It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does anyone know what laws cops are held accountable to?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 05:39 AM
link   
I have a question here from people in-the-know, let's say a cop shoots and kills someone. What are the procedures? Do they ever have to face criminal charges?

I have an example that is explicitly made to find out the procedures, not be realistic. A cop responds to a convenience store robbery and then purposefully shoots and kills the clerk before shooting and killing the robber, who has his back to him, and is aiming at the clerk. What would happen to the cop?

Thanks. I have been watching situations unfold where cops shoot to kill people over the past few years who later were found to be no threat, and I was wondering what the procedures were, it seems to me like they get two weeks paid leave.

What happens to a cop who falsifies evidence, or lies under oath in court? What happens to a cop who violates legal procedure while perusing a case, such as someone's fourth amendment rights, for example?

From what I heard from my aunt, a prominent defense attorney, it is normal for cops to violate fourth amendment rights and then see if they get found out during discovery, which normally doesn't happen with a public defender. I filed for discovery in a case against me, however, and the discovery was falsified - and the audio logs of the case had been "lost."
edit on 22amTue, 22 Apr 2014 05:47:18 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 22amTue, 22 Apr 2014 05:50:14 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 06:12 AM
link   
well presumably they are held accountable to all of the normal ones?



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Police officers are held to the same laws for the most part. In your hypothetical if it could be shown, (say via video recording) the officer willfully and negligently shot the owner before the robber, than the officer would in all likelihood be indicted.

The problem of course is proof of what happened. That's why video surveillance has become so damning for both the police and citizens. There's also forensics. If an officer says he shot a person in a certain situation a forensics team might be able to conclude that the officer's side of events doesn't match with the evidence.

I don't quite understand your example with the discovery issue. Public defenders file for discovery all the time, and court reporters record the whole deposition process. Unless you think there's some massive cover up at the court level, discovery is not going to be falsified.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Biigs
well presumably they are held accountable to all of the normal ones?


Would be pretty weird if they had different rules.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   


it is normal for cops to violate fourth amendment rights and then see if they get found out during discovery, which normally doesn't happen with a public defender. I filed for discovery in a case against me, however, and the discovery was falsified - and the audio logs of the case had been "lost." - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


I'm not sure I follow you. The discovery process is one of the last pre trial motions to give the defense time to prepare witnesses and arguments to counter the prosecution's case.

A grand jury is not going to allow a faulty prosecution case to proceed-that is their main function. How a search and seizure issue could get past a grand jury then by the judge who allows the discovery process with faulty/manufactured evidence?

If an officer has some 'audio logs' that are used for a case during the pretrial or grand jury process and they are not found at discovery then it is a mistrial.

I don't think I'm understanding what you are trying to say.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 06:46 AM
link   
They are supposed to be held to the same rules/Laws as we are but the corruption within the force covers up things for those that need it at times it seems.
And the one thing I feel they have the benefit of over us common folk would be the way courts and other officers automatically will take the word of a officer over the common folk just because of them being a officer. Our word against theirs just isn't possible. Well and the fact they can toss your rights out the window and do as they please.

It's the internal investigations that really need a closer look at. It is corrupt when they police their own.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Hey Darkbake,




I have a question here from people in-the-know, let's say a cop shoots and kills someone. What are the procedures? Do they ever have to face criminal charges?


They face the same charges and penalties any average joe would. Just like this cop who killed a 95 year old man after cornering him in a nursing home, tasing him and shooting him multiple times at close range with bean bags:

Cop Charged In Deat of 95 Year Old

The cop is being charged with reckless conduct, a class 4 felony, (the most minor felony in Illinois, the same felony you'd be charged with if you stole less than 500 dollars from a government office). He could do up to a max of 3 years.

That's what you and I would be charged with if we killed a 95 year old man under similar circumstances, right?



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Most of the time, when a cop shoots someone in the course of his duties, the shootings are found to be justified, whether they are justified in reality or not.

I have seen it happen locally, where the person that was shot was as far as twenty feet away from the cop with a knife in hand and not advancing toward the cop and was shot and killed. If I did that, I would be arrested and tried for first degree murder. The shooting was ruled to be justified.

A cop shot another cop in the head when he was shooting at a fleeing felon. It was accidental, but if I accidentally shot someone in the head, I would more than likely be charged with manslaughter.... even though it was accidental.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Biigs

originally posted by: Biigs
well presumably they are held accountable to all of the normal ones?


Would be pretty weird if they had different rules.

It is pretty weird that they do have different rules.

But if I woke up to a world where police lived by the same rules that the rest of us do.... I have to admit, I would be very shocked.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Just remember that the officer's safety is more important than yours. I'm surprised we don't hand them out million dollar contracts.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

The value of their life and their rights are superior to civilians. The law as it is written does not matter. The only thing that matters in the US is: are you convicted of a crime.

LEOs have completely gamed the entire system so it is incredibly hard to convict them of anything. That's the reality.

LEO's know they have the system gamed and they are essentially entitled to be law enforcement, judge , jury and executioner all rolled into in one. In candid moments they will use this fact to intimidate citizens and even mock them.

There will be no change until natural law is applied. Recent events in China show citizens willing to enforce natural law. When will the sheep in the US wake up? IDK.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   
LEO's are allowed to break the law to enforce the law, it's that simple.
Their authority trumps the law.
That authority is granted and supported by the federal government, the state, the county and city.
What don't people understand ? LAW - ENFORCEMENT - OFFICER , that says it all.
Submit or die .



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
I have a question here from people in-the-know, let's say a cop shoots and kills someone. What are the procedures? Do they ever have to face criminal charges?


All a cop has to do is say "He was reaching for a weapon", or "I was in fear for my life" even if the cop was double the victim's size and had a rifle pointed at his head. Then the DA gives the cop a pass.



edit on 22-4-2014 by ScientiaFortisDefendit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

He's asking if cops are held to any standards similar to that of the UCMJ. Lying under oath, providing false claims, etc. and being susceptable to any punishment if it is proven that they lied, or even "claiming" to have lost tapes. I don't have the answers, just figured I'd clarify a bit.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
It is pretty weird that they do have different rules.

But if I woke up to a world where police lived by the same rules that the rest of us do.... I have to admit, I would be very shocked.




I would imagine that the police in China were equally shocked when the sheep grew a pair of balls and beat them to death. The police will abide by the same rules as the rest of us when we hold them accountable .... by whatever means present themselves.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

There are way too many specifics to address that question. But basically...

1. They are 1st and foremost held to every law the average citizen is held to: 1st (FIRST). ie: Theft, rape, murder, larceny, assault, forgery, bribery, home invasion...you name it...same as us.
2. Each of those can be warped, mishandled, swept aside, changed, denied etc...IF IT WAS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEM DOING THEIR DUTY: 2nd (SECOND)

So, its off to court to decide if and when they violate laws...for a court to decide if it was justified and in "performance of his or her duties performing law enforcement".

(Tricky huh?)
edit on 09-22-2013 by mysterioustranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Does anyone know what laws cops are held accountable to?

Ha haha HAha Uhhhhhh HahaHAha . . .

Whew . . . good one . . . accountable . . . laws . . . ahhhhh.

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
The are covered by their internal policy only. While folks figure they are covered by all the same laws, they are not. They argue that if they had to follow the same laws they could not enforce the laws, so the are solely governed by the policies they alone create. "The killing was justified as the internal investigation determined" or "the officers are on administrative leave for policy infractions" or "the officer was let go due to policy."

Are the officers who abused the New Mexico man beyond all common sense in jail? A lawsuit was settled but I don't see them in jail - the laws do not apply to them, as where they not able to take that man to have a doctor look up his ass those officers could not do their job at all.

IF, and it IF, the issue makes it's way out of the policy realm it could go to court but how many officers in the last 10 years went to jail? How many were forced to pay restitution due to theft? How many went to trial after the 5k people killed by them over the last 10years? Officers shot at two women during a manhunt for one of their own, two women, totally different car, not a drop of "fear of life" and they committed no crime according to policy.

Internal policy it what governs their actions.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit

originally posted by: darkbake
I have a question here from people in-the-know, let's say a cop shoots and kills someone. What are the procedures? Do they ever have to face criminal charges?


All a cop has to do is say "He was reaching for a weapon", or "I was in fear for my life" even if the cop was double the victim's size and had a rifle pointed at his head. Then the DA gives the cop a pass.




The cop can say he was coming right for me, when the suspect is 40 feet away and all the shots are in his back.

Remember what they did to the guy they questioned about the Boston Marathon bombing? Unarmed man sitting down "he was coming right for me" 5 shots to his chest, then 1 to the back of the head.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: dfens

And they ALWAYS say the same thing when they are caught doing wrong. "I was in fear for my safety" amazing they can go from murderous thugs to cringing cowards in a hearbeat.

IMO any cop that uses that excuse should be fired and barred from any state or government job forever



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join