Bad Cops


PDA






dillonuser
February 7, 2006, 08:26 PM
For your reading pleasure about some of the "fantastic" police officers we have in Utah:
http://www.slweekly.com/article.cfm/copout

As you read the article you will read statements from the new police chief of South Salt Lake, he is one of the worst I have ever seen.

I am not biased against police or law enforcement. But,South Salt Lake has the worst I have ever seen.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bad Cops" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
glockamolee
February 7, 2006, 08:56 PM
Now look, if all branches of our government allow pedophiles (priests and otherwise) easy sentences or no sentences at all, why should any of us be surprised at this filth.

I'm not jumping down your throat, just venting about long standing "standards" that police and persons in a position of trust break with impunity.

Old Dog
February 7, 2006, 09:03 PM
Wow, if this isn't trolling for another cop-bashing thread, I don't know what is ...

Plenty of other folks in "public trust positions" (teachers, childcare workers, social workers, physicians, healthcare workers, librarians, firemen, military personnel, etc.) who get away with child sex abuse or other heinous offenses for far too long .... Don't see people starting threads about them on this forum.

Give it a rest, folks.

And yeah, I think you're biased. What other reason for starting this thread?

glockamolee
February 7, 2006, 09:07 PM
I couldn't agree with you more, Old Dog. It angers me when ANY person, regardless of profession, abuses their trust. I feel that ALL individuals (not professions), that abuse their trust SHOULD be bashed. Hurting kids is more heinous, than say, bank robbery.

telomerase
February 7, 2006, 09:08 PM
Well, at least it got into the press. Lots of cities have police scandals that take years to see the light of day. Dallas PD was planting "drugs" on Mexicans in Oak Cliff for three years before anyone called them on it (the county lab finally tested some of the "drugs"... turned out they deported 200 people for billiard chalk).

Roundeyesamurai
February 7, 2006, 09:16 PM
Yes, your statement is biased.

The article is also biased.

Then again, I know one of the police officers mentioned in the article, and based on what I know of that individual, you're probably not being too biased, at least in regards to this particular department.

Remember, though, that there are some 17,000 police departments in the United States.

EDIT TO ADD: Correction, I know two of them.

Jeff White
February 8, 2006, 03:25 AM
Well by THR Legal and Political Logic, all school superintendents are criminals:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/8EC482618656BDA98625710A005603FA?OpenDocument
Wentzville schools chief faces sex charge
By Susan Weich and Shane Anthony
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
02/03/2006

Wentzville School Superintendent Tom Byrnes is accused of stalking a district employee and offering her $200 a week for sex, police said Thursday.

Byrnes, 55, was arrested at the woman's Lake Saint Louis home Wednesday night. He has been charged with misdemeanor counts of patronizing prostitution and stalking.

The woman, 29, has been employed by the district since 2004. She is not a teacher, but her job, which includes supervising some before-school and after-school programs, involved her working with Byrnes in the district's central office.

St. Charles County Prosecuting Attorney Jack Banas said his office's investigation was continuing, including the possibility that Byrnes may have used district money to solicit the woman.
Advertisement


The woman filed a request Thursday in St. Charles Circuit Court for a restraining order against Byrnes, Banas said.

According to court records, the woman said that Byrnes was her supervisor and had been stalking her and had called her repeatedly over the past year. Additionally, she said that Byrnes told her he had driven through her subdivision to find out where she lived.

In audio recordings of conversations between Byrnes and the woman, he tells her he would pay her $200 a week to engage in sexual intercourse once a week, police said. She said Byrnes told her that if she did not agree to have sex with him, "he did not know what he would do, that he was desperate and would do something stupid."

Banas said the woman contacted police on Jan. 24 because she felt she could not report Byrnes' advances to the district without jeopardizing her job. The woman agreed to wear a recording device to help police with their investigation.

Police said Byrnes gave the woman an envelope containing $200 cash on Tuesday and said he would be at her home the next day for sex. Byrnes told her he was bringing personal lubricant along with other items to "enhance their sexual encounter," court records report.

After Byrnes was arrested, police searched his vehicle. They said they found a bottle of lubricant and various sexual devices in the trunk.

Byrnes was released from jail Thursday. He and his wife declined to comment on the charges. The couple have four children.

An attorney for the woman also declined to comment.

The School Board placed Byrnes on paid administrative leave after an emergency meeting Thursday morning. Board members were searching for an interim superintendent and will meet again today.

A district spokeswoman said the district has only one full-time assistant superintendent.

School Board President Cheryl Delaporta declined to comment.

Byrnes grew up in Edmundson and Bridgeton in north St. Louis County, graduating from St. Thomas Aquinas-Mercy High School. He began his education career teaching aviation in the Fort Zumwalt School District in the mid-1970s.

He stayed in Fort Zumwalt for several years, rising to a principal position. Then, he left to serve as principal at Pattonville High School for two years only to return to the Fort Zumwalt district as an assistant superintendent whose duties included managing the district's finances.

Byrnes became Wentzville's superintendent on July 1, 2002.

Those who worked with Byrnes in other districts were shocked by the charges.

"We are saddened by the allegations. He did a great job for us while he was here," said Mickey Schoonover, director of school-community relations for Pattonville. She said Byrnes had received a National Educator Award, given by the Milken Family Foundation for outstanding work, while in Pattonville.

Bernard DuBray, superintendent of the Fort Zumwalt School District, said the arrest was "the last thing I would expect."

Cindy Reilmann, Fort Zumwalt's chief financial officer, worked for Byrnes in the district's finance office for three years. "I have the utmost respect for him," she said. "It's hard for me to believe something like this has happened."

Parents interviewed outside Wentzville Holt High School on Thursday afternoon also expressed surprise at Byrnes' arrest.

"He needs to be gone," said Bill Jordan of Lake Saint Louis as he waited outside the high school to pick up his 16-year-old daughter. "I moved here for this district. Who needs that? That's unbelievable."

Even police officials said they were caught off guard by the accusations against the longtime educator.

"When this case came to us, I can tell you I was definitely astounded," said Wentzville Police Chief Robert Noonan. "Byrnes was a very respectable, conservative role model in the community. This type of activity is absolutely shocking."

Valerie Schremp Hahn and Marcia L. Koenig of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.

sweich@post-dispatch.com 636-255-7210

santhony@post-dispatch.com 636-255-7209

Your physician is probably a drunk who tries to get himself out of trouble by impersonating a police officer:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/090763DDCDF50516862571090013129F?OpenDocument
Bethalto airport chairman faces DUI and gun charges
By Leah Thorsen
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
02/02/2006

BETHALTO

A physician who is chairman of the St. Louis Regional Airport Authority is facing charges of drunken driving, impersonating a police officer and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.

Dr. Charles Earnshaw Jr. of Alton was charged Tuesday. He was arrested Saturday night in the drive-through lane of an Arby's restaurant in Bethalto. Earnshaw had veered off Illinois Route 140, crossed a grass strip and struck a mailbox in front of the restaurant with his pickup just before 10 p.m., said Bethalto Police Chief Alan Winslow.

When officers arrived and asked Earnshaw, 58, to perform sobriety tests, Earnshaw allegedly pulled out a phony badge and said he was a deputy, police said. While searching him, officers found a loaded 9 mm Glock pistol in his boot and an empty vodka bottle in his jacket pocket, Winslow said.

He would not say whether Earnshaw, who told police his address was in the 600 block of Grant Street, in Bethalto, had agreed to take the sobriety test.

Earnshaw spent the night in the Bethalto police holding cell and posted a $1,500 cash bond the next morning.

The criminal charges against him had nothing to do with his conduct as chairman of the airport board, said Dean Sweet, the board's attorney. The board oversees St. Louis Regional Airport in Bethalto. Four board members are appointed by the mayors in each of the airport's taxing districts - Alton, Bethalto, East Alton and Wood River - said David C. Miller, the airport's manager. Three other members are appointed by the Madison County chairman. Earnshaw was appointed by Alton Mayor Donald Sandidge.

Efforts to reach Earnshaw, his attorney and Sandidge were not successful Wednesday.

lthorsen@post-dispatch.com 618-659-3640

Truck drivers are indequately traing and a hazard to the motoring public:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/C4A037FC3CA588368625710E00540B2A?OpenDocument
Dump truck driver is indicted in crash that killed 5 on I-44
By William C. Lhotka
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
02/07/2006

A driver paid so little attention to traffic that he never braked before his dump truck slammed into a minivan last summer and killed five family members, prosecutors said after announcing five felony involuntary manslaughter charges against the man.

Police arrested Thomas Miskel, 43, of Imperial, on Monday and brought him to the St. Louis County Justice Center in Clayton, where bond was set at $100,000.

A grand jury returned an indictment Wednesday, but it was suppressed pending Miskel's arrest. Each of the involuntary manslaughter charge carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison, if Miskel is convicted.

The family members were killed July 28 on Interstate 44 while on a trip to Six Flags. The victims were the driver of the minivan, Angela Huckaba, 30, and her children, Joshua, 7, and Jacob, 9, all of Overland; and Huckaba's sister, Amy Willingham, 18, and her brother, Brett Willingham, 14, both of St. Charles County.

Witnesses said the dump truck rear-ended the minivan, pushing the wreckage into four other vehicles, through a barrier fence and across an adjacent road before the van erupted in flames. A dozen other victims were treated for mostly minor injuries.

Miskel was driving a load of crushed rock to a highway improvement project farther west on I-44.

St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch said there was no evidence in the investigation by the Missouri Highway Patrol that Miskel had consumed alcohol or drugs that morning. Nor was he exceeding the speed limit.

"This goes beyond driver inattention," McCulloch said. "Traffic was stopped. He had a clear view for over a mile. He failed to brake before or after hitting the van."

McCulloch said there was no evidence of mechanical problems with the dump truck, such as faulty brakes. The fact that the driver's 15-year-old son was with him in the cab of the truck played no role in the indictment, the prosecutor said.

Besides the criminal charges, Miskel also is one of several defendants in five wrongful-death lawsuits brought by Angela Huckaba's husband, Shawn Huckaba, of Overland, and her parents, Donald and Rita Willingham, of St. Charles County.

McCulloch said his office has notified the victims' families of the charges against Miskel.

The stretch of I-44 where the five were killed is considered one of the most dangerous in the state.

At least 17 crashes with 30 deaths have been reported since Jan. 1, 2000, on the 12-mile stretch between Eureka in southwest St. Louis County and Gray Summit in Franklin County, according to research by the Post-Dispatch conducted last summer after the accident.

One of those other crashes killed five members of an Illinois family, also on its way to Six Flags. Weeks later, a tour bus driver and another man died near the same place.

The Missouri Department of Transportation announced plans in September to improve signs and pavement markings in that area and to subsidize tougher traffic law enforcement there.

In October, Judge Gary M. Gaertner Jr. sentenced Scott A. Cowsert, 31, of Pacific, to a jury-recommended 10 years in prison for causing a car crash on I-44 near Eureka on Feb. 22, 2004.

The jury convicted Cowsert in September of involuntary manslaughter and second-degree assault for causing the death of one passenger and disfiguring injuries and multiple brain surgeries for another.

blhotka@post-dispatch.com 314-615-3283

A search of the St Louis Post Dispatch from the last 7 days rbought up these damning expose's of all these other professions......Yet no one ever talks about them.

The fact is, that there are good and bad people in every profession, but some people just can't get past their personal prejudices........

Jeff

buzz_knox
February 8, 2006, 08:31 AM
The fact is, that there are good and bad people in every profession, but some people just can't get past their personal prejudices........

Jeff

Yup. That's why making comments about individual bad cops or concerns about trends gets referred to as cop bashing. It's also why civilians are often told to shut up about videos of police brutality, with the explanation that we don't know anything and couldn't hack being a cop, don't have the training, etc., etc., so we should just mind our own business. It's also why some are quick to judge civilians, but demand that cops be given more than the normal benefit of the doubt. I think my current "favorite" statement is "I will never question the actions of a cop."

It goes both ways, Jeff. I've got no problem "bashing" bad lawyers, but I know many cops who would not under any circumstance say a wrong thing about another officer.

Skeptic
February 8, 2006, 09:19 AM
Yup. That's why making comments about individual bad cops or concerns about trends gets referred to as cop bashing. It's also why civilians are often told to shut up about videos of police brutality, with the explanation that we don't know anything and couldn't hack being a cop, don't have the training, etc., etc., so we should just mind our own business. It's also why some are quick to judge civilians, but demand that cops be given more than the normal benefit of the doubt. I think my current "favorite" statement is "I will never question the actions of a cop."

It goes both ways, Jeff. I've got no problem "bashing" bad lawyers, but I know many cops who would not under any circumstance say a wrong thing about another officer.

Aren't police officers civilians as well? My understanding is that unless you are a member of the military (wearing the uniform of said military) you are a civilian. Oh, and I have no problem "bashing" fed gov employees (like myself)... man do I have lots of targets!!! :neener:

buzz_knox
February 8, 2006, 09:23 AM
Aren't police officers civilians as well? My understanding is that unless you are a member of the military (wearing the uniform of said military) you are a civilian. Oh, and I have no problem "bashing" fed gov employees (like myself)... man do I have lots of targets!!! :neener:

The definition of civilian varies depending on which dictionary you refer to. Some say it is anyone who is not military, some say it is anyone who is not military or police. So, it's not worth fighting over. As for officers being civilians, that also depends on which cop. Some agree with that, and some act as if calling them a civilian is demeaning to them.

As for being a fed, same here.

Skeptic
February 8, 2006, 09:36 AM
The definition of civilian varies depending on which dictionary you refer to. Some say it is anyone who is not military, some say it is anyone who is not military or police. So, it's not worth fighting over. As for officers being civilians, that also depends on which cop. Some agree with that, and some act as if calling them a civilian is demeaning to them.

As for being a fed, same here.


Thanks Buzz. :)

12-34hom
February 8, 2006, 09:54 AM
Dillonuser stated I'm not biased against police or law enforcement

B.S.

But, you will find numerous members here who are and just love a good cop bashing thread, so hang on to all your tin foil hats...;)

M-Rex
February 8, 2006, 10:16 AM
What?

A cop bashing thread on 'The High Road'?

Say it isn't so.:barf: :rolleyes:

TrapperReady
February 8, 2006, 10:17 AM
A search of the St Louis Post Dispatch from the last 7 days rbought up these damning expose's of all these other professions......Yet no one ever talks about them.


Jeff - I wholeheartedly agree with your premise, but to be fair, there is a significant amount of physician-bashing that goes on here as well. Not as much as LEOs, but you're not alone in being grossly generalized on THR.

DRZinn
February 8, 2006, 12:32 PM
The difference is that a truck-driver or school superintendent who mucks about will have the full force of the law land on him. Such is not always the case with cops, which is what breeds the resentment.

Lupinus
February 8, 2006, 01:40 PM
Yeeeep, us serfs should just shut up and move along, cop took a drunk teen (legal teen, but still teen) back home agianst her will on threat of going to jail if she didn't and when she passed out did got knows what to her. Please, if anyone but a cop had brought a drunk girl home with stiff or else persuading waited till she passed out to have our way with her and then when she came too said it was rape our ass would be in a jail cell before the feeling faded.

The reason you see so many "cop basishing" threads here is because (aside from maybe the Catholic church and their own) the cops around here are the first to jump to the aid of ahole cops with no defense other then its cop bashing to post one more time cops are not always good little justice angels. I could go on with some statements and comments about some of the cops who have come on this thread and things they have posted in other threads, but really whats the point, afterall pointing out power trip comments would just be more cop bashing.

Yes every profession has aholes and I have yet to see anyone say they don't. But few are so willing to jump to the aid of others in that profession or a profession where so many of them can get away with murder....sometimes literaly.

Roundeyesamurai
February 8, 2006, 01:48 PM
The reason you see so many "cop basishing" threads here is because (aside from maybe the Catholic church and their own) the cops around here are the first to jump to the aid of ahole cops with no defense other then its cop bashing to post one more time cops are not always good little justice angels.

Can someone translate this into Understandablese? :banghead:

Lupinus
February 8, 2006, 01:53 PM
It's called around here you point out something bad a cop did and you get officers rushing in to call you a cop basher. Doesn't seem to matter what the cop did, if you make note of the fact not all cops are little angels and actually point that fact out you get people calling you a cop basher.

DRZinn
February 8, 2006, 02:33 PM
IBTL

buzz_knox
February 8, 2006, 02:47 PM
It's be interesting and helpful to someday have a discussion about the existence of that subclass of law enforcement which commits crimes without one side calling the existence of said group proof that all cops are bad, and the other side saying the conversation itself is cop bashing.

However, hopes for such a conversation swiftly fade when we consider how polarized both sides are, and how much worse it seems to be getting.

dillonuser
February 8, 2006, 02:57 PM
B.S.

But, you will find numerous members here who are and just love a good cop bashing thread, so hang on to all your tin foil hats...;)

You appears have a problem with pointing fingers and making assumptions.
I do not "bash" cops. I live in South Salt Lake and can tell you from experience they do NOT do their job.

In 1977 a Salt Lake City Police officer named Darrel Goodrich saved my life.I was involved in a motorcycle accident due to a dumb automobile driver. I was on life support for 7+ days. Stayed in the hospital for 3+ weeks. Had a broken neck,jaws,ribs,you name it,it was broken.
After I got out of the hospital I decided one night to take a walk.Cops stopped demanding to know where I was going and why I was walking down the road. During this same time, people were racing down the road,but no, the cops don't stop them the stop me. Why? I had long hair.....

Last year I tried to get them to stop excessive noise coming from a business. The response was "you can't do anything if it's a business" That is wrong,per the mayor and city council. There is a noise ordinance in place. Do the police officers enforce it? NO.

Do I have an attitude about the South Salt Lake Police department? Yes,and the majority of my neighbors share the same attitude. Why? They don't do anything. Even one of the prior mayors thinks they are trash.

k_dawg
February 8, 2006, 03:05 PM
Well by THR Legal and Political Logic, all school superintendents are criminals:
A search of the St Louis Post Dispatch from the last 7 days rbought up these damning expose's of all these other professions......Yet no one ever talks about them.

The fact is, that there are good and bad people in every profession, but some people just can't get past their personal prejudices........

Jeff


Jeff, did you even *BOTHER* to read your citations? If you had, you ought to have noticed one major difference. Here, let me quote them for you.

Byrnes, 55, was arrested at the woman's Lake Saint Louis home Wednesday night. He has been charged with misdemeanor counts of patronizing prostitution and stalking.

Dr. Charles Earnshaw Jr. of Alton was charged Tuesday. He was arrested Saturday night in the drive-through lane of an Arby's restaurant in Bethalto. Earnshaw had veered off Illinois Route 140, crossed a grass strip and struck a mailbox in front of the restaurant with his pickup just before 10 p.m., said Bethalto Police Chief Alan Winslow.

Police arrested Thomas Miskel, 43, of Imperial, on Monday and brought him to the St. Louis County Justice Center in Clayton, where bond was set at $100,000.

Notice the difference? These three were arrested and charged and treated like any other citizen.

The police officer *however* was not.


THAT is the difference. THAT is what I personally object to, time after time. This special treatment that they give police officers. This special system of "justice". It has less to do about the actions of the individual who commits a crime. It has to do entirely on how they "police" their own.

Can't you understand why private citizens would be so concerned about this? This is not "cop bashing", this is no different than the civil rights movement, wanting equal protection and due process for everyone equally.

12-34hom
February 8, 2006, 03:26 PM
Cry me a river, well at least one officer was doing his job....

Pointing fingers, i call em like i read em. or just taking the trash out.

12-34hom.

Lupinus
February 8, 2006, 03:45 PM
Jeff, did you even *BOTHER* to read your citations? If you had, you ought to have noticed one major difference. Here, let me quote them for you.

Byrnes, 55, was arrested at the woman's Lake Saint Louis home Wednesday night. He has been charged with misdemeanor counts of patronizing prostitution and stalking.

Dr. Charles Earnshaw Jr. of Alton was charged Tuesday. He was arrested Saturday night in the drive-through lane of an Arby's restaurant in Bethalto. Earnshaw had veered off Illinois Route 140, crossed a grass strip and struck a mailbox in front of the restaurant with his pickup just before 10 p.m., said Bethalto Police Chief Alan Winslow.

Police arrested Thomas Miskel, 43, of Imperial, on Monday and brought him to the St. Louis County Justice Center in Clayton, where bond was set at $100,000.

Notice the difference? These three were arrested and charged and treated like any other citizen.

The police officer *however* was not.


THAT is the difference. THAT is what I personally object to, time after time. This special treatment that they give police officers. This special system of "justice". It has less to do about the actions of the individual who commits a crime. It has to do entirely on how they "police" their own.

Can't you understand why private citizens would be so concerned about this? This is not "cop bashing", this is no different than the civil rights movement, wanting equal protection and due process for everyone equally.
+1

Dill- It isn't an isolated thing either.

Roundeyesamurai
February 8, 2006, 04:01 PM
Notice the difference? These three were arrested and charged and treated like any other citizen.

The police officer *however* was not.


THAT is the difference. THAT is what I personally object to, time after time. This special treatment that they give police officers. This special system of "justice". It has less to do about the actions of the individual who commits a crime. It has to do entirely on how they "police" their own.

Can't you understand why private citizens would be so concerned about this? This is not "cop bashing", this is no different than the civil rights movement, wanting equal protection and due process for everyone equally.

You know, one of the things I find personally objectionable about (too many) people, is their purported clairvoyance. Particularly, the fact that so many people are aware of every piece of evidence in a case, every legal issue involved, and are able to "KNOW" exactly whether a person is guilty or not, just from a newspaper article or TV broadcast.

How do YOU know whether there was sufficient evidence to arrest him for a violation of law?

How do YOU know that the victim's statement is factual?

Did you participate in the investigation of the alleged offense?

You see, you're talking about civil rights being violated- and when it comes to civil rights in criminal matters, the most basic right is this:

A person is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

"Civil rights" appears, to you, to not apply to those with whom you have disagreement. You'd prefer to make them "civil privileges", applicable only to those whom you favor.

The best course of action in this case would be independent investigation by the State. Let someone not associated with the agency in question investigate whether a crime was committed or not.

Trial by media, as has happened in this instance, does nothing but inflame people (as evidenced by this thread).

"We all know he's guilty" is the sentiment of a lynch mob, not a people interested in civil rights.

NineseveN
February 8, 2006, 04:04 PM
Jeff, did you even *BOTHER* to read your citations? If you had, you ought to have noticed one major difference. Here, let me quote them for you.

Byrnes, 55, was arrested at the woman's Lake Saint Louis home Wednesday night. He has been charged with misdemeanor counts of patronizing prostitution and stalking.

Dr. Charles Earnshaw Jr. of Alton was charged Tuesday. He was arrested Saturday night in the drive-through lane of an Arby's restaurant in Bethalto. Earnshaw had veered off Illinois Route 140, crossed a grass strip and struck a mailbox in front of the restaurant with his pickup just before 10 p.m., said Bethalto Police Chief Alan Winslow.

Police arrested Thomas Miskel, 43, of Imperial, on Monday and brought him to the St. Louis County Justice Center in Clayton, where bond was set at $100,000.

Notice the difference? These three were arrested and charged and treated like any other citizen.

The police officer *however* was not.


THAT is the difference. THAT is what I personally object to, time after time. This special treatment that they give police officers. This special system of "justice". It has less to do about the actions of the individual who commits a crime. It has to do entirely on how they "police" their own.

Can't you understand why private citizens would be so concerned about this? This is not "cop bashing", this is no different than the civil rights movement, wanting equal protection and due process for everyone equally.

That's a great point, and I completely agree...however, we have to admit that some folks use this as an entry point to bash cops, they just hate the police. That doesn't make what the cops do any less wrong or your point any less valid, though the overly-pro-LEO crowd seems to think otherwise. The answer is somewhere in the middle.

buzz_knox
February 8, 2006, 04:05 PM
You know, one of the things I find personally objectionable about (too many) people, is their purported clairvoyance. Particularly, the fact that so many people are aware of every piece of evidence in a case, every legal issue involved, and are able to "KNOW" exactly whether a person is guilty or not, just from a newspaper article or TV broadcast.

How do YOU know whether there was sufficient evidence to arrest him for a violation of law?

How do YOU know that the victim's statement is factual?

Did you participate in the investigation of the alleged offense?

You see, you're talking about civil rights being violated- and when it comes to civil rights in criminal matters, the most basic right is this:

A person is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

"Civil rights" appears, to you, to not apply to those with whom you have disagreement. You'd prefer to make them "civil privileges", applicable only to those whom you favor.

The best course of action in this case would be independent investigation by the State. Let someone not associated with the agency in question investigate whether a crime was committed or not.

Trial by media, as has happened in this instance, does nothing but inflame people (as evidenced by this thread).

"We all know he's guilty" is the sentiment of a lynch mob, not a people interested in civil rights.

Well, he lied in the investigation of the facts, changing his story more than a few times. So, I think it's fair to say he's guilty of obstruction of justice.

But since we aren't in a court of law, the presumption of innocence doesn't necessarily apply, does it? That's a limitation on state action, not public discussion.

buzz_knox
February 8, 2006, 04:08 PM
That's a great point, and I completely agree...however, we have to admit that some folks use this as an entry point to bash cops, they just hate the police. That doesn't make what the cops do any less wrong or your point any less valid, though the overly-pro-LEO crowd seems to think otherwise. The answer is somewhere in the middle.

Thus, the need for both sides to set aside prejudice and actually have the conversation. Currently, a few people have the conversation while one side yells "all cops are rapists who get away with it" while the other side doesn't discuss the facts and just yells "everybody does it, don't pick on us."

Gee, it gets kind of hard to slam Congress for this behavior when we can see it ourselves in THR and other forums, doesn't it?

NineseveN
February 8, 2006, 04:10 PM
Thus, the need for both sides to set aside prejudice and actually have the conversation. Currently, a few people have the conversation while one side yells "all cops are rapists who get away with it" while the other side doesn't discuss the facts and just yells "everybody does it, don't pick on us."

Gee, it gets kind of hard to slam Congress for this behavior when we can see it ourselves in THR and other forums, doesn't it?

I agree completely. How we rectify it is another matter...

Roundeyesamurai
February 8, 2006, 04:12 PM
But since we aren't in a court of law, the presumption of innocence doesn't necessarily apply, does it? That's a limitation on state action, not public discussion.

Which brings me back to this:

"We all know he's guilty" is the sentiment of a lynch mob, not a people interested in civil rights.

On the other hand, I have to give props for this comment:

Thus, the need for both sides to set aside prejudice and actually have the conversation. Currently, a few people have the conversation while one side yells "all cops are rapists who get away with it" while the other side doesn't discuss the facts and just yells "everybody does it, don't pick on us."

Gee, it gets kind of hard to slam Congress for this behavior when we can see it ourselves in THR and other forums, doesn't it?

k_dawg
February 8, 2006, 04:13 PM
You know, one of the things I find personally objectionable about (too many) people, is their purported clairvoyance. Particularly, the fact that so many people are aware of every piece of evidence in a case, every legal issue involved, and are able to "KNOW" exactly whether a person is guilty or not, just from a newspaper article or TV broadcast.

How do YOU know whether there was sufficient evidence to arrest him for a violation of law?

How do YOU know that the victim's statement is factual?

Did you participate in the investigation of the alleged offense?

You see, you're talking about civil rights being violated- and when it comes to civil rights in criminal matters, the most basic right is this:

A person is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

"Civil rights" appears, to you, to not apply to those with whom you have disagreement. You'd prefer to make them "civil privileges", applicable only to those whom you favor.

The best course of action in this case would be independent investigation by the State. Let someone not associated with the agency in question investigate whether a crime was committed or not.

Trial by media, as has happened in this instance, does nothing but inflame people (as evidenced by this thread).

"We all know he's guilty" is the sentiment of a lynch mob, not a people interested in civil rights.

I do not know if he is guilty or not. Which is why a *JURY OF HIS PEERS* should decide. Not you, not me.Not his buddies on the police force and in the DA's office.

That is right, I am a strong believer that law enforcement officers should go thru the exact same justice system. No one should be held below or above the law.

Roundeyesamurai
February 8, 2006, 04:18 PM
I do not know if he is guilty or not. Which is why a *JURY OF HIS PEERS* should decide. Not you, not me.

That's precisely what I am saying.

Not his buddies on the police force and in the DA's office.

That is right, I am a strong believer that law enforcement officers should go thru the exact same justice system. No one should be held below or above the law.

Who says police officers don't? Show proof. "Everyone knows it!" isn't proof.

A newspaper article doesn't constitute proof, either. It constitutes a statement designed to appeal to its readership.

buzz_knox
February 8, 2006, 04:21 PM
That's precisely what I am saying.



Who says police officers don't? Show proof. "Everyone knows it!" isn't proof.

A newspaper article doesn't constitute proof, either. It constitutes a statement designed to appeal to its readership.

Well, what will constitute proof? We don't exactly have access to the document that says "officer X was not charged with [insert crime here] because he's a cop."

JohnBT
February 8, 2006, 04:21 PM
Right, and not everyone brought to the attention of the police and the DA is charged. I don't know if she consented, but neither one of them is real bright.

I can't believe I read all the way through this thread looking for a smoking gun. Wrong forum. Silly me.

John

k_dawg
February 8, 2006, 04:25 PM
Okay, let us go thru it step by step:

Was this officer initially arrested, brought into the precint, and then brought before a judge?

If not, why not?

Roundeyesamurai
February 8, 2006, 04:28 PM
Well, what will constitute proof? We don't exactly have access to the document that says "officer X was not charged with [insert crime here] because he's a cop."

Precisely.

Right, and not everyone brought to the attention of the police and the DA is charged. I don't know if she consented, but neither one of them is real bright.

I can't believe I read all the way through this thread looking for a smoking gun. Wrong forum. Silly me.

John

Again, precisely.

Roundeyesamurai
February 8, 2006, 04:37 PM
Okay, let us go thru it step by step:

Was this officer initially arrested, brought into the precint, and then brought before a judge?

If not, why not?

I can tell from your post that you've never actually been involved in the criminal justice system to any significant degree.

"Arrest him, bring him into the 'precinct', and then bring him before a judge" may be how it works on TV, and how petty offenses may be handled in some states, but there is quite a bit more to any felony case than this.

Lupinus
February 8, 2006, 04:46 PM
Okay, let us go thru it step by step:

Was this officer initially arrested, brought into the precint, and then brought before a judge?

Which is what so ticks me off. If any of us brought a drunk girl home and when she sobered up cried rape we would be arrested, maybe not convicted, but odds are we would be arrested and sit through at least a hearing or two if not an outright trial. Cop busts into the wrong house in the becoming more and more common tacticle storm the castle type warrent executions gets shot and the homeowner goes away for murder. It is BS and slanted. Cops in general I have no problem with, it is ones that get special treatment and departments the protect them when they do things that would see us at the very least arrested I have a problem with.

Roundeyesamurai
February 8, 2006, 04:57 PM
Which is what so ticks me off. If any of us brought a drunk girl home and when she sobered up cried rape we would be arrested, maybe not convicted, but odds are we would be arrested and sit through at least a hearing or two if not an outright trial.

Oh, that's how it always happens, eh? Please, enlighten us, exactly how many rape cases have you worked as a police officer?

Cop busts into the wrong house in the becoming more and more common tacticle storm the castle type warrent executions gets shot and the homeowner goes away for murder.

I could have predicted that this would be brought into the conversation.

What bearing does it have to this individual matter?

It is BS and slanted.

So are alot of the criticisms being levelled.

Cops in general I have no problem with, it is ones that get special treatment and departments the protect them when they do things that would see us at the very least arrested I have a problem with.

Coulda fooled me; judging by the rest of your posts, it seems that you DO have a problem with "cops in general", specifically because you DO believe that most (if not all) police officers get preferential treatment.

dillonuser
February 8, 2006, 05:05 PM
Cry me a river, well at least one officer was doing his job....

Pointing fingers, i call em like i read em. or just taking the trash out.

12-34hom.

And I hope you were pointing your finger and reading the text that stated "Salt Lake City Police officer named Darrel Goodrich " South Salt Lake and Salt Lake City are different entities so, different police departments.

Salt Lake City has a very good police department.

And since,as you state "i call em like i read em". When you read Al Gore's statement about him developing the internet,you assumed that was true?

Jeff White
February 8, 2006, 05:13 PM
k_dawg said,
Jeff, did you even *BOTHER* to read your citations? If you had, you ought to have noticed one major difference. Here, let me quote them for you.

Byrnes, 55, was arrested at the woman's Lake Saint Louis home Wednesday night. He has been charged with misdemeanor counts of patronizing prostitution and stalking.

Dr. Charles Earnshaw Jr. of Alton was charged Tuesday. He was arrested Saturday night in the drive-through lane of an Arby's restaurant in Bethalto. Earnshaw had veered off Illinois Route 140, crossed a grass strip and struck a mailbox in front of the restaurant with his pickup just before 10 p.m., said Bethalto Police Chief Alan Winslow.

Police arrested Thomas Miskel, 43, of Imperial, on Monday and brought him to the St. Louis County Justice Center in Clayton, where bond was set at $100,000.

Notice the difference? These three were arrested and charged and treated like any other citizen.

The police officer *however* was not.

A search of the same 7 days brings up these articles:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/DF9569A137F274CF8625710B001E160F?OpenDocument
BONNE TERRE: Prison guard is held on gun, drug charges

02/04/2006

A corrections officer at a state prison in Bonne Terre was arrested this week on suspicion of sneaking weapons and drugs into the prison.

Bonne Terre police arrested Seth Barton, 47, of Lesterville, Mo., late Tuesday night after staff at the Eastern Reception Diagnostic and Correctional Center searched Barton's car and found bags of marijuana, marijuana seeds, a loaded .357 handgun and ammunition, drug paraphernalia and a hunting knife, police said.

Barton was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, and unlawful possession of a weapon at a correctional facility, police said.

He was in the St. Francois County Jail on $50,000 bond, police said.

Deputy is charged in killing of two men
By Tim Bryant
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
02/03/2006

TROY, MO.

A Lincoln County sheriff’s deputy acted recklessly when he fired shots through a pickup’s rear window and killed two men last fall, authorities said Thursday after filing felony charges against the former officer.

Nicholas Forler, 26, of Troy, is charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter. Accompanied by his lawyer, Joe McCulloch, Forler surrendered to authorities and was released after posting $30,000 bail. Involuntary manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of seven years in prison.

After a brief chase that ended in a driveway, police say, Forler shot Tyler Teasley, 22, of Silex, and Michael Brown, 23, of Troy, on the night of Oct. 23 as they sat in Teasley’s extended-cab pickup. Both men died of head wounds.

Teasley’s father, Brent Teasley, said Forler should have been charged with a more serious crime.

"Obviously, whenever you shoot somebody in the back of the head, it’s first-degree murder," Teasley said.

Lincoln County Sheriff Dan Torres, who dismissed Forler after the charges were filed, said that before the shooting, the deputy had been "a very good employee." Forler had been a deputy for three years.

"He was an extraordinarily good detective," Torres said, adding that Forler had been promoted to supervisor of a road patrol.

Missouri Highway Patrol Sgt. J. Sam Steward said in a court document that the shooting happened after Forler tried to stop Teasley’s truck for speeding. The Highway Patrol investigated the shooting. After the chase, the truck stopped in a driveway just off Highway 47, a short distance west of Troy. Forler got out of his patrol car, which he had stopped behind the pickup, and stood between the vehicles.

Steward gave this account:

As the truck began to roll slowly backward, Forler shouted for it to stop, then "recklessly fired" a shot from his .40-caliber Glock pistol at the driver’s side of the truck’s tinted rear window. He shouted a second time, then fired again. Forler then moved out of the way of the truck, which rolled into the front of the deputy’s patrol car.

Brown had been seated behind Teasley, the driver. The deaths outraged the men’s family and friends, who have demonstrated regularly outside the sheriff’s office.

Torres said Thursday that authorities owed the families and Forler a "complete and thorough investigation in order to determine all the facts." The sheriff declined to discuss the shooting in detail because of what he said were pending civil suits filed by the families against his department.

Brown’s mother, Donna Brown, said she preferred more serious charges against Forler but was satisfied with involuntary manslaughter.

Misty Brown, 22, a cousin who had identified Brown’s body for authorities, said: "I’d like the cop to know that’s the last image in my head of my cousin and it’s his fault. I’d like to eventually sit down and talk to him face to face — see if he has any remorse."

Janice Spires, an aunt of Brown’s, said her family is "terribly disappointed" and "shocked" with the decision to charge Forler with manslaughter instead of a more serious crime.

"Our family has been in agony for months, and we feel this is a slap in the face," Spires added.

Teasley and Brown had been among six people — three men and three women — in the truck. Two of the women have said the deputy fired into the truck without warning. They added that the truck rolled backward because Teasley had left the vehicle out of gear.

One of the women said the six friends were "freaking out" over being pulled over because they had alcohol in the car. They were celebrating the 18th birthday of the third woman in the vehicle.

Attorney General Jay Nixon’s office filed the charges in Lincoln County Circuit Court. Nixon’s office took over the case after the county prosecutor, John Richards, recused himself from the matter.

Adam Kealoha Causey of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.

tbryant@post-dispatch.com | 636-255-7212

Three Illinois Officers Charged For Possessing Submachine Guns At Home

MICHAEL SHAW
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

The charges:


Three officers and a doctor are accused of having submachine guns


What's next:


All four face prosecution in federal court in East St. Louis.


Three Illinois State Police officers, who could legally handle submachine guns for their jobs, have been charged with violating federal firearms regulations for allegedly having them at home, officials announced Tuesday.

The troopers -- two assigned to District 11 at Collinsville and one to District 18 at Litchfield -- were placed on paid leave while their cases are handled in federal court in East St. Louis.

Also charged is a doctor, formerly of Glen Carbon, who allegedly lent one of the weapons to a trooper who said he test-fired it and gave it back.

There is no allegation that the men trafficked in illicit weapons or committed any crime beyond illegally possessing them. Authorities would not say what launched the nvestigation or how federal agents found out about the weapons.

U.S. Attorney Ed McNally said the fact that three defendants are law
enforcement officers does not matter.

"Teddy Roosevelt said, 'No man is above the law and no man below
it,'" McNally said at a news conference. "If the United States obtains sufficient evidence that the law has been violated, whether by a law enforcement officer or any other public official or a private
person, they will be prosecuted."

One of the defendants, Special Agent John Yard, 36, of Collinsville, had recently worked with federal agents investigating public corruption at East St. Louis City Hall. He's a nine-year veteran of the State Police.

Charges say Yard admitted borrowing a Colt AR-15 rifle that could be switched to fire in a fully automatic mode.

According to court documents, Dr. Harold Griffiths, 69, of Spaulding, Ill., formerly of Glen Carbon, told federal agents the gun had been converted into a fully automatic weapon. Spaulding is near Springfield.

Griffiths was among those charged in indictments Jan. 11 that were unsealed Tuesday.

The others are Sgt. James V. Vest, 39, of O'Fallon, who like Yard works in the Collinsville district, and Senior Master Trooper Greg Mugge, 51, of Jerseyville, who is assigned to Litchfield. Both admitted keeping rifles altered for automatic fire in their homes, according to the affidavits

Vest, a 16-year State Police veteran, said he bought his M-4/M-16 rifle in 1998 in California, according to court documents. Mugge, with 21 years in the department, told officials he bought his AR-15 rifle from a now-deceased licensed dealer in Harrisburg, ll., in the late 1970s or early '80s.

Under federal firearms laws, not even police officers can own weapons that can fire a steady stream of bullets with one squeeze of the trigger.

All four entered pleas of not guilty Tuesday and were released without having to post bail. None of them could be reached for comment.

They had agreed to be interviewed by agents from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, according to affidavits filed with the charges,and all consented to searches of their homes. The three weapons cited in the charges were all seized.

The charge of illegal possession of an automatic weapon carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, although federal guidelines suggest substantially less punishment for people with no previous criminal background.

A State Police spokesman said that if the troopers are convicted, a merit board would decide the fate of their jobs.

State Police Director Larry Trent attended the news conference and described his accused employees as "three otherwise good officers with good records."

"I'm very disappointed and I deeply regret the judgment used by three of our officers," Trent said.

You have to remember that the police are required to break certain certain laws in the course of their employment. So if you expect a police officer to be arrested immediately after a shooting incident, forget it. An investigation has to be conducted to determine if the shooting was in fact justified by law and by department policy.

Jeff

Lupinus
February 8, 2006, 05:35 PM
Oh, that's how it always happens, eh? Please, enlighten us, exactly how many rape cases have you worked as a police officer?

Did I say always? I know I have countless times seen police officers doing things that if I and other none cops if we did would be getting in trouble for.

I could have predicted that this would be brought into the conversation.

What bearing does it have to this individual matter?
On a cop rapping a drunk girl? Nothing. On cops who do bad things and either get a slap on the wrist or shushed up about and when noted on this board labled as cop bashing? Everything.

Coulda fooled me; judging by the rest of your posts, it seems that you DO have a problem with "cops in general", specifically because you DO believe that most (if not all) police officers get preferential treatment.
Well I don't don't have a problem with them in general. I have been friends with cops, have known cops, and when a cop pulls me over or I pass one on the street I don't thumb my nose at them and give them the benifit of the doubt they will be professional.

What I have a problem with are cops who are not professional, on a power trip, use the brotherhood with other cops or whatever you would like to call it to get away with crimes, and departments who have a mightier then thou above the law attitude.

Lupinus
February 8, 2006, 05:38 PM
You have to remember that the police are required to break certain certain laws in the course of their employment. So if you expect a police officer to be arrested immediately after a shooting incident, forget it. An investigation has to be conducted to determine if the shooting was in fact justified by law and by department policy.
I agree there. But taking a drunk girl home and doing what you want to her while she is passed out for the rest of us is rape. Taking home a drunk girl and fondeling (and likly more) is part of the job how exactly though? And how much of an investigation does it take to decide it is murder to shoot a man on the ground who is only getting up at your order? Or that a cop busting in the wrong door is breaking and entering and if you shoot and kill him that it is not murder?

dillonuser
February 8, 2006, 05:49 PM
What I have a problem with are cops who are not professional, on a power trip, use the brotherhood with other cops or whatever you would like to call it to get away with crimes, and departments who have a mightier then thou above the law attitude.

You must have visited South Salt Lake....

Roundeyesamurai
February 8, 2006, 05:58 PM
Did I say always? I know I have countless times seen police officers doing things that if I and other none cops if we did would be getting in trouble for.

Oh good, then you can tell us how many times you've reported such occurrences.

On a cop rapping a drunk girl? Nothing.

Exactly. Like most of your schtick, it has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand.

Well I don't don't have a problem with them in general. I have been friends with cops, have known cops, and when a cop pulls me over or I pass one on the street I don't thumb my nose at them and give them the benifit of the doubt they will be professional.

In other words, when confronted by police, you become acquiescent, and reserve your criticisms for an anonymous venue (such as this one).

What I have a problem with are cops who are not professional, on a power trip, use the brotherhood with other cops or whatever you would like to call it to get away with crimes, and departments who have a mightier then thou above the law attitude.

I have a problem with unprofessional conduct as well.

As for the rest of your statement- prove that police officers "get away with crimes". Until you prove it, you're just blowing smoke (like so many other cop bashers on the 'Net).

Since you say you've "countless times seen police officers doing things", you should have no problem proving a few of them.

Lupinus
February 8, 2006, 06:32 PM
You have to remember that the police are required to break certain certain laws in the course of their employment. So if you expect a police officer to be arrested immediately after a shooting incident, forget it. An investigation has to be conducted to determine if the shooting was in fact justified by law and by department policy.
I agree there. Cops are impowered and rightfully so to do things the average person can't. I can't force another car to pull over, I can't enter anothers home without permission, I can't walk around (least in most states) with a gun on my hip, I can't detain people even temperarily until a matter is resolved, etc. People who argue cops shouldn't be able to do some things the general population can't need a reality check.

But taking a drunk girl home and doing what you want to her while she is passed out for the rest of us is rape. Taking home a drunk girl and fondeling (and likly more) is part of the job how exactly though? And how much of an investigation does it take to decide it is murder to shoot a man on the ground who is only getting up at your order? Or that a cop busting in the wrong door is breaking and entering and if you shoot and kill him that it is not murder?

Cops and the things cop do to do their job I have no problem with. Its ones/departments that put themselves above the law that I do.

Lupinus
February 8, 2006, 06:38 PM
Oh good, then you can tell us how many times you've reported such occurrences.

Five times that were worth reporting. Many smaller times particuarly on the roads where I would have gotten at least a ticket. Many more that I have read/seen on the news.

Exactly. Like most of your schtick, it has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand.
My argument is as a whole. It is about cops that get slapped on the wrist or not held to the same standards of law and punishment as the rest of us. So yes, it's relavent to my argument and thinking.

In other words, when confronted by police, you become acquiescent, and reserve your criticisms for an anonymous venue (such as this one).
No, I give them the benifit of the doubt am polite and respectful. When they act like an ahole I call them on it to their face.

I love the one sheriff in Ohio who has started a blog on illegal imigration and when pulled over by one of his deputies who was going to say sorry and let the sheriff on his way ordered the deputy to write the tickey he was preparing to write before learning it was his boss he had just pulled over. Cops who are professional and don't put themselves above the law I like just fine. When they act like thugs or above the law or otherwise special just because of a badge that is another matter.

k_dawg
February 8, 2006, 06:43 PM
k_dawg said,




You have to remember that the police are required to break certain certain laws in the course of their employment. So if you expect a police officer to be arrested immediately after a shooting incident, forget it. An investigation has to be conducted to determine if the shooting was in fact justified by law and by department policy.

Jeff

Wow, raping a drunk girl is now "breaking certain certain laws in the course of their employment?"

Jesus, that's so phucked up, I dont know what to say...

Jeff White
February 8, 2006, 06:46 PM
Lupinous said;
I agree there. But taking a drunk girl home and doing what you want to her while she is passed out for the rest of us is rape. Taking home a drunk girl and fondeling (and likly more) is part of the job how exactly though?

No it's not part of the job. And what Burnham did was wrong. But here's where you and I disagree. I firmly believe that if the prosecutor though he could convict Burnham, he would have been charged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. You seem to think he was given a pass because he was a police officer. While that may be possible, I (and probably every other officer on the forum) think that that is highly unlikely. Most likely there was not enough physical evidence that he touched her forcibly and she wasn't going to come off as a credible enough witness for her story to stand on it's own. You're basing your total argument on one side of the story. I don't know what Burnham's total statement was, neither do you. No one knows the whole story here, yet you are willing to say that Burnham cashed in his get out of jail free card because he was a police officer. Quite frankly, I think he wasn't charged because the prosecutor didn't think he could prove that Burnham was guilty.

Do you think that private citizens are always prosecuted for crimes the prosecutor knows they probably committed but can't prove? Let me tell you something, they aren't. I'd be willing to bet that if we replaced Burnham with a private citizen of any profession who picked the girl up and took her home to sleep it off and similar charges were made, and all the evidence was the same, no charges would have been filed against the private citizen either.

Would you have been happier if the prosecutor had charged Burnham, taken a case he most likely couldn't have won to court, and then lost? I doubt it. Your mind seems to be made up. Your posts them would probably be filled with hate for our jury system and you'd most likely still be posting that Burnham got off because he was a police officer. Only then you probably would have stretched reason by saying that Burnham was aquitted because the jury was in fear of reprisals.

Of course if Burnham was tried and aquitted, he could have most likely been re-instated on his job, with back pay.

As long as the system is run by human beings it's going to be imperfect. And as long as we're going to have members who are going immediately default to their prejudices, we're going to have these discussions here at THR.

Some of you need to look inward. You talk about the thin blue line mentality among the polcie officers on the board, at the same time you you point out every bias and antigun statement in an article posted about a shooting where a private citizen was involved. What should we call that? The brotherhood of the CCW? Funny, but I don't seem to recall any of us, saying that those articles are proof positive why private citizens shouldn't be allowed to carry guns.....:rolleyes:

Jeff

Roundeyesamurai
February 8, 2006, 06:48 PM
But taking a drunk girl home and doing what you want to her while she is passed out for the rest of us is rape.

Since you're absolutely positive that a crime occurred, prove it.

You're whining about a "cover-up"- prove that the crime occurred. Prove it to a standard that would be acceptable in a court of law (which is where you have said, repeatedly, that you want this police officer to end up).

Five times that were worth reporting. Many smaller times particuarly on the roads where I would have gotten at least a ticket. Many more that I have read/seen on the news.

And, once again, what did you do about them? Nothing, I would imagine.

As for the rest of your posts- why do you have such difficulty addressing the specific case in question?

Huntzman
February 8, 2006, 08:28 PM
OK, I have no idea how things are run in other states, but I do know that in New York (specifically NYC) most prosecutors (Assistant District Attorney's)will give their (fill in the gender specific body part) to catch a "potential" bad cop case. It's a career boost which you can't even begin to imagine. Each one is a potential "Zodiac Killer" for them in terms of headlines. Ever meet an attorney that didn't have poltical aspirations ? If not, check the bio's of your local state rep's.....

Do cops commit crimes........ YES, unequivically. But if your bashing an entire professsion (like I seemed to do regarding attorneys....see above :neener:) because of a handful of bad apples, maybe you need to re-examine your opinions of humanity as a whole.

I served twenty years in the NYPD

I have watched life come into the world
I have watched it leave this world
I have seen violence of the magnitude that you can't imagine
I have saved lives
I have lost lives
I have cried over the death of a child
I have shaken the hand of someone you wouldn't even make eye contact with
I have laughed sardonically at the "untimely" demise of a drug dealer
I have seen the best of humanity
I have seen the deaths of many of my friends and colleagues through the worst of humanity

If you think there is a problem with cops...... try the job for a few years. Don't curse them for what they do, pray for their souls for what they have seen and been through.

Cops are not some foreign occupying force. They are made up from every walk of American life. Some are good, some are bad, some just show up and collect a pay check, and others actually care.....

If a cop commits a crime, then they deserve to be treated just like any other criminal. But remember, we also hold true the saying "innocent until proven guilty". Let justice decide.

Is their a fraternity among cops....... yes. The same as their is among soldiers, firemen and any other high risk occupation. Don't understand it..... then you probably never put your life into harms way for another human being. An unknown author wrote this message on a wall of the Hanoi Hilton: "Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die that the protected will never know."

I'm not looking to incite a riot here..... just a moment of soul searching.

LawDog
February 8, 2006, 08:39 PM
This thread is producing more heat than light, and we've had quite enough as it is.

Light out.

LawDog

If you enjoyed reading about "Bad Cops" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!