Free Republic

"You've admitted that you lie to the public for your own benefit"

Getting property returned to its rightful owners is somehow a personal benefit to me. You're being ridiculous now.

"For all I know, your cute little tales of using lies to resolve petty crimes are 100% fiction."

I knew that eventually you would post something like that. Since that's what you believe, then there is no need to post any more to each other, correct?

"your entire profession is untrustworthy and will be as long as lying to We the People, whom you are supposed to serve, is permitted and rewarded."

You are again being ridiculous as you broad brush many decent people as being untrustworthy. In the service of "we the people" I tricked thieves into returning stolen money or property to their rightful owners. The victims trusted me and were grateful for what I did. You disapprove though. So be it. We're done here. You can have the last word.

"I insist that The State prove its case before I will deprive my fellow citizens of life, liberty, or property."

If an officer testified that he lied to arrest a cartel member, by your own words, he is a liar so you would have to vote not guilty.

"And I hold public servants to the highest standards."

Well, we can be friends then. No conviction of people I arrested involved interrogational trickery.

"You seem to have a problem with that. You damn yourself with your own words."

Not at all. I haven't made any statement to you that was deceptive.

"That’s cute."

Thank you for the nice compliment.

You would be a defense attorney's dream juror. You don't like it when officers lie.

You would not vote to convict if:

An undercover officer lied and said he was an addict and purchased drugs to arrest a dealer.

An undercover officer lied and said he was a dealer so that he could purchase large quantities of drugs from cartel members.

An undercover officer lied and said he was a fence so that he could purchase stolen property.

An undercover officer lied on a computer and said he was a 10 year old girl or boy in order to lure a pedophile to a location where the pedophile expected to have sex with the child.

An undercover female pretended to be a hooker so that she could entrap men into "soliciting a prostitute."

You would let some dangerous people free and you would sleep well at night.

Television perpetuates a situation that often does not apply. As a patrolman, I made a lot of probable cause arrests and I didn't read the suspects their rights. I left that up to the investigative detective. If I had read them their rights, and they invoked, it would have made the job of the detectives much harder and they wouldn't have appreciated it.

On the other hand, when I was a detective then it was my responsibility to do the interview. My confessions were obtained after I read them their rights. I didn't try to trick anyone into confessing. Some invoked right away. They were convicted anyway because of the evidence.

"Knowing that you are an admitted liar, your testimony in court will carry very little weight with me as a juror."

If I were testifying in a trial where you were a juror, and the defense asked me if I ever lied to a suspect I would answer yes. I would look at the jury while I was talking and explain the circumstances where someone wanted their property or money back more than they wanted to go to court. Jurors would understand that. Now, if the case had a mirandized confession, evidence or witness identification and you held out and got a hung jury the DA would refile the case. The other jurors would be pissed, at you, that you wasted their time.

I agree that my cases are not relevant to the thread. You are the only one so far that is perceptive on this.

"That’s all good fun. And for every one of those scenarios, there is one where someone innocent is lied into a confession."

In two of the scenarios no one confessed to me. In the lottery money theft I lied, and the girl who stole the money showed me where it was. No arrest. No prosecution. But she was far from innocent.

"And it also brings to mind the FBI and “Trump is a Russian asset” investigations. They go to people and say “we have the goods on Trump, incontrovertible evidence”, are you going to cooperate or are you maybe involved too?”

My investigations centered on a suspect. I didn't need to to go to people who weren't involved. If you can fit that example to my investigations then you can fit it to any other investigation.

"Your lies were fun and productive. But they should destroy a criminal case you would try to bring."

Absolutely. However I was not trying to bring a criminal case to court. I acceded to the wishes of the victims who were not interested in going to court. They only wanted their money or property back.

"That reminds me of how the prosecution blew the OJ case when they decided they would frame a guilty man."

Oh? Did I frame anyone or attempt to? In cases that never went to court? Is that what you concluded?

When I lied.

Victim said she had a party and a ring was stolen, valued at 5,000 dollars. She suspected a specific person, but there was no evidence or witness to the theft. She said she only wanted the ring back, no questions asked. So, I called the suspect, and I explained to her that a ring was stolen and we had finger prints (I didn't). I told her that the victim was willing to drop the case with no questions asked if the ring was returned. Then I hung up the phone. About a minute later the phone rang and the victim answered. She hung up and said the caller said "The ring will be returned to you." Victim got the ring back, and no one went to jail.

A store manager told me that 2,000 in lottery cash was missing. He said if the got the money back he wouldn't prosecute. I interviewed several people. One of them was an ex employee who came back and was having a friendly visit with her co workers. She had been in the area where the cash was stolen from. I talked to her and told I had enough to arrest her (I didn't). But, if the money was returned there would be no arrest because the manager didn't want to press charges. She went with me and showed me where she had hidden the money. It was in a alley covered by gardening cuttings. I searched and found 1,800 in hundred dollar bills. I went back to the store and told the manager that 200 dollars was missing. He said that was good enough and he was satisfied. Most of the money was returned and no one went to jail.

A convenience store owner said that the cash from the night drop was missing. All he wanted was to get the money back, and he wouldn't file charges. I watched a video of the clerk who was supposed to make the drop. He stood there a long time, far longer that it took to complete the drop. I called him and told him that I was going to arrest him for suspicion of theft (I couldn't without submitting the case to detectives). But if the money was returned, there would be no prosecution. The money was returned, and no one went to jail.

So, here's a scenario.

A little girl is raped, strangled, and dismembered. The cops have an idea who did it but nothing concrete. A cop sees the guy they think did it walking down the street. He stops and starts talking to the guy. He tells him that they have a witness who positively identified him. He confesses and gives them details that only the suspect would know. A search warrant yields evidence to support his confession. He gets convicted and is executed. Not good?

Correct. I did not work for any of those agencies, and I understand the reasons why many officers are leaving them.

That could be a factor.

"Just about everyone I knew who was/is a cop, very much regretted it after several years."

People have differing experiences. I retired, as did scores of officers I worked with. I have never heard any of them say they regretted their career. I emphatically DO NOT regret my career.

Here's a lie that I told.

I contacted a victim who reported that a ring worth 5,000 dollars was stolen when she threw a party. She said it had been in her dresser upstairs. There was a bathroom that people used, and they needed to pass by the dresser when they used the bathroom. She had a suspect in mind and she had her phone number. She said all she wanted was to get the ring back and she would drop the matter.

I called the woman she suspected and I told her that a ring was stolen and that the victim wanted it back with no questions asked. I also told her that we had fingerprints. (This was the lie. I had no evidence.) I hung up and waited. A couple of minutes later the phone rang. The victim answered and the caller said that the ring would be returned to her.

If someone had punched our supervisors like that we would have unleashed HELL on him. Tough if it angered the mob further.

Thanks for the calm deliberation. Sometimes it gets pretty wild. My sense of the case is that if the officers had been put on leave, then IA would have had time to interview them all. This interview couldn't be used against them at trial, but if any of them changed their testimony, then the interview could be used to impeach their testimony. This is what I term an unforced error and the prosecution probably wishes at this point that those interviews were available.

As for the civil side, the attorneys for the plaintiff's probably also wish a IA interview had been done. The IA interview would have all the reports and all the witnesses who were interviewed. In essence, IA would have done a lot of leg work for the plaintiff's attorneys. Now, the plaintiff's attorneys have to do depositions with nothing to compare the statements with.

The defense has had a huge burden lifted of it because with no IA interview, it can craft its case around whatever case the prosecution puts together.

The same applies to the defense on the civil side. While the plaintiff's attorneys will certainly do depositions of the officers, there is no IA interview to compare the depositions with. The whole point I was trying to make, is that the firing of the officers put an unnecessary obstacle in the path of the prosecution and the civil attorneys. I have tried to explain this without taking sides. You see how that worked out.

As for representation, generally the city will pay the legal bills of the officers. This might not happen here. What the Union leaders then do is to take a vote and arrange for legal defense of the officers anyway. That may be what has happened in this case.

Ok. It’s tough to recall all the details of every incident, but I’ll defer to your memory. We’ll both keep a sharp eye out in the event those reports do surface in the near future won’t we?

"Why should the police be treated any differently?"

Each case has to be evaluated on its individual facts, so I'm not going to speculate on other hypotheticals. That crap can go on forever. But let's look at this case ok? Tell me how the police are being treated here.

I don't know how all departments work, but for new officers, there is an academy, then training with a Field Training Officer, and then they are out on their own for evaluation.

I'm going to guess that you on right on this. The officers are being charged so that the prosecution can threaten them with lengthy sentences. They fired the officers instead of putting them on leave, and most likely their lawyers told them to invoke their 5th Amendment rights. Now, the only way they can induce testimony is to threaten them. Again, just guessing, but had they not been fired they would have willingly cooperated in giving testimony.

Thank you.

Thank you.