Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Ohio creates a permanent "lying list" for LEOs

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137

    Ohio creates a permanent "lying list" for LEOs

    http://www.policeone.com/officer-mis...-for-officers/

    The city's public-safety officials consider lying to be a cardinal sin for officers. They say it should almost always result in termination.
    But officers don't always lose their jobs for being untruthful, and until recently, the city didn't keep track of those who lie and stay on the force. The lack of oversight has allowed some dishonest officers to receive promotions. Officials say they probably have testified in criminal cases without disclosing the transgression, a violation of federal and state law.
    It wasn't until last year that the Police Division created a list of untruthful cops. The Dispatch obtained the list under the Ohio Open Records Act. Police Chief Kimberley Jacobs said she is reviewing the list, which was put together before she was named the division's leader in April.
    "Our integrity must be unquestioned, so anybody that damages that integrity by being untruthful is looking at the loss of their position," Jacobs said. "I can't say strongly enough how extremely important it is to maintain our integrity with the public."


    Why is this NOT done in every State in the Republic? I applaud the idea, I am surprised it took fifty years(really?), but I think it should be covered under FOI requests and not kept to just LEOs.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    ...Why is this NOT done in every State in the Republic? I applaud the idea, I am surprised it took fifty years(really?), but I think it should be covered under FOI requests and not kept to just LEOs.
    And why is this list not routinely published in every newspaper in the State?

    I caught a deputy in a provable lie. Fortunately, he chose only to warn me rather than write the ticket. So I only called his supervisor and warned him of the possible consequences to this officer had he written the ticket and I proved in court beyond all doubt that he was lying! LEAs and LEOs need to realize that, in this age of technology, not much of what they do is not recorded in some fashion.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    And why is this list not routinely published in every newspaper in the State?

    I caught a deputy in a provable lie. Fortunately, he chose only to warn me rather than write the ticket. So I only called his supervisor and warned him of the possible consequences to this officer had he written the ticket and I proved in court beyond all doubt that he was lying! LEAs and LEOs need to realize that, in this age of technology, not much of what they do is not recorded in some fashion.
    Good question. Brady v Maryland has something to say about impeaching the prosecution's witnesses.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Seattle times article.....includes Brady vs Maryland principles and how our local LEA's ignore it.

    http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Cops-who-lie-don-t-always-lose-jobs-1262936.php


    DOJ Study on testilying.......it's a common practice accepted by cops,. prosecutors, and judges. Unless you can afford a good lawyer you will probably end up with the short end of the stick.

    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/181241.pdf
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    DOJ Study on testilying.......it's a common practice accepted by cops,. prosecutors, and judges. Unless you can afford a good lawyer you will probably end up with the short end of the stick.

    [/URL]
    In civil court, it happens all the time ... all the time. Now, its kinda of expected I think. So why not in criminal cases too?

    Witnesses for the state? They never get charged with perjury.

    Good system, eh?

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    In civil court, it happens all the time ... all the time. Now, its kinda of expected I think. So why not in criminal cases too?

    Witnesses for the state? They never get charged with perjury.

    Good system, eh?
    I think its always been expected. By anybody with two or more brain cells, anyway. This is why, even under oath, a fact-finder, whether a judge or jury, has a function of figuring out the facts.

    If everybody or almost everybody could be relied on to tell the truth, the jury could almost dispense with "sifting the facts".
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    If everybody or almost everybody could be relied on to tell the truth, the jury could almost dispense with "sifting the facts".
    A trial is not directly related to finding the truth ... just to examine the facts presented to them and see if the state has met the proof needed to support the required elements of the charge(s) beyond a reasonable doubt.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    What bothers me most is not the fact they lie, they do. But the fact that the courts are willingly rely on lies for convictions. We are just fodder for the system.

    I would not vote for a local judge running for Superior court when I heard he was a cop and then worked in the prosecutors office.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    A trial is not directly related to finding the truth ... just to examine the facts presented to them and see if the state has met the proof needed to support the required elements of the charge(s) beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Well, actually...


    Jury trials in English law have their roots in fact-finding. During the reign of Henry II in the second half of the 1100's, Henry was looking to expand his control. He sent royal judges on circuit to the various places where the lords' settled criminal matters among the people under their control. The royal judges were commanded to bring together 12 or 20 jurors who were presumed to have personal knowledge of the facts behind the case. The jurors were charged with speaking the truth of the matter. So, once upon a time, the jurors were not only the triers of the facts insofar as they had accepted or rejected what they heard about the case long before the royal judge ever arrived on circuit, but the jurors brought the facts to court and were the witnesses. I got this all from a very educational book that is still in print: Origins of the Fifth Amendment: The Right Against Self-Incrimination by Leonard Levy. The book won a Pulitzer Prize in history. I cannot over-emphasize the value of this book if one wants to understand the right against self-incrimination.

    Also the word verdict comes from Latin roots meaning speak (dict) truth (ver).

    This next is not conclusive, but weighs heavily. If you read enough court opinions, you find that appeals courts don't (or aren't allowed?) to review findings of fact. They'll review all to hell various applications of law and procedure, but won't touch findings of facts.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The Lathrup Village officer gave Suh the ticket on Nov. 15 for driving without due care and caution, but Police Chief William Armstrong told The Associated Press on Tuesday he was not sure the citation would hold up.

    The chief was awaiting a call back from the city attorney to discuss the case, which he said was ''in limbo.''

    ''From my bird's eye view, taking a quick glance at it, I'd say the charge doesn't fit,'' Armstrong said after watching video footage of Suh's driving that day. ''Just looking at the tape, Mr. Suh was traveling faster than the cars around him, but I don't think it was to the extent of driving without due care and caution.'' .... http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lions-s...2331--nfl.html



    Should add this guy? lol

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    This next is not conclusive, but weighs heavily. If you read enough court opinions, you find that appeals courts don't (or aren't allowed?) to review findings of fact. They'll review all to hell various applications of law and procedure, but won't touch findings of facts.
    All that latin and ya still don't know that judges certainly do review the facts to see if the conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. True, a hard standard to overcome.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Space Coast FL
    Posts
    39
    I'll agree with most of the comments here. I'll not go into detail on that though.

    What I will say, is good for this department. And I will also agree that this list should be made public.

    The department I work for has a zero tolerance for lying on an official form, of any kind.

    If only every department had this policy, and was open and transparent about it.

  13. #13
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    http://www.policeone.com/officer-mis...-for-officers/

    The city's public-safety officials consider lying to be a cardinal sin for officers. They say it should almost always result in termination.
    But officers don't always lose their jobs for being untruthful, and until recently, the city didn't keep track of those who lie and stay on the force. The lack of oversight has allowed some dishonest officers to receive promotions. Officials say they probably have testified in criminal cases without disclosing the transgression, a violation of federal and state law.
    It wasn't until last year that the Police Division created a list of untruthful cops. The Dispatch obtained the list under the Ohio Open Records Act. Police Chief Kimberley Jacobs said she is reviewing the list, which was put together before she was named the division's leader in April.
    "Our integrity must be unquestioned, so anybody that damages that integrity by being untruthful is looking at the loss of their position," Jacobs said. "I can't say strongly enough how extremely important it is to maintain our integrity with the public."


    Why is this NOT done in every State in the Republic? I applaud the idea, I am surprised it took fifty years(really?), but I think it should be covered under FOI requests and not kept to just LEOs.
    So basically they already had the list for some time yet they were not using it for its intended purpose? This seems like nothing more than a PR stunt to me. Hopefully I am wrong and there is atleast one department/office that still has moral obligations to uphold.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Beantownfan321 View Post
    I'll agree with most of the comments here. I'll not go into detail on that though.

    What I will say, is good for this department. And I will also agree that this list should be made public.

    The department I work for has a zero tolerance for lying on an official form, of any kind.

    If only every department had this policy, and was open and transparent about it.
    Thanks for the insight. Why the qualifier "on a offical form, of any kind." Should not the zero tolerance policy be applied to lying, without qualifiers?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Beantownfan321 View Post
    I'll agree with most of the comments here. I'll not go into detail on that though.

    What I will say, is good for this department. And I will also agree that this list should be made public.

    The department I work for has a zero tolerance for lying on an official form, of any kind.

    If only every department had this policy, and was open and transparent about it.
    +1

    Our local deputies and PD don't feel this way and with help from prosecutors and judges protect them.


    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Thanks for the insight. Why the qualifier "on a offical form, of any kind." Should not the zero tolerance policy be applied to lying, without qualifiers?
    It's those forms that are used against you. Of course testimony should be included in this.

    I don't think Brady even limits it to lying but also misleading, yet in the police reports I have read, the use of misleading boiler plate words are the norm, meant to taint you and against a judge and jury.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Funny story:

    My best friend is defense counsel in a criminal case, the actual details of which are irrelevant to the story.

    Cop gets on the stand and testifies to various things.

    My friend: "Officer X, have you ever been convicted of perjury?"

    Officer X turns white and gets the deer in the headlight look.

    Officer X: "Bbbbut that was a sealed juvenile conviction, you can't use that against me!"

    My friend: "No, not as a defendent. But as a WITNESS..."

    The defendent was acquitted.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    All that latin and ya still don't know that judges certainly do review the facts to see if the conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. True, a hard standard to overcome.
    Appellate courts also review mixed questions of fact and law.

    (One week until my appeal brief is due. One element is the prosecution failed to discover Brady/Giglio lying LEOs.)

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    All that latin and ya still don't know that judges certainly do review the facts to see if the conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. True, a hard standard to overcome.
    True. Thanks for the reminder.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •