What Happens When Cops Are Accused of Crimes?

[walker2713]

Well, that was a mixed response. A few actually addressed the question, while a few others thought ad hominem attacks were the appropriate way to go.

But sure, throw out some generalizations about prostitutes in Columbia, question my credentials, make assumptions about my intent. That's the easy route. I suppose maybe some of you have been fortunate enough to never see an injustice in your department - to never see an officer who everyone knows is doing the wrong thing, but gets little more than some admin time off. Lucky you. I hope it stays that way. In the meantime, though, when I see a sheriff acting in a way that's above reproach; that gives no quarter to suspicion, I'll commend that every day of the week. That was the intention of the article. I guess I'll do a better job next time making that clearer.

No ill will or hard feelings here. Stay safe.

I echo Blues thought: wondering what the OP was trying to elicit.

Without speaking for the forum at large, there's an on going pattern of trolls hoping to provoke the LE community here into some form of damaging statements or reactions. When reading your first post, I look at a July 2017 join date, and being a non "Site Supporter." I know that's not determinative of intent, but when the post goes on to be less than clear about the point being made, my first thought is: are we being trolled? What's the intent?

I agree: you could have done a much better job of making yourself clear. Knowing your background and work history might have helped as well: USSS, attorney and operating a consulting group directed towards LE related issues. My apologies if I've mischaracterized your profile.

In spite of "no ill will" etc.....it appears that we've chafed you a bit, and I'm posting this in hopes of clarifying why you may have gotten the response you did. This is just my humble opinion...with hopes you stick around and contribute to the forum.

George

[octagon]

Some points from your article and why I responded the way I did in case you believe it was personal attack below.



Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Giancarlo Scotti was arrested two days ago on suspicion of raping two inmates at the women’s jail in Lynwood, California. He was booked on two counts of rape and two counts of oral copulation under color of authority. Only five hours passed between the time the allegations were made and the deputy was arrested. That is a stunningly quick investigation — likely due to the surveillance footage inside the jail.

The use of the words "only" and "stunningly" along with the sentences total content appears to show bias or start to interject an opinion of "this is not the usual bad way they do things but a good way which is surprising. If the same "Only 5 hours " of time passed between allegations and arrest for a non LEO accused of a crime would you say the same thing? Would it sound like there was obvious reason for the quick action or maybe that the police jumped to conclusions or acted too fast? Why are you(the author writing it) "Stunned" if they acted quickly with solid reason to?

In a refreshing turn for a department mired in controversy for the last several years, Los Angeles County Sheriff, Jim McDonnell, did the right thing and treated Deputy Scotti like a common criminal…because that’s what he is. As a former law enforcement officer, one of the things that bothered me more than most anything else, was how some officers tended to downplay the bad acts of their colleagues. The “thin blue line” is not some urban legend. It’s a real thing.

Here again are words that have implied bias, you used, whether intentionally or not without context. "Refreshing turn" and "mired" in "controversy for the last several years" No context was noted. Using refreshing seems to indicate most cases are handled poorly. If so how many? "Mired" is the same term used in Vietnam and other military conflicts or business practices when someone intends to try and indicate a long standing failure of being stuck in negative action or inaction. And for "several years" You list one case that may have taken years to find,prosecute and get convictions and sentences. How many cases does this agency deal with a year or a month? What kind of rate are you so bothered by? 1-2%? or .01-.02% or the often cited "if there is one there is one too many" over simplification. An agency that has members under investigation for crimes and has 1 or2 cases of such being looked at is MIRED? Because it takes time to do a good investigation and trial/appeals/sentencing process they are MIRED for several years? How many years? Just say 3 or 4. You may think these are nit pick points on words commonly used but in media coverage they are commonly used to present a negative image of the subject they are used to describe. Why does the media use words like "compound" and "regime" to describe a home or government? They do so because it implies a negative image in the minds of the media consumers. We all do it to some level but if you are trying to be honest and objective you have to limit the use of these types of words or accept that they will be interpreted as bias or inflammatory.



For example, former LA County Sheriff, Lee Baca, was convicted in May of this year for obstructing a 2014 federal investigation into corruption and civil rights violations within the LA County jail system. In particular, Baca was accused of conspiring with deputies to hide an inmate who had been providing information to the Federal Bureau of Investigations concerning the supposed civil rights violations. To make matters worse, Baca ordered deputies to surveil and investigate the FBI agents involved in the investigation. Ultimately, Baca and nine other LA Sheriff’s Department deputies and officials were convicted in the scheme.


Your above example is one incident at one agency and the official and deputies (how many deputies involved vs how many deputies does LASD have?)were arrested and no longer are in law enforcement yet you commend the new sheriff as if there is some underlying criminal urge that affects LASD sheriffs.

To be clear, this isn’t criticism of the police in general. I’ve worked with hundreds of law enforcement from varying agencies, and the overwhelming majority of them were honest, decent people.

Here again no context. How hard would it have been to cite how many police officers and agencies are in the US for context sake? (it is around 800,000 by the way for LEOs and about 17,900 agencies by the way) This gives perspective much better than your personal experience cited as "Hundreds" Varying" and "Overwhelming majority" Does "overwhelming majority" mean that 85% of officers are good, 98% are good or 99.1% are good? See how clarity,opinion and personal view of vague terms hurts context not helps it.





Yet, for a small number of these highly-trusted public servants, personal gain and power are how they choose to use that ...................... But for the very small contingent who abuse the public trust; who use their authority for evil ends; well, those men and women are entitled to the heavy hand of the law. And that’s what they should get.
I commend, therefore, Sheriff McDonnell, for treating this deputy like he would any other person accused of these types of heinous acts — like a common criminal.


My comments inserted in the article are bolded and the comments I refer to underline for clarity. Copy and paste and going through an article is not always easy with formatting so please excuse any copy/paste errors. Other people noted your newness here and limited posts you have made directing people to your articles can appear suspiciously like someone attempting to find confrontation. Just as I don't lump you, a former Secret Service member, if I understand your history correctly, together with the 3200 Special agents, 1300 Uniformed, and 2000 other support personnel in the Secret Service in with the members who were acting illegally or inappropriately in 2 prior incidents that I know of.

[willie]

In 1970 I lived in a Mississippi county bordering the River. The sheriff owned whiskey stills and a gambling casino, both illegal enterprises. Nobody including me viewed him corrupt. The public loved him because drug dealers, con men, sex offenders, and others with criminal intentions caught hell if they tried to operate in his county. The feds left him along because he greatly reduced their work load. Now, 47 years later, many would view this man as a first class son of a bitch who should be sent to prison. I am not advocating his methods or choices but merely sharing a recollection from another era. He was my friend, and I supported him but won't, after almost 50 years, argue the point.

[schüler]

lucasrowe,

Your article is an editorial. Reading it that way I understand the personal perspective and color. Your forum topic title and intro are a communication mess. It mixes the objective and subjective.

As for what happens when cops are accused of crimes... be wary of making generalizations on publicly-known responses by law enforcement agencies or professional organizations (officer's assns/union). It may seem 'admit nothing, deny everything, make counter accusations'. In reality it's a well-worn path created by litigious society and local personalities enacting local policy.