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.

 

St. Louis prosecutor says she will no longer accept cases from 28 city police officers

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

Female black Dem. She must be a bad judge.




posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: steamiron
a reply to: Deetermined

Female black Dem. She must be a bad judge.



The majority of the city is black and Democrat. They just happen to work against each other in many cases.


edit on 31-8-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: generik
so your home is robbed, your wife raped and badly beaten. you call the police. they come, they do their job, they arrest the suspect. yet the prosecutor decides not to even accept the case. and so the felon is just let go free?


You do understand that it is the prosecutors job to examine the evidence provided by LE to make a judgment upon whether or not to prosecute based upon that evidence, right? And you do understand that every single solitary criminal case is absolutely dependent on the evidence provided by LE, right?

If that "evidence" is compromised or tainted by bad cops, then it's the LE agency who is responsible. Not the prosecutor.


just because you had the bad luck to have the police officers that were sent to deal with the crime are blacklisted?


Not, not bad "luck." Bad policing. If officers are blacklisted for inappropriate and improper conduct, they should not be LEOs, and therefore no one would be put in the position of a dirty officer compromising the case.


sounds like a situation that can easily result in vigilantism. and the thing is the vigilante would actually be in the right, in this type of situation, to take justice into their own hands because the legal system refuses to do their jobs.


Now you're getting it!!! Kinda sorta.

When dirty cops are allowed to operate with impunity, then no one can trust any cops, and when folks can't trust cops, they have to defend and protect themselves. Vigilantism. Hence the absolute need for someone to police the police.


i am sorry but not just no, but HELL NO to a prosecutor being allowed to discriminate over what cases get to be taken to court, based upon solely the police officers involved.


Not just "based upon solely the police officers involved." You're leaving a lot out. More accurately, based upon the previous conduct of the police officers involved, and upon the ultimate disposition of the cases those police officers are involved with. When bad cops make it impossible to prosecute those cases the officers bring, the officers are the problem.


if there is an issue with certain police officers, then those police officers in question need to be taken off duty (NO PAY, loss of benifets and pensions), and be propperly investigated for wrongdoing. if they are indeed found guilty of crimes, then they should of course be charged and prosecuted for those crimes. if they are found not to have done anything, then their jobs can be regained with back pay and restoration of pensions and benifets. that is the propper way to deal with the situation. not a prosecutor deciding to prosecute crimes based upon the police officers involved.


And it is up to the LE agency to take the offending officers out of the equation. If they refuse to do so, and consequently bad cases continue to be submitted by bad cops for prosecution, the prosecutor must use what power and authority the office has to remedy the situation.

This prosecutor has given due notice that cases submitted by these officers will not be accepted.

The ball is in the LE's court now.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: Boadicea

That speaks to 2 things: Prosecutor's conviction percentage and the integrity of the police department.


Yes! And thank you for making those points. I agree completely. And it should be noted that many prosecutors take cases for all the wrong reasons if they think they can get a conviction and some brownie points for their future career aspirations. Perhaps this prosecutor thinks she can score brownie points with the public by taking this action.... but if so, then I would say it's a clear indication that the people are not happy with their policing.


They should be the "good guys" and they should arrest the "bad guys." Instead it seems that they tend to create the bad guys, or create situations in which they can arrest or execute citizens to keep themselves in power.


Which is exactly the problem so many people are having with current policing: We want the real criminals who pose a real threat to the public policed. We don't want police harassing and escalating and prosecuting those who pose no threat to others.


It really speaks to the human condition when people are deathly afraid of law enforcement officers, to the point of not calling them when a suspected crime is in progress. Quite sad really.


It is quite sad. Especially because the vast majority of LEOs are good, noble and honorable people, doing a good, noble and honorable job. But as long as dirty cops are given free rein, EVERY cop is suspect to the people. We have no idea who is good and who is dirty. So the people have to err on the side of caution.

And if the LE brass were doing their jobs right, the people wouldn't have to be afraid of their police, and prosecutors wouldn't have to take these steps.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   
If one of these " good cops" knows what the "bad cops " are doing and don't stop them or report them are they still good cops?
The getaway driver is just as guilty as the robber who shoots someone, isn't this pretty much the same?



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Prosecutors absolutely can chose whether or not to prosecute a case based on the merits of the case and the witnesses.

She's just determined that these 28 officers aren't reliable witnesses.

Jaden



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: Boadicea

From the information in OP and source, this seems to be warrented and an excellent step toward ensuring real justice! Good news for everybody except the crooked cops (as you mentioned this is exactly what the good LEOs need).


Thank you for reiterating the benefit to good LEOs!!! It's very easy (for some) to taint all officers with the same broad brush because they don't appear to be doing enough to stop the bad cops, but I've come to learn that without those good cops standing fast and doing their best DESPITE the corruption all around them, all we'd have are bad cops! The retaliation against whistleblowers is well documented and established. For them to continue under such circumstances shows true courage and honor.


Thanks for posting, Boadicea.



You're welcome



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

This should inevitably bring about position changes and or firing of these officers I assume, as in this or their negligence impacts the importance of their jobs?



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
Here's the thing about St. Louis. The entire city from top to bottom is one huge embarrassment to the state of Missouri. Including the area's representatives in state government and in our U.S. Congress. You can't trust any of them. They probably all deserve each other.


The saddest thing about your comment is that I can believe that. I don't want to believe it. But at some point, one has to recognize that mere incompetence cannot explain away clear corruption.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:17 PM
link   
What a very dirty situation. The prosecutor is supposed to work smoothly with the police force to protect and serve. Neither is taking place-it is a broken system.

In an otherwise professional atmosphere, the governor would develop an investigation of the county/city to find a resolution to the problem; being either the leo or the the prosecutor at fault and come to some resolution.

The fact that the governor himself is a perp nullifies the above as being able to "fix" the problem.

This sounds like it needs to go the federal or the state court and should be brought by a suit from the citizens themselves; the ones suffering due to the lack of professionalism and ability to carry out their jobs as civil servants.

What a mess.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: JHumm
If one of these " good cops" knows what the "bad cops " are doing and don't stop them or report them are they still good cops?


It's a good and valid question; I say yes. For one thing, if not for the good cops, we would have only bad cops.

But more important, good cops in a dirty department -- and by that, I mean a department where the top brass is protecting the bad cops -- know that any whistleblowing will be met with the harshest retaliation. Even be killed to keep them from testifying. To continue doing their best under such extreme circumstances takes huge cajones. God love 'em and bless 'em all.


The getaway driver is just as guilty as the robber who shoots someone, isn't this pretty much the same?


I think the "getaway drivers" who are just as guilty would be the supervisors who are just as dirty as the cops and use their power and authority to protect the dirty cops.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a lot of these local police departments are totally out of control, this is the case where I live as well, very corrupt group of people



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: Boadicea

This should inevitably bring about position changes and or firing of these officers I assume, as in this or their negligence impacts the importance of their jobs?


It sure as hell should!!! Unfortunately, I don't think we can count on that. The union is already working on behalf of the officers -- as if their rights are being compromised, and not the rights (and safety) of the people.

However, I'm hopeful that because the prosecutor took this step, the LE agencies will be forced to do the right thing. It does no good to have officers on the force if their arrests cannot be prosecuted. Just a waste of time and money for everyone.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Justso


This sounds like it needs to go the federal or the state court and should be brought by a suit from the citizens themselves; the ones suffering due to the lack of professionalism and ability to carry out their jobs as civil servants.


Excellent idea. It does make me wonder, though, if a court would grant them standing. Perhaps it would have to come from an individual (or individuals) that had been particularly adversely affected by their actions. And perhaps only those particular officers. I'm really not sure.

Maybe someone who knows better will skool us both...



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

There is a bit more to this story than meets the eye.

If you read between the lines and follow the bread crumbs, you can figure out the real problem.

worldpopulationreview.com...
Demographics of St. Louis which BTW has been losing population since 1940, and now has less than half the population it did in 1940.

Demographics of St. Louis Police Dept.
www.nytimes.com...

Pretty much the Ferguson problem all over again.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
But for me, the more important point, is that a prosecutor does have the power and authority to refuse cases from LEOs whose conduct jeopardizes legitimate cases... and/or who bring illegitimate cases to her office for prosecution. Of course it can be abused, and perhaps Ms. Gardner is, but it is a valuable tool when used rightfully.


I think my issue is the list itself and the blanket declaration. It is absolutely up to prosecutorial discretion on whether to take a case to court. My problem is that A) no reasoning seems to be provided publicly or privately, B) the prosecutor is already involved in a contentious relationship with the Department(s), C) this is a blanket statement of rejection and made public which hurts the rerelationship between thd public and the Department(s) in a way they have no way to address.

It makes sense that there may be officers that would not be credible as essential witnesses in a case and would/may hinder prosecution. If a case hinges on an officer's testimony, it may not be viable. The relative strength of the case should inform the decision. Not a predetermination regarding the involvement of one officer.

So I see two problems, potentially, and each or either may be true.

If an officer is completely incredible and irresponsible, he cannot maintain his job as a LEO. Why/how is that person still employed? Is this an actual departmental issue not being addressed internally? Possible.

Could the prosecutor be unfairly making a determination of the LEO's adequacy based on personal subjective opinion in a way that harms both the department and officer without recourse? More likely in this instance.

Otherwise, why make a blanket statement of intent without evaluating on a case by case basis? And why make it public?

The type of abuse that would justify that behaviour would be egregious and should be able to be handled in a different avenue. So to me, it seems irresponsible to make this list and make it public.

Maybe there are additional and specific facts which would inform my opinion, but it seems unlikely that this isn't part of a personal/political feud.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




It sure as hell should!!! Unfortunately, I don't think we can count on that. The union is already working on behalf of the officers -- as if their rights are being compromised, and not the rights (and safety) of the people. 



A single person or their office making a subjective opinion that prevents you from following your career is compromising the rights of those individuals. That's what I'd expect a union to do.

If you were a bus driver and someone at the school district or transportation department had nothing sufficient to fire you or go through the process of removing you, but had the power to strip you of your license for subjective reasons would be compromising your career without giving you the ability for redress.

It seems to me as a prosecutor she has both the sway and the ability to pursue formal avenues to address officers who need disciplinary or legal action.

Maybe the union is completely out of whack, and the Department is being irresponsible. That could happen. But I haven't seen any evidence that she pursued prosecutions for the officers involved or referred them for internal discipline as opposed to getting her name in the paper.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Boadicea

There is a bit more to this story than meets the eye.

If you read between the lines and follow the bread crumbs, you can figure out the real problem.

worldpopulationreview.com...
Demographics of St. Louis which BTW has been losing population since 1940, and now has less than half the population it did in 1940.

Demographics of St. Louis Police Dept.
www.nytimes.com...


Thank you for the links! That's an angle I hadn't considered before -- but I will now.


Pretty much the Ferguson problem all over again.


Or still I guess, depending on how you look at it.

One of the big problems revealed in Ferguson was the policing for profit, and the shenanigans played included the courts themselves. And all to generate revenue for the city. Not to make it safer.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   
This situation screams for a state panel of investigation. Too many unknown properties to clearly make a definitive statement as to where the problems are occurring. However, with corruption everywhere it will need to take place perhaps above state level.

The govenor is too corrupt to involve himself and he should recuse himself. That then leaves only the feds but this could take place in several different ways depending on who brings egregious lawsuits against whom.

The parties who feel they have been legally put in danger do need to bring a lawsuit. As always, the attorneys will know these details.

Shame, probably especially because of this sity/state, for all involved. Pity the civilians-this is their burden.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Policing for profit, and control.

I did extensive research on Ferguson and looked at the emotional problems suffered by the population there. The problem is that due to white flight, Ferguson had become well over 50% black but the Mayor, City Council, and Police Chief were all white and there was only one black patrol man on the police force.

That fact plus the heavy handed police presence made the people, (black) feel like they were subject to somthing like a foreign occupation force.

I would guess that same feeling applies to St. Louis today.

Ferguson fixed the problem by motivating people to participate in elections and now they have a Black Mayor, City Council and Police Chief.

Also, if you read the article you cited, you will see that for whatever reason, some of the cops are standing down and refusing to testify at trials that resulted from their own arrests. No wonder she wont accept charges from them anymore. REally strange situation.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join