General Police Abuse Thread

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Jesus. Do they just shoot all dogs they encounter?

[TheFeniX]

I have to assume a lot of cops just don't own or interact with dogs on any level. It doesn't help that there is next to no repercussions for shooting an animal so as long as you can claim any kind of aggression. It gets tragically hilarious at times as cops fire multiple rounds at a domicile when attacked by a 7lbs. dog. And they aren't disinclined to leave other smalls dogs on the side of the road to die. That's a felony in Texas (where the incident happened) BTW. People were talking about firing though, which is dumb. Normal people go to jail for shit like this.

I assume cops willing to shoot dogs under 25 lbs. weren't loved as children and it honestly scares me they're allowed to carry firearms.

On a semi-related topic: Do not call the cops to handle stray dogs unless there's obvious signs of aggression and the dog is of a size and breed that could cause you or others harm. Call the SPCA, call anyone else. Do something yourself instead of passing the buck. Only call the cops if you think the dog ending up dead is the positive outcome.

[White Haven]

Whenever I see yet another dog-shooting incident, I can't help but wish for a mass proliferation of John Wicks in the world. US law enforcement seems to be in dire need of the kind of reminder that that is murder that only a massive number of retired, dog-lover assassins can really, truly supply.

I'm really only half-joking at this point. I cared far, far more for my dog than for the vast majority of humans in the world, as is going to be true for basically anyone who deserves to have a dog; when you've spent years living with a dog, you're going to have a much stronger emotional connection with him or her than with the majority of random other people in the world. As far as that dog owner is concerned, that dog that a you (as a hypothetical cop) just shot is more of a person than you are. I'm fucking tired beyond belief of 'eh, it was only a dog' responses from police forces on the matter. It's not 'eh, a dog got shot,' it's 'you just murdered a child who doesn't understand what a police uniform means, you fucking waste of flesh.'

I'll be honest, I wouldn't vote to convict if a dog-owner twisted a police officer's head off like a fucking bottle cap after yet another dog shooting. Maybe a few copkillers walking free because of that kind of response to police dog-murdering is what's needed to get police forces and lawmakers to both start taking the matter seriously.

[Kamakazie Sith]

What's the context of a dog being shot every 98 minutes. How many of them are companion animals? The reason I ask is because shelters put down adoptable pets every 13 seconds but the context is pretty obvious in that case. The other reason I ask is because many dogs shot by law enforcement, ie animal control, are at large dogs that are running around especially on airports. Dogs on airport property are killed with extreme prejudice. What I mean by that is a sharpshooter with a scoped 22 puts them down without any attempt at capture.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Whenever I see yet another dog-shooting incident, I can't help but wish for a mass proliferation of John Wicks in the world. US law enforcement seems to be in dire need of the kind of reminder that that is murder that only a massive number of retired, dog-lover assassins can really, truly supply.

I'm really only half-joking at this point. I cared far, far more for my dog than for the vast majority of humans in the world, as is going to be true for basically anyone who deserves to have a dog; when you've spent years living with a dog, you're going to have a much stronger emotional connection with him or her than with the majority of random other people in the world. As far as that dog owner is concerned, that dog that a you (as a hypothetical cop) just shot is more of a person than you are. I'm fucking tired beyond belief of 'eh, it was only a dog' responses from police forces on the matter. It's not 'eh, a dog got shot,' it's 'you just murdered a child who doesn't understand what a police uniform means, you fucking waste of flesh.'

I'll be honest, I wouldn't vote to convict if a dog-owner twisted a police officer's head off like a fucking bottle cap after yet another dog shooting. Maybe a few copkillers walking free because of that kind of response to police dog-murdering is what's needed to get police forces and lawmakers to both start taking the matter seriously.

Your post induces serious eye roll in me. If you people actually did consider your dog your fucking child then you would take actual measures to protect your child which include not allowing it out of control ever when in public. Not allowing it to escape your yard. It's a fucking dog, not McGuyver. Install proper containment for fucks sake. When visitors come over you know how your dog will react better than anyone. If it likes to run up to people while barking. PUT THAT FUCKER AWAY. Dogs aren't your personal security force because like you said it's a child that doesn't know any better.

That being said. Officers should strive to not shoot peoples pets and should be trained with that in mind. US cops certainly can reduce the number of shootings of both people and dogs. However, dog owners can either stop referring to their dog as their child (you wouldn't leave a child outside while you were at work) or actually take steps to protect their child.

[TheFeniX]

Yea you stupid dog owners, cops wouldn't kill your dogs if you keep them in the yard. Go the extra mile, and leash them in the yard assholes!.

And remember to keep your dogs contained when gang-bangers with badges raid the wrong house and shoot your dog. I guess killing the kids would have been too much paper-work. But shooting dogs is like "lol whoops, sorry. Just buy another one."

That being said. Officers should strive to not shoot peoples pets and should be trained with that in mind. US cops certainly can reduce the number of shootings of both people and dogs.

This shit is what really pisses me off. Houston cop commits a felony dog abandonment, department admits to it, nothing fucking happens. And you actually think there's any fucking chance in Hell, training is going to make a difference? You're lucky if an officer gets fired for his actions and that likely only happens when he does it in front of kids and the department doesn't want to deal with a crying child on the news. People eat that shit up.

Until such time as "cop shoots Chihuahua, claimed he felt life was threatened: is charged with animal cruelty and reckless endangerment, other officers distancing themselves from his actions" is the routine headline for shit like this, nothing is going to change.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yea you stupid dog owners, cops wouldn't kill your dogs if you keep them in the yard. Go the extra mile, and leash them in the yard assholes!.

Try and keep up, Fenix. We're talking about the idea that dogs are children to these people. If that is true then yes those people that left their dogs outside the house in a yard are wrong. See my problem is these people expect everyone else to treat their dogs like children except themselves. A parent would not lock their child out of their house.

By the way, in the case of Geist and SLC real human children will always take precedence. I don't care how little love you have for your fellow human being. Nearly every cop on duty that night also worked the search for Destiny Norton and if you ask them they'll tell you that you're damn right they searched backyards of unoccupied homes. Whether the shooting of Geist was reasonable will only ever be truly known by the officer that shot Geist but I know that officer personally and I believe him. That is obviously bias but we don't and shouldn't fire people or charge them with crimes just because they tell a story that benefits them.

And remember to keep your dogs contained when gang-bangers with badges raid the wrong house and shoot your dog. I guess killing the kids would have been too much paper-work. But shooting dogs is like "lol whoops, sorry. Just buy another one."

Your dog is not your personal security force. Do you know why? I'll give you a hint. It's the same reason you can't setup traps in your house and it has something to do with what White Haven said.

This shit is what really pisses me off. Houston cop commits a felony dog abandonment, department admits to it, nothing fucking happens. And you actually think there's any fucking chance in Hell, training is going to make a difference? You're lucky if an officer gets fired for his actions and that likely only happens when he does it in front of kids and the department doesn't want to deal with a crying child on the news. People eat that shit up.

You're right on this. That's bullshit and it should change. In addition I would like to see policy changes prohibiting officers from using deadly force on animals less than 25lbs. However, to be clear that change comes with voting.

Until such time as "cop shoots Chihuahua, claimed he felt life was threatened: is charged with animal cruelty and reckless endangerment, other officers distancing themselves from his actions" is the routine headline for shit like this, nothing is going to change.

One question. How are officers suppose to distance themselves from actions in a manner that the public will be made aware of?

[TheFeniX]

Try and keep up, Fenix. We're talking about the idea that dogs are children to these people. If that is true then yes those people that left their dogs outside the house in a yard are wrong. See my problem is these people expect everyone else to treat their dogs like children except themselves. A parent would not lock their child out of their house.

I didn't argue that dogs are children. However, they are certainly members of the family. Those families that view them as something more than guard animals, which is a vast majority of dog owners considering the most popular dog for many years was the Cocker. Cocker's are notoriously stranger-unfriendly dogs, but they aren't lethal by any means. At 4:30 in the afternoon, a cop identifies an old-cocker as some kind of deadly threat. I assume deadly since one would fucking hope this is the only time a cop is allowed to shoot someone (of course, we know this not to be true).

Aging dogs can actually be quite mean. Tiger was a... miniature poodle? Not as small as a toy, stockier like a cocker. Maybe 14 pounds. Mean. as. Hell. And looked like the god-damn devil what with the cataracts. But any adult who thought he was a lethal threat is a total asshole or weak-kneed wuss and shouldn't be allowed to handle anything more dangerous than string.

And there's more than a few breeds that require you to lock them in, rather than out because I've owned multiple that hate being inside on anything but the coldest or hottest Texas days. And the law agrees: it's not against the law to lock a dog outside in a contained area, provided the temperatures are not in the extremes and they are provided with a water source. Pretty sure in Texas you can't chain them up anymore, but trolley lines are ok. Anyways, cops should probably fucking know this as part of their training. They should expect to see one of the millions of pet dogs that exist in America when entering someone's back yard. "Line guys" do it all the fucking time and don't end up killing them because "MOMMA IMMA SCARED!"

And how does any of what you posted prove that people who legally contain their dogs are somehow protecting their animals for police shootings? They aren't. Cops needs little to no reason to shoot a dog and get off scot-free.

By the way, in the case of Geist and SLC real human children will always take precedence. I don't care how little love you have for your fellow human being. Nearly every cop on duty that night also worked the search for Destiny Norton and if you ask them they'll tell you that you're damn right they searched backyards of unoccupied homes. Whether the shooting of Geist was reasonable will only ever be truly known by the officer that shot Geist but I know that officer personally and I believe him. That is obviously bias but we don't and shouldn't fire people or charge them with crimes just because they tell a story that benefits them.

How convenient for him he needs nothing but his word to determine if he's in the right or not. Still does nothing to show that keeping your dogs contained is protection from cops putting them down at the slightest provocation.

Your dog is not your personal security force. Do you know why? I'll give you a hint. It's the same reason you can't setup traps in your house and it has something to do with what White Haven said.

How did you get that from my post? Note: dogs running at you do not mean they are attacking. Family dogs are protective and not always violently. They don't respond well to loud noises and people busting into their home and I shouldn't have to lock my dog in the closet every night on the off chance thugs with badges break into my house on accident. I mean.... pistol in the nightstand, I'm fucking dead anyways, but the point still stands.

But I posted that because it doesn't fucking matter the size of the dog or it's demeanor: if chuckle-fucks with military weapons show up to the wrong house, the odds are your dog is dead if he acts in any way like a dog would. It's no different than cops wondering why, when they are beating someone, that person is adverse to splaying their arms out flat because the fetal position is a natural response when you are wounded and getting your shit kicked in. For cops, it's a tasty extra resisting charge.

This leaves out your human family members being brutalized in the process, cops then looking for anything to justify their fuck-up, such as charging you for weapon possession in a clear-cut case of "cops wipe their asses with the Bill of Rights." That every cop who hung around after they found out they were in the wrong house is still walking around free shows just how fucking bad the situation is, like "holy shit, I live in a third-world shithole and I can't even bribe someone to lay off me" bad. And dogs have a chance in Hell of surviving against these types of criminals?

One question. How are officers suppose to distance themselves from actions in a manner that the public will be made aware of?

Having someone beside the Houston Mayor say something about it being a terrible idea and the officer has been charged with one or more felonies. And no cops crying about "well we'll just stop doing our job then." I give no fucks about procedure or investigations: shooting a 6 lbs. dog should have an immediate reaction of "this was bad" from the police force as a whole. There is literally no situation I can think of where an officer could find himself in fear of his life from a fucking Chihuahua.

Here's this: "HPD Officer who left dog on side of road to die charged with multiple felonies under the Loco Laws. Police chief says department in full agreement." Not what actually happened where the HPD just ignored it because no one is going to call them on their bullshit.

EDIT: This was concerning the shooting of the Chihuahua. Put it in wrong place.::: Imagine a UPS guy, carrying a pistol legally, doing the same fucking thing. It would be expected for him to be arrested and charged and no one would bat an eye-lash. But give a man/woman a badge and the opposite is expected and happens: nothing, world keeps spinning.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I didn't argue that dogs are children.

Then why are you talking to me? My post was clearly directed at White Haven who did make that statement.

However, they are certainly members of the family. Those families that view them as something more than guard animals, which is a vast majority of dog owners considering the most popular dog for many years was the Cocker. Cocker's are notoriously stranger-unfriendly dogs, but they aren't lethal by any means. At 4:30 in the afternoon, a cop identifies an old-cocker as some kind of deadly threat. I assume deadly since one would fucking hope this is the only time a cop is allowed to shoot someone (of course, we know this not to be true).

Aging dogs can actually be quite mean. Tiger was a... miniature poodle? Not as small as a toy, stockier like a cocker. Maybe 14 pounds. Mean. as. Hell. And looked like the god-damn devil what with the cataracts. But any adult who thought he was a lethal threat is a total asshole or weak-kneed wuss and shouldn't be allowed to handle anything more dangerous than string.

And there's more than a few breeds that require you to lock them in, rather than out because I've owned multiple that hate being inside on anything but the coldest or hottest Texas days. And the law agrees: it's not against the law to lock a dog outside in a contained area, provided the temperatures are not in the extremes and they are provided with a water source. Pretty sure in Texas you can't chain them up anymore, but trolley lines are ok. Anyways, cops should probably fucking know this as part of their training. They should expect to see one of the millions of pet dogs that exist in America when entering someone's back yard. "Line guys" do it all the fucking time and don't end up killing them because "MOMMA IMMA SCARED!"

And how does any of what you posted prove that people who legally contain their dogs are somehow protecting their animals for police shootings? They aren't. Cops needs little to no reason to shoot a dog and get off scot-free.

Jesus. You're long winded. I'll try to explain this one more time. My post was entirely based off the idea that people think dogs are children. If you do believe this then they shouldn't be outside when you're not home because they aren't capable of thinking at the same level of a child that is of age to be left alone.

It was not meant to "prove" that your dog would be safe from every possible situation. In fact, it was to prove that the outside is not safe for a dumb animal that is territorial. You did however assist in proving that. Thank you.

How convenient for him he needs nothing but his word to determine if he's in the right or not. Still does nothing to show that keeping your dogs contained is protection from cops putting them down at the slightest provocation.

Yeah. That's how it is in most encounters of animal vs human.

How did you get that from my post? Note: dogs running at you do not mean they are attacking. Family dogs are protective and not always violently. They don't respond well to loud noises and people busting into their home and I shouldn't have to lock my dog in the closet every night on the off chance thugs with badges break into my house on accident. I mean.... pistol in the nightstand, I'm fucking dead anyways, but the point still stands.

Yeah, the way you tell if a dog is attacking or not is when it bites you. Not a great metric. Anyway, police shouldn't get off scot free when they raid the wrong house. At a minimum someone should lose their job.

But I posted that because it doesn't fucking matter the size of the dog or it's demeanor: if chuckle-fucks with military weapons show up to the wrong house, the odds are your dog is dead if he acts in any way like a dog would. It's no different than cops wondering why, when they are beating someone, that person is adverse to splaying their arms out flat because the fetal position is a natural response when you are wounded and getting your shit kicked in. For cops, it's a tasty extra resisting charge.

And if they show up to the right house then yes you're dog is dead. It's not your personal security force. When it acts like one then it will get treated like one. Unless you think the a person running at a tactical team with a knife wouldn't be put down.

Also, people resist putting their arms out when they aren't being struck. It's actually surprising (not really) how long a person can put up a struggle when all they have to do is keep their arms close to their body. Strikes to those extremities bring that struggle to a swift conclusion. Of course, I'm not talking about beating the shit out of someone.

This leaves out your human family members being brutalized in the process, cops then looking for anything to justify their fuck-up, such as charging you for weapon possession in a clear-cut case of "cops wipe their asses with the Bill of Rights." That every cop who hung around after they found out they were in the wrong house is still walking around free shows just how fucking bad the situation is, like "holy shit, I live in a third-world shithole and I can't even bribe someone to lay off me" bad. And dogs have a chance in Hell of surviving against these types of criminals?

You talk so much about something that wasn't even being argued.

Having someone beside the Houston Mayor say something about it being a terrible idea and the officer has been charged with one or more felonies. And no cops crying about "well we'll just stop doing our job then.

Oh right. So, when I want to distance myself from the actions of another officer I should go to the chief and/or mayor and tell him what to say.

" I give no fucks about procedure or investigations: shooting a 6 lbs. dog should have an immediate reaction of "this was bad" from the police force as a whole. There is literally no situation I can think of where an officer could find himself in fear of his life from a fucking Chihuahua.

Here's this: "HPD Officer who left dog on side of road to die charged with multiple felonies under the Loco Laws. Police chief says department in full agreement." Not what actually happened where the HPD just ignored it because no one is going to call them on their bullshit.

Like I said before that is bullshit and the officer should be charged.

EDIT: This was concerning the shooting of the Chihuahua. Put it in wrong place.::: Imagine a UPS guy, carrying a pistol legally, doing the same fucking thing. It would be expected for him to be arrested and charged and no one would bat an eye-lash. But give a man/woman a badge and the opposite is expected and happens: nothing, world keeps spinning.

Postal workers kill dogs all the time. They don't do it with a pistol because they aren't allowed to carry one. They do it with blunt objects. Most of the time they aren't charged. Most of the time regular people that kill dogs also are not charged. This is because the law does take the word of a person over the body of a dead dog.

[TheFeniX]

Then why are you talking to me? My post was clearly directed at White Haven who did make that statement.

Because you also gave advice on how owners should control their dogs to avoid them getting put down and my post was to show none of that mattered because any excuse is good enough to fire a gun at a dog. You also managed to be extremely condescending about it when it seems like you don't interact with dogs for any given length of time.

In fact, it was to prove that the outside is not safe for a dumb animal that is territorial. You did however assist in proving that. Thank you.

That's dumb and the law agrees that it's dumb.

Yeah. That's how it is in most encounters of animal vs human.

No, that's how it is in most encounters with cops vs anything.

Yeah, the way you tell if a dog is attacking or not is when it bites you. Not a great metric. Anyway, police shouldn't get off scot free when they raid the wrong house. At a minimum someone should lose their job.

Unlike cops, I can actually identify aggressive dogs. And if cops are being constantly ambushed by "dumb animals" in an area where said dumb animals are known to reside, not giving themselves enough time to judge what actually going on before firing, then maybe the dogs aren't the dumb animals in this case.

And "at a minimum" should be felony charges for the asshole who lied to obtain the warrant and any cop who hung around after it was shown they were in the wrong house. This "lose your job and get hired two towns over" shit is a part of the problem, not a solution to it.

And if they show up to the right house then yes you're dog is dead. It's not your personal security force. When it acts like one then it will get treated like one. Unless you think the a person running at a tactical team with a knife wouldn't be put down.

Dogs have a certain set of tools available to them given their size and bite force. They cannot pull a gun or a knife. The situation should be wholly dependent on the size of the dog as I'm not about to expect cops to identify a breed when shit is going down and they can't be expected to show up at the right house anyway. If you can't identify if a dog is a threat or not based on size, then you don't have enough information to be firing your weapon.

This is how armed and armored cops deals with DANGEROUS small dogs.

“During this standoff, the dog owner threatened to use a body armor piercing crossbow to kill officers, and this subject threatened to use his dog as a weapon against officers as well. ::snip::"

RELEASE THE KRAKEN! Oh man, how fucking awesome is it you can just shoot small animals for any reason? The rest of us need a hunting license for that. Honestly, who wouldn't just be blasting whatever pissed them off?

Oh right. So, when I want to distance myself from the actions of another officer I should go to the chief and/or mayor and tell him what to say.

How do you get that from my post? The cop committed felonies and the only one who had anything to say was the fucking mayor. I think that deserves an official statement from the police department, but... you know... HPD. How fucking sweet is that? You can commit felonies and maybe, just maybe, have to worry about getting fired. The rest of us have to worry about living as pariahs for a lifetime if we get caught with a single joint. Sweet deal.

Postal workers kill dogs all the time. They don't do it with a pistol because they aren't allowed to carry one. They do it with blunt objects. Most of the time they aren't charged. Most of the time regular people that kill dogs also are not charged. This is because the law does take the word of a person over the body of a dead dog.

Postal workers don't go into people's backyards. How many line guys kill dogs? Besides, Postal worker kills a 10-pound Yorkie and is charged. Maybe because no sane person could think a Yorkie was a lethal threat. He made the mistake of not being a cop.

[Lagmonster]

Whenever I see yet another dog-shooting incident, I can't help but wish for a mass proliferation of John Wicks in the world. US law enforcement seems to be in dire need of the kind of reminder that that is murder that only a massive number of retired, dog-lover assassins can really, truly supply.

I'm really only half-joking at this point.

That's good, because otherwise I'd package you and your disgusting attitude up together and boot them out the door.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Because you also gave advice on how owners should control their dogs to avoid them getting put down and my post was to show none of that mattered because any excuse is good enough to fire a gun at a dog. You also managed to be extremely condescending about it when it seems like you don't interact with dogs for any given length of time.

I disagree. That advice is still valid. All your posts show is that in a world with many possibilities precautions can fail. Also, that advice was directed at those that feel their dog is their child and in my personal experience as a cop in every instance where I could have shot and killed a dog it is because those owners failed to control it.

Yes, I am condescending about it. I tend to be when people support or defend the idea of the murder of another human. Let's think of this in different terms. Would you be OK with the death penalty being imposed on someone that killed an animal illegally?

That's dumb and the law agrees that it's dumb.

That depends on the state but some states allow the shooting of dogs that are roaming and unattended and that it is it. Practically every other state allows the shooting or killing of dogs for self defense and if it's only the word of the human versus the dead dog well the human will prevail.

No, that's how it is in most encounters with cops vs anything.

Don't dodge the point like some simple coward. In the majority of situations where a dog is killed by a human unless there is some actual evidence to the contrary the word of that person is good enough. If you like I can post a handful of news articles to support my position. Here's one

Unlike cops, I can actually identify aggressive dogs.

Fenix are you claiming that all cops can't identify actual aggressive dogs? Citation please.

And if cops are being constantly ambushed by "dumb animals" in an area where said dumb animals are known to reside, not giving themselves enough time to judge what actually going on before firing, then maybe the dogs aren't the dumb animals in this case.

Fenix, it sounds like you're claiming that majority of law enforcement shootings of dogs occur inside areas where animals are known to reside. Citation please.

And "at a minimum" should be felony charges for the asshole who lied to obtain the warrant and any cop who hung around after it was shown they were in the wrong house. This "lose your job and get hired two towns over" shit is a part of the problem, not a solution to it.

Do you realize what you just did here? What in the world would lead you to believe that the minimum included criminal acts?

Dogs have a certain set of tools available to them given their size and bite force. They cannot pull a gun or a knife. The situation should be wholly dependent on the size of the dog as I'm not about to expect cops to identify a breed when shit is going down and they can't be expected to show up at the right house anyway. If you can't identify if a dog is a threat or not based on size, then you don't have enough information to be firing your weapon.

I agree with this.

How do you get that from my post? The cop committed felonies and the only one who had anything to say was the fucking mayor. I think that deserves an official statement from the police department, but... you know... HPD. How fucking sweet is that? You can commit felonies and maybe, just maybe, have to worry about getting fired. The rest of us have to worry about living as pariahs for a lifetime if we get caught with a single joint. Sweet deal.

You do realize that police departments don't hold meetings and vote on a course of action. When you say "having someone besides the mayor say something". I believe in the case you're discussing the police chief came out in support of the officer. So, again how is an officer who disagrees with the shooting suppose to distance themselves in a reasonable manner?

Postal workers don't go into people's backyard.

That is true. Are the majority of dogs shot by police in their backyards? They still kill dogs.

How many line guys kill dogs?

Dunno. Do you? If you do. You better bring some sort of evidence in your reply.

Besides, Postal worker kills a 10-pound Yorkie and is charged. Maybe because no sane person could think a Yorkie was a lethal threat. He made the mistake of not being a cop.

Right. Made the mistake of not being cop...uh wait

What happens if I find another instance? Do I win? 2 to 1, you're losing

Ohhh!!! It's 3 to 1. Can it be stopped?

The point here is finding and posting a handful of stories don't really prove much. I can find stories of people shooting small dogs and getting away with it. I can also find stories of cops being charged. This is a pointless exercise.

[Dominus Atheos]

Cases of police/justice system abuse against cops is still abuse:

A former Atlantic City police officer convicted of improperly making thousands of dollars through a program intended to help the community is now headed to prison.

Atlantic County prosecutors say 41-year-old Michael Jones received two sentences Wednesday totaling 11 years. He also must pay $12,760 in restitution.

Jones was convicted last month on official misconduct, theft by deception and tax charges. He was then forced to forfeit his job.

Prosecutors say Jones paid about 20 percent of the normal rent at Stanley Homes Village, where he was supposed to reside as part of a live-in police officer program.

But they say he instead rented out the apartment and lived five blocks away.

Jones had served on the Atlantic City force for 12 years.

I'm all for harsh criminal sentences against cops who abuse their power and privileges (actually I'd settle for criminal sentences period, to start with) but 11 years is wildly excessive. Like, if the guy just got fired, had to pay the money back, and got probation, I'd be satisfied.

[Raw Shark]

Cases of police/justice system abuse against cops is still abuse:

[snip] I'm all for harsh criminal sentences against cops who abuse their power and privileges (actually I'd settle for criminal sentences period, to start with) but 11 years is wildly excessive. Like, if the guy just got fired, had to pay the money back, and got probation, I'd be satisfied.

While I agree that 11 years is a little harsh for anybody who did this, the guy got off a lot easier than anybody else would've. Where are the calls from the right for his felony crucifixation for grand theft of the holiest of holies, taxpayer money? Oh, right, drowned out by conservative cop worship / privilege.

[TheFeniX]

Yes, I am condescending about it. I tend to be when people support or defend the idea of the murder of another human. Let's think of this in different terms. Would you be OK with the death penalty being imposed on someone that killed an animal illegally?

I don't hold animals to the same value as people nor do I really support the death penalty all that much these days.

I will say that, ethically: I view people who lack empathy for animals and are willing to shoot/kill them out of anger as mentally unhinged and giving a person like that a badge and gun scares me. NOTE: I'm talking talking about people who kill varmints that are damaging their property or animals.

That depends on the state but some states allow the shooting of dogs that are roaming and unattended and that it is it. Practically every other state allows the shooting or killing of dogs for self defense and if it's only the word of the human versus the dead dog well the human will prevail.

How does "locked in a yard" equate to "roaming and unattended?" Further, discharging a firearm to quell the rampage of a Chihuahua not only makes you a coward, but a dangerous one.

Don't dodge the point like some simple coward. In the majority of situations where a dog is killed by a human unless there is some actual evidence to the contrary the word of that person is good enough. If you like I can post a handful of news articles to support my position. Here's one

Detroit sounds like a festering shit-hole. Oh wait, it is. Also a racist shithole so it doesn't surprise me a black girls dog getting killed doesn't drum up any controversy.

Fenix are you claiming that all cops can't identify actual aggressive dogs? Citation please.

Conceded.

Fenix, it sounds like you're claiming that majority of law enforcement shootings of dogs occur inside areas where animals are known to reside. Citation please.

Never claimed that, so no.

Do you realize what you just did here? What in the world would lead you to believe that the minimum included criminal acts?

What the fuck are you talking about? The department LIED to get the warrant, hit the wrong house, identified the wrong house, and still stayed to continue to terrorize the family and get their hands on whatever evidence they could obtain illegally. And you suggest the minimum should be a firing? No. The second evidence came to light of the officer's crimes, they should have gone to jail.

They are home invaders at that point. They are criminals and I would rate any action the home owner took against them at that point as self-defense.

You do realize that police departments don't hold meetings and vote on a course of action. When you say "having someone besides the mayor say something". I believe in the case you're discussing the police chief came out in support of the officer. So, again how is an officer who disagrees with the shooting suppose to distance themselves in a reasonable manner?

You're telling me the police chief said it was A-ok to leave a dog on the side of the road to die, justifying multiple felonies? Oh wait, this is HPD: I'd buy that 100%. And any chief that agrees with firing a gun at/into a house to kill a 6lbs dog shouldn't have a job in law enforcement. I'd honestly be less pissed if he kicked the thing to death (though, not much) because at least then his incompetence and cowardice wouldn't be dangerous to others.

The point here is finding and posting a handful of stories don't really prove much. I can find stories of people shooting small dogs and getting away with it. I can also find stories of cops being charged. This is a pointless exercise.

An article already showed how many dogs get put down by officers, so I'm not exactly swimming in confidence that just because an officer who enjoys slitting the throats of animals went to jail the US LEOs don't have serious issues with dogs..... at least with dogs they don't train to fuck people up.

[SAMAS]

Here's the sad thing about dogs.

They are family. Maybe not children per se, but to the dog, you are the Alpha of the pack.

And when a dog sees something threatening their family, their instinct is to protect their pack members. They do not know or care about "police authority", or arrest warrants or BS like that.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I don't hold animals to the same value as people nor do I really support the death penalty all that much these days.

I will say that, ethically: I view people who lack empathy for animals and are willing to shoot/kill them out of anger as mentally unhinged and giving a person like that a badge and gun scares me. NOTE: I'm talking talking about people who kill varmints that are damaging their property or animals.

Agreed to an extent. I think you're kind of ignoring the fact that lots of people kill animals and are not sociopathic or psychotic...which is what you seem to be implying.

How does "locked in a yard" equate to "roaming and unattended?" Further, discharging a firearm to quell the rampage of a Chihuahua not only makes you a coward, but a dangerous one.

The point is that it takes very little justification to kill a dog. So, your implied claim that only police need just their word for justification is false.

Detroit sounds like a festering shit-hole. Oh wait, it is. Also a racist shithole so it doesn't surprise me a black girls dog getting killed doesn't drum up any controversy.

Again, it is evidence against your claim that only police can do these things and it supports my claim that when it comes to an animal versus a human the word of the person is sufficient.

Here's a good article on the subject.

Source

What the fuck are you talking about? The department LIED to get the warrant, hit the wrong house, identified the wrong house, and still stayed to continue to terrorize the family and get their hands on whatever evidence they could obtain illegally. And you suggest the minimum should be a firing? No. The second evidence came to light of the officer's crimes, they should have gone to jail.

They are home invaders at that point. They are criminals and I would rate any action the home owner took against them at that point as self-defense.

I was talking about the minimum that should be done when cops hit the wrong house. Someone should lose their job regardless of the circumstances. Minimum does not mean maximum. Obviously if a crime took place then they should be charged but if that's the case we're not talking about the minimum and that should be obvious to anyone. Use some common sense.

You're telling me the police chief said it was A-ok to leave a dog on the side of the road to die, justifying multiple felonies? Oh wait, this is HPD: I'd buy that 100%.

Did you read your own article?

And any chief that agrees with firing a gun at/into a house to kill a 6lbs dog shouldn't have a job in law enforcement. I'd honestly be less pissed if he kicked the thing to death (though, not much) because at least then his incompetence and cowardice wouldn't be dangerous to others.

Agreed. However, my question to you remains unanswered. How is an officer that works for HPD suppose to distance himself from those statements?

An article already showed how many dogs get put down by officers, so I'm not exactly swimming in confidence that just because an officer who enjoys slitting the throats of animals went to jail the US LEOs don't have serious issues with dogs..... at least with dogs they don't train to fuck people up.

That would mean something if it were supplied with context for example "Cops shoot a family dog every 98 minutes". Without context shelters are by far more prolific killers of dogs and companion animals than cops.

Like I said dogs are shot across the country for simply wandering onto airport property and those statistics are recorded and that action is policy. I think it may shock you to learn how animals are dealt with by animal control and shelters. I'm talking about boxes full of kittens and puppies being killed in large numbers. The bodies of those animals being frozen into nice cubes of dead cats and dogs.

[Dominus Atheos]

Court Says Maryland Police Can Keep Their Disciplinary Records Secret

Months after the rough ride that killed Freddie Gray in Baltimore, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that officers’ disciplinary records can remain hidden from the public. The decision comes more five years after an officer accidentally left a racially-charged voicemail, and the phone’s owner tried to investigate if and how he was disciplined.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/0 ... ds-secret/

[Dominus Atheos]

If you value your life you will learn this lesson

Do not ever assume that you can walk toward a police officer and ask for help or report a crime or anything else unless your hands are up and you are being very, very deliberate, walking slowly, eyes cast down, submissive and servile. You see, "they aren't clairvoyant" so they might just shoot you on the spot if you don't:

A week after Los Angeles police shot and critically wounded an unarmed man whose hands were covered with a cloth, department officials on Friday identified the officer who pulled the trigger.

The LAPD identified Cairo Palacios as the officer who shot Walter William DeLeon, 48, along Los Feliz Boulevard. Police said DeLeon walked "aggressively" toward two officers and pointed his hands at them, leading them to believe he had a gun hidden under the gray cloth.

DeLeon remained in critical condition on Friday.

Palacios previously worked as a sworn public safety officer with the city's General Services Department, which patrolled parks, libraries and other city-owned properties. That department merged with the LAPD in 2013, part of then-Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's effort to boost police staffing to the 10,000-officer mark.

Palacios began working with the General Services Department after he graduated from the Los Angeles Police Academy in 2006, the LAPD said. He was assigned to patrol Griffith Park as part of the LAPD's Security Services Division, but was removed from the field after Friday's shooting.

An attorney representing Palacios said his client thought DeLeon had a gun and was going to shoot the officers, saying there were no indications DeLeon was trying to get their help. Attorney Gary Fullerton acknowledged it can be difficult for the public to grapple with police shootings of unarmed people, but said officers have the right to protect their own lives.

"The officer, when he went up to handcuff the man, was shocked to find just the cloth there and nothing under the cloth," Fullerton said. "It's unfortunate, but you can't expect officers to be clairvoyant and wait until they get shot at to actually know what this person is doing or thinking."

Fullerton said he believed "100%" that Palacios followed LAPD policy in the shooting. But, he added, the officers "were obviously traumatized by what happened because nobody likes shooting what ends up being an unarmed man."

DeLeon's son told The Times he was shocked to learn his father was shot by police. William DeLeon, 18, said his father often walked with a towel to wipe away sweat.

Kevin Boyle, an attorney who is representing DeLeon's children, said his firm would "leave no stone unturned" in its own investigation of the shooting.

"From everything I have seen, this is a wonderful family and I would be absolutely shocked to learn that he was approaching police in some sort of an aggressive way," he said. "Maybe he was feeling ill. He may have been reporting a crime. It's just unknown at this time."

The LAPD said they found no broken down car anywhere and his hand wasn't hurt so there was no indication that he might have needed help. He's still in critical condition so he can't tell them what was going on. But I don't think it matters. Even if he'd had an injury and needed help or wanted to report a crime, it seems they would have shot him anyway because he didn't drop the non-existent gun in his hand when they ordered him to.

Nowadays police often just shoot people if they simply think they might have a gun. Use extreme caution whenever they are near.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/ ... learn.html

These cops were just following the First Rule of Policing.

[Dominus Atheos]

St. Louis PD, sexual harassment, and a life destroyed in one of the largest civil suits ever

Tanisha Ross dreamt of being a police officer since she was 14 years old. When she joined the St. Louis Police Department in 2005, and the K9 Unit three years later, it was a dream come true. She knew that as a black woman officer she'd be in a very small minority, but the idea of being a pioneer wasn't a deterrent, it was a motivating factor.

It didn't take long, though, for her dream to turn into a nightmare.

According to her 2011 lawsuit, Sgt. Steven Gori, her direct supervisor in the 11-person K9 unit, began sexually harassing and humiliating Ross over and over again for nearly 18 months.

First, Gori sent a mock flyer around the department about Ross stating:

"Subject wanted for having the baddest body in the St. Louis area," it says. "Use extreme caution when approaching this subject. Approach this subject from behind for your own safety."

Other times, according to her lawsuit,

Gori asked her to sit on his lap, asked her to take off her bullet-resistant vest so that he could "see what (she is) working with," and invited her to his house to skinny dip in his hot tub.

When Ross filed her first complaint, all hell started to break loose. Ross stated that Sgt. Gori and Lt. Mike Deeba:

Began assigning her to unfavorable shifts, evaluating her differently in performance reviews and denying her time off for training that was provided to male officers.

It says Gori threatened her job and warned that he would seize her police dog if she did not accept his advances. It claims he also instructed another officer to forge her signature on a form waiving a promotional exam.

No longer willing to accept the abuse, Ross filed her civil suit against the department and cited Sgt. Gori and Lt. Mike Deeba. She filed the suit on December 22, 2011. Still in the department, something unthinkable happened just two weeks later, as you can read below.

On Jan. 4, 2012, she was injured by another canine officer’s dog during a training exercise, lawyers said, permanently disabling her.
Sgt. Gori, himself a senior citizen at the time who was rumored to be a steroid-using bodybuilder (see pictures below), appears to have died in February of 2015. Just three months earlier, he was named one of the worst bosses in America.



When the case finally went to court, the officers, as expected, denied every single claim—including making the flyers, making the sexual advances, changing her shifts, and allowing a dog to injure her. The jurors, though, were not persuaded and awarded Ross nearly $8 million in damages, one of the largest suits ever in Missouri for a case like this.

In spite of the findings, Gori remained in his very position until the day he died. Perhaps worse, Lt. Mike Deeba was promoted and is now a captain in the St. Louis Police Department, overseeing District 3. Before this ordeal, Deeba had also been previously suspended in a ticket-scalping scandal.

Attorneys for Tanisha Ross stated that their client was so afraid of physical retaliation from other officers that she moved across the country to get away.

No no, see, it was a coincidence that 2 weeks after filing a lawsuit against the police dept, she was permanently disabled in a "training accident". It could happen to anyone!

No I haven't seen the movie Serpico, why?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/2 ... suits-ever

But even after 8 million dollars, nothing is going to change. The money comes entirely from the city coffers and doesn't affect the police dept's budget at all. Even more telling, one of the two officers sued was actually promoted.

[Dominus Atheos]

Is ‘excited delirium’ a medically legitimate diagnosis? It shouldn’t matter.

Over at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has written a helpful primer on “excited delirium,” the non-medical diagnosis that is often used to clear police officers for in-custody deaths.

“Excited delirium” is the name given to a condition in which a person, either as a result of mental illness or protracted use of stimulants such as cocaine or methamphetamines, becomes extremely violent; hyperaggressive; and is often found naked, agitated, incoherent, feverish, and displaying extraordinary strength. The phenomenon is reported most often in police encounters, requiring, on average, four officers to restrain the suspect. In approximately 10 percent of cases, according to the literature, the person with excited delirium may die suddenly. The heart or breathing simply stops. So when someone dies in that agitated state and no other cause of death is found, the medical finding is that excited delirium was the cause. It accounts for approximately 250 deaths in the United States each year, with one expert speculating that about 800 cases occur each year nationwide.

The obvious problem is this: What do we make of a syndrome that seems to occur almost unerringly when a police officer is choking, hog-tying, or stunning with a Taser someone with a mental illness or drug addiction? And why do many experts dispute that the diagnosis even exists? While excited delirium is used to explain a significant number of deaths occurring in police custody, the term has not been recognized as a genuine mental health condition by the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, or the World Health Organization. Excited delirium—which sounds, to the naked ear, something like “crazy-craziness”—is not found in the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, either. Yet medical examiners and police departments keep claiming it as the cause of death of people in custody. In 2014, the International Association of Chiefs of Police issued a white paper that tried to bridge the gap, concluding, “Despite what it is called or whether it has been formally recognized, it is a real clinical concern for both law enforcement and the medical communities.” But is it a real medical phenomenon? Is it a convenient way to blame the victim, as civil liberties and prison reformers claim? Or is this a genuine syndrome that occurs largely in fights between the mentally ill and the cops? Now more than ever, when suspicious deaths in police custody are making headlines, should we consider excited delirium an illness or a cover for police abuse?

The spread of the diagnosis among medical examiners is, conveniently enough, largely due to the tireless work of stun gun manufacturer Taser International.

In 2013, Amnesty International, the only organization that has compiled data on this issue, claimed there were 552 incidents since 2001 where a Taser was used on a victim who then died, yet autopsies cited Taser use as a cause or contributing cause of death in only 60 of those cases.. Excited delirium diagnoses have also protected Taser from liability in many use-of-force suits against the company. In a 2007 interview with NPR, Taser International spokesman Steve Tuttle said that each year his company “sends hundreds of pamphlets to medical examiners explaining how to detect excited delirium. Taser also holds seminars across the country, which hundreds of law-enforcement officials attend.” . . .

A piece in Mother Jones details the extent to which ER doctors and medical examiners get most of their information about excited delirium from Taser. . . .

At a Canadian public inquiry set up in 2008 to study the appropriateness of allowing cops to use Tasers, Mike Webster, a police psychologist, went further. He blamed Taser International for “brainwashing” cops and testified that “police and medical examiners are using the term [excited delirium] as a convenient excuse for what could be excessive use of force or inappropriate control techniques during an arrest.” He went on to add that members of the law enforcement community “have created a virtual world replete with avatars that wander about with the potential to manifest a horrific condition characterized by profuse sweating, superhuman strength, and a penchant for smashing glass that appeals to well-meaning but psychologically unsophisticated police personnel.”

Lithwick also points out that determining that a death was caused by excited delirium isn’t a diagnosis so much as a best guess due to an inability to find an alternate cause of death.

Appropriately enough, this all evokes an National Institute of Justice study from several years ago on the safety of Tasers. The study was widely reported to have concluded that Tasers are safe, and that the “non-lethal” description often attached to them is accurate. But note this line from the study:

The panel determined that there is no conclusive medical evidence in the current body of research literature that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death to humans from the direct or indirect cardiovascular or metabolic effects of short-term CED exposure in healthy, non-stressed, non-intoxicated persons.

The problem here ought to be obvious. The whole point of using a stun gun is to subdue someone who presents an immediate threat. And in fact, we should hope that most people on whom stun guns are used are under a significant amount of stress — if the police are regularly using stun guns on people who aren’t experiencing a high degree of stress, then we have a whole different problem. We can also assume that a fairly high percentage of people police feel compelled to shoot with a stun gun will also be intoxicated. To say that a device is perfectly safe when test on a population on whom the device is extremely unlikely to be used in the real world tells us nothing at all.

As for the health of those hit by stun guns, there’s a concept in tort law called the “eggshell skull rule,” or “you take your victim as you find him.” The gist of the rule is that if your victim has a medical condition that causes him to suffer unusual harm due to your actions, you’re still liable for the additional injury, even though you couldn’t have known about the medical condition. If we were to apply it here, we could say that if a police tactic is likely to kill someone with a heart condition, mental illness or some other medical problem, we can’t simply dismiss those cases because we have studies showing that those same tactics do minimal damage to healthy people.

Even these risks could possibly be justified if stun guns were used as a substitute for lethal force, as they were once intended. Police officers rarely need to use lethal force and are supposed to use it only when a suspect presents a threat to the officer or others. If that were how stun guns were used, we’d be talking about limited use on a very small percentage of the population, only in extreme circumstances, and only to save lives. But stun guns today aren’t used as a substitute for lethal force. They’re used to force compliance. As Lauren Kirchner recently wrote in the Pacific Standard, police today “taser the homeless to get them to leave an area, they taser the mentally ill who aren’t understanding their instructions, and they even once tasered a six-year-old who was having a tantrum in kindergarten.” (And that’s far from the only example of police Tasering a child.) Taser International itself recently told the Miami New Times that its product alone is used by police more than 900 times per day.

With those kinds of numbers, we’re now talking about a significantly higher risk of Tasering someone with a condition that could result in death. And those people are being put at risk of death not to save lives but because some police officers get impatient, angry or annoyed.

All of which is why the debate over the medical legitimacy of “excited delirium” is really beside the point. Let’s assume for a moment that it’s a real condition. If so, it’s a real condition that only manifests and kills when the police are subduing or Tasing someone. Its only symptoms seem to be (a) the presence of police officers and (b) the absence of any other clear cause of death. The fact that hundreds of people have died with these symptoms suggests that a not insignificant portion of the population is susceptible to death if they’re subjected to high levels of stress while under restraint or hit with a stun gun. That alone should guide use-of-force policies when it comes to things like Tasing people in handcuffs, the use of restraint chairs, and the amount of weight officers put on suspects while they’re cuffed and on the ground.

Giving these deaths a name and a diagnosis doesn’t remove our obligation to do what we can to prevent them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... nt-matter/

[Dominus Atheos]

Meet Jerry Hartfield. A judge overturned his conviction 35 years ago. He's still in prison, waiting.

This isn't fiction or hyperbole.
Kalief Browder served for three years in Riker's Island without ever being convicted of a crime.

Carlos Montero is in Riker's now and has served seven years there without ever being convicted.

But then, on a whole other level of outrageous injustice, is Jerry Hartfield. When I first learned of his story earlier today, I thought I was mistaken or was somehow misreading the facts. I wasn't.

His conviction for murder was overturned all the way back in 1980. He was never retried.

A full 35 years later (that's more than 12,500 days), Hartfield, without being formally convicted of a crime, remains in a Texas prison.

In June, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, with a great deal of prodding from the federal courts, confirmed that Hartfield was currently in custody for no good reason—under penalty of no "conviction or sentence," the state judges ruled. And yet he still has not been released. Instead, prosecutors intend to retry him and are fighting to keep him in prison pending that retrial. What kind of trial? A trial at which there is likely to be precious little physical evidence against the defendant because, his attorneys say, it may have been lost over time.

Facing a retrial he could win, Hartfield says he is entitled to get help now, today, because his constitutional right to a speedy trial has long since been violated. If the Sixth Amendment means anything anymore, the defense says, it means that the state must try a man at some point before he has spent a third of a century behind bars for no legitimate reason. He should be immediately released from custody, they say, even if prosecutors want to re-try him for a murder they say he committed in 1977.

In times past, I've declared that our justice system is broken. It isn't broken. It's operating exactly how it intends to operate.
Jerry Hartfield should be released immediately and this country, which could never fully repay him, must do some serious soul searching, then rebuild our justice system by starting over from scratch. This can't happen.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/1 ... on-waiting

[Dominus Atheos]

[Dominus Atheos]

New trend: Yes, the police officers are guilty, but no, we aren't going to do anything about it

A new trend—or better yet, a fresh derivative of an old trend—is emerging in cases of police violence and corruption. It masquerades as progress, but may actually be crueler than the old alternative. Across the country, from Los Angeles to Chicago to Baltimore, police are arresting, assaulting, and killing women and men without cause. Families and friends and protest communities then emerge to demand justice in these cases. Months-long investigations are then launched and then this new trend emerges: a legal body involved in the investigation will then determine that either the victim of the brutality was blameless or that the police committed a serious offense, but that’s where the case ends.
In other words, because of a preponderance of evidence that simply cannot be ignored, investigative bodies, over and over and over again, are determining that police are committing grave offenses, but because of an unjust application of the law, they are completely let off. Families are let down, entire communities are outraged, and victims are given no recourse by a system that should be protecting them. Consequently, among those most affected by police brutality and violence, skepticism of the so-called justice system feels like it is reaching some type of breaking point.

Below are five recent cases (among so many more) in which police misconduct was obvious. Four of them ended with lost lives and the other ended with a young man forever changed by police brutality. Each one has been exhaustively investigated, misconduct was found, but not one of the officers who perpetrated the misconduct is in jail.

Ezell Ford

On August 11, 2014, the LAPD shot and killed Ezell Ford. The autopsy found a muzzle print from the barrel of the officer’s gun on Ford's back where he was clearly shot at close range.

The LAPD Police Commission conducted a thorough investigation and recently released its findings. In them, it was determined that one of the officers severely violated police protocol when he pulled his pistol in the first place and when he used it.

The case against the officer should be a slam dunk then, right?

No. Far from it.

The LAPD, in its own investigation, completely cleared the officers.

Now, according to local law in Los Angeles, it's up to the police chief to decide what he will do with the findings of the commission. Remember though, the police chief already cleared the officers.

We've reached a quagmire.

Rekia Boyd

On March 21, 2012, Rekia Boyd, a young woman out walking with her friends on the streets of Chicago, was shot in the head by off-duty Chicago Police Officer Dante Servin. None of her friends did anything illegal, nobody threatened the officer, nobody was armed. Hell, Servin never even got out of his car. He claimed that he thought Boyd's boyfriend had a gun (the investigation found out that he didn't), so the officer fired into the crowd of friends. A bullet blew a part of Boyd's head off and she died just a few days later.

Open and shut case of police misconduct, right?

Nah. Servin was charged and tried in a case without a jury. The judge, before the case was even over, dismissed it, and said in his opinion that Servin was guilty, but was, in essence, charged with the wrong crime. Because of double jeopardy laws, Servin was free to go and will never pay any real price for the crime he committed.

Martese Johnson

On March 18, 2015, University of Virginia honors student Martese Johnson was brutally assaulted by law enforcement outside of a restaurant. The initial claims were that he presented a fake identification. Then it was stated that Johnson was publicly intoxicated. Later, it was stated that Johnson was belligerent. None of these allegations was true.

On Thursday, three months after the assault, every single charge against Johnson was dropped. While that's great news, that can't be the end of the story.

If he didn't present a fake ID, if he wasn't publicly intoxicated, if wasn't a threat to the officers, why he was he assaulted and why were the fake charges ever introduced in the first place? How can it be that he was bloodied for the whole world to see, but nothing will be done about it? It's not right.

Not one of us could do the same thing to anyone and expect to get away with it.

Tamir Rice

On November 22, 2014, 12-year-old Tamir Rice was playing in his neighborhood park when he was shot and killed by Cleveland Police Officer Timothy Loehmann. Loehmann, just two years before he became an officer in Cleveland, was found to be emotionally unstable by supervisors in another department in which they clearly stated he would was unlikely ever to be fit to be in law enforcement. Cleveland hired him anyway.

After he shot Rice, he ignored the wounded, living boy and refused not only first aid, but any care whatsoever. The Cleveland Police Department investigated the case for two months, then passed it over to the county sheriff's office, which then investigated the case for nearly six more months.

Frustrated by the outrageous delays, a group of eight local leaders in Cleveland filed a motion before a charge to recommend that Officers Garmback and Loehmann be charged with crimes in Rice's death. Using a little-known law in Ohio that allows evidence to be presented to a judge in cases like this, the judge, Ronald Adrine, found that ample evidence existed for both officers to be charged with multiple felonies in Rice's death.

The decision instantly energized family, friends, leaders, and the protest community, who felt that Rice's killing was one of the worst examples of police misconduct in recent years. A respected judge stated that "unquestionably sufficient evidence" existed to charge the officers.

That's enough, right? The officers have been charged, right?

Nah. The prosecutor in the case said it's not enough for him.

So, a judge, in an officer hearing, says in his opinion a crime was committed, but that officer still has not been charged. It's preposterous.

Matthew Ajibade

On this past New Year's Day, 911 was called. Matthew Ajibade, a young artist and college student who suffered with mental illness needed to go to the hospital. He was having some type of episode. Ajibade's family gave the police his medication and begged them to take him to the hospital.

Hours later, that same night, Ajibade was killed in police custody. The coroner's report confirmed that he died of blunt force trauma. Nine officers were fired in connection with the case, but no charges have been filed against them. The family still has no idea what happened. A video exists, but the prosecutors refuse to release it.

If the officers were fired, it was clearly because they violated policies. How could Ajibade have died because of blunt force trauma, but people only lose their jobs?

This is not enough. Again, killing someone is not an offense that you are fired for—it's a felony that you go to prison for.

Sadly, though, in all of these cases, and in countless more, nothing like justice has been gained. Quite the contrary. Officers know this. They are fully aware that few consequences exist when police kill or maim people—even when the evidence is overwhelming. The risk, then, for police misconduct, is nearly nothing.

Judges can say that the evidence is overwhelming, commissions can find that policies were broken, HR departments can recommend separation, but the real price for these crimes against humanity is left unpaid.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/1 ... g-about-it

[Dominus Atheos]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

There's already a law for that


Carjacking used to fall under the criminal umbrella of aggravated robbery, until it earned a category of its own after several high-profile media cases. Above, Troy "Kogen" Williams is pictured in February of 2014 serving a 7-years-to-life sentence for armed robbery, carjacking, and false imprisonment at San Quentin State Prison.

American criminal codes are a mess, and every year they become more convoluted, more likely to foster injustice. States across the nation are trying to clean up the muddle, but prosecutors often threaten those efforts.

In the 1960s and '70s, three-quarters of the states modernized their criminal laws based on the Model Penal Code of the American Law Institute, simplifying what had been a chaotic collection of overlapping, inconsistent statutes accumulated over the previous century.

Unfortunately, the same political processes that generated the earlier chaos went to work on the new codes. As politicians felt the need to show their constituents that they were “on the job” — doing something, anything, about the crime problem in the day's headlines — they created new, highly specific offenses.

The result is that the coherent criminal codes of 40 and 50 years ago are now horribly degraded. Today's codes can be seven or eight times longer than the original ones without actually covering any new territory.

For example, after a few high-profile cases, politicians felt obliged to create a “carjacking” offense. But did anyone doubt that robbing a driver of his car by force was already a serious crime? Before the new label, prosecutors would have simply charged carjackers with aggravated robbery.

Not only did lawmakers add unnecessary offenses, they failed to integrate them into the existing language. They just layered them on top, creating inconsistencies between the old and the new as well as potential duplicate punishments for the same criminal conduct.

Driven by sensational stories and public outcry, legislators also assigned exceptionally high “grades” to certain offenses that reflected the day's passions rather than research. (The grade sets the terms of punishment, including the maximum term of imprisonment.) An exaggerated grade for one crime sets a new baseline for the next crime du jour, until the whole system is seriously out of whack, and punishments exceed what citizens expect or demand.

The Pennsylvania Legislature, for example, created an offense for reading another person's email without permission, making it a third-degree felony with a maximum sentence of seven years. But a 2010 study, conducted after the law went into effect, showed that residents saw email snooping as a minor infraction.

In New Jersey, growing 15 marijuana plants in your backyard is a crime punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 to 20 years. But residents think such wrongdoing might justify only a six-month sentence.

The will is there to modernize . Key players in the states, such as judges, defense counsel, law enforcement, corrections, parole and probation officials, victims advocates, legislators and others support commissions to revamp their criminal laws. They see the value in a streamlined, straightforward code that police officers, citizens and offenders can all understand.

Only prosecutors have regularly opposed such change. They benefit from overlapping, duplicative laws because they gain leverage.

It's probably easier to force a plea bargain, for example, when a prosecutor can tell a defendant he's committed several different crimes and could go to prison for decades. But the threat of multiple charges also increases the likelihood of serious injustice.

I was director for criminal law recodification commissions in Illinois and Kentucky. In both instances, prosecution officials who were on the panels and helped shape the proposed code later opposed its enactment, with little explanation. They couldn't say publicly that they wanted to be able to keep overcharging defendants.

As sloppy as the state codes may be , the federal code is much worse, listing an estimated 100,000 offenses. A clean, modern code should have 300 to 500 offenses.

In the 1970s, the “Brown commission,” named after its chairman, Edmund G. “Pat” Brown — the father of the current California governor — produced a highly regarded proposal for how to revamp the federal criminal code. This served as a basis for a modernization bill the Senate passed with bipartisan support in 1978. But the Democratic leadership in the House blocked it. Some disagreed with parts of it and probably didn't appreciate the compelling need for change.

Prosecutors who oppose reform seem to care more about winning cases anyway they can than on pursuing justice. But a modern, coherent, consistent criminal code is essential — on the state and the federal level.