NYPD still hasn't questioned Officers

[Blackfork]

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/12/01/double-standards-and-police-shootings/

So the NYPD Internal Affairs haven't got around to talking to the officers involved in the Queens groom shooting and some other good things about being a sworn police officer. In Georgia, a police officer can be present in the Grand Jury room, with his lawyer, AND make a statement.

Pretty interesting reading about our public servants.

 

[Jeff White]

I think the author should do some research before he goes off on a tangent:

Yesterday, NYT columnist Bob Herbert observed (subscr. required) that the cops involved in the shooting death of Sean Bell have still not been questioned by internal affairs detectives. Compare that situation with a John Q. Citizen who claims to have shot someone in self-defense. The cops want to question John Q. as soon as possible — especially before he “lawyers up,” as they say on TV. By the same logic, internal affairs investigators should want to quickly question cops who are involved in questionable shootings.

The internal affairs officers don't investigate NYPD shootings. The investigations are done by the district attorney's office. That is why the IA people haven't spoken to them. It's not their jurisdiction.

Jeff

 

[bill2]

question on that

Is there a general rule of thumb on officer involved shootings? Would the DA's office wait a certain amount of time before questioning the officer/s on what happened? Is this law or a department regulation?

Thanks

 

[wiredwrx]

And this means/proves what? Or are you one of the "the absence of something is the proof that something is wrong/bad" people?

Michael

 

[dave_pro2a]

I guess they will wait long enough for the "I forget" defense to become effective

 

[wiredwrx]

I am not sure that "I FORGOT" is a defense. Sounds to me more like saying "I FORGOT" means a definite conviction.

Michael

 

[JohnBT]

"Would the DA's office wait a certain amount of time before questioning the officer/s on what happened?"

The DA's office IS questioning them. It's the POLICE who aren't allowed to talk to them. The Police Chief has been quoted numerous times on this. Even he can't talk to them until the DA finishes the investigation.

John

 

[Manedwolf]

They have, however, detained and interrogated people in the surrounding area, trying to "flush out" a witness, as they even said.

 

[tellner]

I'm sure they will give the officers enough time to come up with a consistent story that will exonerate them. If you or I had shot a bunch of holes in people they'd have been interrogating us within minutes.

 

[JohnBT]

One more time. The police are not allowed to interrogate the police being investigated there. The DA is doing the interrogating.

Don't the facts matter or do some of you just like being silly?

Education is the cure for ignorance.

John

 

[tellner]

No matter who is doing it, the cops are getting it artificially easy. The DA's people could have questioned them immediately, just like they would any other suspect. Giving them time to coordinate their whole defense and get their stories to match is rotten investigative procedure no matter who signs the paycheck.

 

[C96]

tellner - How do you know that the DA's office has not yet questioned them ?
Or has delayed in questioning them ?

allan

 

[Pilgrim]

In the department I worked for, the deputy sheriffs association had an attorney on call to represent deputies involved in shootings. As a result, deputies were instructed to give only the barest essentials of the circumstances leading to the shooting, then wait for the association's attorney to arrive to help with the deputy's final statement.

For a district attorney's investigator to try to continue to question the deputy after he asked for the association's attorney would be viewed as a violation of Fifth Amendment protections.

Internal Affairs' purview in a shooting investigation was to determine if the deputy acted within department policy. Because Internal Affairs could compel a statement, any information gained by that statement was off limits to the district attorney's investigation, and for good reason. Failure to answer an Internal Affairs investigator's questions could lead to termination of employment.

Pilgrim

 

[Coronach]

1. The newsblurb says that IA has not spoken to the officers.

2. The newsblurb does not say that the DA's office has not spoken to the officers.

3. IA cannot speak to the officers ahead of the DA's office, because if you do that you will be fouling up the criminal investigation. Criminally, officers have certain rights- the exact same rights as everyone else. Most critically, they have their fifth amendment right against self incrimination. Administratively, they have very few protections- and the right to remain silent is not among them. They can and will be ordered to speak. So if IA conducts an administrative investigation and an officer incriminates himself, that statement might very well be inadmissable in the criminal case. So, the criminal investigation is conducted first. This is one reason why internal investigations take so long.

Once again, we see a media that is painfully ignorant of the facts, and posters who are willing to jump to conclusions that bolster their preconcieved notions.

Mike

 

[Coronach]

If you or I had shot a bunch of holes in people they'd have been interrogating us within minutes.

Of course. And if your first statement was "I would like to speak to a lawyer before we go any further, thank you", you would also be done with your "interrogation" within one minute and fifteen seconds.



Mike