Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[Larry]

Mcsluggos right, Sisko. At the point you regard everyone in a group as deserving blame for the actions of some members of the group, you've become exactly what you hate.

 

How about when virtually every member of said group behaves a certain way? 

 

Cause granted, maybe it's just my perception, but it sure looks to me like cops assaulting people, and covering up for each other's crimes, sure seems to be the rule, not the exception. 

 

Does every single member of a group, without exception, have to be bad, before the group, as a whole, can be referred to a certain way? 

 

To pick an example, does every single member of the Redskins OL have to suck, before someone can say "Our OL sucks"? 

[MrSilverMaC]

Note: 24,000 cases she touched. Not 24,000 cases of tampering.

Yeah, no. 24,000 cases of tampering.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/12/numbers-the-toll-annie-dookhan-case/h7dmLNvReB278kQg0zlWGJ/story.html?p1=Article_Related_Box_Article_More

Here's a new wild twist for me. When I read the original article I posted I saw 24,000 cases and thought to myself "ok so 24,000 cases, unbelievably terrible number, but I'm sure that some of those cases were one person with repeat offenses." That second link I posted says at least 20,000 defendants

20k plus individuals. One person did that. One person sent an obscene number of innocent people to jail by lying.

I can't even begin to wrap my head around it. And all she got was a 3-5 year sentence and early release on parole.

Edited May 17, 2016 by MrSilverMaC

[Kosher Ham]

20,000 plus... 

Wow. 

That's just unbelievable. 

[Larry]

Yeah, no. 24,000 cases of tampering.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/12/numbers-the-toll-annie-dookhan-case/h7dmLNvReB278kQg0zlWGJ/story.html?p1=Article_Related_Box_Article_More

From the above link.

 

In November 2013, Dookhan was sentenced to serve 3 to 5 years in state prison after she pleaded guilty to 27 counts of misleading investigators, filing false reports, and tampering with evidence during her nine years working as a chemist at the state drug lab.

 

To get to your number, you have to say that she tampered with more than half of the cases she touched. 

 

Boston Globe:  Annie Dookhan, key figure in state lab scandal, released from prison

 

 

Officials determined that Dookhan was involved in more than 40,000 cases at the lab from 2003 to 2012. Special court sessions have been created to deal with the cases in which defendants are challenging their convictions on grounds Dookhan, and the lab, tainted evidence that led to their imprisonment.

 

 

Not "tampered with evidence in".  "Was involved in". 

 

As I understand it, that's why it's so rare for cases to be persued, when people tamper with evidence. 

 

They catch somebody tampering with evidence, once. 

 

But, if they prosecute for it, then every single case that that person touched, is going to head to court, claim that the person who testified against them has now lost all credibility, and demand a new trial, with the evidence/testimony thrown out.  (And a great many of them will get it.) 

 

Somebody getting caught tampering with evidence, (or giving false testimony), once, has the potential to affect a thousand cases. 

 

But when the person gets caught once, that doesn't mean that you should then jump to the assumption that the person lied in every single case they touched, and then jump from there to assuming that every single case they touched was an innocent person. 

 

---

 

Note:  I am not defending the actions of this person.  Nor am I in any way invoking the "well, they were probably guilty, anyway" line that often seems to get trotted out in these cases.  What this person did was heinous, and deserves serious punishment. 

 

I'm simply pointed out that "20,000 cases affected" does not equal "20,000 innocent people sent to prison by one person". 

[stevenaa]

All I can really do with this post is laugh.

 

When faced with unassailable logic...   

[Dan T.]

When faced with unassailable logic...   

 

I don't know.  Those images raise a lot of questions.  Was that girl a suspect for any crime other than  riding her bike through the mall parking lot on her way home?  If the concern of the officer was that she was trespassing, why did he forcibly attempt to keep her on the property instead of letting her pedal off the property? Is yanking a person to the ground by grabbing a handful of hair standard procedure? Is tasing an unarmed 15 year old girl on the ground whom you outweigh by 100 pounds standard procedure? Do you think mall management approved of the way that moonlighting cop handled the situation?  Do you think the cop would have handled it the same way if a white woman decided to walk away from the officer, knowing she had done nothing wrong?

Edited May 17, 2016 by Dan T.

[grego]

How about when virtually every member of said group behaves a certain way? 

 

Cause granted, maybe it's just my perception, but it sure looks to me like cops assaulting people, and covering up for each other's crimes, sure seems to be the rule, not the exception. 

 

Does every single member of a group, without exception, have to be bad, before the group, as a whole, can be referred to a certain way? 

 

To pick an example, does every single member of the Redskins OL have to suck, before someone can say "Our OL sucks"? 

 

 

I don't know if I'd agree that a majority of cops are assaulting people. but, there are groups, like black lives matter, that believe otherwise. I believe many of those people are racist (I know, not possible, etc) sjw kooks, so i'll take their opinions with a grain of salt.

[Larry]

I don't know if I'd agree that a majority of cops are assaulting people.

I don't either. Although I will also observe that I think the definition of "assault" seems a pretty low one to meet.

 

Yes, assault can cover a case where two cops pull night sticks and beat somebody for several minutes.  But it doesn't have to be that egregious.

 

Let's pull a hypothetical from Hollywood/TV. 

 

There's a guy in an interrogation room.  Cop questioning him.  One way mirror on the wall. 

 

Guy is in a chair.  Cop is walking back and forth, on the other side of the table. 

 

What do you suppose happens, if the guy stands up? 

 

I'm pretty certain that what happens, 100 times out of 100, is that the cop orders that person back into the chair.  And, if the guy does not do so, then the cop forces him back into the chair. 

 

That, I assert, is an assault. 

 

That officer is permitted to use physical force, to defend himself or others from imminent threats. 

 

Standing is not a threat.  (Or, if it is, then the officer is guilty of it.) 

 

Physical force, in that case, was used, not to protect the officer from an imminent threat, but to establish dominance.  To intimidate. 

 

---

 

I'll also provide another piece of evidence that I think supports my assertion that abose is a systemic problem, across the entire profession of law enforcement. 

 

How many of the "cop abuse" videos have you seen, where the cop made any effort whatsoever to keep the other cops from seeing what he did? 

 

The cop in this latest video, did what he did on front of a mall security cop.  And on video.  (I assume he knew he was on video, but I'm not sure.  Camera seemed to zoom in and out there, so I'm not sure if that was fixed, security camera, video.)  And, I'm pretty sure, in front of like three other mall cops and like 5 cops, who showed up within minutes. 

 

We see video of cops assaulting people who are on the ground.  Shooting people in the back.  Ramming people with their police car.  And, frequently, in front of multiple, other, police officers.  Without any attempt at concealment. 

 

I assert that this fact tells me that every one of those cops thinks that a cop can assault, maybe even murder, a citizen, in front of a random sample of other cops, and get away with it.  These cops are literally willing to bet their own lives on the assumption that not one of the other cops will stop them, or punish them. 

 

Maybe I don't know enough cops to categorize all of them.  But these cops do.  And they think that they can do these things in front of a randomly-selected bunch of cops, and not have a problem.  They aren't even worried about the possibility. 

 

And, in virtually all of the cases, said cops assumption has been correct. 

 

Again, this causes me to conclude that the problem is systemic, not just a matter of a few exceptions. 

[stevenaa]

I don't know.  Those images raise a lot of questions.  Was that girl a suspect for any crime other than  riding her bike through the mall parking lot on her way home?  If the concern of the officer was that she was trespassing, why did he forcibly attempt to keep her on the property instead of letting her pedal off the property? Is yanking a person to the ground by grabbing a handful of hair standard procedure? Is tasing an unarmed 15 year old girl on the ground whom you outweigh by 100 pounds standard procedure? Do you think mall management approved of the way that moonlighting cop handled the situation?  Do you think the cop would have handled it the same way if a white woman decided to walk away from the officer, knowing she had done nothing wrong?

There could be a yes or no answer to each of those questions,  which is why watching a video with no context makes it very difficult to draw any context.   There were two cops on the scene quickly.  Where they watching the parking lot due to recent increase in car break ins?    Were the kids riding through there during the middle of a school day.  There are tons of reasons they might have legitimately stopped her, but that doesn't really matter.  The issue of how she was handled was escalated by her when she tried to ride off and then resisted.  She was clearly not easy to handle or subdue.  Just because he outweighs her by 100, doesn't mean he can subdue her without potentially hurting here.    Even when he jerks her around,  he never appears to try to harm her seriously.  Had he punched her, or picked her up and body slammed her I'd have an issue with it.   But trying to get control of an unruly 15 year old isn't always easy.  Tazing should be done to prevent bodily harm to the cop or the suspect.  She was making no attempt at complying.  He could have jumped on her and subdued her due do his weight advantage,  but she very may well have been really hurt.  I don't see a cop here trying to be overly abusive.  I see one trying to subdue an unruly teenager bent on resisting with all she had.  

[grego]

 

 

We see video of cops assaulting people who are on the ground.  Shooting people in the back.  Ramming people with their police car.  And, frequently, in front of multiple, other, police officers.  Without any attempt at concealment. 

 

I assert that this fact tells me that every one of those cops thinks that a cop can assault, maybe even murder, a citizen, in front of a random sample of other cops, and get away with it.  These cops are literally willing to bet their own lives on the assumption that not one of the other cops will stop them, or punish them. 

 

Maybe I don't know enough cops to categorize all of them.  But these cops do.  And they think that they can do these things in front of a randomly-selected bunch of cops, and not have a problem.  They aren't even worried about the possibility. 

 

And, in virtually all of the cases, said cops assumption has been correct. 

 

Again, this causes me to conclude that the problem is systemic, not just a matter of a few exceptions. 

 

Michael Slager deserves to be jailed for shooting Walter Scott in the back, no doubt, imo. by the same token, i don't think Darren Wilson did anything wrong in shooting Michael Brown, but I think George Zimmerman should have been jailed for shooting Treyvon Martin.

 

just my .02 about those cases.

 

I don't think youre wrong in saying theres a feeling that they, as cops, could generally get away with crossing the line. body cameras and car cameras are a very valuable thing- they've captured cops behaving badly and captured people like taraji hensons son lying about them behaving badly. one of those gets more clicks- understandably, as its extremely important for cops to behave like theyre supposed to, given the power they have.

 

I'd like to think that cameras will help curtain any sense of entitlement that cops may feel eventually.

[MrSilverMaC]

1st Larry, what exactly do you think it means for the article to state that over 20,000 defendants were affected by this? Because to me that would be 20k+ cases of her tampering.

2nd, while not all of the people who's case she tampered with were completely innocent of all crimes, the fact that she tampered with with their case means they were likely innocent of that crime.

This isn't meant to be a shot at you but my guess is that you're skimming the article instead of reading it to try to stick to your point or that you're having the same issue that I'm having in that the number is so unbelievably hard to wrap your head around.

It's not hard to imagine she touched 40k cases over 10 years of work, or that a little more than 1/2 of the cases she touched she tampered with. It is hard to believe that one person could attempt to wrongfully send 24k innocent people to jail by lying though, because that number, when tied to the actual human cost is, mind numbing.

To imagine 24k people, imagine taking the entire undergraduate class at Virginia tech or u of Maryland and framing them for felony possession of drugs. That's a similar scenario minus the length of time, of course.

For a closer example for you Larry, you could frame the entire undergraduate class at the university of Miami this year, let enrollment fill up to its previous level after that, do it again, let it fill up once more, and then take half that class too.

If you want to keep arguing semantics you should probably just pm about it though, cause at this point anyone reading this has already made up their mind whether your version of the wording or mine was correct as the number of people affected has already been established in two different articles.

[Dan T.]

1st Larry, what exactly do you think it means for the article to state that over 20,000 defendants were affected by this? Because to me that would be 20k+ cases of her tampering.

2nd, while not all of the people who's case she tampered with were completely innocent of all crimes, the fact that she tampered with with their case means they were likely innocent of that crime.

This isn't meant to be a shot at you but my guess is that you're skimming the article instead of reading it to try to stick to your point or that you're having the same issue that I'm having in that the number is so unbelievably hard to wrap your head around.

 

 

 I can say, pretty certainly, that both of your conclusions are incorrect.

 

As for your first:

 

Reread the first line of the first Boston Globe article posted:

 

Annie Dookhan, the convicted former drug lab chemist, was responsible for testing evidence in more than 24,000 cases that resulted in convictions during her 10 years working for the state — a quarter of the successful prosecutions by the district attorneys that used her laboratory, according to figures released Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.

 

For you to be correct, one would have to assume that she tampered with evidence IN EVERY CASE SHE HANDLED that resulted in conviction. 

 

Nobody knows how many cases were actually tampered with.  But every conviction - the 20,000+ number referenced, is under a cloud because she may have tampered with evidence.

 

And as for your second conclusion, I have no earthly idea how you would conclude that.  Some may well have been innocent.  I suspect that for many others, there was other evidence that contributed to the conviction and that this person's tampering added weight - tainted false weight - to other existing evidence.  For your 2nd conclusion to be correct, each of those convictions had to have hinged primarily on her tainted evidence.

 

Larry's right on this one.

[mcsluggo]

1st Larry, what exactly do you think it means for the article to state that over 20,000 defendants were affected by this? Because to me that would be 20k+ cases of her tampering.

 

 

they have no way of knowing which cases she tampered with, particularly at such an early time.  they would only know which cases she came into contact with in one way or another

 

 

2nd, while not all of the people who's case she tampered with were completely innocent of all crimes, the fact that she tampered with with their case means they were likely innocent of that crime.

 

 

it doesn't mean that at all.   it means that some of the evidence of that specific crime was tainted, and a new trial would be required to know if the other evidence was sufficient or not to obtain a guilty finding.    

 

 

This isn't meant to be a shot at you but my guess is that you're skimming the article instead of reading it to try to stick to your point or that you're having the same issue that I'm having in that the number is so unbelievably hard to wrap your head around.

It's not hard to imagine she touched 40k cases over 10 years of work, or that a little more than 1/2 of the cases she touched she tampered with. It is hard to believe that one person could attempt to wrongfully send 24k innocent people to jail by lying though, because that number, when tied to the actual human cost is, mind numbing.

To imagine 24k people, imagine taking the entire undergraduate class at Virginia tech or u of Maryland and framing them for felony possession of drugs. That's a similar scenario minus the length of time, of course.

For a closer example for you Larry, you could frame the entire undergraduate class at the university of Miami this year, let enrollment fill up to its previous level after that, do it again, let it fill up once more, and then take half that class too.

If you want to keep arguing semantics you should probably just pm about it though, cause at this point anyone reading this has already made up their mind whether your version of the wording or mine was correct as the number of people affected has already been established in two different articles.

 

 

 

 

 

the number of people affected is the number of people that had cases she worked on.  

 

<edit--- or, what the guy above me said!>

Edited May 17, 2016 by mcsluggo

[MrSilverMaC]

Well then, that's that.

[Dan T.]

Here's a scary thought for the people of the Philippines.  Think about how broadly police officers interpret "resisting." 
 
Now consider this quote from Philippine president-elect Rodrigo Duterte, on criminal suspects:
 
"If you resist, show violent resistance, my order to police will be to shoot to kill."
  
This is the same guy who, among other things, has vowed to kill 100,000 criminals and dump their bodies in Manila Bay, to institute public hangings for a range of crimes including drug use and robbery, who joked about being first in line to gang rape a murdered missionary and who, as mayor of Davao City, encouraged death squads that hunted and murdered hundreds of suspected criminals.
 
Other quotes from Duterte:
 
At a July 2005 summit on crime:
"Summary execution of criminals remains the most effective way to crush kidnapping and illegal drugs."
 
In a 2009 speech:
"If you are doing an illegal activity in my city, if you are a criminal or part of a syndicate that preys on the innocent people of the city, for as long as I am the mayor, you are a legitimate target of assassination."

[Busch1724]

This country has to toughen up on the minimum sentences for public involved in corruption.

 

In all honesty, shouldn't they be harsher? I'm thinking banking, corrupt cops, etc. who get leniency.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I finally started watching "Making a Murderer" this week.

 

Goodness that will make you sick. 

[Gamebreaker]

All easily avoided if she'd not tried to ride away and then resisted. She forcibly resisted and he didn't do anything to cause serious harm. He jerked her around trying to get her down after she got out of his grip when he was going to cuff her. He didn't body slam her or pound on her. Tazing here prevented further struggle that might have resulted in injury. The boy did as he was told and nothing happened to him. Had that been my daughter acting like that, I'd have no problem with what he did.

This post is ridiculous. I hope you don't have a daughter who would receive that kind of abuse and get no support from you.

The usual signs of a police officer who went to far are in the charges. They will charge everything they can to justify their actions. But what she got was "resisting arrest" as her charge. A legit resisting arrest charge usually has another charge along with it. Like attempted murder, shoplifting, etc,. You see, there has to be a REASON to arrest someone to make the resisting arrest charge stick. And it didn't, because that cop had no reason to stop her and even less reason to attack and choke her(which you conveniently left out).

In all honesty, shouldn't they be harsher? I'm thinking banking, corrupt cops, etc. who get leniency.

Sorry, my post should've said "public officials" and not just public. I've edited it and I agree with you.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/former-st-louis-cop-arrested-charged-with-first-degree-murder/article_8da86238-0a56-5853-968a-1324b457d95c.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share

So they basically chased down and murdered a dude, then planted a gun in his car. Yet were too stupid to put the gun in his dead hands to at least get his DNA on it. Morally bankrupt and dumb as hell. Edited May 18, 2016 by Gamebreaker

[LeesburgSkinFan]

This story probably belongs in the Florida thread, but these deputies are taking heat for the three drownings. 

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/article73288297.html

 

"When three Florida teenagers drowned in a stolen car last month, deputies said they waded into the water to try and save them before they died.  But their families allege inconclusive camera footage is raising questions about the night the car sank in a Pinellas County swamp.  According to deputies, Dominique Battle, 16, Ashaunti Butler, 15, and Laniya Miller, 15, stole a gold Honda Accord from a Pinellas County Walmart parking lot the night of March 30. Though the county sheriff’s rules forbid deputies from chasing stolen vehicles, some officers were trailing the car when the car plunged into a pond off a sharp turn in the road around 4 a.m. the next morning, the Tampa Bay Times reported.

After the crash, the sheriff’s office said deputies took off their equipment and tried to wade into the water to save the teens, before the darkness and thick swampy mud halted their path.  The three girls drowned in 15 feet of water before a wrecker eventually recovered the car two hours later."

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by LeesburgSkinFan

[Gamebreaker]

Here's a scary thought for the people of the Philippines. Think about how broadly police officers interpret "resisting."

Now consider this quote from Philippine president-elect Rodrigo Duterte, on criminal suspects:

"If you resist, show violent resistance, my order to police will be to shoot to kill."

This is the same guy who, among other things, has vowed to kill 100,000 criminals and dump their bodies in Manila Bay, to institute public hangings for a range of crimes including drug use and robbery, who joked about being first in line to gang rape a murdered missionary and who, as mayor of Davao City, encouraged death squads that hunted and murdered hundreds of suspected criminals.

Other quotes from Duterte:

At a July 2005 summit on crime:

"Summary execution of criminals remains the most effective way to crush kidnapping and illegal drugs."

In a 2009 speech:

"If you are doing an illegal activity in my city, if you are a criminal or part of a syndicate that preys on the innocent people of the city, for as long as I am the mayor, you are a legitimate target of assassination."

That guy would fit right in if he were in the PDs of St. Louis and Chicago.

[Popeman38]

 

This story probably belongs in the Florida thread, but these deputies are taking heat for the three drownings. 

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/article73288297.html

 

"When three Florida teenagers drowned in a stolen car last month, deputies said they waded into the water to try and save them before they died.  But their families allege inconclusive camera footage is raising questions about the night the car sank in a Pinellas County swamp.  According to deputies, Dominique Battle, 16, Ashaunti Butler, 15, and Laniya Miller, 15, stole a gold Honda Accord from a Pinellas County Walmart parking lot the night of March 30. Though the county sheriff’s rules forbid deputies from chasing stolen vehicles, some officers were trailing the car when the car plunged into a pond off a sharp turn in the road around 4 a.m. the next morning, the Tampa Bay Times reported.

After the crash, the sheriff’s office said deputies took off their equipment and tried to wade into the water to save the teens, before the darkness and thick swampy mud halted their path.  The three girls drowned in 15 feet of water before a wrecker eventually recovered the car two hours later."

 

Umm, the three girls were in a stolen car. They had 7 felonies for vehicle theft. They lost control and went into the swamp. Why, exactly, do the cops deserve to be fired for this? Video supports the cops making a cursory effort to get the girls. The cops are under no obligation to risk their lives diving into murky swamp water to try to save their lives.

[mistertim]

That guy would fit right in if he were in the PDs of St. Louis and Chicago.

Or Arizona. He and Joe Arpaio would be instant BFFs.

[BornaSkinsFan83]

This post is ridiculous. I hope you don't have a daughter who would receive that kind of abuse and get no support from you.

Yeah right. If it happened to his daughter he'd be losing his mind. Lock of the century. I've seen it over and over and over again. People all gung ho about crime, prisons, drugs, whatever, then one of theirs gets caught up in some **** and their script does a complete 180 on a dime. "My eyes have been opened." (and my eyes are rolling. But better late than never I guess.)

[mistertim]

Yeah right. If it happened to his daughter he'd be losing his mind. Lock of the century. I've seen it over and over and over again. People all gung ho about crime, prisons, drugs, whatever, then one of theirs gets caught up in some **** and their script does a complete 180 on a dime. "My eyes have been opened." (and my eyes are rolling. But better late than never I guess.)

Yeah, same thing with many ideologically charged issues; experiencing something yourself and/or having a family member or friend who is directly impacted changes everything. Gay marriage and gay rights as well...look at Dick Cheney, a super right winger. But he is for gay marriage and I doubt it is a coincidence that he has a daughter who is gay.

[Major Harris]

That guy would fit right in if he were in the PDs of St. Louis and Chicago.

Good god. This thread doesn't need hyperbole.