Warren
Member
I pointed out an indirect way they are compensated. If there was a direct link there would have been numerous scandals and investigations by now.
Follow up: Why video and audio recording are changing the nature of police work.
- Thread starter F4GIB
- Start date
- Status
Warren, then you admit you have no proof? Indirect doesn't count. We're all about the truth here. Look at the top of the forum. Do you see the word Political anywhere? There isn't going to be any more inflammatory rhetoric here. If you make an accusation you better be able to prove it.
There are other places on the internet where wild political rhetoric is not only welcomed it's encouraged. But it's no longer welcome here. This is the Legal forum.
From the new Legal rules:
Where are the links to original documents, laws and other relevant resources?
Everyone needs to understand, the Legal and Political Forum is gone. It's history. We don't come in here and make wild statements and unproven accusations any longer. We discuss issues as civilized people and we don't spout off rhetoric we can't prove, no matter how good it makes us feel to vent.
The idea is to have civil discussions and in civil discussions you don't spout off with accusations you can't prove. If you say something outlandish, expect to have to back your words up with facts. In the early days of THR these kinds of discussions would send people to their search engines and libraries so they could prove their points. It got where people weren't interested in proving their points just stating them.
Jeff
There are other places on the internet where wild political rhetoric is not only welcomed it's encouraged. But it's no longer welcome here. This is the Legal forum.
From the new Legal rules:
Where are the links to original documents, laws and other relevant resources?
Everyone needs to understand, the Legal and Political Forum is gone. It's history. We don't come in here and make wild statements and unproven accusations any longer. We discuss issues as civilized people and we don't spout off rhetoric we can't prove, no matter how good it makes us feel to vent.
The idea is to have civil discussions and in civil discussions you don't spout off with accusations you can't prove. If you say something outlandish, expect to have to back your words up with facts. In the early days of THR these kinds of discussions would send people to their search engines and libraries so they could prove their points. It got where people weren't interested in proving their points just stating them.
Jeff
Warren
Member
Well, Jeff *I* never said they were paid per conviction, and I am, in fact, agreeing with you. I do not believe it could be done without the local populace knowing about it i.e. there was a law that allowed the practice.
In California DAs are elected (I assume it is the same everywhere) therefore any sub-rosa payments would be dangerous for the DA. Any of the lawyers working for him could become his opponent during the next election and what a bombshell the payments would make.
An ambitous person seeking the DA's seat would expose the issue right away and dispose of the previous DA and set himself up as the honest reformer. His election would almost be a lock.
In order to work for long all the other lawyers would have to care more about their boss' career than they do their own and that is not likely...ever.
In California DAs are elected (I assume it is the same everywhere) therefore any sub-rosa payments would be dangerous for the DA. Any of the lawyers working for him could become his opponent during the next election and what a bombshell the payments would make.
An ambitous person seeking the DA's seat would expose the issue right away and dispose of the previous DA and set himself up as the honest reformer. His election would almost be a lock.
In order to work for long all the other lawyers would have to care more about their boss' career than they do their own and that is not likely...ever.
Warren,
My post wasn't directed so much at you but was a way of pointing out the new standards here in Legal.
Jeff
My post wasn't directed so much at you but was a way of pointing out the new standards here in Legal.
Jeff
furyalecto
Member
“Fired for abuse of civil rights under the color of authority, that’s it?”
I don't believe that the incident fits the federal definitions of police misconduct under color of law.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/polmis.htm
It may be misconduct under some state or local law or even departmental policy.
Deanimator already covered this point nicely I thought, but it just struck a chord. Please feel free to disregard.
There is no constitutional right never to have someone act like an asshat to you that I have seen. That seems to be a correct statement.
I can certainly understand a LEO being rude. IMHO they have a thankless and dangerous job. It seems like they would tend to be in contact with a criminal element that has less regard for LEOs than the general citizenry. Even some of that general citizenry seems to have a bad opinion of LEOs. I personally have a tremendous respect for LEOs. All of my encounters with LEOs save one have been positive. I am appreciative of the job that they do & the guff that they endure while on the job.
While I agree with the statement that there is no constitutional right never to have someone act like an asshat to you, I do think there is a difference between what happened in the incident & simply being, or acting like an asshat. I would respectfully postulate that by this example: In regards to the RKBA & personal liberty when was the last time a clerk at city hall or the DMV employee twisted your arm behind your back, tried to slam you into a wall & took your gun away from you? I may be mistaken, but in reading the relevant post it seems the argument made is that someone being rude whilst sending you to the back of a line is an equivalent? My encounters with such folk do not usually involve physical confrontation, potential loss of life & liberty.
Although I did want to strangle the librarian who was SUCH a help yesterday (remember the plane boarding scene from Meet the Parents?) I was polite.
I am curious as to if you have set up video & audio surveillance in your home & you post that anyone entering the home is consenting to be recorded would the results stand up in court? As Jeff stated I should ask an attorney rather than relying on the internet.
This may be off topic since the LEO probably did not violate constitutional rights, but I have one final question to display my utter ignorance of LE & legal matters. Does every LEO in every department have to take the 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331 Oath of office?
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
I don't believe that the incident fits the federal definitions of police misconduct under color of law.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/polmis.htm
It may be misconduct under some state or local law or even departmental policy.
Deanimator already covered this point nicely I thought, but it just struck a chord. Please feel free to disregard.
There is no constitutional right never to have someone act like an asshat to you that I have seen. That seems to be a correct statement.
I can certainly understand a LEO being rude. IMHO they have a thankless and dangerous job. It seems like they would tend to be in contact with a criminal element that has less regard for LEOs than the general citizenry. Even some of that general citizenry seems to have a bad opinion of LEOs. I personally have a tremendous respect for LEOs. All of my encounters with LEOs save one have been positive. I am appreciative of the job that they do & the guff that they endure while on the job.
While I agree with the statement that there is no constitutional right never to have someone act like an asshat to you, I do think there is a difference between what happened in the incident & simply being, or acting like an asshat. I would respectfully postulate that by this example: In regards to the RKBA & personal liberty when was the last time a clerk at city hall or the DMV employee twisted your arm behind your back, tried to slam you into a wall & took your gun away from you? I may be mistaken, but in reading the relevant post it seems the argument made is that someone being rude whilst sending you to the back of a line is an equivalent? My encounters with such folk do not usually involve physical confrontation, potential loss of life & liberty.
Although I did want to strangle the librarian who was SUCH a help yesterday (remember the plane boarding scene from Meet the Parents?) I was polite.
I am curious as to if you have set up video & audio surveillance in your home & you post that anyone entering the home is consenting to be recorded would the results stand up in court? As Jeff stated I should ask an attorney rather than relying on the internet.
This may be off topic since the LEO probably did not violate constitutional rights, but I have one final question to display my utter ignorance of LE & legal matters. Does every LEO in every department have to take the 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331 Oath of office?
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
pittspilot
Member
Jeff,
You seem to be a straight shooter. It would seem to me that cops like the fellow in the first post would enrage you as much as unethical lawyers annoy me. It makes it very hard to do my job. I don't have any statistics, nor have I seen any studies, but in my day to day dealings in the legal profession there are remarkably few lawyers who retain the ability to be objective about their case, and so they run up their clients bills, unethically in my opinion, without taking care of the problem.
Speaking anecdotally, my perceptions have been the same with the Police, especially in the city I now live in. I almost never have direct contact because I am an honest law abiding citizen. I blend into the scenery, what with my mini-van and three kinds. But I see how they act towards citizens, how they drive and their overall general demeanor.
And it has been my experience that the cops in this city ignore traffic laws with impunity, frequently driving with flagrant aggression that would cause other drivers to go directly to jail. I can't count the number of cops who drive down my quiet neighborhood street at twice the speed limit as a matter of course.
I have watched them behave poorly in court, and display no respect for judges, or anyone else.
And, again, in my experience, these are the vast majority of interactions I have had. It's disappointing. Cops are there to protect and serve. It's a tough job. Cops have to deal with the scum of the earth who are uninterested in telling them the truth, and would just as soon kill them as spit on them. But it seems to me that the cops in my town have lumped me in with those guys. At least that's the attitude.
You seem to be a straight shooter. It would seem to me that cops like the fellow in the first post would enrage you as much as unethical lawyers annoy me. It makes it very hard to do my job. I don't have any statistics, nor have I seen any studies, but in my day to day dealings in the legal profession there are remarkably few lawyers who retain the ability to be objective about their case, and so they run up their clients bills, unethically in my opinion, without taking care of the problem.
Speaking anecdotally, my perceptions have been the same with the Police, especially in the city I now live in. I almost never have direct contact because I am an honest law abiding citizen. I blend into the scenery, what with my mini-van and three kinds. But I see how they act towards citizens, how they drive and their overall general demeanor.
And it has been my experience that the cops in this city ignore traffic laws with impunity, frequently driving with flagrant aggression that would cause other drivers to go directly to jail. I can't count the number of cops who drive down my quiet neighborhood street at twice the speed limit as a matter of course.
I have watched them behave poorly in court, and display no respect for judges, or anyone else.
And, again, in my experience, these are the vast majority of interactions I have had. It's disappointing. Cops are there to protect and serve. It's a tough job. Cops have to deal with the scum of the earth who are uninterested in telling them the truth, and would just as soon kill them as spit on them. But it seems to me that the cops in my town have lumped me in with those guys. At least that's the attitude.
Thin Black Line
Member
+1. In fact, I'll go a step further and say there are bad cops because of
bad attorneys (prosecutors & Judges) and levels of corrupt government
above them.
This kind of stuff doesn't happen unless you have people in power who
allow it:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ed_1190111744
Jeff, you're right that "politics" can't be handled anymore in the "legal" forum
on THR because Americans in general can't handle civil discourse at ANY level
right now.
We'll probably have to wait for some hard times and a generation or two to
pass before attitudes are properly adjusted I guess
pittspilot said;
Thanks. Yes they do enrage me. After 22 years working as a reserve officer, a part time officer and then a full time officer after I retired from the Army I've seen plenty and drawn plenty of opinions.
I've refused to work with people. Told the mayor of a small town I was working in that if they hired this particular officer I was gone. Not that I didn't like the guy, but he was the kind of guy who should never have been doing the job. Quit a job over disagreements about how the job was to be done.
You will find no government entity more responsive to the needs of the citizen then a police department. I suggest that if the officers in your city act this way as a group, it's because their bosses encourage it or for whatever reason allow it to go on. Get a few people in the neighborhood who feel like you do and go sit down with your councilman or alderman. Bet you see a change quickly. It's an easy problem to fix. You just have to change things top down.
Jeff
Thanks. Yes they do enrage me. After 22 years working as a reserve officer, a part time officer and then a full time officer after I retired from the Army I've seen plenty and drawn plenty of opinions.
I've refused to work with people. Told the mayor of a small town I was working in that if they hired this particular officer I was gone. Not that I didn't like the guy, but he was the kind of guy who should never have been doing the job. Quit a job over disagreements about how the job was to be done.
You will find no government entity more responsive to the needs of the citizen then a police department. I suggest that if the officers in your city act this way as a group, it's because their bosses encourage it or for whatever reason allow it to go on. Get a few people in the neighborhood who feel like you do and go sit down with your councilman or alderman. Bet you see a change quickly. It's an easy problem to fix. You just have to change things top down.
Jeff
Thin Black Line
Member
LOL, except if you end up in the town in the video link I posted above. Sometimes
the town in "It's a Wonderful Life" does turn into Pottersville. I guess we
can hope video of such incidents --since that's what this thread is suppose
to be about-- eventually push things back toward rational discourse.
While political is no longer in the forum title, there isn't really a lot of political discussion in this thread. No one is pointing to any political party. The discussion is largely about the justice or legal community, not the political side of things. If any discussion does involve politics, its that prosecutors and DAs frequently do bring up their records when running for office, and this is quite factual.
It may not be the case that every prosecutor is compensated and promoted, either directly or indirectly, for their conviction record, but it is hard to imagine that at least some significant portion of them are. I have a friend who used to work as a prosecutor several years back in a large Michigan community; I will ask him about it.
I am sure that some cities are real good about not exagerating charges or paying their prosecutors for high conviction rates, but one bad apple does seem to spoil the bunch. This holds true for LEOs. While most are very professional in their duties, it doesn't take much to cast a black cloud over the entire LEO community.
It may not be the case that every prosecutor is compensated and promoted, either directly or indirectly, for their conviction record, but it is hard to imagine that at least some significant portion of them are. I have a friend who used to work as a prosecutor several years back in a large Michigan community; I will ask him about it.
I am sure that some cities are real good about not exagerating charges or paying their prosecutors for high conviction rates, but one bad apple does seem to spoil the bunch. This holds true for LEOs. While most are very professional in their duties, it doesn't take much to cast a black cloud over the entire LEO community.
Deanimator
Member
I'll be fifty in December. To the best of my knowledge in my ENTIRE life, that has never produced lasting results in the City of Chicago. In fact, I'm unaware of it producing transitory results of a positive nature.
The ONLY thing of which I am aware which has moderated the behavior of the Chicago Police Department is criminal prosecution, and or civil litigation. And even that rarely has more than an ephemeral result.
In the early '60s, the revelation of a burglary ring operating inside the Chicago PD led to the hiring of O.W. Wilson as Police Superintendent, and the institution of "reforms". These measures had a marginal effect for a limited time.
The "police riot" during the 1968 Democratic National Convention again focussed attention upon the Chicago PD. When the spotlight faded, the CPD returned to its traditional behaviors.
The revelation of systematic use of physical torture to extract confessions by the Chicago PD again directed attention to that organization's internal culture and behavior. I am currently unaware of organized torture activities within the Chicago PD... but then I was unaware of the previous activities under Commander Jon Burge... who through a combination of mis, mal and non-feasance by authorities, is retired in Florida running a chartered boat service, his legal bills payed by the taxpayers of Chicago.
The recent revelations of vicious attacks by offduty Chicago police officers on non-police have led to placing of PART of the police discipline process directly under Mayor Daley... the SAME Mayor Daley who was State's Attorney when the most vicious acts of torture were occurring under the supervision of Commander Jon Burge, and who also used these same "confessions" extracted under torture to achieve criminal convictions, sometimes in capital cases. Coincidentally, in recent settlement talks with the victims, city attorneys acted in effect as legal representation for Mayor Daley, devoting as much or more effort to shielding him from future investigation or litigation as to representing the interests of the City of Chicago as a whole. Strangely, a settlement touted by the Daley administration during a contested primary election in which the challenger linked Daley to Burge, was later claimed by those same administration sources NOT to exist... after Daley won the election.
Finally (for now), the discovery of a home invasion, kidnapping, and burglary ring within the Chicago PD's "elite" Special Operations Section has brought the involvement of Federal Prosecutor Fitzgerald (of Scooter Libby fame). Seemingly, NO measure either legal OR political has managed to moderate the ongoing criminality within the Chicago PD. Perhaps ONLY Federal criminal prosecution (and an even BIGGER civil judgement in the Weems case) will have more than a trivial effect on the behavior of the Chicago PD... if then.
I'm not pulling any moderator card. There is no constitutional right not to be treated poorly. What the former officer did was wrong, and a violation of policy, but there was no civil rights violation....
Jeff
Jeff
F4GIB,
I can't wait.....
Glad you had a good weekend. Mine was pretty good too.
Jeff
I can't wait.....
Glad you had a good weekend. Mine was pretty good too.
Jeff
Manufacturing evidence to arrest someone is not a violation of civil rights? It is the definition of abuse of authority under the color of law.
Do it and I will make book you will have very heavy attorney fees.
Keep protecting and making excuses for the bad ones and they will make you and every other good cop look BAD.
He didn't manufacture any evidence now did he? I'm but what he said in anger was wrong, but it was not a violation of the young man's civil rights. He was rightfully fired. And I don't think he should be allowed to work anywhere as a police officers. But he did not violate his civil rights.
Jeff
Jeff after reading the original post again I will have to go with your statements.
However he can still have problems monetarily for the threat alone.
I still wonder with the kind of statement made by him whether he did do it to someone. Hate to say but he came up with that idea on his own mouthing it off to citizens. Glad he is not able to do it anymore.
However he can still have problems monetarily for the threat alone.
I still wonder with the kind of statement made by him whether he did do it to someone. Hate to say but he came up with that idea on his own mouthing it off to citizens. Glad he is not able to do it anymore.
waterhouse
Member
Follow up: The Missouri officer, James Kuehnlein, in the original thread (the one yelling at the guy parked in the commuter lot and saying that he can "make up 9 charges" . . . http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=301770 ) has been fired. I wasn't sure whether to start a new thread or not.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/21/madcop.video.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/21/madcop.video.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
Deanimator
Member
There are other ways to hit him where it hurts as well.
FLOOD the system with correspondence detailing his behavior. That's not the kind of publicity within an organization that usually enhances upward mobility. People in general take the path of least resistance. That may mean promoting somebody ELSE with a lower public profile.
In addition, WIDELY publicize the behavior. That will attract the attention of past, present and future defense attorneys whose clients interact with him. He could spend a LOT of time in court answering the question, "Officer Smedlap, were you lying when you testified against my client or were you lying when you threatened to falsely prosecute this other fellow?"
ServiceSoon
Member
Maybe the right to be treated fairly and with respect is what the 9th amendment is all about. Treat me like a human; not your property.
- Status
