Comments on: Two former cops jailed for beating suspect, then lying about it

By: The Dave

The Dave — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:59:23 +0000

Even if the guy did deserve to be assaulted, punishment is traditionally for a court to decide, not the police.

By: Kylie

Kylie — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:08:22 +0000

@Michael Garcia – that was pretty good, but you forgot one part of it. It goes something like this:

uh uh uh…the video is edited, so you can’t say they weren’t justified. the rest of the video will show that they were completely justified in kicking the sh*t out of him, cuz he was a bad dood that needed to get the sh*t kicked out of him.

By: Kol. Klink

Kol. Klink — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:55:09 +0000

The guy’s white. He’s got money. And an attorney.

By: Michael Garcia

Michael Garcia — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:38:17 +0000

Let me try being a cop apologist.

Buh Buh Buh…. these brave officers were just serving their community. If it wasn’t for them. Then this man would be stealing from you and raping your wives or husbands. So what if they get a little rough. And so what if they lied. They have to otherwise they can’t get the work done. You guys are just anti cop. If it wasn’t for the cops then it would be mad max road warriors all over.

By: genewitch

genewitch — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:45:18 +0000

Simon:
They only come out when “all the facts aren’t in” or “there’s more than one side to the story”

When it’s cut and dry, they come and comment saying that Carlos et al are “anti-cop with vendettas against the men and women in blue”

Get it now?

By: Simon Jester

Simon Jester — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:27:07 +0000

Where are all the LEO apologists on posts like this?

By: The Dave

The Dave — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:50:50 +0000

genewitch, sorry if I lost some context when I edited, I’m speaking specifically to sworn statements (police reports, court documents, testimony, etc) — Lying in these types of situations is flat out unacceptable and needs to be dealt with harshly.

I don’t have a problem with the police lying in interviews, interrogations, etc.

As far as multiple charges, this can go end up going either way, sometimes they throw a bunch of stuff at you to see what sticks, other times you’re better off with a jury deciding you’re guilty of SOMETHING so they pick a lessor charge rather then a straight across guilty. This is an interesting balancing act, and not a change that should even be considered lightly.

By: genewitch

genewitch — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:38:48 +0000

The Dave:

Ever? Come on. Even i think that police should be allowed to lie, just not on sworn statements, offical documents, stuff of that nature.

Citizens still need to know their rights and contact a lawyer if arrested, because the supreme court has determined that the police can lie during an interview with a suspect – and i really don’t care about that.

On the other hand, what i’d like to see go away is the changing of charges when the case reaches the DA’s office. If the police say they violated statute M and that isn’t in contention, the DA should not be able to upgrade the charges to something that carries a heavier sentence than M.

Furthermore, police should not be able to charge someone with 5 crimes stemming from one incident (as in Carlos’ case) just to hope that one or two stick in the courtroom.

By: The Dave

The Dave — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:14:42 +0000

To me, the truly tragic part of this is right at the end, “It is rather surprisng the FBI and State Attorney’s Office decided to pursue this case because falsifying police reports is not exactly a rare occurrence”

From where I’m standing, falsifying a police report should result in the immediate termination of a police officer, forfeiture of all benefits (pension included), with a minimum of 1-2 years in jail, and a sentencing enhancement that doubles the penalty for whatever crime they committed and are now lying about (served concurrently — In other words, double the original offense, with a minimum of 1-2 years)

It’s simply not acceptable for police officers to lie, ever.