Cop in America doing a bad job, again

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
Police forces aren't in the habit of reprimanding their own so it's a safe assumption that it must have been pretty bad. He also had a dozen other complaints against him.
Click to expand...

" His file showed 12 other incidents, varying from vehicle accidents to citizens’ complaints. He was exonerated in nine of those internal investigations. "
 
Grinner said:
What's the difference of posting this and posting that a victim of a police shooting has a long rap sheet to make them look bad?
Click to expand...
A victim's priors has exactly zero relevance as the cops are never supposed to be the ones deciding the punishment for alleged crimes.
Furthermore, it's often used nefariously to muddy the waters surrounding crimes committed by the police.

A cops history with complaints and reprimands should show whether he should be in the job in the first place, which tasks to undertake and ultimately whether his department is doing a good job.

Honestly, I'm pretty surprised at this question.
 
Grinner said:
" His file showed 12 other incidents, varying from vehicle accidents to citizens’ complaints. He was exonerated in nine of those internal investigations. "
Click to expand...

So? He's clearly a problem officer with that many complaints in seven years. Not to mention the four where he wasn't exonerated.
 
Grinner said:
So basically it's just what you reckon then?
Click to expand...
No I already answered you. You don’t need to be a lawyer to know how a trial works.

It is in certain circumstance only and the defendant has to take the stand for the prosecutor to have a chance of using it
 
Maagge said:
A victim's priors has exactly zero relevance as the cops are never supposed to be the ones deciding the punishment for alleged crimes.
Furthermore, it's often used nefariously to muddy the waters surrounding crimes committed by the police.

A cops history with complaints and reprimands should show whether he should be in the job in the first place, which tasks to undertake and ultimately whether his department is doing a good job.

Honestly, I'm pretty surprised at this question.
Click to expand...


You didn't read my question very carefully, did you?
 
Grinner said:
You didn't read my question very carefully, did you?
Click to expand...
Then what was I supposed to make of it if not that? By the looks of it you've been misunderstood by quite a few people so it'd be great if you could take some time to explain what you meant instead of posting one-liners to the detriment of the thread.
 
oates said:
Maybe, and here's an idea, could just one or two people suggest the same issues to him or otherwise it looks like what it is, a pile on in the CE?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how that would work in practice... To be fair he threw raw meat in a shark tank the outcome was pretty predictable.

ivaldo said:
Oh so now you want to discuss?
Click to expand...
No..... I don't actually....
 
Last edited:
afrocentricity said:
I'm not sure how that would work in practice... To be fair he threw raw meat in a shark tank the outcome was pretty predictable.
Click to expand...
I don't know. Maybe something along the lines of - I've seen someone ask exactly the same thing I want to ask, it's covered. Maybe.
 
Then again, that poster didn't express the clever way I could put it and bite harder and get more blood in the water.
 
Cassidy said:
You dont hand the jury a list. But prosecution can make reference to past offence when attesting to your character in certain circumstances as far as I know.
Click to expand...

The first condition is that you need to be in a situation where you testify on your behalf and from that point the jurisprudence will determine whether it is admissible or not. So the answer is yes your past can be used against you but only under specific conditions which can differ slightly depending on where you are and the precedents existing.
 
Suedesi said:
Atlanta cop who shot Rayshard Brooks had been reported TWELVE TIMES for misconduct - including once for excessive use of force with a gun
Click to expand...
This is part of the problem like in that tweet I shared before. A guy who pepper sprayed a teenager on a stoop was at his 9th police department. Chauvin had been reported multiple times.

There's far too much of a culture of protecting the faulty regardless. I get why as a team they'd want to promote togetherness, but far too often bad cops are protected by their departments and unions. It's way too hard to get rid of the bad ones and the good ones are complicit for fear of being called out for breaking the line.

That's one of the reasons why if I was American I'd support abolishing departments, reworking their budgets to less militarization (special units alone being so well decked out) and rehiring the good cops with new recruits to get a new culture. Also, make it easier to get rid of bad cops while still having unions to protect the cops for most things.
 
oates said:
Maybe, and here's an idea, could just one or two people suggest the same issues to him or otherwise it looks like what it is, a pile on in the CE?
Click to expand...

I don't get this line of thinking. If someone makes a post I disagree with, am I not entitled to reply to it, just to avoid it looking like a 'pile on'? Multiple people respond to posts all the time, it's not that big of a deal. In the football forums when multiple people disagree with a post it's not an issue, why should it be any different here?
 
Cloud7 said:
I don't get this line of thinking. If someone makes a post I disagree with, am I not entitled to reply to it, just to avoid it looking like a 'pile on'? Multiple people respond to posts all the time, it's not that big of a deal. In the football forums when multiple people disagree with a post it's not an issue, why should it be any different here?
Click to expand...
Of course you are entitled. Forget I said anything.
 
GiddyUp said:
Bang bang, don't disrespect me is how it went. Multiple violent actions committed my arse. What have you got to say on the individual police officer? Bit of a fecking cnut wasn't he. Your brotherhood is full to the brim with people like that and you guys do fecking nothing.
Click to expand...
You’re right, the multiple videos released were all fake. I just imagined Brooks’ aggressive actions in my head. 100% peacefully complied.
 
WI_Red said:
I don't think it means what you think it means.

"Justice is blind" refers to all accused being treated the same the courts, not that the victim and accused are the same.

The accused and the victim are not equal parties in a trial. One side is on trial while the other is the aggrieved party. You can't have "contributing factors" to being a victim, while past actions can speak to motive or likelihood of guilt.
Click to expand...
 
Character evidence is typically inadmissible during the trial phase, especially if being introduced by the prosecution, as it could unfairly bias the jury against the presumed innocence of the defendant.

The defense may use character witnesses during the trial phase, but that opens those witnesses up to cross examination by the prosecution. Once the defense has opened the door for that circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is free to attack it.

Character evidence can be brought up in the sentencing phase by both parties, as they will attempt to use it to get a harsher or more lenient sentence for a convicted defendant.
 
Carolina Red said:
Character evidence is typically inadmissible during the trial phase, especially if being introduced by the prosecution, as it could unfairly bias the jury against the presumed innocence of the defendant.

The defense may use character witnesses during the trial phase, but that opens those witnesses up to cross examination by the prosecution. Once the defense has opened the door for that circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is free to attack it.

Character evidence can be brought up in the sentencing phase by both parties, as they will attempt to use it to get a harsher or more lenient sentence for a convicted defendant.
Click to expand...

It can also be brought in (potentially) if the defendant testifies.

My feeling (yes feeling, b/c my law degree is from the University of Dick Wolf......which actually is a phenomenal porn name) is that the police officers past record is relevant b/c:

-He is a public servant paid to protect society.
-Part of the problem we are seeing protested is cops with laundry lists of complaints escaping real punishment or switching departments.
-It provides context to why the city so rapidly fired him.

So often in these cases it seems like the victims past gets massacred. Often it is the police or their surrogates who are doing it to get ahead of a potential charge. I know it is just feeling and emotion, but it’s kinda cathartic to see the tables turned.
 
WI_Red said:
It can also be brought in (potentially) if the defendant testifies.

My feeling (yes feeling, b/c my law degree is from the University of Dick Wolf......which actually is a phenomenal porn name) is that the police officers past record is relevant b/c:

-He is a public servant paid to protect society.
-Part of the problem we are seeing protested is cops with laundry lists of complaints escaping real punishment or switching departments.
-It provides context to why the city so rapidly fired him.

So often in these cases it seems like the victims past gets massacred. Often it is the police or their surrogates who are doing it to get ahead of a potential charge. I know it is just feeling and emotion, but it’s kinda cathartic to see the tables turned.
Click to expand...
If the officer takes the stand, then yes, there are some exceptions, which are aimed at impeaching the witness and attacking their credibility.

Otherwise, the prosecution is prohibited from first introducing character evidence against a defendant during trial.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404
 
When I was watching the video, I was thinking about how that would have panned out in the UK. If the two police officers hadn't been able to detain him after he got hold of the taser, he'd have run away. At that point, the police would have alerted their control centre, other cars would have been mobilised and there would have been a search. A drunk man on foot isn't going to get far - the main concern would have been the fact that he had a taser, but I doubt he'd have been aiming it at members of the public.

He'd have eventually been arrested and it would probably all have been a fairly small incident. Armed police are the difference.
 
Carolina Red said:
If the officer takes the stand, then yes, there are some exceptions, which are aimed at impeaching the witness and attacking their credibility.

Otherwise, the prosecution is prohibited from first introducing character evidence against a defendant during trial.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404
Click to expand...


This is how I understood it too. The prosecution have to apply to the judge for such information to be considered and often the judge will only allow past offences which speak to the credibility of the defendant. Now in the court of public opinion it seems everything is fair game but it is interesting to note the hypocrisy on display. Not being familiar with internal police disciplinary processes makes it difficult to know what this guy has done in the past, but the evidence in this current crime seems to be enough to convict him of something.
 
Penna said:
When I was watching the video, I was thinking about how that would have panned out in the UK. If the two police officers hadn't been able to detain him after he got hold of the taser, he'd have run away. At that point, the police would have alerted their control centre, other cars would have been mobilised and there would have been a search. A drunk man on foot isn't going to get far - the main concern would have been the fact that he had a taser, but I doubt he'd have been aiming it at members of the public.

He'd have eventually been arrested and it would probably all have been a fairly small incident. Armed police are the difference.
Click to expand...

Agree with this.

There is a cultural problem with the police that is more prevalent in societies that have enforced social classes where the police have no respect for people perceived as being below them.

In the US this leads to cops devaluing the lives of poor people and because people are armed having a fig leaf of justification in shooting first for self preservation where someone steps out of line. Even when unarmed the victim could be perceived as a threat, and if they aren't then the argument shifts to 'they should have listened to the officer' or if they were, then they were part of the underclass so they probably deserved it.
 
Penna said:
When I was watching the video, I was thinking about how that would have panned out in the UK. If the two police officers hadn't been able to detain him after he got hold of the taser, he'd have run away. At that point, the police would have alerted their control centre, other cars would have been mobilised and there would have been a search. A drunk man on foot isn't going to get far - the main concern would have been the fact that he had a taser, but I doubt he'd have been aiming it at members of the public.

He'd have eventually been arrested and it would probably all have been a fairly small incident. Armed police are the difference.
Click to expand...


It's not exactly rocket science is it? They just seem too quick to go for their guns over there.
 
roseguy64 said:
This is part of the problem like in that tweet I shared before. A guy who pepper sprayed a teenager on a stoop was at his 9th police department. Chauvin had been reported multiple times.

There's far too much of a culture of protecting the faulty regardless. I get why as a team they'd want to promote togetherness, but far too often bad cops are protected by their departments and unions. It's way too hard to get rid of the bad ones and the good ones are complicit for fear of being called out for breaking the line.

That's one of the reasons why if I was American I'd support abolishing departments, reworking their budgets to less militarization (special units alone being so well decked out) and rehiring the good cops with new recruits to get a new culture. Also, make it easier to get rid of bad cops while still having unions to protect the cops for most things.
Click to expand...

It's good that this process is already starting with some of the cops resigning in some states. If they have that attitude towards the criticism which is fully justified, they're not the right kind of people the US need in their forces right now. I seriously hope that they're resigning from the force altogether though and not just to some other district. Hopefully they can get the national disciplinary register up and running as soon as possible.

I also think that as a starting point, EVERY police officer's file should be pulled and assessed against a benchmark. For example under 5 complaints/disciplinaries would invoke a period of monitoring/supervision, between 5 and 10 would require mandatory re-training. Anything over 10, fecking get rid.
 
Struggling to think of another job where you could be reported 12 times for misconduct without being sacked. Crazy.
 
Conor said:
Struggling to think of another job where you could be reported 12 times for misconduct without being sacked. Crazy.
Click to expand...
It wouldnt happen.

They should have a similar rule to criminals, 3 strikes and your out.

Must he proven strikes by an independent public enquiry board or something.

Obviously one major incident would be enough for a sacking.
 
Grinner said:
This is how I understood it too. The prosecution have to apply to the judge for such information to be considered and often the judge will only allow past offences which speak to the credibility of the defendant. Now in the court of public opinion it seems everything is fair game but it is interesting to note the hypocrisy on display. Not being familiar with internal police disciplinary processes makes it difficult to know what this guy has done in the past, but the evidence in this current crime seems to be enough to convict him of something.
Click to expand...

There is zero hypocrisy.
 
arnie_ni said:
It wouldnt happen.

They should have a similar rule to criminals, 3 strikes and your out.

Must he proven strikes by an independent public enquiry board or something.

Obviously one major incident would be enough for a sacking.
Click to expand...

How do you get past all the lies and falsification of police reporting though? It's become apparent over the last few weeks that what they include in their reports are pretty inaccurate at best and downright lies at worst. And when police coroners are even in on it as well, it makes it really difficult to trust the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.