Policemen very rarely get thanked for what they do, if at all. It is a thankless job that doesn't pay enough for what they have to put up with on the job. There definitely are some bad apples in the bunch, but thankfully these are in a very small minority. Did anyone watch the video I posted above? It shows what a very tolerant state trooper in Maine had to put up with. All for a speeding ticket. He very easily could have written the guy up for several other offenses, like littering, but he just cheerfully went about his job while the nut used all sorts of profanity and yelled at him at the top of his lungs. In some states he would have been issued a ticket for the use of profanity and verbal abuse, maybe even disturbing the peace. What the video doesn't show was that the driver later went to the station, the trooper was stationed at, and apologized for his inappropriate behavior. He knew he was wrong for what he did and is forever a laughing stock on the internet now. Police are human too and some have bad days like we do. The difference is that they have to remain professional in their behavior or they will have complaints filed against them. The brass doesn't like officers to mishandle the public either, because they give the rest of the officers a bad name, as can be seen here. I know some small town cops that I went to school with. Some turned out alright, while others were on a power trip. Needless to say, once the complains started coming in, the trouble makers were reassigned to where they could cause any more problems or made to resign. For every bad policeman story that we read there are probably ten times as many good ones that aren't even told. Why is that? Because stories like that are not headline grabbers. Scandals, murders, robberies, rapes, kidnappings those are the attention getting stories. Who wants to hear about state troopers carrying stuffed animal toys to calm young accident victims. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8399956.html How about police raising money to help families? http://www.wickedlocal.com/...ney-for-Dally-family How about a policeman that took a leave of absence to go to Iraq to serve a year in Iraq training, mentoring and advising the Iraqi National Police Force. http://www.originaldissent....ndex.php?t-5055.html How about a policeman saves a life stories? There are over 11 Million of them on Google. Why shouldn't the police be thanked as much as our soldiers for the job they do here? They are here to protect and to serve us. They have the right to defend themselves too, so why shouldn't they be cautious as they approach our vehicles? They never know who or what they are going to run into during a stop. If you have a gun in your car you can just hand over your gun permit with your license. I'm sure there will be more questions, if you do, but questions are better than a felony stop procedure, if they spot your gun and you haven't told them about it. A little cooperation can go a long way as will a little courtesy.
Policemen very rarely get thanked for what they do, if at all. It is a thankless job that doesn't pay enough for what they have to put up with on the job. There definitely are some bad apples in the bunch, but thankfully these are in a very small minority. Did anyone watch the video I posted above? It shows what a very tolerant state trooper in Maine had to put up with. All for a speeding ticket. He very easily could have written the guy up for several other offenses, like littering, but he just cheerfully went about his job while the nut used all sorts of profanity and yelled at him at the top of his lungs. In some states he would have been issued a ticket for the use of profanity and verbal abuse, maybe even disturbing the peace. What the video doesn't show was that the driver later went to the station, the trooper was stationed at, and apologized for his inappropriate behavior. He knew he was wrong for what he did and is forever a laughing stock on the internet now. Police are human too and some have bad days like we do. The difference is that they have to remain professional in their behavior or they will have complaints filed against them. The brass doesn't like officers to mishandle the public either, because they give the rest of the officers a bad name, as can be seen here. I know some small town cops that I went to school with. Some turned out alright, while others were on a power trip. Needless to say, once the complains started coming in, the trouble makers were reassigned to where they could cause any more problems or made to resign. For every bad policeman story that we read there are probably ten times as many good ones that aren't even told. Why is that? Because stories like that are not headline grabbers. Scandals, murders, robberies, rapes, kidnappings those are the attention getting stories. Who wants to hear about state troopers carrying stuffed animal toys to calm young accident victims. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8399956.html How about police raising money to help families? http://www.wickedlocal.com/...ney-for-Dally-family How about a policeman that took a leave of absence to go to Iraq to serve a year in Iraq training, mentoring and advising the Iraqi National Police Force. http://www.originaldissent....ndex.php?t-5055.html How about a policeman saves a life stories? There are over 11 Million of them on Google. Why shouldn't the police be thanked as much as our soldiers for the job they do here? They are here to protect and to serve us. They have the right to defend themselves too, so why shouldn't they be cautious as they approach our vehicles? They never know who or what they are going to run into during a stop. If you have a gun in your car you can just hand over your gun permit with your license. I'm sure there will be more questions, if you do, but questions are better than a felony stop procedure, if they spot your gun and you haven't told them about it. A little cooperation can go a long way as will a little courtesy.
IMHO; Probably the most honest, discerning and impartial post I have read here so far.
I'm sorry I posted here, to be honest. Simply because I don't know, and haven't experienced what apparently goes on in the USA. To be honest, I don't know what to believe, BECAUSE I haven't experienced it. But in comparison to OUR Police in Europe, it is no wonder that the British Police were always regarded as the best in the World. I have a sneaking suspicion that guns are the root cause of all the problems over there.I have said it before, and I stil stand by what I said. I think it is totally ludicrous that anybody would feel the need to carry a gun in your vehicle. And I know that opinion is held widely in Europe too. Probably because we know there are still a miniscule number of people who DO carry them, although that number has increased drastically over the last few years, since we opened our frontiers to 'asylum seekers', who smuggle them in by the thousand.
Just one thing more though. Subservient? Or obliging?.Helpful? Don't want to put your hands on the wheel? Why not? What have you to lose? Pride? Face? Or ego? Or you prefer to have a a gun drawn on you? You drive away after a few minutes, and both you AND the Policeman will have forgotten about it. Unless somebody has some kind of psychogical problem..either the person stopped, or the Policeman. Or both. You want to keep things in perspective. Of COURSE you do. But if you go on making things unbearable for them to do their work, there won't be ANY good Police left.THEN you will have problems you defniitely WON'T like. It is called anarchy.
Policemen very rarely get thanked for what they do, if at all. It is a thankless job that doesn't pay enough for what they have to put up with on the job. There definitely are some bad apples in the bunch, but thankfully these are in a very small minority. Did anyone watch the video I posted above? It shows what a very tolerant state trooper in Maine had to put up with. All for a speeding ticket. He very easily could have written the guy up for several other offenses, like littering, but he just cheerfully went about his job while the nut used all sorts of profanity and yelled at him at the top of his lungs. In some states he would have been issued a ticket for the use of profanity and verbal abuse, maybe even disturbing the peace. What the video doesn't show was that the driver later went to the station, the trooper was stationed at, and apologized for his inappropriate behavior. He knew he was wrong for what he did and is forever a laughing stock on the internet now. Police are human too and some have bad days like we do. The difference is that they have to remain professional in their behavior or they will have complaints filed against them. The brass doesn't like officers to mishandle the public either, because they give the rest of the officers a bad name, as can be seen here. I know some small town cops that I went to school with. Some turned out alright, while others were on a power trip. Needless to say, once the complains started coming in, the trouble makers were reassigned to where they could cause any more problems or made to resign. For every bad policeman story that we read there are probably ten times as many good ones that aren't even told. Why is that? Because stories like that are not headline grabbers. Scandals, murders, robberies, rapes, kidnappings those are the attention getting stories. Who wants to hear about state troopers carrying stuffed animal toys to calm young accident victims. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8399956.html How about police raising money to help families? http://www.wickedlocal.com/...ney-for-Dally-family How about a policeman that took a leave of absence to go to Iraq to serve a year in Iraq training, mentoring and advising the Iraqi National Police Force. http://www.originaldissent....ndex.php?t-5055.html How about a policeman saves a life stories? There are over 11 Million of them on Google. Why shouldn't the police be thanked as much as our soldiers for the job they do here? They are here to protect and to serve us. They have the right to defend themselves too, so why shouldn't they be cautious as they approach our vehicles? They never know who or what they are going to run into during a stop. If you have a gun in your car you can just hand over your gun permit with your license. I'm sure there will be more questions, if you do, but questions are better than a felony stop procedure, if they spot your gun and you haven't told them about it. A little cooperation can go a long way as will a little courtesy.
WOW, someone on here besides Fiero fetish and GS john with common sense and sound logic. I commend you Avenger for speaking like a human being that can use simple problem solving skills.
Sad that some people feel just because they can do something, means they should. Working as an officer is no exception. I CAN write everyone a ticket. I dont, matter of fact, I SELDOM wrote tickets.
Some people like to think because their a tax payer, and an American, then they should be able to act like as much of a dick as they want without consequences. Oh well.
I think it is totally ludicrous that anybody would feel the need to carry a gun in your vehicle. And I know that opinion is held widely in Europe too. Probably because we know there are still a miniscule number of people who DO carry them, although that number has increased drastically over the last few years, since we opened our frontiers to 'asylum seekers', who smuggle them in by the thousand.
I believe people should have the right to defend them self. Its not reasonable in my opinion that the govt. over there says you cant have a firearm, then one day you may be pitched against defending yourself against one of the people over there who does have one. The Govt. now has placed you in an unreasonable situation.
Of course, these are fundamental differences between the USA and Europe. You have never known any better, so it could be hard for you to compare the ability to own a firearm of not.
In Britain, they have started carrying. As a matter of fact, Both in England and Austria, Gun crime went up along with home invasions and robbery after guns were outlawed. If you know the home owner most likely is not armed, criminals become more bold.
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.
The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.
Existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place
David Bredin Campaign for Shooting But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.
http://current.com/items/89...ries-increase-45.htm After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.
The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.
Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:
Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Assaults are up 8.6 percent
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent
In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily
There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly
Well, it has been 23 years since I was in the UK, and I do appreciate things are different now. But, if you look closer at the statistics, it reveals that many shootings nowadays are Black-on-Black, and as a result of drug trading and drug 'warfare'. Very rarely , by comparison, is an ordinary member of the Public shot to death, AFAIK. I'll have to 'Google' that. Knife crime is far worse though. Some say because there aren't any guns that are easily accessible to 'Joe Public', although THAT is on the rise now, too. First page on Google, from the British Home office website ( Not that I am particularly inclined to believe EVERYYTHING the Government puts out :
quote
Gun crime Gun-related crime kills, maims and intimidates, and is frequently linked to gang activity and the illegal drugs trade in the UK. We are committed to tackling gun crime to ensure the safety and security of all British citizens.
A snapshot of gun crime Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in England and Wales is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police.
I am willing to bet that, if the Public could have easy access to permits to carry and use firearms, that 0.5% would be MUCH higher. TOO MANY LEGAL GUNS AVAILABLE TO BE STOLEN.
my experience in life leads me to believe that, if a group of people attack another unsupported person verbally, over the internet, the unsupported person will become more and more provoked to reply with far more animosity to points and opinions levelled en masse against them, than they would normally. Sadly, I see Fiero Ho Ho Ho, another Policeman, rarely, if EVER, posts here any more. And I seem to recollect that was as a result of a similar thread attacking the Police verbally. I could be wrong there, though. I shall not be posting in this thread any more, because it distresses me seeing people I think the World of, verbally fighting, and almost hating each other. And as I have pointed out, I really don't have any experience of the procedures and events that happen over there. Don, your question was rhetorical, and my answer would have had to be in the same vein, AFAIAC. So I didn't answer. Sorry. But I WILL point out one obvious and glaring fact: those that are being the most vociferous against the Police, perhaps reveal an enormous pointer as to WHY they feel that way...because of the way they are posting. Did one the one thing lead to the other? In other words, did their reactions and opinions revealed here, demonstrate WHY they have had bad encounters with the Police in the first place? In the UK, at least, it isn't referred to as the Police AUTHORITY for nothing I'm outta here...and I still love you all Nick
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 02-23-2010).]
IP: Logged
02:12 PM
Feb 24th, 2010
Shyster Member
Posts: 1085 From: Conroe, TX, USA Registered: Aug 2005
Originally posted by NickD3.4: wow, that went right over your head. The point was about human reaction. Nevermind, I tried.
quote
Originally posted by NickD3.4: Yes I know he was a marine. Once again, sadly this stuff went over you guys heads evidently.
Hmmm. Seems to be a pattern here. Don't address the issues, just announce that your (obviously higher) "thoughts" were "obviously" "over the heads" of any who might disagree with you, no matter how rational they may be. Derision, one of the techniques of propaganda. "Propaganda," for those of you scoring at home, is a process by which one tries to convince others to adopt a nearly religious belief in concepts that are logically insupportable. In this case, "intimidation" is a near synonym.
That doesn't wash, here. Not with me. You want to have a rational discussion, I'm all for that. But that rational discussion starts with the precept that I do not accept everything you say as "fact," anymore than I would expect you to unquestionably accept everything I say. Conversely, if you just want to announce your superiority to every other being on the planet, go pound sand.
BTW, didn't you announce that you were "through" posting in this thread, about ten of your own posts ago? (Or was that the post you deleted?) Integrity starts at home. Or is that rule, too, "over my head"?
Sad thing is, from what you've posted here, it would seem you try to do your job with integrity. That, I can respect, but that fact does not mean I worship all "authority."
What was it you said, oh, yes,
quote
Originally posted by NickD3.4: I have been stopped many times were [sic] the Officer were [sic] an ass to me. But you know what?..... I'm not them, and their [sic] not me.
Now this raises at least two reasonable questions: First, why have you (an officer of the law) been stopped "many times"? This statement might suggest that you, who enforce the traffic laws, also disregard them on a regular basis.
Second, why would you, the self-proclaimed statesman of the "we're people, too" law-enforcement branch, accept as "normal" fellow police officers being "an ass to me"? Does it not occur to you that, if they'll treat a brother officer that way, they'd be even more abusive to a "mere" citizen-taxpayer? If this has happened to you, as you say, "many times," what possible perception do you think these people give the general public?
Answers, please. Inquiring minds want to know.
IP: Logged
12:27 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by avengador1: If you have a gun in your car you can just hand over your gun permit with your license. I'm sure there will be more questions, if you do, but questions are better than a felony stop procedure, if they spot your gun and you haven't told them about it. A little cooperation can go a long way as will a little courtesy.
As I recall, it's the law that if you have a concealed carry permit and are armed, you are required to inform a LEO when interacting with them. That may be a state law, though. Regardless, it's just good freaking sense. The last thing anyone wants is for a cop to be "surprised" by your firearm, regardless of your intentions.
You should always do whatever you can to be polite and reassure the LEO you're not a threat. It just makes the encounter safer for everyone involved. I've never advocated anything different. I have; however, suggested citizens may be just as wary of the police as the police are of them. This has been distorted to suggest I think you should curse and spit on any officer you meet.
Now this raises at least two reasonable questions: First, why have you (an officer of the law) been stopped "many times"? This statement might suggest that you, who enforce the traffic laws, also disregard them on a regular basis.
Second, why would you, the self-proclaimed statesman of the "we're people, too" law-enforcement branch, accept as "normal" fellow police officers being "an ass to me"? Does it not occur to you that, if they'll treat a brother officer that way, they'd be even more abusive to a "mere" citizen-taxpayer? If this has happened to you, as you say, "many times," what possible perception do you think these people give the general public?
Answers, please. Inquiring minds want to know.
Are you assuming I have been a cop my whole life? I have never been pulled over since I became a police officer. Not one single time. I was pulled over once at 16, once at 17, and once at the age of 23. I became an Officer at the age of 24. "many" was a bad word, how about several times. Most were nice, I had one dick officer of the bunch, but hey, that's bound to happen. I guess you could say based off the fact I have only been pulled over 3 times, and issued a ticket once, which was later dropped, perhaps my history reflects my driving?
people who constantly get stopped should start looking into their own behavior, and whats causing attention to be drawn to them. Unless of course you live in a two horse town and EVERYONE knows each other by name. That's a little different.
Take my younger brother for example, he keeps getting pulled over, gets tickets, and even had a DUI. He also drives like an idiot and does dumb ass stuff, so hes bound to attract some warranted attention.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 02-24-2010).]
I have; however, suggested citizens may be just as wary of the police as the police are of them. This has been distorted to suggest I think you should curse and spit on any officer you meet.
I guess you should define if you mean be wary of the cop so that they don't mistake you as a threat, or be wary of the cop as if their a genuine threat intent on harming you.
Originally posted by NickD3.4: Are you assuming I have been a cop my whole life? I have never been pulled over since I became a police officer. Not one single time. I was pulled over once at 16, once at 17, and once at the age of 23. I became an Officer at the age of 24. "many" was a bad word, how about several times. Most were nice, I had one dick officer of the bunch, but hey, that's bound to happen. I guess you could say based off the fact I have only been pulled over 3 times, and issued a ticket once, which was later dropped, perhaps my history reflects my driving?
Ah. So "many" is now "three." And "many who have been an ass to me" is now "one." Shall (or should) we wonder how many other of your "factual" statements are exaggerated? You overstated yourself once, to try to "prove" a point. Why wouldn't you do so again?
I don't care what the local DA's office tells you. "Small" lies lead to bigger lies, and the day will come that a decent defense attorney will challenge you ("So, to you, "one" is "many," is that correct?"), and the jury will wonder just what the hell it is that you were smokin'. They will wonder why you were willing to sacrifice your integrity just to try to sentence some poor schmuck who should get probation to twenty years. (They will also wonder why their time was wasted in the process, but what the heck is three days of the lives of our fellow citizens to us, anyway?) (Or, oh, gee, do you think we might have some more degree of respect for them?)
The sad thing is, that someday, somebody who should have gone up, will end up back on the streets, because a good defense attorney will pick your "US v. them" BS apart in front of a jury.
I don't do what I do to put criminals back on the street. I work the appellate side, and for my criminal cases, my goal is to insure that the trial was fair, and within the bounds of the US and state Constitutions. I don't want psychotic murderers on the street any more than you.
You might be amazed how willing the State is to ignore the rules of evidence to gain a conviction. Or not. I don't care what fantasy world you want to live in. "Three" does not equal "many." "One" sure as hell does not equal "many."
I want the system to work, because there is that odd chance that someone will be accused of doing something he, or she, did not do.
[This message has been edited by Shyster (edited 02-24-2010).]
Subject." So many people claim cops are bad, are they?"
Original Thread Poster?
Gecko. Where is Gecko now??? In prison. QUOTE
"Ah. So "many" is now "three." And "many who have been an ass to me" is now "one." Shall (or should) we wonder how many other of your "factual" statements are exaggerated? You overstated yourself once, to try to "prove" a point. Why wouldn't you do so again?"
"Objection.Defendant has NOT been read his Rights. Move to strike this argument" Judge."Sustained. The Jury is ordered to discount and ignore said statement. Counsel for the Prosecution. Please refrain from overstepping your position. You should know better. In fact, case dismissed. Defendant, you are free to go." Prosecuting Counsel was seen to leave the Court, and heard to be muttering '"Seine papieren sind in Ordnung. Gehen Sie an."
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 02-24-2010).]
"many who have been an ass to me" is now "one." Shall (or should) we wonder how many other of your "factual" statements are exaggerated? You overstated yourself once, to try to "prove" a point. Why wouldn't you do so again?
no, thats different. I have worked with many A-hole cops, as well as good ones.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 02-24-2010).]
Ah. So "many" is now "three." And "many who have been an ass to me" is now "one." Shall (or should) we wonder how many other of your "factual" statements are exaggerated? You overstated yourself once, to try to "prove" a point. Why wouldn't you do so again?
I don't care what the local DA's office tells you. "Small" lies lead to bigger lies, and the day will come that a decent defense attorney will challenge you ("So, to you, "one" is "many," is that correct?"), and the jury will wonder just what the hell it is that you were smokin'. They will wonder why you were willing to sacrifice your integrity just to try to sentence some poor schmuck who should get probation to twenty years. (They will also wonder why their time was wasted in the process, but what the heck is three days of the lives of our fellow citizens to us, anyway?) (Or, oh, gee, do you think we might have some more degree of respect for them?)
The sad thing is, that someday, somebody who should have gone up, will end up back on the streets, because a good defense attorney will pick your "US v. them" BS apart in front of a jury.
I don't do what I do to put criminals back on the street. I work the appellate side, and for my criminal cases, my goal is to insure that the trial was fair, and within the bounds of the US and state Constitutions. I don't want psychotic murderers on the street any more than you.
You might be amazed how willing the State is to ignore the rules of evidence to gain a conviction. Or not. I don't care what fantasy world you want to live in. "Three" does not equal "many." "One" sure as hell does not equal "many."
I want the system to work, because there is that odd chance that someone will be accused of doing something he, or she, did not do.
Now your exagerating. US VS them? I have never had that attitutde. Integrity? .....b/c I said many times? big whoop. In court many would not be used, they would ask for a specific number, and thi is harldy a court setting.
Your trying hard to find a "gotcha" moment and im not sure why. You sit here and talk about me as if you understand my ethics or how I conduct my self. You really have no clue. Your being pretty presumptuous in your statements. Thats fine if you want to be that way, but it only make you look a bit foolish.
I guess we could go with your position. YOU guys caught me! Im a dirty cop with no integrity. I like to lie, cheat and steal. I beat innocent people for fun and go Nun bashing on the weekend (sarcasm). LOL come one.........you guys must be pretty hard up to argue with a cop to want to sit here and try to grind me down over such petty things.
Like I said, if you really wanted to know what kind of officer I am, and where my ehtics stand, then read this article. Otherwise your just speaking off the cuff and thats just naive. http://circlethewagons.net/...d-a-jolt-of-reality/
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 02-24-2010).]
IP: Logged
01:05 PM
GS Jon Member
Posts: 974 From: San Antonio, TX Registered: May 2005
Nick, Nick, Nick... Shame on you! Don't you know you have an obligation to submit yourself to this half-cocked pseudo-interrogation? These good people just have their basic human rights in mind, and most certainly don't have an axe to grind against policemen! Just let them attempt to run you in circles until you make one innocent mistake so they have their "smoking gun" to use against you for rest of eternity, and so they can rest assured that their worldview is correct and unchallenged!
Nick, Nick, Nick... Shame on you! Don't you know you have an obligation to submit yourself to this half-cocked pseudo-interrogation? These good people just have their basic human rights in mind, and most certainly don't have an axe to grind against policemen! Just let them attempt to run you in circles until you make one innocent mistake so they have their "smoking gun" to use against you for rest of eternity, and so they can rest assured that their worldview is correct and unchallenged!
LOL! thats just made my day.
IP: Logged
01:59 PM
WhiteDevil88 Member
Posts: 8518 From: Coastal California Registered: Mar 2007
When a person makes a mistake they say "I'm only human" and move on. Police are not afforded this luxury, they have to make life and death decisions in an instant and have to live with the consequences of their actions. This is part of having a job that requires one to be armed. It is my understanding that many applicants for the police force are turned down because they do not pass the review board scrutiny. The city wants to make sure that they don't hire people who are mentality unstable, indecisive or possibly abusive. The problem is that some bad apples occasionally are able to bluff their way through. These are the ones that give the whole force a bad name. Police yield a great deal of power because of their job and the fact that they are legally allowed to use lethal forcel in certain instances. With great power comes great responsibility. Too bad this power sometimes goes to the head of some of them and they forget who they work for. These are the ones who don't belong on the street or in contact with the general public. Luckily most get caught and removed before they can do any harm. The ones that manage to do harm will get removed, demoted, fired and even prosecuted, depending on what they did and how soon it is reported and investigated by their superiors. Most cities do not like being sued by their citizens because of police wrong doing, so it is in their interests to make sure this is prevented as much as possible. Watch this episode of Dragnet, it is pretty enlightening and things haven't changed much in over 40 years. http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi2083848985/
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 02-24-2010).]
IP: Logged
06:24 PM
GS Jon Member
Posts: 974 From: San Antonio, TX Registered: May 2005
Oakland parking ticket policy called 'not fair' Thursday, February 25, 2010
Oakland parking officers were ordered to avoid enforcing neighborhood parking violations in two of the city's wealthier neighborhoods but told to continue enforcing the same violations in the rest of the city, according to a city memo obtained by The Chronicle.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Video
The July order is corroborated by interviews with three parking officers, who said they and their colleagues had complained about what they deemed a discriminatory practice since it began last summer - to no avail.
"It's not fair," said Shirnell Smith, 44, a parking officer for 22 years who has lived in Oakland for 24 years. Smith and the union representing parking officers said the policy has resulted in tickets being issued disproportionately to poor, black and Latino people.
The accusations cast a new light on one of Oakland's most contentious issues during the past year. Desperate for new revenue in a faltering economy, the City Council in June increased parking fines, meter rates, hours of enforcement and enforcement in neighborhoods.
The parking department created a new work shift to ticket neighborhoods at night. As part of that enforcement, parking officers ticketed residents for violations that had been a way of life for decades.
The most controversial tickets in residential neighborhoods were issued for parking on sidewalks and parking in the wrong direction. Residents told the city and The Chronicle that some streets are so narrow that emergency vehicles cannot get through unless they park like that.
Under pressure from businesses that complained the new parking rules were keeping customers away, the council in October rescinded only the meter enforcement from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., but left other elements in place.
However, unknown at the time, the parking department had deemed certain tony neighborhoods - Montclair and Broadway Terrace - off-limits from those two parking infractions. Parking violators in those neighborhoods were to receive "courtesy notices," according to a July 24 memo by Ronald Abernathy, a senior parking enforcement supervisor, sent to four parking supervisors and copied to parking Director Noel Pinto. The letter did not explain why the two neighborhoods were being spared from the tickets, which carry fines ranging from $40 to $100.
Reached on his personal cell phone Wednesday, Abernathy would only say, "I don't answer any media questions."
Numerous calls and e-mails to Pinto and City Administrator Dan Lindheim on Wednesday were not returned.
More narrow streets On Outlook Avenue in East Oakland, residents told The Chronicle that parking officers blanketed a four-block stretch late last year. The streets are narrow there, too, as they are in Montclair.
Luther Couch, 43, has lived on the block for 41 years. He said that nearly everyone on his block has been sideswiped, so parking on the sidewalk is a must. Nonetheless, he got a $100 ticket late last year for parking on the sidewalk.
Doing one thing in Broadway Terrace and another in East Oakland is wrong, he said.
"To me, it's a double standard: The higher up you live and the more clout you think you have, they don't ticket you and sweep it under the rug," he said.
The three parking officers who spoke to The Chronicle said their internal complaints have gone nowhere, so they decided to make the issue public. They are doing so with the support of their union, SEIU Local 1021, which is holding a noon rally on the issue today in front of City Hall.
Risky move The officers said voicing complaints is risky for most night-shift workers because they are part-timers who can be fired at-will.
"I have absolutely no rights within the city," said a part-time officer who asked to remain anonymous. "It's not right for us to only ticket in certain areas. The city of Oakland is one city."
Smith, a parking officer who works full-time and has union protection, said that part of the reason there was a desire to speak out was that parking officers have been harassed by citizens aware of the practice of not ticketing certain neighborhoods.
Smith said the officers have complied with the rule despite their disagreement with it.
"We're the only ones out there in the field dealing with this," said the third officer who also feared being named. "There are a lot of inconsistencies."
Smith said administrators need to be held accountable.
"We're taking the brunt of citizens' grief on this," said Smith. "Everyone needs to know this is happening."
So the meter maids complaining about an unfair practice makes them bad too?
quote
"It's not fair," said Shirnell Smith, 44, a parking officer for 22 years who has lived in Oakland for 24 years. Smith and the union representing parking officers said the policy has resulted in tickets being issued disproportionately to poor, black and Latino people.
quote
Smith said the officers have complied with the rule despite their disagreement with it.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 02-26-2010).]
IP: Logged
09:43 AM
MidEngineManiac Member
Posts: 29566 From: Some unacceptable view Registered: Feb 2007
Jene Newsome played by the rules as an Air Force sergeant: She never told anyone in the military she was a lesbian. The 28-year-old's honorable discharge under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came only after police officers in Rapid City, S.D., saw an Iowa marriage certificate in her home and told the nearby Ellsworth Air Force Base.
Newsome and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against the western South Dakota police department, claiming the officers violated her privacy when they informed the military about her sexual orientation. The case also highlights concerns over the ability of third parties to "out" service members, especially as the Pentagon has started reviewing the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" law.
"I played by 'don't ask, don't tell,'" Newsome told The Associated Press by telephone.
"I just don't agree with what the Rapid City police department did. ... They violated a lot of internal policies on their end, and I feel like my privacy was violated."
The "don't ask, don't tell" policy has come under renewed debate after Defense Secretary Robert Gates called for a sweeping internal study on the law earlier this year.
As the review is under way, officials were also expected to suggest ways to relax enforcement that may include minimizing cases of third-party outings. In particular, Gates has suggested that the military might not have to expel someone whose sexual orientation was revealed by a third party out of vindictiveness or suspect motives.
The Rapid City Police Department says Newsome, an aircraft armament system craftsman who spent nine years in the Air Force, was not cooperative when they showed up at her home in November with an arrest warrant for her partner, who was wanted on theft charges in Fairbanks, Alaska.
Newsome was at work at the base at the time and refused to immediately come home and assist the officers in finding her partner, whom she married in Iowa — where gay marriage is legal — in October.
Police officers, who said they spotted the marriage license on the kitchen table through a window of Newsome's home, alerted the base, police Chief Steve Allender said in a statement sent to the AP. The license was relevant to the investigation because it showed both the relationship and residency of the two women, he said.
"It's an emotional issue and it's unfortunate that Newsome lost her job, but I disagree with the notion that our department might be expected to ignore the license, or not document the license, or withhold it from the Air Force once we did know about it," Allender said Saturday. "It was a part of the case, part of the report and the Air Force was privileged to the information."
He said his department does not seek to expose gay military personnel or investigate the sexuality of Rapid City residents.
Allender said the department was finishing its internal investigation and has determined the officers acted appropriately. They have not been placed on leave during the investigation.
Newsome's partner is currently out on bail on one felony and three misdemeanor counts of theft stemming from an incident last year, court officials in Fairbanks said. More information was not immediately available, and Newsome said she didn't know the status of the case and didn't provide more details about it.
In the complaint filed last month with the department, ACLU South Dakota said police had no legal reason to tell the military Newsome was a lesbian and that officers knew if they did, it would jeopardize her military career.
Newsome, who was discharged in January, said she didn't know where the marriage license was in her home when police came to her house on Nov. 20 and claims the officers were retaliating because she wouldn't help with her partner's arrest.
"This information was intentionally turned over because of 'don't ask, don't tell' and to out Jene so that she would lose her military status," said Robert Doody, executive director of ACLU South Dakota. The ACLU is focusing its complaint on the police department, not the military, and Newsome said she and her attorney have not yet decided on whether to file a lawsuit.
"The 'don't ask, don't tell' piece is important and critical to this, but also it's a police misconduct case," Doody said.
A U.S. Air Force spokesman, Senior Airman Adam Grant, said Ellsworth follows all laws set out by Congress and the Defense Department, and he would not comment specifically on Newsome's discharge, citing privacy policy.
More than 13,500 service members have been discharged under the law since 1994, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which is lobbying for its repeal. Kevin Nix, communications director of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, couldn't speak about Newsome's case, but said when "someone is outed by a third party, which it sounds like this was, or by a police officer, then, yeah ... I'm not surprised the person was discharged."
Though rare, third-party outing can be especially damaging to service members who wanted to keep their sexual orientation hidden, experts say.
Even though 80 percent of "don't ask, don't tell" discharges come from gay and lesbian service members who out themselves, third-party outings are "some of the most heinous instances of 'don't, ask, don't tell,'" said Nathaniel Frank, a research fellow with the Palm Center think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara and a New York University professor.
Newsome, who is originally from Harrisburg, Pa., is currently on the road, driving to Alaska. She said she'd been looking forward to the time when the military would alter its policies regarding gays and lesbians. But that change didn't come in time to save her career.
"I felt like it was getting close," she said. "I was really hopeful."
IP: Logged
04:20 PM
Mar 19th, 2010
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
(03-18) 17:39 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The number of narcotics cases that San Francisco prosecutors have dropped since the Police Department's drug-lab scandal went public is up to 180, and the district attorney says more cases will be dismissed until the city's police officers can perform basic tests on seized evidence in lieu of the closed lab.
The Police Department closed the lab March 9 amid suspicions that a technician there had been skimming and using cocaine. Since then, prosecutors say, about 30 cases a day have been dropped because no one has been able to test the drugs.
Police recruited outside labs to test some samples, but those labs are focusing on major cases approaching trial and defendants who have extensive criminal histories. Prosecutors are being forced to drop lesser cases and are unable to arraign most drug suspects arrested by police.
With the drug lab closed indefinitely, the department is giving crash courses in basic testing to officers in the narcotics and gang enforcement divisions, police spokeswoman Lt. Lyn Tomioka said Thursday.
The tests, once officers start doing them, should provide the basis for prosecutors to file charges, she said.
Chief George Gascón "would like everybody trained as soon as possible, if this works," Tomioka said. "This is a way to address the new crimes that are occurring."
Brian Buckelew, spokesman for District Attorney Kamala Harris, said that until that happens, prosecutors will still have to turn about 30 suspects loose daily.
Prosecutors face a judge's deadline of today to have drug evidence ready in 35 cases set to go to trial. Buckelew said he hopes that the outside labs that San Francisco has turned to will be able to finish that work in time.
The turmoil at the lab began when lab officials were alerted to possible cocaine theft by a criminalist, Deborah Madden, 60. Her sister contacted a lab supervisor Dec. 16 to report what she believed to be a police vial of the drug inside Madden's San Mateo home.
By then, Madden had gone on leave from the department and was undergoing drug and alcohol rehabilitation therapy. She retired March 1.
The information from Madden's sister, along with a quick sampling that showed at least one sealed package of cocaine may have been tampered with, was forwarded to the legal section of the Police Department. A criminal investigation was not launched until Feb. 22, however.
Madden has not been charged and has declined to comment.
Two weeks before Madden left the department, the American Society of Crime Lab Directors did a certification audit of the police lab. It found, among other things, that the lab had failed to secure a computer documenting drug evidence from unauthorized access. It also found that drug lab equipment had been contaminated with leftover narcotics.
Rather than issue a five-year extension on the crime lab's accreditation, the group gave police six months to fix the problems.
It's unclear when police told auditors about the Madden case. Ralph Keaton, executive director of the lab directors group, said he learned about it only last week.
"If there are any problems of a significant nature and the lab isn't notifying us, we will have to address it," Keaton said. His auditors will return to the crime lab in the next two weeks to do a follow-up inspection.
IP: Logged
03:51 PM
Mar 21st, 2010
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
Retired lieutenant from the California Highway Patrol was sentenced Friday to a year in jail and five years of probation for attempting unlawful sex with a fictitious 13-year-old girl, and prosecutors lashed out at the judge for his leniency.
Orange County Superior Court Judge Marc Kelly handed down the sentence to Stephen Robert Deck, who was convicted in December of one felony count of attempted lewd acts on a child under 14.
Prosecutors had asked for the maximum sentence of four years in prison, and the Orange County Department of Probation also recommended state prison time, saying Deck was not a suitable candidate for probation.
"It sends the wrong message to the public when a high-ranking police officer who tried to molest a 13-year-old girl gets coddled by the criminal justice system," Public Affairs Counsel Susan Kang Schroeder said in a written statement. "A child predator police officer should not get a break and a pass on state prison. His violation of trust makes his crime more serious not less."
Deck, of Carlsbad, was still serving in the CHP when he was caught in an Internet sting in 2006 by a nonprofit group that has adults pose as children to seek out sexual predators.
Deck engaged in explicit online conversations with a woman posing as a 13-year-old girl, prosecutors said, and was arrested when he drove from San Diego County to Laguna Beach in an attempt to meet with her.
"I take full responsibility for my actions. No excuses," an emotional Deck said before he was sentenced Friday. "I have a fair understanding of my conduct. This will not happen again. I'm not a pedophile. I'm not a threat."
The judge said Kelly's CHP service and apology were factors in his decision.
"You've served your country, you've been a productive citizen in all aspects of your life and that has to count for something," Kelly said. "I do believe you are remorseful."
Deck must also register as a sex offender.
IP: Logged
01:59 PM
MidEngineManiac Member
Posts: 29566 From: Some unacceptable view Registered: Feb 2007
Retired lieutenant from the California Highway Patrol was sentenced Friday to a year in jail and five years of probation for attempting unlawful sex with a fictitious 13-year-old girl, .
a WHAT ?????
fictitious 13-year-old girl
So--they are basically saying anybody who tries to pork minnie mouse goes to jail????
what part of fictitious escaped everbody ???
Damn, we really have fallen down a rabbit hole---you can be charged with trying to do something with somebody or something that DOESNT EVEN EXIST........
I really hope the universe throws a society-ending asteroid our way. Its long past time, and things have gone long past stupid.
IP: Logged
04:20 PM
PFF
System Bot
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
So--they are basically saying anybody who tries to pork minnie mouse goes to jail????
what part of fictitious escaped everbody ???
Damn, we really have fallen down a rabbit hole---you can be charged with trying to do something with somebody or something that DOESNT EVEN EXIST........
I really hope the universe throws a society-ending asteroid our way. Its long past time, and things have gone long past stupid.
Read the entire post. The child was "fictitious" because an adult cop was posing as the 13 year old. Just like a cop might pose as a fictitious drug dealer to make a bust.
IP: Logged
04:23 PM
MidEngineManiac Member
Posts: 29566 From: Some unacceptable view Registered: Feb 2007
Read the entire post. The child was "fictitious" because an adult cop was posing as the 13 year old. Just like a cop might pose as a fictitious drug dealer to make a bust.
ever heard the word "entrapment" ?
IP: Logged
04:48 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Fox's in the hen's house? Doesn't anybody see something wrong here?
Snip-it; "With the drug lab closed indefinitely, the department is giving crash courses in basic testing to officers in the narcotics and gang enforcement divisions, police spokeswoman Lt. Lyn Tomioka said Thursday."
Read more here;
(03-18) 17:39 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The number of narcotics cases that San Francisco prosecutors have dropped since the Police Department's drug-lab scandal went public is up to 180, and the district attorney says more cases will be dismissed until the city's police officers can perform basic tests on seized evidence in lieu of the closed lab.
The Police Department closed the lab March 9 amid suspicions that a technician there had been skimming and using cocaine. Since then, prosecutors say, about 30 cases a day have been dropped because no one has been able to test the drugs.
Police recruited outside labs to test some samples, but those labs are focusing on major cases approaching trial and defendants who have extensive criminal histories. Prosecutors are being forced to drop lesser cases and are unable to arraign most drug suspects arrested by police.
With the drug lab closed indefinitely, the department is giving crash courses in basic testing to officers in the narcotics and gang enforcement divisions, police spokeswoman Lt. Lyn Tomioka said Thursday.
The tests, once officers start doing them, should provide the basis for prosecutors to file charges, she said.
Chief George Gascón "would like everybody trained as soon as possible, if this works," Tomioka said. "This is a way to address the new crimes that are occurring."
Brian Buckelew, spokesman for District Attorney Kamala Harris, said that until that happens, prosecutors will still have to turn about 30 suspects loose daily.
Prosecutors face a judge's deadline of today to have drug evidence ready in 35 cases set to go to trial. Buckelew said he hopes that the outside labs that San Francisco has turned to will be able to finish that work in time.
The turmoil at the lab began when lab officials were alerted to possible cocaine theft by a criminalist, Deborah Madden, 60. Her sister contacted a lab supervisor Dec. 16 to report what she believed to be a police vial of the drug inside Madden's San Mateo home.
By then, Madden had gone on leave from the department and was undergoing drug and alcohol rehabilitation therapy. She retired March 1.
The information from Madden's sister, along with a quick sampling that showed at least one sealed package of cocaine may have been tampered with, was forwarded to the legal section of the Police Department. A criminal investigation was not launched until Feb. 22, however.
Madden has not been charged and has declined to comment.
Two weeks before Madden left the department, the American Society of Crime Lab Directors did a certification audit of the police lab. It found, among other things, that the lab had failed to secure a computer documenting drug evidence from unauthorized access. It also found that drug lab equipment had been contaminated with leftover narcotics.
Rather than issue a five-year extension on the crime lab's accreditation, the group gave police six months to fix the problems.
It's unclear when police told auditors about the Madden case. Ralph Keaton, executive director of the lab directors group, said he learned about it only last week.
"If there are any problems of a significant nature and the lab isn't notifying us, we will have to address it," Keaton said. His auditors will return to the crime lab in the next two weeks to do a follow-up inspection.
Snip-it" Only half of SFPD officers have received crisis intervention training." "Tasers often are overused. When first deployed in San Jose, Tasers were reportedly used over 200 times per year; seven deaths were reported in incidents involving Tasers during the first five years of implementation there."
If 1/2 of the SFPD aren't trained, what are the odds the Bart Police being trained? That explains "why" people are killed.
Much attention has been paid to the San Francisco Police Commission's rejection of Tasers for use by officers. Unfortunately, the truth about Tasers has been lost in the rhetoric.
Tasers, while less lethal than firearms, are a significant level of force. They often are viewed as harmless, non-lethal devices that incapacitate individuals with little or no risk. This is false.
Tasers cause excruciating pain and pose a risk of serious injuries or death. While such outcomes are rare, they have occurred across California and the nation. It is critical that everyone understand the potential benefits and risks of Tasers before allowing them in the San Francisco Police Department.
In February, the commission exercised due caution and requested a brief delay for a decision after receiving no written proposal, no documentation of proposed guidelines or the costs and training involved in implementation, and little information on the hazards. On March 3, speakers invited by the commission and others presented concerns about Tasers. At that hearing it was reported that a UC San Francisco study found that, in the year after Tasers were deployed, aggregate data of 50 cities showed an increase in sudden deaths and officer-involved shootings. The physicians who authored the study recommended that if Tasers were to be deployed, officers should be instructed to shoot suspects in the back rather than the chest, the number of shocks should be limited, and that defibrillators should be given to officers.
While Tasers are seen as an alternative to using guns on mentally ill persons, only half of SFPD officers have received crisis intervention training. Before deploying Tasers, SFPD should work with mental health experts to improve its interactions with mentally ill individuals. Doing so will lead to safer outcomes for both officers and the community.
Tasers are not a simple alternative to firearms. Because they are not always effective, Tasers cannot be relied upon in life-threatening situations. Additionally, Tasers often are overused. When first deployed in San Jose, Tasers were reportedly used over 200 times per year; seven deaths were reported in incidents involving Tasers during the first five years of implementation there.
Even where policies are in place, they are only as good as their enforcement. SFPD's disciplinary system is notoriously flawed. To ensure compliance with use of force and other policies, an effective disciplinary system should be in place before the commission considers implementing Tasers.
To be sure, Tasers can assist officers in a narrow category of high-risk incidents, but only in police departments with stringent training, adequate safeguards, strong accountability systems, and a high degree of transparency. San Francisco isn't there yet.
If Tasers are authorized, then they must come with strict limitations on their use. Anything less would be a disservice to the community and to the men and women of the SFPD. Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-b...pinion#ixzz0ixFk623U
03-26) 15:36 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco prosecutors told judges Friday that they could not "ethically go forward" with 46 narcotics trials because of evidence problems arising out of the scandal at the Police Department's drug-analysis lab - signaling that the district attorney is likely to dismiss nearly all 750 pending drug cases in the city.
"Based on what the district attorney's office knows about the issues within the narcotics division of the crime lab, we cannot ethically go forward with this prosecution," Assistant District Attorney Nancy Tung told a judge overseeing a case that was serving as a test of how much police and prosecutors had to disclose to defense attorneys about problems at the drug lab.
Prosecutors dropped that test case, a cocaine-sales trial, after having been deluged with 1,500 pages of police files about the lab that a spokesman for the district attorney called "troubling" and said pointed to possible larger problems in the Police Department.
Prosecutors are legally required to give up any evidence that could clear a defendant, and the judge in Mario Bell's cocaine-dealing case, who reviewed the papers in private, said Thursday that many of the police files could be relevant in Bell's trial. Now that his case has been dropped, however, the documents will not be given to his attorney.
Madden case and more The papers include files related to the drug lab and technician Deborah Madden, 60, who left the lab last year just before suspicions surfaced that she had stolen cocaine she was testing as evidence. Police Chief George Gascón shut down the drug lab March 9.
With no one from the lab available to vouch for evidence in court, and with much of the lab's work called into question, the district attorney's office had already dropped more than 400 cases since the shutdown. Prosecutors had said they hoped to retest narcotics evidence and refile some of those cases, but Friday's action signaled that is unlikely to happen.
One recent development that could doom even retested cases is that discrepancies have arisen between the weights of drugs as recorded at the crime lab and weights as measured by outside agencies brought in to do the new tests.
Brian Buckelew, a spokesman for District Attorney Kamala Harris, said prosecutors are still considering what to do about the 750 pending drug cases in jeopardy because of the lab's problems.
"My office is going to work through the weekend and assess how to handle the remaining cases," Buckelew said.
Scope has changed The exact contents of the 1,500 pages of police files have not been made public, but Buckelew said the documents hinted at problems with police and the drug lab that go beyond Madden's conduct. Buckelew called the files "troubling."
"At the very beginning this was a case about Debbie Madden and isolated incidents that could have been resolved by retesting," Buckelew said. However, he added, "the face of this has changed."
Bell's attorney said he believed the material included audits of the crime lab at Hunters Point, and its drug-testing section, going back at least six years.
Among the questions raised since the suspicions about Madden were made public is why the Police Department took more than two months to open a criminal investigation into her actions after her sister said she had found what she believed to be a stolen lab vial of cocaine in Madden's home. Documents contained in the files could help answer that question and reveal who in the Police Department knew what and when.
Only allegations Former Assistant Police Chief Jim Lynch, who was chief of staff to Gascón until retiring March 17, said Thursday that he did not alert the chief when the Madden issue first surfaced in December. He did, however, refer it at that time to Assistant Chief Kevin Cashman, who oversees the investigations unit, for evaluation as a criminal case, he said.
"They were allegations, we hear lots of allegations, and that's all we had," Lynch said. "All kinds of allegations don't get to the chief's level.
"As it gained merit," he added, "I briefed him (the chief)." He said that was in February. Madden has not been arrested or charged.
Cashman declined to comment, referring questions to a police spokeswoman, who said interviews in an internal investigation are still under way.
"That's what we're trying to find out - why didn't people act sooner, if that is in fact what happened," spokeswoman Lt. Lyn Tomioka said.
Happy defendant The judge in Bell's cocaine-sales case, Anne-Christine Massullo, said Friday that she would keep the police files under seal as prosecutors decide what to do with them.
Prosecutors dropped 45 other cases Friday in which the defendants, like Bell, were on the verge of trial. In each case, they cited the same reason - that they could not "ethically go forward."
Bell, 35, was accused of selling crack cocaine on three occasions. Madden tested at least one of the samples and confirmed that it was cocaine. Bell has previous offenses, and if convicted of the cocaine-sales charges could have been sentenced to 19 years in state prison.
A smiling Bell declined to comment outside court. His attorney, Jim Senal, said that "the district attorney stepped up to the plate" and had done the right thing by dropping hopelessly flawed charges.
Any mass dismissal of drug cases would raise questions about people who have been convicted of narcotics offenses in San Francisco in recent years, as well as federal cases that have been based on earlier San Francisco convictions. The fallout could be limited, however, because drugs in closed cases that date from before 2008 have been destroyed.
Police were philosophical about the possibility of mass dismissals.
"It's another development," Tomioka said. "We will continue with the independent investigations being conducted at the lab."
She added that Gascón "wants a very thorough investigation. We realized there was going to be fallout from the get-go. We work with the district attorney's office. They are going to do what they feel is the right thing to do. I have confidence in that process."
IP: Logged
11:56 PM
Mar 28th, 2010
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
When did the police department knew about the alleged crimes?
"The department learned in mid-December that while looking through Madden's home, her sister had found what she suspected was a vial of cocaine from the crime lab. The vial was destroyed before police could examine it, however, and the department has said it did not open a criminal investigation until late February. Madden has not been charged."
On the other hand, the they didn't have any problems trying to convict people during this period.... amazing. Simply amazing.
"He said he was surprised prosecutors were persisting in pressing charges, given the crime lab's problems. "Our position is, if it went into the lab and it came out the other side, it's tainted," Senal said."
Drop all 750 cases. Sorry, but you got a crack head working in the lab!
Update. "1,400 more for possible dismissal."
Okay, so what a rough count? The public needs to know. "A final decision hasn't been made on how many ultimately will be tossed, but Public Defender Jeff Adachi told CBS 5 that his office planned to review 40,000 drug cases involving the lab over the past five years.
:
