Discussion in 'Legal' started by Autolycus, Jul 18, 2007.
It just goes to show....
Ya know, with stuff like this going on is it any wonder that there is a VERY big rift between LEO's and the public? Theres no accountability or honesty.
Just read some of the posts here on THR, a pro freedom site, and you'll understand the rift.
Gee in Chicago? Now what are the odds of that?
One thing to remember is that even though they have complaints against them, it does not mean they are legitimate in some cases.
Chicago cops are crying a river over having these complaints becoming available: http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com
OTOH, it is hard to believe that with so many complaints against just a few officers that none of them are legit.
Keep in mind, many police departments make it very unpleasant for you to even file a complaint. Most people probably just give up rather than go through the rigmarole just to get the form.
Very true especially in a place like Chicago. Isnt that where JJ and his ilk often ply their trade.
Sounds like another ambulance chaser to me but I could be wrong. She could have the best interest of the public in mind and not money.
Records should be released if validated.
Records should not be released if unfounded.
People can't do a job for money, only for the public interest? I wish I could afford to be so altruistic. If the case has merit, I don't see a problem.
Wasn't it the Romans who asked:
"Who will guard the guards ?"
I have seen that. Instead of posting all the details of what happened, I'll just say that I called the PD to file a complaint against a LEO, and when the Officer came out to talk to me, the first thing he gave me was a phamplet telling about how I would be prosecuted if my claim turned out to be false.
Eventually I just forgot about it. I generally try to avoid the police because I have seen to many times how they are not working for me, but for the politicians.
I see your point.
and the officer could "sue me" if charges were unfound . that's a quote from the police LT . Scare tactics ? Most John Q Citizen's will just walk away . the cop's know that and bank on it .
When considering that question, remember that Alvin Weems, a Chicago cop, shot an unarmed, unaggressive man in the head, while standing under transit company video cameras. After killing the man, he continues to converse with another man as though nothing untoward had happened at all.
After the shooting, the officer, apparently unaware that there was video of the killing, spun an incredible story of being surrounded, people trying to snatch his gun (he'd left his primary service weapon UNATTENDED on the ground elsewhere), fearing for his life and so-forth. A virtual frame by frame analysis of the video by a local weekly newspaper shows that everything he said was a lie. The Chicago PD machine, up to and including the Superintendent echoed these lies. The shooting was claimed to be an accident. If I remember correctly, the victim was killed with a Ruger SP-101 double action revolver. I invite anyone who thinks he can, to explain how it's possible to "accidentally" shoot someone with a Ruger SP-101 with the hammer down. Ruger revolvers aren't exactly renowned for their light, silky smooth double action. It's simply inconceiveable that someone "accidentally" shot someone DOUBLE ACTION with a Ruger. That means that either Weems was waving a cocked revolver around in a public place (gross negligence) or he INTENTIONALLY shot the victim, Michael Pleasance, in the head with a long, double action pull. I vote for the latter.
After the video became public knowledge, the Chicago PD did everything in its power to keep it from being released to the public.
A police disciplinary board recommended that Weems be fired. The Superintendent of Police, Phil Cline, stepped in and overruled the board, instead giving him a THIRTY DAY SUSPENSION for what appears at best to be manslaughter.
To this day, Weems has not been charged with a crime. Since the shooting, he has been PROMOTED to Detective.
The family of Michael Pleasance is sueing the City of Chicago and Weems. They will no doubt win, aided in no small part by Weems's recent admission under oath that the shooting was not justified.
This despicable farce is merely one in a long series of crimes and attendant coverups perpetrated by the Chicago PD. The two recent beatings by intoxicated Chicago cops were also followed by failures to respond properly to 911 calls, failures to charge criminally, attempts to undercharge the perpetrators, intimidation against victims and witnesses, attempts to conceal the crimes from the public, preferential treatment towards the perpetrators, intimidation and harassment of the media, and various combinations of the foregoing acts.
Then there's the long history of organized torture of suspects by the Chicago PD. But that's a story for another day...
The Chicago Police are undoubtly a reflection of the police brass and the politicians who run Chicago. They serve themselves rather than the people. Keep up the fine work Herr Daly!!!
Dang o dang man Guess I'm wrong on this one. Looks like Chicago's power that beees, well how do I say it SUX!!!
Unfounded by whom? Internal Affairs? That's exactly the problem that's being fought here--IA providing no meaningful oversight. It is vital that the records be released so that the citizens (the government's employer) can evaluate the performance of their employees.
Records should be released period.
The problem with the "unfounded" part of you statement is you are assuming that when the police determine one of their own did no wrong that they are in fact correct.
I think you would be shocked at just how far police will allow one of their own to go before they decide its too far. Many police officers have committed very serious crimes and even though their brother officers know exactly what they did, they chose to do nothing at all about it. Internal affairs is mostly about going after cops who aggravate the brass and politicians and covering up anything else.
In Chicago the question is not so much of the "correctness" of the findings of any internal police investigation of police misconduct or criminal acts, as of the TRUTHFULNESS of any such findings.
As the Weems case conclusively proves, UNtruthfulness is a hallmark of any "investigations" which the Chicago PD does of itself, from the Superintendent on down. TruthFUL findings will be overridden by the chain of command when deemed necessary.
Before this turns into a cop-bashing thread, please keep in mind that Chicago cops are pretty much a twisted breed unto themselves. I would say that no meaningful assumptions could possibly be made about police in general based on the actions of the Chicago PD.
Being from Chicago, I am naturally mistrustful of police.
That having been said, living outside of Chicago has allowed me to see police who do NOT commit murders, as well as police administrators who do NOT cover up murders.
The Cleveland PD is by no means a model of law enforcement efficiency or purity of character. At the same time, the Cleveland PD actually FIRES officers who misbehave, unlike the Chicago PD which PROMOTES them.
The character of the Chicago PD is a DIRECT result of the character of that city's government, and in turn of the people who elect that government. Chicagoans have gotten the government which they wanted. In turn that government has gotten the police which it wanted.
I consider myself privileged to live in a town (Rocky River, Ohio) where the police ARE distinguishable from criminals, and where if you encounter them, on official business or otherwise, you need not fear for you for your life. Those are two qualities UTTERLY lacking in the Chicago PD.
I'm from Chicago
The cops are a bunch of out of control thugs. Always have been
But "the man" (including the police) want more access to our information... Strange...
Hard to trust Daley 'reform'--Carol Marin
Hard to trust Daley 'reform'
July 18, 2007
BY CAROL MARIN Sun-Times Columnist
Reform? Transparency? Or same old, same old?
Thursday, the Chicago City Council will vote on Mayor Daley's proposal to reform the way police misconduct and brutality complaints are handled.
In the wake of embarrassing television images of off-duty Officer Anthony Abbate whaling away on a female bartender and another bunch of off-duty Chicago cops caught on videotape beating the bejesus out of a bunch of guys in a bar, Daley has ordered the dawning of a new day. He's proposed revamping the Office of Professional Standards, the secretive, civilian agency that has historically done too little, too late, and sometimes nothing at all to tackle rogue officers who betray the public trust and, along the way, taint the reputations of a majority of honorable cops.
How will the mayor's reform be accomplished?
Ah, that's the rub.
Under the mayor's plan, OPS, which now reports to the superintendent of Chicago Police, would answer to Daley.
That would be the same Mayor Daley who has done everything but stand on his head to avoid a thorough, thoughtful or completely candid public discussion of past police abuses that date all the way back to his days as the Cook County state's attorney. The same Mayor Daley whose law department continues to pay millions of dollars to outside legal firms to defend 20- and 30-year-old cases of police torture that center on a rogue clan of cops who reported to former Cmdr. Jon Burge, now living comfortably on a police pension in Florida. It's the same Mayor Daley whose law department has run circles around at least three distinguished federal judges by bailing out of an agreed upon $14.8 million settlement to torture victims and by refusing to deliver their client, the mayor, to sit for a deposition demanded by a federal magistrate.
Just this week, it was Mayor Daley's lawyers who appealed U.S. District Court Judge Joan Lefkow's order to release the names of cops who had 10 or more citizen complaints against them. A total of 662 officers -- 5 percent of the force --have exhibited conduct that any sensible police department and any transparent, reform-minded mayor should want to take a very close look at. Not to mention we, the public, who pay all their salaries.
But no, no, no. The city insists we just don't understand that these are personnel matters, and so they are secret. Off-limits not to be disclosed.
How do you charge off into the future when you haven't honestly dealt with the past? A past, when it comes to unacknowledged, unaddressed cop abuse, that is a stain on this city. And, by extension, a stain on officers who had absolutely nothing to do with it. Let's remember that there are approximately 13,200 cops on the force and 19 out of every 20 do not have a stack of citizen complaints against them.
Of the ones who do, we're told some have been exonerated, others have not, and some units have way more complaints than others.
The only reason we even have those small bits of information is that Jamie Kalven, a Chicago writer, spent years begging for someone, anyone to pay attention to the case of a woman named Diane Bonds who lived in public housing and was shamefully abused by police. Bonds won a federal lawsuit and a $150,000 settlement from the city. But the mayor and his law department don't want us peering more closely into the discovery in the Bonds case to see all the evidence that caused her to win and the city to lose. That's why the city is fighting Lefkow's order to open up the files and let the sunshine in.
So Thursday, when the City Council takes up the mayor's revamp of OPS, maybe the aldermen can explain it to us. Maybe they can tell us why we should believe in promises of transparency when we're still choked to death by secrecy.
I read the second city cop site. Wow.
I guess I would say that "if the cop didn't do anything wrong, no complaint would have been filed."
Same logic as "he wouldn't have been arrested if he wasn't breaking the law."
Sarcasm, obviously, but the logic goes both ways. I'm tired of two sets of standards.
Separate names with a comma.