Positive LEO experiences: hey, at least two finally came clean!

Status
Not open for further replies.
California jury has decided for the plaintiff, that the officers harrassed and intimidated the plaintiff. Like it or not, the jury system is the system we have in this country. Its the best that we have found so far, and until something better comes along we are going to stick with it. Sure, OJ trial was a California jury as well. How about the first Rodney King trial, that was California jury as well. Its not mistake-proof, buts its the best that we have. :cuss:

I do not think I'm piling on LEOs at all. If a LEO were to overstep the bounds of their authority and start using police powers to intimidate and harrass, then the LEO deserves to get slapped down, and slapped down very hard indeed.
 
California jury. Lets think back to some other Cali juries...like OJ's....uh huh. If these guys lied on the stand then certainly, they need to be censured
Click to expand...

Ok, let me get this straight. A LEO advocating censure as sufficient penalty for a fellow LEO committing the crime of perjury, all the while demeaning the jury system, an integral part of the law he swore to uphold.

I'm confused :confused:
 
I've been driving for years without a single ticket so far. An average of one every four months over a five year period certainly is excessive.
 
California jury. Lets think back to some other Cali juries...
Click to expand...

Jesus, has it no end?

Blame the jury, blame the victim, blame my mother... but for heavens sake, we can't blame the COPS, can we? :banghead:

James
 
Blame the jury, blame the victim, blame my mother... but for heavens sake, we can't blame the COPS, can we?
Click to expand...
No, we can't blame the COPS. Cops are always right. The public is always wrong. Cops, by virtue of them being cops, and volunteering to protect and to serve (the general public, they don't have a duty to protect individuals, and they do not allow citizens to protect themselves because they would hurt themselves if they were allowed to carry concealed) are always right, because they are the keepers of the LAW.

Did I get that right? Do I get brownie points for supporting Law Enforcement? When can I expect my Lon Hiruchi medal? :what:
 
Ok, let me get this straight. A LEO advocating censure as sufficient penalty for a fellow LEO committing the crime of perjury, all the while demeaning the jury system, an integral part of the law he swore to uphold.
Click to expand...
Penalities wil be determined in accordance with the agency disciplinary procedures.
I support the jury process, but you have to admit that juries have certainly had problems with giving huge awards against people/ organizations they feel have deep pockets.
Amazing how this topic is viewed entirely differently between boards like this one and LEO boards.........
 
Of course it's viewed differently.

This, a board advocating rights, freedom, and responsibility.

That, a board comprised of the "thin blue line"
 
Other issues aside, thats not particularly "excessive". Thirteen times in five years? Come on....thats less than one stop every 4 months.Thats supposed to be "targeting" a driver? I have stopped and cited the same person twice in one week before.....does that mean I am now "targeting" that driver? No...it means that that person happened to commit two violations on different days in my presence.
Click to expand...
Is 13 stops in 5 years evidence of wrong doing on the part of the cops? No .
Is it out of the ordinary? Certainly
Is it something to investigate when a charge of targeting has been made?Yeah.

Is it worthy of punishment when it is proven that those 13 tickets in 5 years were the result of vengeful targeting.
Oh, HELL YEAH!
 
I think it is very telling indeed, when out of an entire profession, claiming to represent law and order and by extention, honesty in general, the two that told the truth were the exceptions.

This guy obviously has more patience than I do.
If I found that someone was definately out to get me and I knew that there was very little chance that LE would do aything other than cover for him, I'd have to settle things in some manner other than through the court system.

I found out long ago that no one in LE is obligated to tell you the truth and many consider that a blank check to lie.
As a result, I don't feel any obligation to tell LE the truth about diddly skwat.

And, for the record, I've had plenty of tickets. Deserved most of them, too.
However, if I started getting more than usuall and they all came from the same officer, I would begin to take it personnally.
 
TCSD exchanged:
quote:tcsd chooses to focus on ticket frequency while minimizing the teensy little bit about... LYING ON THE FRICKING WITNESS STAND.

TCSD responded:

I have not ignored it, it is simply another issue totally separate from the issue how many tickets this guy got.
Click to expand...
Jeeezus, you can't even argue honestly. He didn't say you "ignored" perjury you "minimized" it.

This thread, and the court case should tell us all we need to know about what happens when LEOs like TCSD get promoted to higher levels...and more importantly, *why* they get promoted.

Look for TCSD as the next Chief of Police in a soon to be corrupt city near you.

Rick
 
tcsd1236- as a Law Enforcement Officer, you wield Tremendous Power. (Power of Arreast, Power of Use of Lethal Force, etc.) And as such, you must also shoulder Tremendous Responsibility.

Firearm owners must shoulder a similar (but lesser, for we may not suspend another's civil rights.) level of responsability in their choice to own a dangerous tool.

I agree with you that 15 tickets in whatever years alone does not constitute a violation.

You're a cop, so you KNOW the other events that (no longer allegedly, a court found that they DID occur.) occured, and know they are unlawful. So I will not insult you furthur by argueing again about their legality.
 
My .02

Speaking as someone deeply motivated to be a LEO, I have this to say:
CA law enforcement is a scam and a dirty racket.
The honest officer here is the exception, not the rule. The excessive training standards and lack of oversight lend themselves to abuse and cronyism. I've been trying 6 years now to break into LE, and I just can't.
I've been through a Police academy here, and I've seen the dirty, lowdown rotten punks get rewarded, while the honest, hardworking, good hearted recruits get screwed.
It's all about whose back you wash. There are a few departments run by stand up guys, where an honest man has a chance. My best friend is a cop. He'd give you the shirt off his back.
Being in the security/loss prevention/bouncer business for 8 years now, I've had the opportunity to meet and spend time with LEOs from several counties.
The good ones are the exception here, let me tell you that.
I've seen guys railroaded time and again.
I've been railroaded.
I've seen guys who've been railroaded finally get picked up by a good department, and I've gone on ride-alongs and watched them serve the public.
There is a difference between being a cop, and being what is meant by peace officer.
To those who are peace officers, I salute you.
To the JBTs, I hope you rot.
You know who you are....
 
Last edited:
Nice job of ignoring the core issue: falsified charges.
Click to expand...
Thats a whole 'nother issue.
Click to expand...
Uh, wrong, that IS the issue. Yeah 13 tickets in 5 years isn't really that bad except for the fact that these tickets were written for bogus offenses. If he were speeding or blowing red lights and got caught, his bad. But noooo, he was working and some punk a$$ cop was mad at him and made his life miserable. That cop should be fired as a gesture of good will to the subjects of California. Especailly now that he could cost those same subjects some serious money.
Tickets should not be used to "target" anyone specifically.
Click to expand...
Gee, really? I always thought that that was why cops issued tickets. Or maybe it was an interdepartment competition to see who could write the most tickets. I don't know why I even responded to that little bit when all it really needed was this :rolleyes:


We had an incident here in my sleepy little island town of Brigantine, NJ that's pretty much the same thing. Some lady saw a local cop having relations in his squad car with his girlfriend. So, she drops a dime on him and is then relentlessly targeted by the cop and his closest friends on the force. She files a complaint and it eventually goes to court. He's found guilty and is immediately fired, his friends perjure themselves and get nothing. Never heard about a civil trial, though. I also don't know the numbers as far as tickets issued to the woman.
 
Those given the tremendous power and public trust to enforce the law should be held to a higher standard, not given more leeway.

Also, I have no problems with the supervisor's assets be seized. The police engage in this practice everyday without any due process. Quite a few citizens have had their assets seized without even being charged with a crime, much less having the benefit of a trial and jury! :banghead:


nero
 
Texas law holds CHL people to higher standards of responsibility than non-CHL folks. Those empowered by society to carry and use deadly force are no longer "just folks". If I couldn't live with that, I wouldn't have my CHL. But, I've assumed my own responsibility for the consequences of my decisions and actions for over a half a century, so I'm not particularly concerned...

If one's freedom and/or property is not at risk for wrongful actions, there is no accountability nor responsibility. Judges and juries decide "wrongfulness" and punishment. That's the system; that's the law.

I've always remembered a comment from a guy in my outfit in Korea, freshly returned from the Stockade: "Well, they don't put you in there for doing right."

Yeah, and juries and judges don't award damages from the pure-as-driven-snow innocent all that often, either.

Art
 
I'd be the first to admit that the guy who ratted out the cop for messing with his catalytic converted was lame and petty.

But after reading some of the comments of the cops posting on glocktalk all I can say is; there's no leash too short to keep those....um "public servents" on.:uhoh:



nero
 
I'd be the first to admit that the guy who ratted out the cop for messing with his catalytic converted was lame and petty.
Click to expand...

Superficially, yes, but when you consider the cavalier attitude LAW ENFORCEMENT officers take toward obeying the law, whether it be complying with emissions standards, committing perjury, or suborning perjury, I think it was very much the right thing to do.

I have to go back to my job at McD's now. :rolleyes:
 
So, what would be a good solution to this? Of LEOs tending to thing they are extra-legal or better than the citizens they serve? As it is, in Police Departments, they already have separated themselves from the citizens. They call themselves Sworn Officers, and the public are called civilians. But in reality, both are civilians.

I think a way to nip the attitude would be say, a two year limit in contiguous public service. Then, LEOs would need to go back into private life, and can go back into LEO duty after a year or so. This is not an ideal solution because you can lose some expertise and experience in police work.

Any other solutions that would nip this 'us-vs-them' attitude before it even starts?
 
One possible solution is to have all complaints against police investigated by an independent, outside the department panel. The panel should have the teeth to suspend, fire, and otherwise penalize bad-apple cops. To prevent that panel from becoming too cozy with the department that they are overseeing the panel should either be elected or appointed to very limited terms, or both. It's only when the police are directly answerable to those they are supposed to serve that will you see the abuses decrease.

Another solution is to forbid/discourage the police from molding their departments into quasi-military organizations.

Finally justification for the use of force, and the level of force considered acceptable should more closely mirror that which is required/acceptable for everyone else.


nero :scrutiny:
 
Last edited:
A general respect for the authority of LEO's used to exist in this society. When a cop told you to do something ("come over here", "get out of the car"), etc. MOST people would respectfully comply. That was the world I grew up in. Over time, that has changed and not due to law enforcement's behavior, rather due to society's behavior. Law enforcement HAS been crippled and weakened over the last 40 or so years as a direct result of ridiculous ACLU type lawsuits, ie "brutality", "excessive force" "racial profiling" etc. et yada. Rodney King ring a bell? CNN never showed the crap King pulled that preceded the "beating".

I, for one, WANT aggressive cops. I want criminals to fear cops. I want the race/ethnicity of a suspect to be a part of the description of a wanted subject. A strong effective blue line is the ONLY thing keeping the rest of us to have to fend for ourselves 100% of the time, thus winding up in court on the receiving end of criminal/civil charges for use of a firearm.

Compared to a lot of firefighters, cops aren't nearly paid enough for the crap they constantly have to put up with. Most of their encounters aren't with nice polite people like most of us here. They are with foul loudmouthed lying stinking drunks and crackheads whose actions are TOTALLY unpredictable. THOSE are the people WE would have to deal with if it weren't for cops. Remember that.

Cops are not the enemy. Those who have hamstrung and weakened the police in the performance of their duties - they are the real enemy.

All the more reason that cops such as the subject of this thread -these guys are an anomaly, not the norm-need to be SEVERELY sanctioned and denounced by their fellow officers-not defended.
 
I, for one, WANT aggressive cops. I want criminals to fear cops.
Click to expand...

I want cops who are smart enough to know the difference between a citizen and a criminal and know when to turn on (or off) the agression, until there are more of these, it won't just be criminals who fear cops. I've met too many jr. college rejects doing the CJ thing to suspect otherwise about the ranks of LE.
 
RileyMc,

I suspect your desire for aggressive cops would quickly diminish if YOU were to be wrongly treated "aggressively" by the police.:eek:



nero
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
CHP in the frying pan
Replies
1
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
A
  • Locked
Maryland: CCWer successfully sues individual LEOs for abuse
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
moa
M
S
  • Locked
Jury awarded lady 850k, cop dry fired his gun on her
Replies
23
Views
2K
GHF
G
J
  • Locked
Florida Judge reverses jury award against gun maker
Replies
11
Views
955
Drjones
D
V
  • Locked
Police officer convicted of killing gay lover
Replies
3
Views
1K
Preacherman
P
Back
Top