Has anybody else ever noticed that whne you go to court for speeding or something minor, but something that could cost you your lincense or money, that a LEO's word is as good as gold?

For example, you go to court for wreckless driving, the cop says you did this, you say you did not, the judge accepts the cops word over yours!!!!

that is BS, what the hell can make one persons word better than that of another, with out hard evidence.

some cop says that you were speeding you get a ticket, instead of paying it, you go to court to fight, cop says you were, you say you were not, the judge might just give you 6 months probation and then the charge will be dropped, but that is more BS, cops are people and they lie all the time.

leo's are just as capable of lying for whatever reason they want, but they get special treatment, screw them, they chose that job, they were not drafted they should not have a more trusted word than the average citizen.

LEO's lie ?!?!?!? [:O]
Great, next you'll tell me santa claus is'nt real.

Don't get me started on this.  

I watched a cop that was supposedly a stand up officer etc. lie like a rug under oath and subsequently ruin someone's life in the process.  IMO most cops are liars.  Don't come down on me either.  One of my best buddies, my uncle and my dad are all LEO's and they are all guilty of lying.  

I pose this question to all LEO's here.

How many times have you used a bogus line like "The defendant crossed the divider line so I pulled said vehicle over for suspicion of DUI" or some similar crap to justify a stop because you thought there was something out of kilter but had no other legal grounds of stopping someone when in fact the vehicle was doing nothing wrong?

I have no respect for cops like that.  IMO they would be better to serve the community in orange jump suits picking trash along the interstate.  

I worked in a bar for 8-9 years and was involved in more fights than I can remember.  Sometimes the cops would show up to settle a big brawl in the parking lot.  Don't get me wrong I was always glad they would come to help but on more than one occasion I watched as they would pepper spray somebody then beat the crap out of them while handcuffed.  I saw a cop bash out the rear window of a car and grab a 100# girl by the hair and pull her through the broken window then pepper spray her.  All because her boyfriend was in a fight on the other side of the parking lot.  

My wife's uncle was killed by a police officer in Detroit back in the early 80's.  He was shot dead at a distance of 40+ yards because he was holding a 1 1/2" pocket knife(not brandishing at the cop but from another person who was threatening to smash him with a bat).  Anyway big litigation on this by her family.  Cop never asked uncle to drop knife or anything.   Just pulled up, got out, and shot him dead.  Cop was found to be within the law on lethal force even though there was no threat to him or anyone else.  

The police force is being militarized.  They are given more and more power and have evolved from a civil service to a quasi-military organization that is trained to see the public at large as the enemy.  BTW I don't think all cops are bad but I have seen my fair share.  IMO it takes a strong person not to abuse the powers police are given and the system actually fails these folks.  Hey cops are on no moral high ground by any stretch.  I know for a fact that in a dept.(which will remain unamed) a patrolman's daughter is fucking her dad's lieutenant on the Q.T. The lieutenant is married with kids.  The lieutenant is considered this great community servant, great record, family man, church goer, charitable-type guy!  I'm sure that would stir things up if it ever got out!   He also happens to be the officer I referred to in the opening text of this post.    

.....kinda reminds me of the Cathoilc Churches [red]priests[/red] but on a diffrent level, one that would be best addressed in "The Big House".................

Hi I'm OLY-M4gery and I'm a LEO...........wait that's the AA introduction, ah call it LEO's anonymous.

I work for a 400+ person dept.
I work night shift.
I am the senior line officer on night shift.

I write more citations than any other officer on night shift. I also make more felony arrests.

I work in a "slower area" beat wise for my dept.

Get ready for it, I get 100 citations every 3 months or so. That is 100 citations in 60 work days. In other words 1.66 citations per work day. Seem like a lot?

I generally write fewer speed citations than other officers. I write MORE DUI, no DL, suspended DL, revoked DL, type citations.

Also my general rule is 1 citation per customer. Write the MAJOR violation and move on. There are exceptions if your DL is revoked, you are DUI, and the reason for stop was doing something that endangered another driver, you get all of those.

My "bic doesn't click" until at least 15 over, then it usually writes 15 over even if you were going faster than that, up until you get into STUPID speeds. (the area I work has one of the 10 worst US highways for accidents, death due to accidents, in the US. Most of the roads I patrol are 55 MPH 2 lane roads, some quite hilly, curvy etc.)

In 10 years I have had 2 trials for speeding citations 2. One the defense was "no fair". I think the defendant almost got held in contempt by the Judge. The other one the defendant really didn't do ANYTHING, no cross, nothing he just said "I wasn't speeding, the officer is wrong, thank you". Hardly convincing to the  Judge.

Most traffic citations are "Civil" citations. Meaning you cant be sentenced to jail if found guilty. Since they are non-criminal offenses the standard of proof is less than a criminal convictions requires. Generally you have to have clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence to be found guilty of a traffic citation.

I probably get called to actually testify 4-6 times a year. THAT's ALL. Most are evidentiary type things, did the officer have reason to stop, arrest, detain, seize evidence etc. Those are in front of a Judge.

The Judge hears the testimony and gets to decide the admissibility of evidence. In those hearings lawyers can bring all their tricks, because the Judge won't base his decision on the demeanor of the defense atty. In jury trials both sides are very concerned with not doing things that are so "over the top" they will alienate the jury.

I have never lost a hearing. Simple philosophy, if you don't think it will look good in a report, or in Court, don't do it. If you did it it goes in the report.

If you find exculpatory evidence, or hear exculpatory statements, just like evidence, or statements that implicate, it goes in the report. The job of the police is to investigate matters, and prepare reports detailing the investigation. NOT to gather evidence to convict a person. If in investigating a matter there is evidence of a crime, and the suspect is identified, that person should be cited, arrested, or referred for charges as outlined in statute, and policy.

Oh, and I have NEVER heard that I need to write more citations.

I can't wait to see how this thread will end up blaming the Jews.

"Science Shams and Bible Bloopers"
How You're Being Hoodwinked
by Know-Nothing "Experts" and
Gassy "Authorities"
by David Mills

ISBN #: Softcover 0-7388-2281-7
To order additional copies of this book, contact:
Xlibris Corporation
1-888-7-XLIBRIS
www.Xlibris.com
[email protected]

Quote

[i]Early in 2000, it was discovered that entire divisions of the Los Angeles Police Department—and especially the notorious Rampart Division—were marauding the city committing murder, robbery, assault and battery, selling drugs, framing innocent people, planting evidence, and threatening to kill anyone who objected to their reign of terror. An independent investigation revealed that, in Los Angeles, as in countless other cities, the most ruthless criminal gang in town was in fact the local police department.[/i]

I have observed and studied this issue for a number of years. Here are the facts:

1. The LEO is an officer of the court thus the judge works from the position that he will not lie to the court. Some do.

2. Many towns use the tix as revenue. It supports a number of positions in the court and town. Some more than others.

3. The LEO view that you get a tix for only once in a while that you violate the law is pure BS. Next time you are doing 55 on the interstate and see an LEO blow by you pace him and see if he is speeding? Next time you see a speed trap try to see if they are pulling over the last car in a line and writing them a tix.

4. Remember, it not personal, its money and you got it and they need it. However, everytime they screw a citizen they undermine the support they need to have a fair and just society.

5. lastly, log on to the national motorist association web site for details on how to deal with this issue.

PS. I have not had a tix in 15 years......

[b]The police force is being militarized.  They are given more and more power and have evolved from a civil service to a quasi-military organization that is trained to see the public at large as the enemy. [/b]  Your just now noticing this. Trust me it will get worse, the 9-11 thing is being used as a license to rape the public at large. Most won't / don't care until it effects them personally.

I don't blame the individual cop but the system as a whole.  IMO police are forced into abusive situations by the mandate they are given.  

There is something very important you probably don't realize.  When you are cited for a civil traffic violation in most states (and especially here in AZ), and ordered to appear before a judge, you are not fighting the citation before an impartial finder of fact (judge).

In many jurisdictions, should the "violator" be found responsible, then the court is paid a portion of the fine levied.  In simple terms, the court has a financial reward or incentive to find a person "responsible".  If the court finds in your favor, then they get nothing.  Most people believe that fine money is paid to the city/county/state, when in fact you write your check to the court and they keep part of the money and distribute the remainder.

So why should a judge take a cop's word over your own?  It's simple:  believe the cop and they get paid, find in favor of the accussed and they get nothing.  The court also receives money for every pretrial conference, arraignment and plea, that is heard before the judge.  The busier the judge is, the more he makes.

I've actually been witness to an incident where a judge told an officer that he wanted more citations written in his jurisdiction.  The judge felt that his docket was too light on civil traffic, and if he got more traffic cases he could make more money.

Kar98, most of the "Rampart Scandal" has been traced back to the Officer that worked out a deal for immunity. Most of his charges against other officers have been found to be fabrications, all but something like 3 of the "Rampart" convictions have been thrown out.

The problem was the lax hiring standards. Gang members joined up and continued being gang members.

1 was shot by another cop, after he was flashing gang signs and pointing his gun at other motorists.

1 was arrested for bank robbery and murder.

1 set out to avenge the death of the first guy, and frame the detective that shot him. It backfired, when the LAPD started looking into it they found the guy who made up the "Rampart stories" in exchange for immunity.

All three were in gangs, and were friends, they also may have had a hand in the drive by murder ot Tupac- whatever his name is.

The real lesson here is, don't compromise your hiring standards, and people are awful quick to believe stories of police corruption, even when a guy that has been convicted of multiple felonies is the one telling the stories, even when he contradicts himself in those stories.

ARSTAF, LEO's are not "officer of the Court", Lawyers, and Judges are.

Chechatonga, The police have always been a para-military organization. Even in the 1800's NYPD looked for veterans. Their acadamy included such topics as marching, and drill and ceremony.

Para-military means, there are "ranks", and uniforms etc.

I know of know training that LEO's take to see the public as the enemy. If you are refering to training officers how to survive possibly lethal encounters, yes LEO's will sometimes have to take actions that may not be very pleasant. Then again if you theory is that LEO's should just wander up to dangerous situation, oblivious of danger, that is a sure recipe for MORE shoot outs, fights, worse uncontolable situations. Doesn't everyone lose in the long run if that is done?  

But posts like this, trolling, calling LEO's liars because thier word seems to be well accepted a Court is doing what?

Never. I have let lots of bad folks go or let cars keep going because I didn't have quite enough to legally arrest someone or make the stop. It goes with the territory.

Then again, maybe not. It has happened before.  Also, I don't recall any police of any type being charged with and convicted of perjury. Not even those FBI scumbags who let an innocent guy go to jail in IL for 30 years or so. Hmmmm. Justice system. Hmmmm.

Did you use toothpaste or something stronger to get the taste out of your mouth?[:D]

Remember the OJ trial?  Mark Furhman was convicted of perjury for saying he never used the n-word. They proved he did. Convicted felon.

But then again he should have "played Presidential", and fought about the meaninf of "is" or "sex".

You might want to share that info with the feds. At Waco they were ordered to stop gathering evidence because they were creating Brady material.

I am so glad I hadn't started my coffee yet - it would have been all over my computer! [:D]

cops don't lie?

i think there are some guys freed from illinois' death row that might have something to offer on that subject.

if folks will lie when a man's life hangs in the balance, they sure as hell will do it over minor bullshit.

1) I don't get "brady material"
2) I was in "the academy" during Waco. Me and the training Lt. had some very loud, harsh words, about that incident, during a class. I probably came close to being unemployed.
3) There is no call to take the tone you just did in a friendly discussion. I will not be compared to accountants with guns. Kapeche?

Brady material is evidence that isd exculpatory or otherwise damaging to the prosecution of the accused.

That took balls.

Mea culpa, I stand chagrined.

Cops' false testimony on the stand is known around here as "testilying".  Also known as "Mouthing the Words".  They are instructed how to do it.

This is very true.  One of my good friends is a sargent in a local PD.  He complains to me that his chief is hiring mostly ex-military personel but he is finding it hard to supervise them.  He says that in most situations their job is to calm and de-escalate the situation to resolve the problem.  Most of the new recruits see the problems as something that they must control and stop by force.  He is getting lots of complaints for attitude and excessive force.  It really is turning into more of an us vs. them situation.

82ndAbn wrote:

Same here, but it does create a two class system.  One class, the ruling enforcement class, is believed in the legal system.  The other class is the, for lack of a better term, "ruled" or "those that are ruled," that are at the mercy of the other class.  Of course, without this system, it would be much harder to convict criminals.  Maybe we already have the right compromise.

Ratters wrote:


That's the classic battle between the concept of having "peace officers" versus a "police state."  I can remember when it seemed police were someone you went to when you needed help.  They kept the peace.  Now it seems, the police are used more to pry into private lives to find a crime.  Instead of "if we get a complaint about a drunk driver, we handle it," it has become "we must go out, stop and search cars at random because they happen to be driving down a particular road, and find a durnk driver."z

Crap like this is why I run my PVS tape on record for my entire shift.

Suspect: "He's lying!"

Me: "Your honor, I have the entire incident on video and audio tape, would you like to see the tape?"


Suspect: (choking) "Is it too late to change my plea?"

That's the difference between reactive and proactive enforcement.

Reactive is waiting until the victim calls and then cleaning up the mess.

Proactive is catching the suspect in the act, or before. Such as arresting the gang banger for curfew on his way to the drive-by.

How true! Video and audio don't lie. I imagine that the cops who beat Rodney King and the cop who body-slammed that guy at the gas station earlier this year would have said "he's lying!" in a court of law, too, if the videotape wasn't shown.

Not to all of us "mere civvies": If you can swing it, put a cheap camcorder in your car and start running tape as soon as you are pulled over. I have an older VHS-C camcorder in my car for that very purpose. Video and audio doesn't lie!