brass, that if we filed on a sex assault comp for lying, our careers would be done. Easily, a third of the sex assaults I worked were flat out revenge driven lies, with no consequences for the liars.

For the guys getting worked up about the police lying to get a confession, have you been on the stand and dealt with a defense attorney with a pulse? Tell us about how well the "lying to get a confession" went over with the jury on cross exam? It may be legal, but it's no where near consequence free and it's a free opening for a defense lawyer to dismantle a case and put a bad guy back on the street.

[Hambo]

It is wrong that police can lie without any consequence to a suspect, but if the suspect lies he is charged with a crime. It's a double-standard and it's just immoral. Investigators and cops should find better ways to get confessions than having to lie to get them. That's not even counting all the times that cops lie because they think the suspect is "guilty of something." Just look at the innocence project to show how often that has happened.

And, while we are at it, it's wrong that prosecutors can engage in wrongful prosecutions without any consequences. Holding back exculpatory evidence or just having their own doubts about guilt but prosecuting them to the full extent of the law because there is a family that expects justice.
Cody

Because you obviously have no clue, here's the drill. A prosecutor can only legally charge a suspect with what he believes he can prove. This is why initial charges are sometimes reduced or increased after the initial charge has been filed. To say there is no consequence is to show total ignorance, as criminal lawyers (on both sides) have Bar complaints filed against them all the time. Such complaints can have severe consequences to one's practice of law.

I'm not even going to address the first part, as this "That's not even counting all the times that cops lie because they think the suspect is "guilty of something"" is just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.

[Alpha Sierra]

Want to start regaining the trust and respect of the community? Refusing to take advantage of civil asset forfeiture on the flimsiest of grounds would be a very good start

[KeeFus]

It is wrong that police can lie without any consequence to a suspect, but if the suspect lies he is charged with a crime. It's a double-standard and it's just immoral. Investigators and cops should find better ways to get confessions than having to lie to get them. That's not even counting all the times that cops lie because they think the suspect is "guilty of something." Just look at the innocence project to show how often that has happened.

And, while we are at it, it's wrong that prosecutors can engage in wrongful prosecutions without any consequences. Holding back exculpatory evidence or just having their own doubts about guilt but prosecuting them to the full extent of the law because there is a family that expects justice.
Cody

I think my head just exploded.

As long as SCOTUS says we can...we will.

Last week I stopped a vehicle for speeding. Driver used the front seat passengers information as her own...one problem that she was too drunk to realize...I can pull up pictures in my car from DMV. The front seat passenger and owner of the car was about 250 lbs heavier than she was. I reapproached the car and got her out. ON CAMERA she again tries to pass herself off as the owner. Along with DWI and speeding she was charged with Fictitious Information to an officer, NCGS 20-29. But I guess as you see it that was ok for her to lie. How about if someone was using your information to get out of something? Would that be ok?

Furthermore, about 3 or 4 years ago we had a round of attorneys, ADA and defense atttorneys, get sentenced to prison (and rightfully so) for engaging in criminal activity. They were dropping our DWI's like they were hot potato's. Come to find out one ADA was just signing her name to dismissal slips and handing the damn things out. I'm still pissed about that. So to suggest that there are no penalties for criminal wrong doing by DA's is ill advised. It also happened in neighboring Wake County (Raleigh) within the last year or two. Those attorneys were the same ones blasting a State Trooper a year or two before that for improper stops. He subsequently lost his job. He had stated all along that it was a hose job from the attorneys in that area...he was right but it did not save his job. That particular case also snagged a judge.

There ARE penalties for attorneys holding back evidence, especially if it relates to LEO's. I suggest you read Giglio v US and all its sister cases (Brady v Maryland comes to mind) before you say that there are no consequences.

[Shellback]

This incident happened in the city just west of mine...

The ol' Rev is back at it. Referencing guy killed by police in Walmart with BB gun.

The Rev. Al Sharpton on Thursday told a crowd at Central State University that people across the country are concerned about the August shooting death of a Fairfield man by police at Walmart, and called on the Ohio attorney general to release the video of the shooting.

Sharpton said authorities should release the video because they have already suggested that John Crawford III was pointing an air rifle at someone in the Beavercreek store, which he says has “poisoned” the minds of the public, some of whom will be on the grand jury that hears the case.

“So the fair thing to do is put the tape out so when the grand jury meets, they walk in knowing at least what was and what wasn’t on the tape,” said Sharpton, a MSNBC host and civil rights activist. “I come to Central State tonight to say to the attorney general, let’s go to the tape.”

Attorney General Mike DeWine has repeatedly said he will not release the tape before a trial.

“I think that it is playing with dynamite, frankly, to release that tape at this point,” DeWine said last month. “And I think the dynamite simply is that it blows up and you can’t get a fair trial. That’s what we worry about.”...

[Lon]

The ol' Rev is back at it. Referencing guy killed by police in Walmart with BB gun.

My City is the county seat. Which means the courthouse where the grand jury will meet is right across the street from my PD. I will have a front row seat to the drama being played out around the courthouse. This may be my opportunity to be in a CNN headline video. I'll be one of the bald officers in the navy blue non-militant looking uniforms.

[Chuck Haggard]

Are you familiar with Frazier v. Cupp?

I'll look for something newer than a 1969 decision. Going to have to bet there was something since then.

Coppers in 1969 did things quite a bit differently than we do nowadays. Just sayin.

[Trooper224]

REMINDER: This is not Romper Room, this is the LE Forum.

I see very little difference.

[idahojess]

This is a pretty good summary on Brady concerns -- from 2008.
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/m...issue_id=42008

[JV_]

I see very little difference.

Following the direction of the staff is a wiser course of action than being a smart-ass.

If you have a complaint with a thread, use the report post button on a post.