Ever-increasing restrictions on police use-of-force

Status
Not open for further replies.
I also think people are way to dependent on the government. We had a case locally where a guy had to be given treatments for a disease that were extremely expensive. He couldn't afford the treatments so he violated a law and was thrown in jail. The county could not afford to pay for his treatments so they let him out on probation. He broke his probation the next day and was sent back to jail. The county somehow got him sent to a federal institution that could afford to pay for his treatments.:mad: Just like the junkies, alcholics, glue sniffers etc. they don't worry about what happens to their bodies, the government will take care of them when their minds or bodies are no longer functional. Jails and prisons should be like going to the emergency dept. at the hospital and having no insurance. They are required to stablize you, then you are on your own.
 
I think Clipper did a better job of speaking my thoughts than I could. Thanx Clipper.

There should be NO plea bargains. If the evidence is there, convict him in court. If it is not there, release him.
The police, and the prosecutor, and the judge should NOT be allowed to lie to a citizen. (Call him citizen, victim, or suspect, as you wish, it changes nothing.)

If you run off at the mouth around an aggressive law enforcement officer eventually you will say something he can arrest you for.

I think this is one of the main reasons there are so few witnesses to crime, and so many people refuse to get involved.
Dial 911, and when the police arrive, tell them you saw this guy break and enter, or whatever. The officers first questions are "Who are YOU? Why are YOU here? What were YOU doing? Why did YOU yell at him and chase him off when we might have caught him?"

Sabre? Any other officers here? I hope this thread is informative, and you remember it the next time someone says, "No, Officer, I did not see anything."

The system is broken, I hope it can be fixed, but I have no answers.
 
Sabre? Any other officers here? I hope this thread is informative, and you remember it the next time someone says, "No, Officer, I did not see anything."

Nobody's ever told me that, and I don't question home-owners who have been broken into. I wouldn't chastize them for chasing the guy out, either (except maybe to remind them that they shouldn't jeopordize themselves unneccessarily).

Why shouldn't we be allowed to decieve a citizen-suspect? Keep in mind there is very clear and very restrictive case law regarding police conduct prior to a confession, to include some restriction on deception and a total restriction on any type of "promise".

So why shouldn't we be allowed to use deception? We already have to Mirandize, so they know they can shut up if they want. If they say "no questions", we are already legally bound to stop questioning altogether.

They have enough tools, and we have plenty of restrictions that the public is probably totally unaware of. Why tie our hands any further?

There should be NO plea bargains. If the evidence is there, convict him in court.

I agree that the above is an ideal scenario. Would the public be willing to pay the enourmous tax increases required to increase the size of the court system to a level that is sufficient to take every case to trial?

As it is, the plea bargain is how 99 out of 100 misdemeanor cases end up. Without it, the system would grind to a halt. The "speedy trial" that the accused have a right to would not be possible because of case back-log.

I agree that the plea-bargain system is flawed, and that there are people that plead guilty when they are not, or at least when evidence is insufficient to convict. What's the solution, and is the public willing to pay for it?

The system is broken, I hope it can be fixed, but I have no answers.

It sure is, and I do, too, and neither do I
 
I agree that the plea-bargain system is flawed, and that there are people that plead guilty when they are not, or at least when evidence is insufficient to convict. What's the solution, and is the public willing to pay for it?
Cut out the BS, like, oh, say, most misdemeanors! Stop harrassing citizens over stupid BS like, oh, say, contempt of cop when a citizen starts talking about their rights.

But we can't have THAT! There's money to be made, and the serfs must cower before their masters!:cuss:
 
It's as simple as that. The more you restrict Law Enforcement abilities crime will continue to increase.

Sorry but there's this document, that's been around for a Coupla hundred years...Its called the Constitution (and lets's add in the BOR).....

LE SHOULD be able to do their job, within the constarints of the Consitution.....Yes, they be given a little leeway(e.g.lying to a suspect, under the right circumstances) but for the most part they need to follow the rules.
 
As the son of two people who lived, and nearly died, under Hitler, I'll gladly trade a bit of street crime for restrictions -- EXTREME restrictions -- on the police state, thank you. If that's the choice I have to make, it's the easiest choice ever. Let me carry a gun legally, and use it for legitimate self-defense without fear of civil or criminal penalties, and it's even easier.

Sadly, many native-born Americans are so clueless, it seems they think that having the Gestapo would be better than having, oh, I don't know, neighbors that are high. Hopefully, they're just not thinking much at all, because if they ARE thinking, the conclusion would be even more frightening.
 
I've been lied to and deceived by a LEO, actually 2, at the same time... during questioning about an event i had NO PART OF... i was only guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and was "assumed" to be part of the group. I protested that fact as i was having my polaroid taken and later was picked up for questioning at my home.... so 3AM in the morning with 2 city officers at the cop shop in downtown Houghton... one playing good cop the other bad cop... making serious threatening statements of incarceration, felony charges, ruining of your life, threats to inform family members of you sitting there being part of some crime you had no part of, resulting expulsion from school... demanding a confession in writing before them... when all i could say was i wasn't involved and yes i know the people but i was not with them (small town and campus)... I was just meandering innocently back home from the bar minding my own business... to this day you have no idea how that boils my blood and how i would handle the situation differently now that i am older, wiser and understand and take my rights seriously...

I've also been pulled over for a "bogus" stop by a Calhoun County Sheriff's deputy... coming from a customer's place of business to a friends home that did not live far away... when asked why i was pulled over i was told i crossed the yellow line on the side of the road when turning... btw i was trying to shift gears and eat my happy meal at the same time... he took great offense when i stated that the line at the corner was white... gee a fabricated reason to make a traffic stop in order to "investigate"... at that point i became a suspect and was asked what all the boat parts were in the bed and front seat of my truck... my broken sterndrive and all of the replacement parts and tools to do it were the answer... to which his reply... you are awful young to have a boat aren;t you... what, 30 is too young? guess since i had the lil beater ranger i must be a poor schmuck who lives in my double wide and lives off of welfare... being alone on a deserted country road with an officer nearly twice your size standing over you is kind of intimidating... i was nervous as any innocent suspect, alone, would be... he of course picked up on that and ran with it... asked if he could search my truck... to which i said take a hike... he ran my license.. and was sure to state that i hope you have a clean record... whatever that means.. guess he was fishing... but my record is so clean it nearly squeaks unless you count that seatbelt ticket back in about 92... i went on my merry way and the guy had the nads to follow me the 4 miles to my friends home... and as i wsa getting out of my truck in the driveway i saw him drive back past...

and people wonder why it is an US vs THEM mentality... I don't believe lying and deception have ANY part in an investigation... innocent until PROVEN guilty.. and it is up to the LEO to make the case.. not trick or pressure or deceive someone into incriminating themselves... some liberal judge or politician or lawyer somewhere who doesn't hold the constitution in the utmost regard may have made some ruling that allows for this crap to take place but that doesn't mean it is right.. morally or ethically...

FS
 
Sergeant Sabre:

I think you will find most folks here sympathetic to cops in situations requiring quick life & death-type decisions*. I also understand how difficult it can be to get compliance from struggling folks.

You will find much less sympathy for bad decisions made:
1. After deliberation
2. Because of bad policy**
3. To maintian dominance

Use of tools like deception may be a net gain for LEOs***, but it causes many solid citizens to view police officers as untrustworty. This is a natural result of the use of deception and really ought to be expected by LEOs with any smarts. My LEO buddies even tell me to never trust a LEO, for the love of Pete! The buddy who was renowned for interrogation was especially adamant never to trust LEOs.

I am not worried too much about a street cop's toolset. Firearms, stick, OC spray, Taser, whatever. They are all just tools and will be used or misused depending on the character of the user.

* Unless that decision is forced by the LEO or poor policy. I have no sympathy for the LEO who, in the middle of a no-knock raid, kills innocent folks. Sorry, but that did not have to happen.

** The aforementioned no-knocks to prevent potential loss of evidence, etc. rather than to prevent loss of life.

*** Number of BGs convicted using deception is greater than the number of BGs not convicted because folks do not trust the police & clam up or never contact the police.
 
No-knock warrants are illegal in Michigan, by the way, under any circumstances. LEOs are absolutely required to knock and announce before forcing entry. Unless a very good reason can be articulated, we are also required to wait "a reasonable amount of time for somebody to come to the door even from the furthest reaches of the residence".

No-knock = no evidence in court

Number of BGs convicted using deception is greater than the number of BGs not convicted because folks do not trust the police & clam up or never contact the police.

I don't get the connection. Why would not-guilty folks clam up because the police might deceive a suspect by telling them their buddy is talking about them in the other room, or misrepresenting their evidence? Not-guilty people immediately know that's not true. Guilty people may get nervous and make an incriminating admission (which will be carefully scrutinized by the court before being allowed as evidence)

...threats to inform family members of you sitting there being part of some crime you had no part of...

A confession resulting from this would clearly be inadmissable in court, based on case law. Any confession or admission resulting from a coercive atmosphere is inadmissable. That includes anything along the lines of "if you don't do 'A' (confess), then bad-thing 'B' will happen"

The thing that I think many people don't understand about confessions, is that a confession alone can't secure a conviction. That's the law. A confession must be supported by some type of evidence. That could be actual physical evidence, or the fact that the confessor knows certain details that only the perpetrator could know.

Also, I realize that there are some cops out there who are just plain irritating and rude. I know that cops exist that do look at everybody like a suspect. There are also those out there that seem to fail to make a distinction between the arrest(s) they make and a conviction, and those that like to be disrespectful and rude to suspects just for the sake of making them mad, or mentally masturbating themselves.
They are not in the majority, but they are the ones we hear of. The people I pull over for having a tail light out, that I am polite and respectful of, and who didn't know their light was out and appreciate me letting them know, won't tell anybody about the polite, respectul officer that pulled them over.
 
Rude, decietful and dishonest cops can continue to poison all cops' image because of the 'protect our own' mentality that looks the other way instead of rooting them out. It's just like the bikers saying that when they do good, noone remembers, and when they do bad, noone forgets...The only ones that can clean up your immage is YOU. Don't expect sympathy from me when you're tarred by your partner, 'cause the only reason he's getting away with it is because the guy sharing the car with him isn't busting him for it. You guys are your own worst enemy. We're simply reacting to the stimulus received, and there's lots of us that aren't impressed. Nobody can clean up cops' immage but cops, and so far, they're not doing a very good job...

BTW, I don't go around looking for a reason to dislike police. I'll be as nice as you are. However, I will not be abused, nor will I be treated like a suspect. I had to earn this CPL by a lifetime of lawful behavior, and I expect that cop to keep that in mind.
 
A bit of drift about plea bargains: The only datum I have concerns Queens, New York. At that time (10 years back?) there were some 4,400 felony indictments per year in Queens. Just Queens, not all of NYC. They had courtroom facilities and personnel (judges, clerks, bailiffs) to handle some 450 cases per year.

Think tax $$$.

Art
 
A bit of drift about plea bargains: The only datum I have concerns Queens, New York. At that time (10 years back?) there were some 4,400 felony indictments per year in Queens. Just Queens, not all of NYC. They had courtroom facilities and personnel (judges, clerks, bailiffs) to handle some 450 cases per year.

Think tax $$$.

Art

A perfect example. Would the residents of Queens accept the tax increase for ten times the court staff and facilities?
 
Well, I must withdraw the optimism of my earlier post. :( A simple request to list the statute that enables police to engage in drug dealing, for the purpose of arresting citizens for a lesser offense (drug possession). The claim was made that these very specific statutes exist, should be a simple verification, eh?

Re: Official deception. Yes, .gov has embraced deception with much enthusiasm, and it has produced results. However, those who practice the art of deception, as part of their job, become hardened and completely unaware how it creeps into their lives. Any remorse initially felt about lying gets pushed down with some version of the rationalization "the ends justify the means". We are to believe official lying is strictly limited to mirandized interrogation. Some have questioned how "suspects", "witnesses", and "citizens" are mixed up, depending on the circumstance. No clear reply.

Here's a little example of "official lying" from Michigan. [Discussed on this forum] A few years ago, Scott Woodring's home was raided in a warrant service. In the process, an officer was shot. The raid team retreated, and they thought the suspect was barricaded in the house (he actually escaped). In a second assault on the (empty) house, police claimed to use a "flash bang". Except that a news camera was running, and the roof of the house was actually lifted up in the explosion, and a fireball rolled out the front door. Turns out the "flash bang" was in fact several pounds of mining explosives! Oops, no one would know if the cameras weren't running! Fully authorized lying, presumably no one was brought to the bar for it. BTW, there was supposed to be a ballistic investigation of the shooting to rule out "friendly fire" in the initial shooting; that has never surfaced either, to my knowledge.:confused:
http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1378835

Why is it again that the OP is completely bewildered when restrictions are placed on police activity?
 
Saber-

Maybe because I don't know what lure you have thrown at the guy in the other room and what lies he is saying to try and save his own skin? Maybe because having three guys questioning you in intimidating to the average person? Intimidating enough to trip them up with something? Ever heard of nervous? There is no reason to try and make someone confess, if oyu have the evidence to convict them you don't need a confession out of them so either get your evidence or leave the citizen alone.

As to plea bargins it depends on the case. If it is "Ok you were going 65 in 55 you've got no priors we will drop it to 59 in a 65 if you just plead guilty" ok great. It's a minor offense and all is well to make the persons life a little easier and save the court some time. As to, "Ok flip on your co rapist buddy and we will drop your rape charge to assult and you will be out in a few years" then no, not ok. A weak very iffy case that through some good lawyering in trial makes it look like you wont win? "Just plead guilty and we will recomend blah blah" no, not ok.

As to the case load consider how many of those crimes are related to unjust laws and do the math.
 
Here's a little example of "official lying" from Michigan...

The story you relate is not at all what I'm talking about.

Fully authorized lying...

No it wasn't "authorized" or "legal" at all.

A simple request to list the statute that enables police to engage in drug dealing

Ya, I though it would be easy, too. I am having trouble digging it up, though. I know I've seen it, and I know what it says (allows LEOs to possess controlled substances, but only during course of official duties), but can't find it again.
 
Sergeant Sabre said:
jfruser said:
Number of BGs convicted using deception is greater than the number of BGs not convicted because folks do not trust the police & clam up or never contact the police.
I don't get the connection. Why would not-guilty folks clam up because the police might deceive a suspect by telling them their buddy is talking about them in the other room, or misrepresenting their evidence? Not-guilty people immediately know that's not true.
I can think of several reasons, but two names will start it off:
Scooter Libby
Martha Stewart

Neither was charged with the crimes they were suspected of...because there was no or not enough evidence to do so. They were charged when thier story did not line up with the story the prosecutor believed was true or wanted to be true. IOW, lying to interrogators. What are the odds that their interrogators lied to them?

I think the reason most accessable to most folks is the following: Folks willing to lie to others will lie to you and are generally untrustworthy snakes willing to lie to get what they want. Who wants to spend any more time than they have to around an exceptionally good liar who has the authority to turn your world upside down? Solid citizens with good sense limit their contact with such folk. I sure do.
 
Sgt. sabre, you might enjoy this article...

Apparently, prosecutors were caught hiding/altering court files, in an attempt to influence ongoing trials. So, once caught breaking the law, what is their response? A sincere expression of remorse, acceptance of punishment, and a promise not to repeat the illegal behavior? Well, not exactly...They've introduced a proposal which would permit them to falsify court records!!!:eek:

(Under a judge's supervision, of course.);)

Like I mentioned in an earlier post, one of the damning effects of engaging in lies, is that one's conscience becomes hardened to the practice, the corruption infects every aspect of one's existence. And completely without self-awareness. The fact that prosecutors would propose this bill in the first place, attests to that process. Amazing! And, like the OP in this thread, they are completely oblivious to the fact that some citizens would respond with horror (and want to severely limit their powers), when faced with these deceitful practices. Go figure!

Also raised in this article, is the notion that officials are free to break the law, "so long as there is no corrupt intent". This is one of the most insidious concepts, that is gaining acceptance these days. Basically, it says "the ends justify the means"; laws no longer apply to officials, if some ultimate goal can be articulated. We had a moderator, who's also a cop, state on this forum, that there can be "no misconduct without evil intent". :cuss: Bizarre and troubling, but true!

This will enhance citizens' confidence in government, eh? :rolleyes: Perhaps we should just get it over with, and assume that EVERYTHING the government says is a lie from the start? :barf: :fire:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/states/florida/counties/broward_county/16701053.htm

Prosecutors seek OK to create phony files
Prosecutors are urging a change in state law to allow them to falsify court records in some cases.


By DAN CHRISTENSEN AND PATRICK DANNER
[email protected]

LEADING INQUIRY: Court Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis is conducting a statewide inquiry into the hiding of court records after The Miami Herald reported that hundreds of civil and criminal cases, mostly in Broward County, were kept hidden on secret dockets.

Florida's prosecutors are floating a proposal to the Legislature to give them the power to secretly falsify public court records -- with a judge's approval -- for undercover law enforcement purposes.

Spurred by Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernández Rundle, the draft bill would limit the authority to manufacture and plant fake documents in court files to 180 days. But it also provides for an unlimited number of 30-day extensions.

''Judges would be very involved in the monitoring. It all has to go through a judge,'' said Arthur I. ''Buddy'' Jacobs, general counsel for the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, which supports the bill.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida opposes the idea.

''The fundamental problem is that it so goes against our notion of the way our justice system ought to work,'' said ACLU legislative director Randall Marshall. ``How would we ever be able to trust anything in the judicial record knowing that something could be intentionally falsified with a judicial seal of approval?''

Tallahassee Public Defender Nancy Daniels said the proposal undermines constitutional protections for those charged with crimes.

''Even if this is temporary, what if someone testifies during that time and we never get to know they had a criminal conviction? We can't properly cross-examine to develop their motives for giving testimony,'' Daniels said.

The bill has been prefiled with the Florida Senate for the legislative session that begins March 6.

A second, longer version of the bill has been prefiled with the House. It would convey authority to falsify any public record to prosecutors, judges, mayors, sheriffs, coroners and other public officers unless they were acting corruptly.

The Miami Herald reported late last year how judges and prosecutors in Miami-Dade had official court records altered and kept secret dockets to disguise what was happening in some court cases.

Two cases were uncovered in which court dockets were altered to cover up the felony convictions of informants, but more are known to exist. Chief Assistant State Attorney Jose Arrojo said authorities have altered the public records of informants for two decades.

It is a crime for anyone in Florida, including judges and prosecutors, to alter or falsify court records or proceedings. Violators can be sent to prison for a year.

STATE INQUIRY

The prosecutors' push to change Florida criminal statute 839.13 comes amid a statewide inquiry by Supreme Court Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis into the improper hiding of court records. The probe began last summer after The Miami Herald reported that hundreds of civil and criminal cases, mostly in Broward County, were kept hidden on secret dockets.

More recently, Lewis asked the Florida Bar to examine the propriety of falsifying court records and to recommend rule changes by March 1. The high court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on secret and false dockets March 5.

Rundle sent a letter to the chief justice in December defending the practice of altering public court records as occasionally necessary to protect informants and investigations. She also announced that Miami-Dade judges and prosecutors would no longer ''affirmatively'' falsify dockets.

In response, the Florida Public Defenders Association has asked that the practice be banned.

Ed Griffith, a spokesman for the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office, said the bill is a priority for the prosecutors' association, but declined to comment further.

The Senate sponsor is Dave Aronberg, D-Greenacres, vice chairman of the criminal justice committee. The House sponsor is Rep. Julio Robaina, R-South Miami.

''Ultimately, this protects the public against the evil of corruption,'' Aronberg said. ``It's just another tool. How else can you get at a corrupt judge unless you create false pleadings?''

TWO SCENARIOS

In an e-mail to Aronberg's office, Ted Mannelli, executive director to the state attorney, wrote that prosecutors have used the technique in ``two scenarios.''

''In a very, very, very limited number of cases, perhaps less than five over the last two and one half decades in our circuit, bogus court records have been generated in corruption investigations targeting judges,'' Mannelli wrote.

The other scenario Mannelli described involves any case in which defendants plead guilty and sentencing is deferred to let informants work undercover.

Mannelli did not say how many times that has happened.

He wrote in the e-mail and confirmed in a phone interview that prosecutors believe Florida's prohibition on altering court records doesn't apply to them because they have acted ``without corrupt intent.''

The law, however, makes no such distinction. The Florida Supreme Court also has ruled that a lack of corrupt intent does not excuse the faking of court records.

1997 CASE

Broward County Judge Laran Johnson backdated records in an apparent attempt to keep her caseload low. In 1997, the court removed her from office because ``her knowing and repeated acts of falsifying public records strike at the very heart of judicial integrity.''

Today, prosecutors want the law changed to make sure ''these procedures are clearly legal and allow for their continuation,'' Mannelli said in the email.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top