Ratting a bad one out...... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Ratting a bad one out......


USAFE7
05-29-2011, 17:52
There has been A LOT of accusations lately (by you know who...) of a officer KNOWING of fellow officers committing crimes involving "planting evidence, falsifying reports, bad shoots (murder: planting a gun to justify) and so on. My questions are pretty straight forward.....

(1) Would you allow any of the above to happen OR continue to happen if/when you found out what was going on?

(2) Are there any circumstances that might persuade you to overlook the above?

(3) Would you be able to face another day knowing you were able to stop the unlawful actions of a bad officer but allowed him/them to continue their illegal activities?

(4) While I'm sure most/all LEOs here would uphold the law are there ANY reasons you wouldn't?

Mayhem like Me
05-29-2011, 17:58
No x 4

Dragoon44
05-29-2011, 17:59
There has been A LOT of accusations lately (by you know who...) of a officer KNOWING of fellow officers committing crimes involving "planting evidence, falsifying reports, bad shoots (murder: planting a gun to justify) and so on. My questions are pretty straight forward.....

(1) Would you allow any of the above to happen OR continue to happen if/when you found out what was going on?

(2) Are there any circumstances that might persuade you to overlook the above?

(3) Would you be able to face another day knowing you were able to stop the unlawful actions of a bad officer but allowed him/them to continue their illegal activities?

(4) While I'm sure most/all LEOs here would uphold the law are there ANY reasons you wouldn't?

1. No

2. No

3. No

4. No

FiremanMike
05-29-2011, 18:05
It's the *********s who cross the line consistently that make this job difficult for everyone else. I have no use for these people, and would absolutely turn in things I knew to be bad.

KiloBravo
05-29-2011, 18:10
Jerk offs like the ones you mentioned OP are he exact reason why the hiring process takes so damn long for guys pike me who would actually do an honest and commendable job as a LEO. All of the things listed are pretty nasty crimes in my opinion, and I would drop a dime on anybody doing those things in a heartbeat, cop or not.

blueiron
05-29-2011, 19:02
I walked away from a DEA career over a fellow S/A stealing from a suspect.

Break a law of G-d or a serious law of Man and I would not tolerate it.

The only time I ever allowed any slack was for minor traffic offenses - and that privilege was extended to citizens as well.

USAFE7
05-29-2011, 19:07
I figured that "No" would be the overwhelming answer. Of course I'm sure there will be the "Well hell no they won't admit to it" but, what about the officer that admitted he knew and allowed this to continue, that "quit his job" rather than try to stop all the horrid illegal activities being committed by fellow officers? Just what type of person is he? Police work is a true calling for the "good" officers, so why would a "good" officer quit his calling rather than correct what he was called to do? I'm just looking for some insight from the LEOs that may have dealt with this on a personal or departmental level.
*edit to add*
I was a member of one of the 5 largest "Police" forces in the United States and can honestly say that we never covered for our fellow Airmen and NEVER expected to be covered for (other than being late for roll call :whistling: )

msu_grad_121
05-29-2011, 19:12
Of course I wouldn't tolerate any of those things, but the accusations come from someone who is saying these things in an attempt to justify their preconceived notions regarding the other issue by demonstrating that they've "been there and done that." Personally, I don't buy any of it for a second.

Are there purely evil, rotten cops out there? Without a doubt, just as sure as there are rotten lawyers, doctors and garbage collectors. However, I can say without fear of contradiction that these people are in the extreme minority. The person you were referring to is (in my opinion) saying these things in order to justify their mercifully short "career" in LE without drawing any suspicion upon themselves.

But yeah, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to drop a dime on someone who did any of those things. I'm not here to lie for myself, let alone you.

Rohniss
05-29-2011, 19:31
No x4, and anyone who does is a worm.

Dragoon44
05-29-2011, 19:33
No one hates bad cops more than other cops.

The problem arises with definitions. many of the posters on these forums equate "bad Cop" with any cop that does not do things "Their way". rather than those that actually violate the law or ethical standards.

rdrkt
05-29-2011, 19:34
I think he is just confusing his life with the movie Internal Affairs.

blueiron
05-29-2011, 19:41
Of course I'm sure there will be the "Well hell no they won't admit to it" but, what about the officer that admitted he knew and allowed this to continue, that "quit his job" rather than try to stop all the horrid illegal activities being committed by fellow officers?


Considering that based on your above statement, it sounds like you are lumping me in with the corrupt and I take great offense at your statement, along with its rather overt inference.

You don't know what transpired in my instance, so I'll spell it out for you. I worked the largest indoor MJ grow operation [>20,000 plants] in the U.S. to that date - 1990 in Golden Valley, Arizona; with ancillary grow operations in Lancaster, California and Las Vegas Nevada. I saw a senior S/A stealing expensive vintage bottles of wine from the suspect's house and place them into his personal ruck. I also saw the same bottles at the hotel where we were staying. The senior S/A ignored my demands to return the property and I went to the Group Supervisor. They were both personal friends and neither did anything. I went to the ASAC and he elected to do nothing, siding with the GS. I stormed out of his office and went out to contemplate. I returned to work Monday morning and demanded to see the SAC. After telling him of my observations and my outrage, his statement was: "do what you have to do". Seeing that he and the command of the Phoenix Field Division refused to do anything, I tossed my credentials on the desk and quit.

Congressional Representatives and Senators didn't give excrement about it, nor did DOJ. Repeated letters did nothing. Executive Office didn't either - G.H.W. Bush got a certified letter and not squat was done.

If that makes me corrupt in your eyes, so be it. I suggest an Opthalmologist and college courses in Ethics and Logic before passing judgment on others.

By the way - How much dope did you take off the street?

Here's the background.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-05-30/local/me-3687_1_marijuana-farm

USAFE7
05-29-2011, 20:33
Considering that based on your above statement, it sounds like you are lumping me in with the corrupt and I take great offense at your statement, along with its rather overt inference.

You don't know what transpired in my instance, so I'll spell it out for you. I worked the largest indoor MJ grow operation [>20,000 plants] in the U.S. to that date - 1990 in Golden Valley, Arizona; with ancillary grow operations in Lancaster, California and Las Vegas Nevada. I saw a senior S/A stealing expensive vintage bottles of wine from the suspect's house and place them into his personal ruck. I also saw the same bottles at the hotel where we were staying. The senior S/A ignored my demands to return the property and I went to the Group Supervisor. They were both personal friends and neither did anything. I went to the ASAC and he elected to do nothing, siding with the GS. I stormed out of his office and went out to contemplate. I returned to work Monday morning and demanded to see the SAC. After telling him of my observations and my outrage, his statement was: "do what you have to do". Seeing that he and the command of the Phoenix Field Division refused to do anything, I tossed my credentials on the desk and quit.

Congressional Representatives and Senators didn't give excrement about it, nor did DOJ. Repeated letters did nothing. Executive Office didn't either - G.H.W. Bush got a certified letter and not squat was done.

If that makes me corrupt in your eyes, so be it. I suggest an Opthalmologist and college courses in Ethics and Logic before passing judgment on others.

By the way - How much dope did you take off the street?

Here's the background.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-05-30/local/me-3687_1_marijuana-farm

It has NOTHING to do with you. It has to do with another poster in the Oath Keeper thread.....it should be easy to figure out who it is.
*edit to add*
I'm pretty sure Dragoon44 knows who this thread is in reference to.
"By the way - How much dope did you take off the street?" Do insurgents count?

Rabbi
05-29-2011, 21:00
Not no, but hell no!

Besides all the moral issues and the " I am one of the good guys and that is what the good guys do..."

There is another issue. Without being "idealistic" or "holier than thou" we are a group of people committed to doing a job the best we can. Part of that job is actually being "the good guys" It makes the system work, it is the efficient way to go about it.

When someone isnt on the same page as everyone else. I.E. a buch of good guys doing the best they can with someone working outside that system, it makes the job harder for everone else. No one wants that around. It brings heat on everyone. It sows the seeds of distrust. It makes a hard job harder and while LEOs do deal with a lot of chicken crap stuff, there is always the threat of it turning into life or death. So this game is for keeps.

You need other people around you who are on the same page. Or as Dragoon said "No one hates bad cops more than other cops.

collim1
05-29-2011, 21:03
I wouldn't stand for it, not only cause its wrong but I would not want to be raked over the coals with the dirtbag because I knew and didn't do something about it.

Dragoon44
05-29-2011, 21:13
I'm pretty sure Dragoon44 knows who this thread is in reference to.

Yeah, Rhymes with taco.

:rofl::rofl:

ateamer
05-29-2011, 21:26
No all the way down. You are either 100% honest or you do not belong in this job. Period.

rgregoryb
05-29-2011, 21:33
I worked special investigations for the Chief's Office, not IA (we had an IA unit to handle complaints) The investigations involved murder, Armored Car robbery and systematic corruption involving an entire precinct (sale of automatic weapons, drug protection and arson) so no I don't care for bad cops.

collim1
05-29-2011, 22:09
I worked special investigations for the Chief's Office, not IA (we had an IA unit to handle complaints) The investigations involved murder, Armored Car robbery and systematic corruption involving an entire precinct (sale of automatic weapons, drug protection and arson) so no I don't care for bad cops.

Wow, that sounds like a rough gig.

msu_grad_121
05-29-2011, 22:20
Yeah, Rhymes with taco.

:rofl::rofl:

Didn't see the thread lock coming, did you, "pops"? :supergrin:

Him and that Mr. Happy *** or whatever his name is are so stupid, I think they have me cancer!

cowboywannabe
05-29-2011, 22:31
come on...i mean hows a cop suppose to live off the piddly pay and pension they earn? whats a little skimming off the top from the badguys?

i mean, how can you steal money from somebody who stole the same money? if it wasnt theirs to began with you cant steal it from them can you?

besides, if all you need for felony possesion of marijuana is more than 1 ounce, why send in 2 pounds when you could divey that up for evidence planting on 5-6 locals who constanly complain about the cops.....

jcsd2407
05-29-2011, 22:40
There has been A LOT of accusations lately (by you know who...) of a officer KNOWING of fellow officers committing crimes involving "planting evidence, falsifying reports, bad shoots (murder: planting a gun to justify) and so on. My questions are pretty straight forward.....

(1) Would you allow any of the above to happen OR continue to happen if/when you found out what was going on?

(2) Are there any circumstances that might persuade you to overlook the above?

(3) Would you be able to face another day knowing you were able to stop the unlawful actions of a bad officer but allowed him/them to continue their illegal activities?

(4) While I'm sure most/all LEOs here would uphold the law are there ANY reasons you wouldn't?

A flat-out, emphatic, NO.

SAR
05-29-2011, 22:50
I wish it were that easy... There are black and white cases, which I am sure that everyone here would agree should be dealt with harshly. It's the gray area cases that are much harder. If you've never experienced it for yourself, you'd find it hard to understand. The bigger problem is that many members of management, in their zeal to make rank, never spent any appreciable time in the field to know what constitutes black, white and gray.

I knew an officer who was arrested for muder for hire. To me this was a no brainer. Likewise, I knew an officer who was arrested for murder. Again a no brainer. I've known several who were involved in the Rampart scandal and did prison time for running drugs, planting evidence, and a number of other crimes. But what about Rodney King? Anyone here (besides me) ever see the entire video? Anyone here besides me know what happened to the other officers in the video, aside from the ones who were tried and aquitted in court? Twenty years later, the legacy of Rodney King haunts me. How about you?

Hack
05-29-2011, 22:52
come on...i mean hows a cop suppose to live off the piddly pay and pension they earn? whats a little skimming off the top from the badguys?

i mean, how can you steal money from somebody who stole the same money? if it wasnt theirs to began with you cant steal it from them can you?

besides, if all you need for felony possesion of marijuana is more than 1 ounce, why send in 2 pounds when you could divey that up for evidence planting on 5-6 locals who constanly complain about the cops.....

This at least deserves a :whistling::innocent:

Hack
05-29-2011, 23:01
Twenty years later, the legacy of Rodney King haunts me. How about you?

Often in some ways. Not necessarily directly concerning that case, however think about what we do for a living, or just about my career field. Corrections is automatically seen by some as something that would attract only the dullard who would be more than tempted to simply lay in blows to each inmate he encounters, regardless of the reason. The dullard thus drags his knuckles on the floor, and his fully muscled and looks like Brutus from Popeye cartoons, and always carries that billy in his strong hand ready to use it at the slightest provocation. And, we're equated with incidents like what happened concerning the Rodney King incident, and any other famous incident for that matter having to do with uses of force. After all the PO-PO is the Man and is ready to make you cry and bleed for being a bad boy.

This all from the perspectives I have heard from other people ignorant to what we actually do. I am fairly soft spoken, well mannered most of the time, and people have actually stated that they find it hard to believe that I do what I do for a living. When explained to them that it is not always about loud speech, physical uses of force and the like you sometimes still see a look of disbelief emanate from some of their faces.

Vigilant
05-29-2011, 23:05
I wish it were that easy... There are black and white cases, which I am sure that everyone here would agree should be dealt with harshly. It's the gray area cases that are much harder. If you've never experienced it for yourself, you'd find it hard to understand. The bigger problem is that many members of management, in their zeal to make rank, never spent any appreciable time in the field to know what constitutes black, white and gray.

That pretty much sums my thoughts up. Plus, in my little neighborhood, we get a lot of cases where someone puts paper on someone for less than honorable reasons, and it is often out of meanness and spite, with little or no truthful basis. So, my answer would be, in cut and dried examples of 1 through 4, most definitely NO, without a doubt. But I'm not one to go off half-cocked on just a hunch, and I choose my battles as wisely as possible. Sometimes, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

lawman800
05-29-2011, 23:51
No, no, no, and hell no!

My opinion is that if you have to do those things, you are no better than those thugs and as a matter of fact, you're worse since you are abusing the public trust when doing it. You make a clean case or you don't make it at all. A good investigator will make his case without resorting to dirty tactics.

The legacy of Rodney King, OJ Simpson, and Rampart haunts us all. It is incumbent upon us to do it better and do it clean.

Gun Shark
05-30-2011, 00:12
I am not a cop yet, but I plan to be in the next couple of years and I absolutely wouldn't allow that to go on if I knew for sure it was happening.

OldCurlyWolf
05-30-2011, 00:59
There has been A LOT of accusations lately (by you know who...) of a officer KNOWING of fellow officers committing crimes involving "planting evidence, falsifying reports, bad shoots (murder: planting a gun to justify) and so on. My questions are pretty straight forward.....

(1) Would you allow any of the above to happen OR continue to happen if/when you found out what was going on?

(2) Are there any circumstances that might persuade you to overlook the above?

(3) Would you be able to face another day knowing you were able to stop the unlawful actions of a bad officer but allowed him/them to continue their illegal activities?

(4) While I'm sure most/all LEOs here would uphold the law are there ANY reasons you wouldn't?

Let me answer all 4 questions with one answer.

A fellow officer once made a comment to me that was: " You would write your own Grandmother a ticket, wouldn't you."

MY answer: Yes, if she messed up enough.

SAR
05-30-2011, 01:20
Let me answer all 4 questions with one answer.

A fellow officer once made a comment to me that was: " You would write your own Grandmother a ticket, wouldn't you."

MY answer: Yes, if she messed up enough.

I wouldn't.

AA#5
05-30-2011, 02:19
I wish it were that easy... There are black and white cases, which I am sure that everyone here would agree should be dealt with harshly. It's the gray area cases that are much harder. If you've never experienced it for yourself, you'd find it hard to understand. The bigger problem is that many members of management, in their zeal to make rank, never spent any appreciable time in the field to know what constitutes black, white and gray.

I knew an officer who was arrested for muder for hire. To me this was a no brainer. Likewise, I knew an officer who was arrested for murder. Again a no brainer. I've known several who were involved in the Rampart scandal and did prison time for running drugs, planting evidence, and a number of other crimes. But what about Rodney King? Anyone here (besides me) ever see the entire video? Anyone here besides me know what happened to the other officers in the video, aside from the ones who were tried and aquitted in court? Twenty years later, the legacy of Rodney King haunts me. How about you?

If I recall correctly, two of the cops who hit most of the "home runs"......(a quote from one of the cops) were sentenced to 72 months in Federal prison (after being found "not guilty" by a brain-dead Simi Valley jury that consisted mostly of cops' relatives, cops' friends & cops' neighbors.)

SAR
05-30-2011, 02:32
If I recall correctly, two of the cops who hit most of the "home runs"......(a quote from one of the cops) were sentenced to 72 months in Federal prison (after being found "not guilty" by a brain-dead Simi Valley jury that consisted mostly of cops' relatives, cops' friends & cops' neighbors.)

Negative, you recall wrong, and to call the jury "brain dead," is contemptuous. To say that they consisted mostly of relatives, friends and neighbors is just ignorant.

AA#5
05-30-2011, 02:53
Negative, you recall wrong, and to call the jury "brain dead," is contemptuous. To say that they consisted mostly of relatives, friends and neighbors is just ignorant.

Yup....Slimy....oops, I mean Simi Valley was simply chosen by chance - not because so many cops live there.

A jury that allows their own prejudices to interfere with their decision making is brain dead. Likewise for police officers who cause a habitual felon to have ALL charges dropped, and helps him win a $3,800,000.00 payday (more than those four moron cops will ever see in their lifetimes).

If you recall correctly, the second "higher IQ" jury found two of them guilty.

lawman800
05-30-2011, 03:19
Yup....Slimy....oops, I mean Simi Valley was simply chosen by chance - not because so many cops live there.

A jury that allows their own prejudices to interfere with their decision making is brain dead. Likewise for police officers who cause a habitual felon to have ALL charges dropped, and helps him win a $3,800,000.00 payday (more than those four moron cops will ever see in their lifetimes).

If you recall correctly, the second "higher IQ" jury found two of them guilty.

Wow... Were you there when it happened or were you in the jury deliberation room? You seem like you know more than all the cops here. Did you watch the whole video as SAR or did you have access to the various investigative files?

The higher IQ jury, the acquittal, the whole BS, was all race pimping and political pandering at its finest. Whatever you might think, you don't know.

SAR
05-30-2011, 04:43
Yup....Slimy....oops, I mean Simi Valley was simply chosen by chance - not because so many cops live there.

A jury that allows their own prejudices to interfere with their decision making is brain dead. Likewise for police officers who cause a habitual felon to have ALL charges dropped, and helps him win a $3,800,000.00 payday (more than those four moron cops will ever see in their lifetimes).[/B][/I]

If you recall correctly, the second "higher IQ" jury found two of them guilty.

If you can't make an argument based on facts or merit, it's much easier just to resort to insults. Speaks volumes about your credibility. Have a good day...

Patchman
05-30-2011, 04:48
Absolutely NO, NO, NO and NO. For Q#4, the only exception is traffic offense, where it's up to my discretion. When I was 17 and only had my DL for a few months, a cop used his discretion (otherwise I would have lost my DL until 21). He didn't know me from a hole in the wall, so he didn't have to. I've always remembered that.

txleapd
05-30-2011, 07:30
Let me answer all 4 questions with one answer.

A fellow officer once made a comment to me that was: " You would write your own Grandmother a ticket, wouldn't you."

MY answer: Yes, if she messed up enough.

I wouldn't.

I can't say that I wouldn't.... I've never met his grandmother. She might have it coming. :whistling:

txleapd
05-30-2011, 07:41
On Rodney King.... I've seen the whole video too, and it surprises me that after 20 years most people have still only seen 5-10 seconds of it. It is a complete myth that King was just laying there as the cops beat on him. It was a fight the whole time. The interesting thing is even the Federal jury found that the vast majority of strikes were reasonable. It was only the last 3-4 hits that they found to be unreasonable. It's easy to see why the state jury acquitted them.

Dukeboy01
05-30-2011, 07:57
My answer to the OP's original four questions, especially in a semi- public forum, is of course "No."

Would I flush my career away in protest if the powers that be chose to do nothing about it after I informed them? That answer is also "No."

Which, I suppose, in practice makes my answer to question #3, a "Yes."

(3) Would you be able to face another day knowing you were able to stop the unlawful actions of a bad officer but allowed him/them to continue their illegal activities?

Actually, now that I think about it, it was always a "Yes." Sorry, but I don't have it in me to carry around a bunch of guilt for others' bad behavior. I do what's right and set the best example for others that I can and I most certainly would report the misconduct. But the question is phrased as if we'd be expected to either quit or kill ourselves if we couldn't stop all the dirty cops in the world that we knew of. That's not happening. For one thing, if all the good cops quit or kill themselves then where would we be as a society?

(4) While I'm sure most/all LEOs here would uphold the law are there ANY reasons you wouldn't?

I'm going to change my answer here as well. There are, of course, hundreds of reasons why any of us might choose to excercise our discretion not to enforce the letter of the law given the totality of the circumstances. Yes, this applies to fellow LEOs who get a pass on traffic tickets from me, but it also applies to civilians in numerous situations.

The victim of a rape I'm getting ready to interview at the hospital reaches into her purse to get her id card and a baggie of weed falls out. The law demands that she be charged for the offense of possession of marijuana in order for the law to be considered "upheld." I doubt many of us would physically arrest her for it, but how many would still cite her? How many would flush the weed?

Like it or not, this job is about the different shades of gray and the toughest decisions are faced at the lighter end of the scale. Would I help an officer cover up a murder? No, of course not. Would I drive an off- duty officer home who's DUI? Yes. Now that same officer has showed up for duty two days later and you believe that he's intoxicated again, which means he was DUI in a patrol car on his way to work. What would you do?

USAFE7
05-30-2011, 08:40
Dukeboy01,
The thing you are referring to would be considered minor IMHO. You are talking about having some compassion for a victim. I'm only talking about knowing fellow officers were murdering people, planting weapon and evidence to make it good.
And reporting the misconduct in facts means you did "something"...which is more than the person I'm referring to did.

So if any of you can tell me why the person referenced by this thread would do ALL of the 4 things and then whine and cry about how corrupt the PD/SOs are when he did NOTHING to ATTEMPT to bring it to light....please do. I was military SP, not civi PD so I can not guess on that level. I do know that 98% of people that have hatred for a group is because they either couldn't make the cut and are bitter OR have been a victim of that group. I would not call him a victim because he did not personally suffer from the actions of that group. That only leaves 1 other base to build on, he couldn't cut it and is bitter.

CAcop
05-30-2011, 08:44
My answers are all no too. It isn't much of a life going around breaking the law. I have no idea why people do.

Cav
05-30-2011, 10:28
My Answer to all are "No". But I can say that 20 years ago both Police and Military were run much different. The way I was brought up as an Infantry soldier 20 years ago is nothing like today. I have met some NYPD officers, State Troopers, Texas Rangers, and others that today would be called dirty, but back then would have been great LEO's.

Laws change and so does what it seen as norms. A bad one should be ratted out or forced to leave. But then you have those that rat on things that violate nothing and some times that gets old too.

AA#5
05-30-2011, 10:54
Wow... Were you there when it happened or were you in the jury deliberation room? You seem like you know more than all the cops here. Did you watch the whole video as SAR or did you have access to the various investigative files?

The higher IQ jury, the acquittal, the whole BS, was all race pimping and political pandering at its finest. Whatever you might think, you don't know.

Thank you for your unbiased opinion.

SpoiledBySig
05-30-2011, 11:00
Thank you for your unbiased opinion.

Wow. We were all thinking the same thing about you. :whistling:

Sam Spade
05-30-2011, 11:13
No. But you better be damn sure. The real world isn't as obvious as the textbook ethics lessons or Hollywood screenplay might make you think.

USAFE7
05-30-2011, 11:16
This is not a Rodney King, right or wrong thread AA#5. We're talking about officers knowing and doing nothing, not cases that have been decided in the courts. And also, thanks for everyone that has given input.

USAFE7
05-30-2011, 11:19
I have met some NYPD officers, State Troopers, Texas Rangers, and others that today would be called dirty, but back then would have been great LEO's.


Come to think of it...that is a very true statement.

Vigilant
05-30-2011, 11:36
Wow. We were all thinking the same thing about you. :whistling:

Speak only for yourself, please.

GPalmer
05-30-2011, 11:37
<-Non LEO

While it's a fascinating question, it winds up as just feel good thread, there's only one type of answer. Sure, there's some nice commentary from SAR about gray but it's not a topic you can discuss on an open forum. Someone would always take what you have to say and twist it out of context.

SAR
05-30-2011, 11:38
This is not a Rodney King, right or wrong thread AA#5. We're talking about officers knowing and doing nothing, not cases that have been decided in the courts. And also, thanks for everyone that has given input.

In his defense, AA#5 didn't bring up Rodney King, I did. But I submit to you that it *is* all about that type of incident. If it hadn't been televised on all the news stations, and had you been a bystander officer, would you have reported this incident to the higher ups or not?

ateamer
05-30-2011, 11:39
If you think the Simi Valley jury was comprised of LEO's and family members, you are not aware of, or deliberately ignoring, the truth. Read Lou Cannon's book "Official Negligence" if you are interested in learning what really happened in court, and why. If you are relying on accounts from the news media, you are missing out on 90% of the facts.

Vigilant
05-30-2011, 11:40
Originally Posted by Cav
I have met some NYPD officers, State Troopers, Texas Rangers, and others that today would be called dirty, but back then would have been great LEO's.

This is part of what I alluded to previously. Even today, there are shades of gray. How many of us have talked about how we articulate our report, or statement, for example?

RetailNinja
05-30-2011, 11:40
No to all, unless I was Jeremy Renner's character in SWAT. Then I'd say yes.

GPalmer
05-30-2011, 11:42
Speak only for yourself, please.

He can speak for me also...

GPalmer
05-30-2011, 11:44
In his defense, AA#5 didn't bring up Rodney King, I did. But I submit to you that it *is* all about that type of incident. If it hadn't been televised on all the news stations, and had you been a bystander officer, would you have reported this incident to the higher ups or not?

Naw, let's try a tough one. What if you had a partner you knew was in the middle of a tough time and was about to drive a block and a half home? I don't actually want an answer, but I think it's a better example of the gray areas you mentioned.

SAR
05-30-2011, 11:53
Naw, let's try a tough one. What if you had a partner you knew was in the middle of a tough time and was about to drive a block and a half home? I don't actually want an answer, but I think it's a better example of the gray areas you mentioned.

Our Department has so criminalized drunk driving that the answer to that would actually be easy. We have a zero tolerance policy on drunk driving so the answer to your question has largely been taken out of our hands. Same goes for domestic violence. There is no more telling anyone to "walk off" an argument. If D/V happens in an officer's home, there will be severe repercussions. So to me, those are easy to answer. Again, the hardest issues I continue to grapple with are what constitutes reasonable and unreasonable force, what constitutes reasonable and unreasonable searches and seizure. Those to me are the gray areas...

Snowman92D
05-30-2011, 11:56
Do insurgents count?

They do indeed. Every little bit helps. Thanks for helping to police that AO. :thumbsup:

msu_grad_121
05-30-2011, 11:58
Originally Posted by Cav
I have met some NYPD officers, State Troopers, Texas Rangers, and others that today would be called dirty, but back then would have been great LEO's.

This is part of what I alluded to previously. Even today, there are shades of gray. How many of us have talked about how we articulate our report, or statement, for example?

See, I don't think it's the same thing to write a report so as to articulate what happened in very technical terms, as long as it's not an out-and-out lie. If you punched the guy in the side of the head and stated that you struck him in or around the head area, that's one thing. But if you straight up deny that it happened, that's a whole different story.

As for the King tape, I have to admit I haven't seen the whole thing, but yeah the snippet that's been played over and over ad nauseum makes it look bad. But how hard is it to take something along those lines, show it out of context and make it look terrible?

There are definitely shades of gray, but as has been previously mentioned, that's when discretion comes into play. You don't get that opportunity when it involves theft, planting of evidence, murder, etc. Just my opinion, take it for what it's worth.

SAR
05-30-2011, 12:05
See, I don't think it's the same thing to write a report so as to articulate what happened in very technical terms, as long as it's not an out-and-out lie. If you punched the guy in the side of the head and stated that you struck him in or around the head area, that's one thing. But if you straight up deny that it happened, that's a whole different story.


Actually, I have known a few officers fired and even charged criminally for "omission" of facts without lying. If you are vague when it comes to certain aspects of search and seizure, and uses of force, and it is found that you omitted key facts, it will be dealt with just as harshly as if you lied.

Using your example above, we have a policy against punching a suspect in the throat in most use of force situations. If I wanted to be vague, I could say I punched the suspect in the extreme upper torso. It wouldn't be a lie, but again, it would be omitting a key fact, which is you punched the suspect in the throat.


As for the King tape, I have to admit I haven't seen the whole thing, but yeah the snippet that's been played over and over ad nauseum makes it look bad. But how hard is it to take something along those lines, show it out of context and make it look terrible?



We're police officers, not ballerinas. Uses of force are never meant to look pretty. It's not hard at all.

GPalmer
05-30-2011, 12:06
Our Department has so criminalized drunk driving that the answer to that would actually be easy. We have a zero tolerance policy on drunk driving so the answer to your question has largely been taken out of our hands. Same goes for domestic violence. There is no more telling anyone to "walk off" an argument. If D/V happens in an officer's home, there will be severe repercussions. So to me, those are easy to answer. Again, the hardest issues I continue to grapple with are what constitutes reasonable and unreasonable force, what constitutes reasonable and unreasonable searches and seizure. Those to me are the gray areas...

OK, bad example on my part. I was looking for something with a low probability of damage that was "impulsive" behavior (instead of systemic) if you will and would cause serious issues for the miscreant. Anyway, moving on...

I could see the gray areas you wrestle with since at least part of their definition involves what is in another human's mind. More along the lines of, did the officer's know that the person they chased and caught was unconscious when they dog-piled him and broke his ribs? That's a toughie since reputations are easily ruined.

EOD3
05-30-2011, 12:10
If I recall correctly, two of the cops who hit most of the "home runs"......(a quote from one of the cops) were sentenced to 72 months in Federal prison (after being found "not guilty" by a brain-dead Simi Valley jury that consisted mostly of cops' relatives, cops' friends & cops' neighbors.)

You seem to have forgoten that the make-up of the jury was pretty much dictated by the (IIRC) NAACP interviewing pretty much every perspective juror "of color" in the jurisdiction.

Watch a 30 second clip and you think you should be able to pick the jurors based on your "mean ole po-po" point of view. Are you so blind that you don't see the "federal" BS as politically-motivated salve for the democratic base?

SAR
05-30-2011, 12:12
OK, bad example on my part. I was looking for something with a low probability of damage that was "impulsive" behavior (instead of systemic) if you will and would cause serious issues for the miscreant. Anyway, moving on...

I could see the gray areas you wrestle with since at least part of their definition involves what is in another human's mind. More along the lines of, did the officer's know that the person they chased and caught was unconscious when they dog-piled him and broke his ribs? That's a toughie since reputations are easily ruined.

I'll give you a real example. A gang officer sees a known gang member standing on a street corner. Upon seeing the gang officer, the gang member takes a step back stoops behind a car and then comes back to the curb. The officer decides to stop and talk to the gang member. The officer also goes over to the car and finds a loaded 9mm Glock on the ground next to the car. The officer never saw the gang member with the gun. The officer never saw the gang member drop the gun. The gang member said he didn't know the gun was there, that he was just stretching his legs.

So now what?

EOD3
05-30-2011, 12:26
I'll give you a real example. A gang officer sees a known gang member standing on a street corner. Upon seeing the gang officer, the gang member takes a step back stoops behind a car and then comes back to the curb. The officer decides to stop and talk to the gang member. The officer also goes over to the car and finds a loaded 9mm Glock on the ground next to the car. The officer never saw the gang member with the gun. The officer never saw the gang member drop the gun. The gang member said he didn't know the gun was there, that he was just stretching his legs.

So now what?


I'm guessing "free Glock" is not the right answer. :rofl:

msu_grad_121
05-30-2011, 12:27
I'll give you a real example. A gang officer sees a known gang member standing on a street corner. Upon seeing the gang officer, the gang member takes a step back stoops behind a car and then comes back to the curb. The officer decides to stop and talk to the gang member. The officer also goes over to the car and finds a loaded 9mm Glock on the ground next to the car. The officer never saw the gang member with the gun. The officer never saw the gang member drop the gun. The gang member said he didn't know the gun was there, that he was just stretching his legs.

So now what?

Personally, I don't see how you'd get a prosecutor to sign off on an arrest for that, but as one of the instructors in the academy said all the time, "you can't have what you can't have." Seize the gun for sure, if you think you've got PC that he dropped it there, put the grabs on him and let the prosecutor figure it out. I guess I'm pretty lucky in some respects since my last department pretty much had a policy that said "throw it against the wall, if it sticks great, if not, that's fine too."

Did we get sued? All the time, mainly for use of force issues, but only once was a lawsuit successful (an incident which took place when I was thankfully not working), and it had nothing to do with search and seizure. You're absolutely right though, use of force isn't supposed to look pretty.

I feel like you and I are on the same page on the omission issue, even though it might might be immediately apparent. I'm saying that if you did something and you write it in professional, technical terms, that's one thing, but doing something (to use your example, punching someone in the throat) that is verbotten, and leaving it out of the report is a whole different can of worms.

msu_grad_121
05-30-2011, 12:28
I'm guessing "free Glock" is not the right answer. :rofl:

No, but points for creativity! :wavey:

wprebeck
05-30-2011, 12:31
Depends. Will your evidence tech (whatever name they go by) check for prints? I can articulate probable cause to arrest the guy for (in my state) possession of a handgun by a felon.

Defense will argue thepoint that the turd didnt know it was there. However, if your agency will check for prints, its an easy conviction. If not, then seize the gun, detain the jackleg for a little while, run him for warrants etc, etc, then cut him loose....if you work in an area where making that arrest would jam you up.

USAFE7
05-30-2011, 12:32
I'm guessing "free Glock" is not the right answer. :rofl:

Well I'm out of answers then :rofl:

GPalmer
05-30-2011, 12:33
I'll give you a real example. A gang officer sees a known gang member standing on a street corner. Upon seeing the gang officer, the gang member takes a step back stoops behind a car and then comes back to the curb. The officer decides to stop and talk to the gang member. The officer also goes over to the car and finds a loaded 9mm Glock on the ground next to the car. The officer never saw the gang member with the gun. The officer never saw the gang member drop the gun. The gang member said he didn't know the gun was there, that he was just stretching his legs.

So now what?

My naive answer would be an investigation to see if said gang member's fingerprints were on the weapon would be in order. To my uneducated eye, it seems the officer has done things correctly. Of course, I see where you're going with this one, but at least personally, I wouldn't go there since lying under oath puts you in the same class as the folks you're putting away. Then again, letting him go has a potential for harm to other members of society. Definitely gray, but I am who I am and he'd walk unless I could tie him to the gun with real evidence.

Patchman
05-30-2011, 12:36
OK, bad example on my part. I was looking for something with a low probability of damage that was "impulsive" behavior (instead of systemic) if you will and would cause serious issues for the miscreant. Anyway, moving on...

I could see the gray areas you wrestle with since at least part of their definition involves what is in another human's mind. More along the lines of, did the officer's know that the person they chased and caught was unconscious when they dog-piled him and broke his ribs? That's a toughie since reputations are easily ruined.

Or this.

A woman is getting evicted from her home. The court appointed repossessor is there and so are you (LEO), to keep the peace. You know the woman from the neighborhood as a drug user. You advice her to grab her ID and important documents, etc... and because the repossessor will box all her stuff and put them in storage, she should also grab whatever is important to her.

When she hears this, her eyes immediately goes straight to a small black plastic shopping bag hanging by the chair. Then she looks at you like a 10-year old who got caught. The repossessor also looks at you (he's sizing you up).

There's no 4th Amendment issues here because it is a court ordered eviction. The repossessor is court appointed with instructions to remove everything. He has the duty and authority to catalogue and list things he is removing. He is allowed to look into that black plastic bag.

He's looking to you (LEO) for direction. What do you say or do?

SAR
05-30-2011, 12:41
There has been A LOT of accusations lately (by you know who...) of a officer KNOWING of fellow officers committing crimes involving "planting evidence, falsifying reports, bad shoots (murder: planting a gun to justify) and so on. My questions are pretty straight forward.....

(1) Would you allow any of the above to happen OR continue to happen if/when you found out what was going on?

(2) Are there any circumstances that might persuade you to overlook the above?

(3) Would you be able to face another day knowing you were able to stop the unlawful actions of a bad officer but allowed him/them to continue their illegal activities?

(4) While I'm sure most/all LEOs here would uphold the law are there ANY reasons you wouldn't?


My naive answer would be an investigation to see if said gang member's fingerprints were on the weapon would be in order. To my uneducated eye, it seems the officer has done things correctly. Of course, I see where you're going with this one, but at least personally, I wouldn't go there since lying under oath puts you in the same class as the folks you're putting away. Then again, letting him go has a potential for harm to other members of society. Definitely gray, but I am who I am and he'd walk unless I could tie him to the gun with real evidence.

My intent in providing this example was not to get an answer, but rather to show the OP that law enforcement is all about the "gray zone." Good, seasoned cops walk the line well. Anyone can work in the black and white.

SAR
05-30-2011, 12:44
Or this.

He's looking to you (LEO) for direction. What do you say or do?

If you tell him to do anything, he's acting as your agent. Citizens do not fall under unlawful searches and seizure. A private citizen acting on his own cannot violate search and seizure. A citizen acting as your agent can.

wprebeck
05-30-2011, 12:46
Or this.

A woman is getting evicted from her home. The court appointed repossessor is there and so are you (LEO), to keep the peace. You know the woman from the neighborhood as a drug user. You advice her to grab her ID and important documents, etc... and because the repossessor will box all her stuff and put them in storage, she should also grab whatever is important to her.

When she hears this, her eyes immediately goes straight to a small black plastic shopping bag hanging by the chair. Then she looks at you like a 10-year old who got caught. The repossessor also looks at you (he's sizing you up).

There's no 4th Amendment issues here because it is a court ordered eviction. The repossessor is court appointed with instructions to remove everything. He has the duty and authority to catalogue and list things he is removing. He is allowed to look into that black plastic bag.

He's looking to you (LEO) for direction. What do you say or do?


He gets to look, then. If its illegal contraband, she goes to jail. Not seeing the gray area, because:

You are in a place you have a legal right to be (were sent there, so that's obvious)

The assessor has the legal right to inventory items. Should those items be inventoried in front of you, in plain view, well....where's the gray area?


That's like our local agency using probation officers or our home incarceration officers Tonga in access to a house. Nothing illegal about it, just using the tools set out by the courts. A condition of home incarceration is that you must allow our officers to enter at anytime. Failure to do so gets your ass brought back to jail....sometimes with your door kicked in. LMPD likes to get into houses for one reason or another, so they work with our HIP folks, nothing gray or shady - all aboveboard and legal.

Patchman
05-30-2011, 12:47
I'll give you a real example. A gang officer sees a known gang member standing on a street corner. Upon seeing the gang officer, the gang member takes a step back stoops behind a car and then comes back to the curb. The officer decides to stop and talk to the gang member. The officer also goes over to the car and finds a loaded 9mm Glock on the ground next to the car. The officer never saw the gang member with the gun. The officer never saw the gang member drop the gun. The gang member said he didn't know the gun was there, that he was just stretching his legs.

So now what?

Many, many years ago, one of my officers was processing an arrest so he placed his Glock 19 in the gun locker. When he was all done, he tried to open the locker but somehow the cylinder was broken. He couldn't get his gun out and for some reason was really worried about it.

I called the SWAT team and asked it they could help. They said sure, will be over ASAP.

In the meantime, the cop was still really worried. So to calm him down I told him that I was sending all available manpower to the streets to arrest anyone carrying a Glock 19. Then he can hold on to the gun until his own was extricated from the locker.

He did not find it humorous.

ateamer
05-30-2011, 12:47
Or this.

A woman is getting evicted from her home. The court appointed repossessor is there and so are you (LEO), to keep the peace. You know the woman from the neighborhood as a drug user. You advice her to grab her ID and important documents, etc... and because the repossessor will box all her stuff and put them in storage, she should also grab whatever is important to her.

When she hears this, her eyes immediately goes straight to a small black plastic shopping bag hanging by the chair. Then she looks at you like a 10-year old who got caught. The repossessor also looks at you (he's sizing you up).

There's no 4th Amendment issues here because it is a court ordered eviction. The repossessor is court appointed with instructions to remove everything. He has the duty and authority to catalogue and list things he is removing. He is allowed to look into that black plastic bag.

He's looking to you (LEO) for direction. What do you say or do?
If I tell him to, or suggest, that he look inside the bag, the court is probably going to rule that he is acting as an agent of the government and could suppress it. More likely is get consent to search the bag. As you know, most dopers will give consent if you have the gift of gab.

collim1
05-30-2011, 12:51
My answer to the OP's original four questions, especially in a semi- public forum, is of course "No."

Would I flush my career away in protest if the powers that be chose to do nothing about it after I informed them? That answer is also "No."

Which, I suppose, in practice makes my answer to question #3, a "Yes."



Actually, now that I think about it, it was always a "Yes." Sorry, but I don't have it in me to carry around a bunch of guilt for others' bad behavior. I do what's right and set the best example for others that I can and I most certainly would report the misconduct. But the question is phrased as if we'd be expected to either quit or kill ourselves if we couldn't stop all the dirty cops in the world that we knew of. That's not happening. For one thing, if all the good cops quit or kill themselves then where would we be as a society?



I'm going to change my answer here as well. There are, of course, hundreds of reasons why any of us might choose to excercise our discretion not to enforce the letter of the law given the totality of the circumstances. Yes, this applies to fellow LEOs who get a pass on traffic tickets from me, but it also applies to civilians in numerous situations.

The victim of a rape I'm getting ready to interview at the hospital reaches into her purse to get her id card and a baggie of weed falls out. The law demands that she be charged for the offense of possession of marijuana in order for the law to be considered "upheld." I doubt many of us would physically arrest her for it, but how many would still cite her? How many would flush the weed?

Like it or not, this job is about the different shades of gray and the toughest decisions are faced at the lighter end of the scale. Would I help an officer cover up a murder? No, of course not. Would I drive an off- duty officer home who's DUI? Yes. Now that same officer has showed up for duty two days later and you believe that he's intoxicated again, which means he was DUI in a patrol car on his way to work. What would you do?

Good post, and very true.

wprebeck
05-30-2011, 12:53
If you tell him to do anything, he's acting as your agent. Citizens do not fall under unlawful searches and seizure. A private citizen acting on his own cannot violate search and seizure. A citizen acting as your agent can.

I see where you where going.


I would tell the guy to do his job. If he needs to open the bag to do it, then fine. If not, oh well. Is this bag inside or outside if the residence, and would using K9 be appropriate?

GPalmer
05-30-2011, 12:56
My intent in providing this example was not to get an answer, but rather to show the OP that law enforcement is all about the "gray zone." Good, seasoned cops walk the line well. Anyone can work in the black and white.

SAR, you know I personally became convinced of that about life in general a long, long time ago... :supergrin:

Mayhem like Me
05-30-2011, 12:57
I'll give you a real example. A gang officer sees a known gang member standing on a street corner. Upon seeing the gang officer, the gang member takes a step back stoops behind a car and then comes back to the curb. The officer decides to stop and talk to the gang member. The officer also goes over to the car and finds a loaded 9mm Glock on the ground next to the car. The officer never saw the gang member with the gun. The officer never saw the gang member drop the gun. The gang member said he didn't know the gun was there, that he was just stretching his legs.

So now what?

Take the glock have it printed ...

Patchman
05-30-2011, 12:58
He gets to look, then. If its illegal contraband, she goes to jail. Not seeing the gray area, because:

You are in a place you have a legal right to be (were sent there, so that's obvious)

The assessor has the legal right to inventory items. Should those items be inventoried in front of you, in plain view, well....where's the gray area?


That's like our local agency using probation officers or our home incarceration officers Tonga in access to a house. Nothing illegal about it, just using the tools set out by the courts. A condition of home incarceration is that you must allow our officers to enter at anytime. Failure to do so gets your ass brought back to jail....sometimes with your door kicked in. LMPD likes to get into houses for one reason or another, so they work with our HIP folks, nothing gray or shady - all aboveboard and legal.

Yes, the court appointed repossessor absolutely had a legal right to look. And after he looks and says, "oh officer, there appear to be drugs in here" the LEO would have to arrest her. No question.

The gray area is, do you cut the repossessor off at the pass, and say something like "well, she's getting evicted from her home today. That's enough trouble for one day."

Technically, that would be corruption.

EOD3
05-30-2011, 12:59
He's looking to you (LEO) for direction. What do you say or do?

Nothing. For all you know, she may have a box of Tampons in the bag and at this point, "discovery" by the suspicious repossessor would be tainted anyway.

GPalmer
05-30-2011, 13:01
Just a note in passing. I am very happy that my original thought this would be a poor subject for a thread turns out to have been quite wrong. Thanks for all the excellent commentary and, at least to me, thought provoking examples!

USAFE7
05-30-2011, 13:06
My intent in providing this example was not to get an answer, but rather to show the OP that law enforcement is all about the "gray zone." Good, seasoned cops walk the line well. Anyone can work in the black and white.

I understand the Gray more than you may think. I am however, not talking about issues involving civies. This is only related to allowing officers to continue to murder innocent people and plant weapons to justify it and the such, as one poster said he was witness to in his "short career" in LE. That is what this thread is about. IF what he says really happened (I doubt it), where would you classify him? WHY would someone give up his job to allow it to continue without so much as filing a complaint.

Sam Spade
05-30-2011, 13:10
IF what he says really happened (I doubt it), where would you classify him?

As an accomplice after the fact.

CAcop
05-30-2011, 13:34
Yes, the court appointed repossessor absolutely had a legal right to look. And after he looks and says, "oh officer, there appear to be drugs in here" the LEO would have to arrest her. No question.

The gray area is, do you cut the repossessor off at the pass, and say something like "well, she's getting evicted from her home today. That's enough trouble for one day."

Technically, that would be corruption.

That would be laziness.

One of our guys spent 30 minutes talking a lady out of a report that would have taken 20 minutes to write.

USAFE7
05-30-2011, 13:59
Bad cops? http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/25/would-meek-compliance-have-sav

Sam Spade
05-30-2011, 14:08
Bad cops? http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/25/would-meek-compliance-have-sav

Dunno, might be. But one thing I've learned is that trusting the press is stupid. Trusting the press whose sole source is the allegations in a criminal case against someone is really stupid. Since this blogger managed to include quotes in the allegations in a civil suit, by the ACLU....yeah, I'll wait for things to shake out a bit more.


Oh, I forgot: Even if everything alleged is precisely true, with nary a hint of exaggeration....do you think the criminal case against the two was made without any input from other cops?

USAFE7
05-30-2011, 14:11
Dunno, might be. But one thing I've learned is that trusting the press is stupid. Trusting the press whose sole source is the allegations in a criminal case against someone is really stupid. Since this blogger managed to include quotes in the allegations in a civil suit, by the ACLU....yeah, I'll wait for things to shake out a bit more.


Oh, I forgot: Even if everything alleged is precisely true, with nary a hint of exaggeration....do you think the criminal case against the two was made without any input from other cops?

:cool: Good call and no....which was my point. If something was going to get covered up...I would think this would be it.

SAR
05-30-2011, 14:30
I understand the Gray more than you may think. I am however, not talking about issues involving civies. This is only related to allowing officers to continue to murder innocent people and plant weapons to justify it and the such, as one poster said he was witness to in his "short career" in LE. That is what this thread is about. IF what he says really happened (I doubt it), where would you classify him? WHY would someone give up his job to allow it to continue without so much as filing a complaint.

Bad cops? http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/25/would-meek-compliance-have-sav

I guess I'm not following you then. You're asking police officers to make split second decisions and to make interpretations of the law that the highest court in the land often takes YEARS to grapple with. In reading the article, I am getting the version of a story as printed by a newspaper. In the real world, nothing is cut and dry, and that would be the case even in this story. I was not there. I do not know what was going through the minds of the officers, and that's what were getting at, mens rea.

lawman800
05-30-2011, 14:39
Just be clean cops and don't break the law. Geez....

USAFE7
05-30-2011, 14:46
I guess I'm not following you then. You're asking police officers to make split second decisions and to make interpretations of the law that the highest court in the land often takes YEARS to grapple with. In reading the article, I am getting the version of a story as printed by a newspaper. In the real world, nothing is cut and dry, and that would be the case even in this story. I was not there. I do not know what was going through the minds of the officers, and that's what were getting at, mens rea.


SAR...I guess I'm trying to cover every angle he might respond from. He is of mostly negative comments and bases them off of his LE career...months not years. So in posting that link and asking that simple question, I was able to get a good answer without leading, allowing someone to post their thoughts and not a "canned" one. The thread the comments were made in was deleted but there are a few that saw them. I want to bring all his BS into bright light to either have him admit it was a lie OR admit he is as dirty as the ones he witnessed.

wprebeck
05-30-2011, 14:59
SAR,

Ill help out, as you seemed to have missed the poster in question. Tacho gunworks aleged that he was a reserve in LA for some agency for around three years. During that time, he allegedly saw officer commit murders, throw down drop guns, plant dope, etc.

So, the OP is questioning that in here, in a public way...basically calling out the ****** that is tacho gunwirks. And hopefully, we can help his business along, by showing all the police type down his way how he really feels about cops. Dragoon figured out his company, and who he is.

Patchman
05-30-2011, 15:00
That would be laziness.

One of our guys spent 30 minutes talking a lady out of a report that would have taken 20 minutes to write.

Laziness? Corruption? I'll be first to admit its easy to become lazy, take shortcuts, and end up charged with failure to take police action or corruption.

The gray areas are problematic and judgement calls can be very bad for one's career.

SAR
05-30-2011, 15:05
SAR,

Ill help out, as you seemed to have missed the poster in question. Tacho gunworks aleged that he was a reserve in LA for some agency for around three years. During that time, he allegedly saw officer commit murders, throw down drop guns, plant dope, etc.

So, the OP is questioning that in here, in a public way...basically calling out the ****** that is tacho gunwirks. And hopefully, we can help his business along, by showing all the police type down his way how he really feels about cops. Dragoon figured out his company, and who he is.

If he saw these things, I would ask that he cite the specific cases, because it would be easy to prove him right, especially if the officers were fired/indicted. If he saw these things and kept his mouth shut, he is nothing more than an accomplice. If he wants to set the record straight, let him name names.

Dragoon44
05-30-2011, 15:37
If he saw these things, I would ask that he cite the specific cases, because it would be easy to prove him right, especially if the officers were fired/indicted. If he saw these things and kept his mouth shut, he is nothing more than an accomplice. If he wants to set the record straight, let him name names.

He says that while he has plenty of time to make the accusation he doesn't have the time or inclination to prove them.

lawman800
05-30-2011, 15:44
He says that while he has plenty of time to make the accusation he doesn't have the time or inclination to prove them.

So basically he is full of ****e!

Dragoon44
05-30-2011, 15:49
So basically he is full of ****e!

Yeah and since he is located in Texas I am guessing he probably picked LA because he thought LAPD was large enough that no one could prove or disprove he was not a reservist there.

wprebeck
05-30-2011, 15:54
Yeah and since he is located in Texas I am guessing he probably picked LA because he thought LAPD was large enough that no one could prove or disprove he was not a reservist there.

Going thru his previous posts, he says a lot of things. He's heavily involved in the TEA party, seemingly on the national level. He's a physicist who works in the auto industry, again very "inside". He also has a very poor attitude towards folks, and somehow thinks a G26 is a sissy gun....even though im betting he wouldn't volunteer to be a target holder for someone shooting one.


He seems to be a general.d-bag....

Dragoon44
05-30-2011, 15:58
Going thru his previous posts, he says a lot of things. He's heavily involved in the TEA party, seemingly on the national level. He's a physicist who works in the auto industry, again very "inside". He also has a very poor attitude towards folks, and somehow thinks a G26 is a sissy gun....even though im betting he wouldn't volunteer to be a target holder for someone shooting one.


He seems to be a general.d-bag....

And he claims his Los Angeles Experience was many years ago, quite a lot of accomplishments for someone who pic looks like late twenties earlier thirties tops.

SAR
05-30-2011, 16:17
And he claims his Los Angeles Experience was many years ago, quite a lot of accomplishments for someone who pic looks like late twenties earlier thirties tops.

Well, perhaps he was a reserve or maybe he wasn't. One of the biggest problems we have locally in this vein are the perceptions of our brother law enforcement officers who have very little experience. I am referring to police officers with less than five years on the job, and yes, reserves who work one weekend a month.

I cannot tell you the number of times, a veteran officer was "ratted out" by his boot, only to find out it was the rookie's own misconceptions about law enforcement that skewed the facts in his mind. What a rookie sees as egregious law enforcement behavior is not necessarily that. How many actual shootings was the "supposed" reserve in during his time in LA? I am here to tell you that one who has never experienced one has very little knowledge of protocol himself.

Let me tell you one actual example. A few years ago, in the aftermath of an officer involved shooting with hits, one of the officers grabbed the suspects gun for safekeeping. Nothing wrong with that. Along comes another officer, who starts freaking out and says, "oh man, you just screwed up the OIS scene!!!!!" So the officer puts the gun back where he found it on the ground. A witness sees the first officer putting the gun on the ground. There was no ill intent of either officer, but both officers had less than five years on the job and had no evil intent whatsoever. Yet, you can imagine the controversy that resulted. The correct thing would have been officer number one retaining the weapon and then explaining to investigators that he removed it for safety reasons. To remove the gun, then put it back just smacked of planting a weapon in the eyes of all involved. Gray area? YOU BET.

Patchman
05-30-2011, 16:17
Nothing. For all you know, she may have a box of Tampons in the bag and at this point, "discovery" by the suspicious repossessor would be tainted anyway.

In your last response to me, you posted that you were going to bury me so deep on your "ignore" list that you would never see my posts again. So what happened? Couldn't keep away from my sweetness, could you? :)


Anyway, a LEO doing nothing is the worst of all possibilities. Especially if there is a crowd watching.

A LEO needs to be guided by the old Libyian saying: "Make a decision. It may be a good decision. It may be a bad decision. But make a decision."

GPalmer
05-30-2011, 16:19
And he claims his Los Angeles Experience was many years ago, quite a lot of accomplishments for someone who pic looks like late twenties earlier thirties tops.

Yeah but look at you, you only look to be in your early eighties! :supergrin::wavey:

Dragoon44
05-30-2011, 16:23
Yeah but look at you, you only look to be in your early eighties! :supergrin::wavey:

I've always looked younger than I actually am.

:tongueout::rofl:

wprebeck
05-30-2011, 16:37
So.....here's a thought.

Being that a number of cops are gun guys, and spend an inordinate amount of time and money on guns and related gear -


Would it be inappropriate to ensure that the public safety community in a certain town knew how one of the business owners felt about law enforcement? I'm posting from a tablet, and still learning it - and my laptop is kaput for now.....but, im sure there some folks out there with a bit more time and such....

wprebeck
05-30-2011, 16:42
Hey, turnabout is fair play....I've been called to IA for my 'net postings after a self-important ****** who thought the fact he had money meant something complained about me.....he was so damn sure I'd used official sources in finding out where he lives, worked, about his divorce, etc.


Dummy didnt realize that he posted that stuff all online...and under a rather distinctive username that was easy to find - nor he did realize that, on a good night of working off duty, four out of my five hours working are spent playing on my phone/tablet. Thus, leaving me plenty of time to surf the web in search of ******ness....


And, to my boss's credit - the guy wanted an apology, and my chief told him it wasn't happening.

wprebeck
05-30-2011, 16:44
Forgot to add -

Hi ton the following:

LT. Eggars
Sgt. Joyner
Sgt. Heacock


Hope you guys are doing well, and I'm enjoying my vacation. I may have to register at a few more forums, just to give you guys somewhere else to follow me around at....oh, and if you're reading, too - hi, Mr. Bolton. :wavey: (he's our agency head)

Sam Spade
05-30-2011, 16:46
"Mister"?

Always nice having greater law enforcement authority than the top dog.

wprebeck
05-30-2011, 16:57
"Mister"?

Always nice having greater law enforcement authority than the top dog.

Don't ask....


Short version - audit done years ago recommended civilian attire for command, since we were too "police oriented" since then, job title for chief changed to director, and they wear suits/business casual. Nothing else changed, not job description or statutory authority. Just more pc run amok.

lawman800
05-30-2011, 17:50
And he claims his Los Angeles Experience was many years ago, quite a lot of accomplishments for someone who pic looks like late twenties earlier thirties tops.

Hey! Don't discount the achievements of youth, ole ancient one!

By the time I hit 30, I already had my doctorate from a real brick and mortar school!

But in his case, yeah, he's a ******. It's not hard to verify even in LAPD. They have ~700 reserves and any real reserve can tell you their station and reserve coordinator. Tell him to name it via PM if he wants. SAR can easily verify it.

Dragoon44
05-30-2011, 17:57
Hey! Don't discount the achievements of youth, ole ancient one!

By the time I hit 30, I already had my doctorate from a real brick and mortar school!



And here I thought all you had was a BS degree.

:whistling: :rofl:

ateamer
05-30-2011, 18:05
Well, perhaps he was a reserve or maybe he wasn't. One of the biggest problems we have locally in this vein are the perceptions of our brother law enforcement officers who have very little experience. I am referring to police officers with less than five years on the job, and yes, reserves who work one weekend a month.

I cannot tell you the number of times, a veteran officer was "ratted out" by his boot, only to find out it was the rookie's own misconceptions about law enforcement that skewed the facts in his mind. What a rookie sees as egregious law enforcement behavior is not necessarily that.
The same thing happened up in Oakland a few years ago. A trainee, who had grown up in a serene Rockwell-esque town, could not adjust to working in the ghetto and was, naturally, struggling. Once it became apparent that he wasn't going to be a cop much longer, he claimed to have witnessed a bunch of egregious behavior by his FTOs. The subsequent jury trial, where the officers were cleared, proved the rookie to be a liar.
http://www.rlslawyers.com/pdfs/newsletter_riders_9_03.pdf

lawman800
05-30-2011, 18:09
And here I thought all you had was a BS degree.

:whistling: :rofl:

It's a doctorate in BS. And I was actually 28 when I earned it!:supergrin:

lawman800
05-30-2011, 18:15
The same thing happened up in Oakland a few years ago. A trainee, who had grown up in a serene Rockwell-esque town, could not adjust to working in the ghetto and was, naturally, struggling. Once it became apparent that he wasn't going to be a cop much longer, he claimed to have witnessed a bunch of egregious behavior by his FTOs. The subsequent jury trial, where the officers were cleared, proved the rookie to be a liar.
http://www.rlslawyers.com/pdfs/newsletter_riders_9_03.pdf

We get that. All of a sudden they file workers comp (for employment protection) or a complaint against the supervisor (so they can claim the termination is retaliatory) or the females file sexual harassment. I swear there is a bad employees handbook out there.

Patchman
05-30-2011, 18:48
I love whistle blower/retaliation complaints.

lawman800
05-30-2011, 18:58
We had a guy who is out the door and he cited all kinds of wrong law and sent copies to every regulatory agency out there asking for help and also to protect him under the whistle blower statutes. Well, he didn't bother to read the law he cites backs up our practice and many places do it.

Vigilant
05-30-2011, 19:14
And here I thought all you had was a BS degree.

:whistling: :rofl:

Around here, PhD stands for 'piled high and deep'.

Just sayin'..... :whistling: :supergrin:

lawman800
05-30-2011, 20:51
I've always looked younger than I actually am.

:tongueout::rofl:

I agree. You are older than the Crypt Keeper but he ain't nowhere near you in appearance. It's all the cigarettes, I tell ya!

Around here, PhD stands for 'piled high and deep'.

Just sayin'..... :whistling: :supergrin:

I am so using that at work!

Vigilant
05-30-2011, 22:38
I agree. You are older than the Crypt Keeper but he ain't nowhere near you in appearance. It's all the cigarettes, I tell ya!



Rumor has it that Dragoon is only 21 years old. That's what smoking does to you. :tongueout:



I am so using that at work!


Does this mean ya still love me? :rofl:

Woo--ain't there nothin' you can take?
I say, woo--to relieve your belly ache,
You say, well woo--ain't there nothin' I can take?
I say woo--woo, to relieve your belly ache,
You say yow--ain't there nothin' I can take,

I say wow--to relieve this belly ache,
I said "Doctor, ain't there nothing I can take,"
I said, "Doctor, ain't there nothing I can take,"
I said, "Doctor, ain't there nothing I can take,"
I said, "Doctor you're such a silly woman.

Put the lime in the coconut and drink 'em both together,
Put the lime in the coconut, and you'll feel better,
Put the lime in the coconut and drink 'em bot' up,
Put the lime in the coconut and call me in the morning.

lawman800
05-30-2011, 23:23
Now I am worried about you....

EOD3
05-31-2011, 00:40
In your last response to me, you posted that you were going to bury me so deep on your "ignore" list that you would never see my posts again. So what happened? Couldn't keep away from my sweetness, could you? :)

I decided to take a more proactive approach to ignoring you.

Anyway, a LEO doing nothing is the worst of all possibilities. Especially if there is a crowd watching.

I thought we were talking about one woman, one LEO, and one court appointed repossessor. Sometimes "doing nothing" is not the default but rather the chosen action.

Agent6-3/8
05-31-2011, 07:53
I walked away from a DEA career over a fellow S/A stealing from a suspect.

Break a law of G-d or a serious law of Man and I would not tolerate it.

The only time I ever allowed any slack was for minor traffic offenses - and that privilege was extended to citizens as well.


I left my previous department due to similar circumstances. It left me with a pretty sour view of LE that took me a while to work through. Its been tough trying to find another gig in this economy.

Panzergrenadier1979
05-31-2011, 08:20
The same thing happened up in Oakland a few years ago. A trainee, who had grown up in a serene Rockwell-esque town, could not adjust to working in the ghetto and was, naturally, struggling. Once it became apparent that he wasn't going to be a cop much longer, he claimed to have witnessed a bunch of egregious behavior by his FTOs. The subsequent jury trial, where the officers were cleared, proved the rookie to be a liar.
http://www.rlslawyers.com/pdfs/newsletter_riders_9_03.pdf

In the meantime, the rookie got hired on by another agency....

Anyone in the area know what happened to him after his accusations fell apart and the officers were acquitted? I he still a cop? Does his back-up take the scenic route to get to his location?

Morris
05-31-2011, 10:15
http://www.cailaw.org/ilea/pastwinners.html

http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-10-16/bay-area/17264961_1_police-officer-consent-decree-keith-batt

Regarding Batt.

Dragoon44
05-31-2011, 13:52
http://www.cailaw.org/ilea/pastwinners.html

http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-10-16/bay-area/17264961_1_police-officer-consent-decree-keith-batt

Regarding Batt.

isn't that "the Beaver?"

:rofl::rofl:

SAR
05-31-2011, 15:12
isn't that "the Beaver?"

:rofl::rofl:

No joke... Ken Osmond, "Eddie Haskell" on LITB, retired as a motor officer from LAPD...

http://www.litb.com/officerosmondsml.jpg

Dragoon44
05-31-2011, 16:01
No joke... Ken Osmond, "Eddie Haskell" on LITB, retired as a motor officer from LAPD...

http://www.litb.com/officerosmondsml.jpg

Yeah I remember reading that. Hey you might luck out and get Steven Seagal.

:rofl::rofl:

MeefZah
06-01-2011, 00:09
no x 4

+1, and an interesting thread to read over.

.

lawman800
06-01-2011, 00:31
Yeah I remember reading that. Hey you might luck out and get Steven Seagal.

:rofl::rofl:

That would work out fine. LAPD has a tank he can drive like he did with Sheriff Arpaio's crew.

USAFE7
06-01-2011, 19:55
I would like to thank everyone for their input and keeping this a civil thread.

Vigilant
06-01-2011, 20:09
I would like to thank everyone for their input and keeping this a civil thread.

You're welcome, DAMMIT! :rofl:

EOD3
06-01-2011, 23:18
I would like to thank everyone for their input and keeping this a civil thread.

Now you done it. :upeyes:

USAFE7
06-02-2011, 05:20
You're welcome, DAMMIT! :rofl:

Now you done it. :upeyes:

oops! :rofl:

RussP
06-02-2011, 08:17
I would like to thank everyone for their input and keeping this a civil thread.Now you done it. :upeyes:oops! :rofl:"oops!"...???:faint:

Typical CT 'rookie' mistake - never ever thank these guys - and thanking them for civility?!?! This is going into your "GT" jacket. Don't let it happen again....




:animlol:

rgregoryb
06-02-2011, 18:34
"oops!"...???:faint:

Typical CT 'rookie' mistake - never ever thank these guys - and thanking them for civility?!?! This is going into your "GT" jacket. Don't let it happen again....




:animlol:

I vote for double secret probation.............:whistling:

USAFE7
06-02-2011, 19:37
"oops!"...???:faint:

Typical CT 'rookie' mistake - never ever thank these guys - and thanking them for civility?!?! This is going into your "GT" jacket. Don't let it happen again....




:animlol:

I PROMISE it will NEVER happen again :rofl:

4949shooter
06-02-2011, 19:43
This thread is now doomed.

lawman800
06-03-2011, 02:45
I vote for double secret probation.............:whistling:

Only if secret squirrel is involved.

Bren
06-04-2011, 08:31
I walked away from a DEA career over a fellow S/A stealing from a suspect.


I know a secret service agent who did the same, over agents and a supervisor lying about interrogations, requests for lawyers, consent, etc.

redneck1861
06-11-2011, 20:51
Alright, well everyone here seems to be on the same page, that if we see someone doing illegal things, LEO or not, we will report it.

But what do you think about the cases where multiple officers are involved with serious issues, such as stealing cash, drugs, etc. from dealers, and keep it instead of turning it in, and planting drugs to make an arrest?

There is 1 case involving officers that are local to me, that has been going on for some time now. There have been several people released from prison after serving 4+ years after dope was planted on them.

The officers are all turning their backs against each other, and are testifying against others to keep themselves out of prison. Even though they have all confirmed that they were involved.

What does all the LEO's on here think about that? I really hope that none of yall are involved in this, or personally know any of the involved officers.

IMHO if any of them are going to serve time, they should all serve time, of course I am only talking about the ones that have admitted they were involved, some were found to have no knowledge that it was going on.

Morris
06-11-2011, 22:58
Well, what would YOU do?

redneck1861
06-11-2011, 23:29
Well, what would YOU do?


If I was just as involved as everyone else, I wouldnt try to get off, if it involved making the other people be solely responsible.

It might just be a honor thing, I would never take place in anything like that, but if I did, I wouldnt be able to sleep at night knowing someone else is in prison for something I did as well.

I am not going to post the link, because LEO's get bashed enough already, but if you want I will send you the link to the case.

USAFE7
06-12-2011, 00:00
I know a secret service agent who did the same, over agents and a supervisor lying about interrogations, requests for lawyers, consent, etc.

I'm pretty sure all of us in our "field" have dealt with that....sadly enough.

lawman800
06-12-2011, 01:34
I would not condone it and never join in a ring of cops who did anything like that. What's so hard to understand about that?

Crooks are crooks even if they are wearing an uniform. A whole bunch of crooks in uniform just means you have to take that many more down to protect the integrity of the profession.

redneck1861
06-12-2011, 13:20
I would not condone it and never join in a ring of cops who did anything like that. What's so hard to understand about that?

Crooks are crooks even if they are wearing an uniform. A whole bunch of crooks in uniform just means you have to take that many more down to protect the integrity of the profession.


I am talking about the guys that are just as guilty as everyone else. that admit they are just as involved, that are trying to make just a few officers pay for it. I guess I just dont like the DA offering immunity by testifyinf against other officers.

steveksux
06-12-2011, 14:04
I am talking about the guys that are just as guilty as everyone else. that admit they are just as involved, that are trying to make just a few officers pay for it. I guess I just dont like the DA offering immunity by testifyinf against other officers.I don't like it when regular crooks get immunity for testifying against each other when they're all equally guilty.

Sometimes that's just the only way to get any of them convicted. Better 4 of 5 in jail than 5 of 5 go free.

Randy

redneck1861
06-12-2011, 14:38
I don't like it when regular crooks get immunity for testifying against each other when they're all equally guilty.

Sometimes that's just the only way to get any of them convicted. Better 4 of 5 in jail than 5 of 5 go free.

Randy


I agree with that for the most part. I guess it is bad because I have read all that was going on, the FBI had video of them all, as of right now, 2 have not been convicted due to testifying, 1 has been convicted.

I'll just post the link so people can read themselves, there is alot of stuff though.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20110612_11_A8_CUTLIN317378

if you want more, just look it up.

Hack
06-12-2011, 20:05
I agree with that for the most part. I guess it is bad because I have read all that was going on, the FBI had video of them all, as of right now, 2 have not been convicted due to testifying, 1 has been convicted.

I'll just post the link so people can read themselves, there is alot of stuff though.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20110612_11_A8_CUTLIN317378

if you want more, just look it up.

Interesting.

lawman800
06-12-2011, 22:34
I am talking about the guys that are just as guilty as everyone else. that admit they are just as involved, that are trying to make just a few officers pay for it. I guess I just dont like the DA offering immunity by testifyinf against other officers.

I agree. They should all go down together with no offers of anything if the DA has a solid case that doesn't need corroboration of the conspirators. However, the DA always likes to have an inside man testifying to give the inside facts as only a conspirator can to cinch the case airtight. It's just a function of the system we operate in.