Off topic, Embarrased

[stargateranch]

So embarrassing lately, so many officers in our state behaving badly. You would like to think that when you select a career that it is something to be proud of. I know it's a small percentage but still it is disheartening as an officer to see.

I would support a enhancement penalty for and crime committed under the color of law. And will talk to my legislator about the possibility. Thoughts?

I know it is off topic for this forum but I gotta vent and my wife learned long ago to avoid my rants.

 

[JoeSparky]

Agreed! Now what sort of penalties are you envisioning for this?

 

[stargateranch]

Agreed! Now what sort of penalties are you envisioning for this?

Extra years is about all you can do, and fines I guess. I am open to ideas, lets not get crazy.

I do not buy that all officers get off easier though, some may. Justice is rarely dealt out like on law and order. I am amazed almost every time I go to court what folks get away with.

 

[Citizen]

Instead of an enhancement penalty for crime committed in uniform, why not just start with making a cop criminally actionable for any offense committed while in uniform? Cop punches a guy who wasn't resisting--assault and battery charges. Cop violates curtilage--trespassing charges. In essence, subject the offender to the same penalties as the rest of the population. Also, mandatory job penalties. Aggravated assault, loss of LE license for life. Perjury--loss of LE license for life. No more worrying about Brady cops (Brady list of untruthful cops who've been caught lying. Prosecution has to reveal to the defense if a cop is a liar.) And, if a cop can be Brady listed for less than perjury, make whatever gets a cop onto the Brady list a permanent loss of LE license. The main point is to make cops subject to the same penalties as everybody else, for real.

Then go after the Blue Wall of Silence from the same angle. Lets say a cop knows another cop who has committed a felony but doesn't report it. Misprision of a felony when it is found out he knew. Cop fails to report a serious misdemeanor--then misdemeanor charges for the silent one.

Start light, and get heavier legislation later. Expect the unions to raise a howl at the first hint.

Why not statutorily require prosecutors to pursue complaints. This would give prosecutors an excuse, air-cover as it were. "I had no choice."

But, there is no reason Utah can't be groundbreaking on this.

Oh, and stop fooling yourself about small percentage making the rest look bad. We're not quite dumb enough to believe it; no reason you should fool yourself into believing it. The 95% enable the bad ones to be present in the first place thru the Blue Wall of Silence. The 95% is absolutely begging for the 5% to make them look bad. Cops can't have it both ways. You can't have the Blue Wall of Silence and not have the bad one's causing embarrassment. As long as the 5% remain in uniform or not straightened out hard, you will have embarrassment. As long as I remain, I'll keep reminding you of it.

If your industry wants respect, you must straighten out the salvageable ones, and get rid of the bad ones.

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

Waay back when, my Chief, Roddy Perry, argued that law enforcement's emotional "bank account" with the people is overdrawn. He may have said that as he began seeking CALEA accreditation.

 

[Citizen]

[crickets]

 

[MKEgal]

I would support a enhancement penalty for and crime committed under the color of law. And will talk to my legislator about the possibility. Thoughts?

There's already the federal code covering color of law violations, specific to civil rights.
Expand that to cover any law violations while in uniform or on duty or representing oneself as being a LEO.

Make officers personally responsible for paying damages. No more letting the taxpayers get stuck with the bill for bad acts.

And while I like the idea of holding non-reporters to some sort of criminal standard for not reporting a crime they knew about another officer committing, I don't know how hard that would be to enforce. It's difficult to prove what someone knew, unless you have video or witnesses showing s/he was there when the bad act was being committed. If 2 people go in to rob a store & 1 is killed, the other is liable for murder.

 

[Citizen]

There's already the federal code covering color of law violations, specific to civil rights.
Expand that to cover any law violations while in uniform or on duty or representing oneself as being a LEO.

Make officers personally responsible for paying damages. No more letting the taxpayers get stuck with the bill for bad acts.

And while I like the idea of holding non-reporters to some sort of criminal standard for not reporting a crime they knew about another officer committing, I don't know how hard that would be to enforce. It's difficult to prove what someone knew, unless you have video or witnesses showing s/he was there when the bad act was being committed. If 2 people go in to rob a store & 1 is killed, the other is liable for murder.

I don't know that "proving" it would be the main point. I'm thinking the main point would be to empower the second cop witness. Any single cop could dodge a misprision charge by keeping quiet. Any offender cop could help his partner who witnessed the offense dodge a misprision charge by keeping quiet. Its the third cop, the second witness, who needs some cover from retaliation. And, the offender's partner for that matter. Plus, as the number of cops who witness or find out grows, you have a greater pool of somebodys who will have less and less reason to protect the bad cop. These are the guys you're looking to protect and/or nudge into action, or hammer for failing to act if you do get proof they failed to report.

Of course, the proper way to look at this whole good cop-bad cop thing is to say the good cops deserve a clean working environment free of the bad cops, so it is in our best interest and theirs to advocate for tough sanctions on violator cops and their enablers-thru-silence.

 

[since9]

I don't know that "proving" it would be the main point.

More to the point, stick it to the city, not the officer. They're almost always doing the best they can while trying to adhere to dept. regs. If the regs are out of line, it's the city's fault, not the LEO who was just doing his job the way he was trained.

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

"Superior orders" is a huge and controversial area of law. Perhaps see A Few Good Men.

 

[Freedom1Man]

So embarrassing lately, so many officers in our state behaving badly. You would like to think that when you select a career that it is something to be proud of. I know it's a small percentage but still it is disheartening as an officer to see.

I would support a enhancement penalty for and crime committed under the color of law. And will talk to my legislator about the possibility. Thoughts?

I know it is off topic for this forum but I gotta vent and my wife learned long ago to avoid my rants.

I have somewhere, hard copy, a proposed law to hold judges accountable for their rulings.

They have to clearly base their rulings on the laws and show how the law is constitutional each time.They have to clearly articulate how the law in question is one, constitutional and two how it is being correctly applied with in the wording and intent of the law. They would also be forced to dismiss any case that a prosecutor cannot present in a lawful and constitutional light.

They can still be wrong but they have to defend each ruling. It would help reduce legislating from the bench.

If they fail to do so they are off the bench and can be subject to civil liabilities.

I think it would reduce the need for appeals and reduce malicious prosecution.

Example.
BG attacks citizen and citizen kills BG the judge can't just let the prosecutor shotgun charges at the citizen for defending himself.

Citizen A fails to up hold payment side of contract with citizen B. Citizen A cannot show any law that would allow for this violation of contract. Citizen B shows a lack of law and that citizen A is in simple breach of contract. Citizen A cited forms that the public believes to be true and rule in favor of citizen A. Citizen B has cited the law and supporting cases to show that this was a breach of contract. Under the law citizen B is correct and lawful the judge cannot come down on side with citizen A without risk of liability. The judge did come down on side of citizen A without showing any law to backup citizen A. In other cases the judges have said that citizen B is lawful and correct but would disrupt the system (lies) if they were to make such a lawful ruling.

 

[Redbaron007]

Chirp......chirp.....chirp....

 

[sudden valley gunner]

More to the point, stick it to the city, not the officer. They're almost always doing the best they can while trying to adhere to dept. regs. If the regs are out of line, it's the city's fault, not the LEO who was just doing his job the way he was trained.

I've dealt with several officers and they know what they are doing and are complicit in the crimes, why shouldn't they be liable they broke the law. Why do the tax payers have to keep paying for bad cops?

I do agree the training is bad, but then that leads to a logical conclusion that cops are too dumb to know the law or the constitution for themselves. Yet they are expected to enforce law against citizens who have no legal training?

 

[WOD]

Our elected officials seem to believe they are "above the law", so it follows that their law enforcers, would believe the same.

 

[Freedom1Man]

I've dealt with several officers and they know what they are doing and are complicit in the crimes, why shouldn't they be liable they broke the law. Why do the tax payers have to keep paying for bad cops?

I do agree the training is bad, but then that leads to a logical conclusion that cops are too dumb to know the law or the constitution for themselves. Yet they are expected to enforce law against citizens who have no legal training?

They are the elite protected class.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

title 18 USC-242 Deprivation of rights by Color of Law

There is a law out there, and if done by an armed LEO, the ante goes up. Just sayin

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

 

[ManInBlack]

Instead of an enhancement penalty for crime committed in uniform, why not just start with making a cop criminally actionable for any offense committed while in uniform? Cop punches a guy who wasn't resisting--assault and battery charges. Cop violates curtilage--trespassing charges. In essence, subject the offender to the same penalties as the rest of the population. Also, mandatory job penalties. Aggravated assault, loss of LE license for life. Perjury--loss of LE license for life. No more worrying about Brady cops (Brady list of untruthful cops who've been caught lying. Prosecution has to reveal to the defense if a cop is a liar.) And, if a cop can be Brady listed for less than perjury, make whatever gets a cop onto the Brady list a permanent loss of LE license. The main point is to make cops subject to the same penalties as everybody else, for real.

What?!? How dare you suggest that police be treated equally under the law? You must be some kind of cop-hating extremist!!! People like you set open carry back years with your attention-seeking tactics!

 

[KBCraig]

There's some argument about how many "bad apples" are in the barrel, but it really doesn't matter if it's 10%, 3%, 1%, or 0.001%. In the end, the question has to be: if these bad apples make the rest look bad, when why aren't the 90%/97%/99%/99.999% arresting the bad actors, and charging them for their crimes?

A good cop doesn't let a bad cop get away with it.

That old analogy about spoiling the whole barrel seems wiser by the day.

 

[Tucker6900]

More to the point, stick it to the city, not the officer. They're almost always doing the best they can while trying to adhere to dept. regs. If the regs are out of line, it's the city's fault, not the LEO who was just doing his job the way he was trained.

I completely disagree.

An officer of the law should, first and foremost, KNOW THE LAW! The officer should know what he is allowed to do and not, the day he swears the oath. He is not trained to follow orders blindly, and to break the law. They cant be found ignorant of something they are supposed to know. If he doesnt know it, that is no excuse for breaking it. I want anyone to go to court with the "I didnt know I was breaking the law" excuse, and see how many times they are let go without punishment. Badges do not grant extra rights.

The penalty should all encompassing. Not only is an officer guilty of committing a crime, his supervisors and the city are as well.

I think the main issue is the the higher ups in the departments have gotten lazy and will throw their officers under the bus for any and all infractions.

 

[ManInBlack]

More to the point, stick it to the city, not the officer. They're almost always doing the best they can while trying to adhere to dept. regs. If the regs are out of line, it's the city's fault, not the LEO who was just doing his job the way he was trained.

Silly me, I always thought they swore an oath to the Constitution (state and federal), not department regulations.

Besides, "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense for knowingly violating the law. Every officer charged with enforcing the law should be reasonably expected to know the law (including the supreme law of the land), so every violation is knowing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

In United States v. Keenan, the accused was found guilty of murder after he obeyed an order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal."