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

a reply to: Simon_Boudreaux

Now Gardner is trying to say the list was made by the SLPD, chief said not so fast, and called her out on it. I'll believe the chief considering there are several officers on the list no longer with the department, and she's doing what she's always done when caught pulling something like this...blame someone else.

Interesting wrinkle there! I wanted to know a little more and found this: St. Louis police chief denies knowing about circuit attorney's exclusion list, calls it 'unnecessary overreach'. I don't know who's outright lying and who's playing semantics or what. This from the police chief:

“No leaders from our Department asked the Circuit Attorney’s Office to compile an Exclusion list, nor do we have any need for such a list,” Hayden said in a brief emailed statement about the action by Kim Gardner.

“I was quite surprised to have received it.”

And this from Gardner:

Gardner said Hayden’s command staff was aware of her office’s concerns about the credibility of some members of the city’s police force. Gardner said there were “documented communications” between one of her top staff members and police Maj. Michael Sack, the department’s commander of professional standards, about the concerns.

“In fact, Major Sack has even expressed his appreciation to us for helping to hold his ‘guys accountable,’” Gardner’s statement Saturday said.

The police chief did also note that half a dozen officers were no longer on the force; it would be good to know when they left and why. If those officers were fired for exactly the offenses that Gardner is excluding them for, I would think that would speak well of the department and take some of the sting out of Gardner's actions. But that wasn't mentioned by the police chief, so I don't know.

Knowing Gardner I'd like to see what precincts the officers on the list patrol.

Yes, that would be interesting. Another poster commented on the overwhelming racial disparities of many precincts between the officers (overwhelmingly White) and the residents (overwhelmingly Black.) I want to check into that aspect more.

Sorry, police commissioner called her out, not the chief.

Duly noted -- but everything I'm finding refers to the police chief, so I think you're good

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Yah except this this

Your link raised some interesting questions about the case against the Governor, but they are just questions. Nothing definitive there. And nothing that completely discredits Gardner. Given the politics of it all, I would think Gardner's defense would be that conflicts of interest prevented her from using normal police investigators for the case. I'm just spitballing, but so was the guy in the link. So we just don't know the whole truth.

And also an article that she got money from a Super pac funded by Soros..... just cant make this stuff up Soros money

Isn't it a given that Dem candidates are funded -- at least in part -- by Soros??? Maybe I'm just too cynical at this point, but I already figure that's the case.

a reply to: one4all

...anyone reviewed the evidence that she used to make her decision in terms of the court documents to see how these lies or these wrongful statements were embedded......in what context and to what ends.

I had the same thought. But without the names of the officers -- which I cannot find -- we have no way to know. It would be easy enough to check out though. If there were no such court trail to follow to confirm her charges, I would think someone would have said as much. Someone (police) would have looked for themselves to confirm or debunk her charges. But we haven't seen that.

Discrediting the facts is truth. Discrediting the messenger is deflection from the truth.

a reply to: DanDanDat

The police officer is a citizen too ...

We cannot take a fundamental principle of the Constitution and turn it against a citizen. Do that to any citizen (even a police officer) and you erode those rights for everyone else.

Yes, police officers are citizens... and yes, we cannot take away their fundamental Constitutional or Natural rights. But no one has a right to be a police officer. So simply refusing to accept cases from them does not violate any Constitutional or Natural rights. Unless and until these officers are charged with a crime, at which time of course due process and equal application of the law MUST be protected, there are no Constitutional or Natural rights being infringed.

ETA: Regarding officers pleading the 5th, of course they can plead the 5th... but if they have to plead the 5th as a witness in a criminal case brought against someone else, then their entire testimony is tainted, and therefore the entire case is tainted. Sure, they can plead the 5th. And then be fired immediately.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Yea just because i understand that a prosecutor has they power to take the actions outlined in the op does not mean i do not understand that what you posted has merit too but it just does not tie into the op well. It would take someone with knowledge of those particular officers to make any type of a case against her actions.

If she is dirty then surely someone will be able to tie all of this together.

There's been a trend lately of being anti-police. It's been a trend at least since Obama was POTUS. Soros money is dirty money always. He must be the most evil man on the planet. He is on a mission to destroy US National Sovereignty and stability. While that alone may not mean anything....it is still suspect. I'm looking at the trail of articles on this woman.
Here's another one listing a criminal complaint against her kmox.radio.com...

But of course they could really all be bad cops

Well there has been a trend. I can tell you that the last time i went to the police i was laughed at and ignored. So i will not go out of my way either way to bash them or lift them up. I have many more stories in my life of justice failure due to direct non involvement by choice of the law. imo The law has always been used to cover up. I doubt i am in a lonely boat on this one.

It saddens me to see dirty cops.

The questions should be, ARE they really dirty because SJW people can't seem to understand simple facts clearly? And why are they even on the force if they have been proven to be dirty? What fool is allowing that to happen?
PLUS,
If this is about failed prosecutions, why did the DA think they had a case and indict the 'victims' the LEO's called perps?

Truly we need something more than a SJW Soro's political hack deciding things IMO. We need people like one of our own here BFFTexan or Grambler who just look at the facts not at the emotions. What are the facts. other than taking the 5th that we have? All I see are cases she claims that the LEOs where the reason the state failed to successfully prosecute which does fall on the DA accepting the case.

Bodi do you have more than the lost cases and claims by the DA (that Soro's owns) that don't add up at this point for some of us?

Why would the LEO's not be stopped from working if the DA thinks they are dirty?

ETA

Both sides look shady in this deal.

Officers pleading the fifth should have nothing to hide, and we as citizens should be appalled at the thought of a nontransparant government.

originally posted by: Justoneman
It saddens me to see dirty cops.

The questions should be, ARE they really dirty...

That should always be the biggest question for anyone taking such an action. I would expect that the notice from the prosecutor would include an itemized list. And I would expect the police chief and union reps to be the first and foremost to speak out if that wasn't the case. The names of the officers have not been made public as far as I know; but I'm sure both the police chief and the union know who they are. I would expect those with the knowledge and authority to check the record and either confirm or deny that court cases have been compromised by these officers, and how many.

I couldn't find anything stating such though. Perhaps they are still researching the court cases these officers were involved in and we will hear one way or another soon.

(I know that's a lot of "expecting" on my part... and we are dealing with government officials... so "expecting" may be too big a word! So I'll correct it to "we should be able to expect...")

And why are they even on the force if they have been proven to be dirty? What fool is allowing that to happen?

I'm thinking we need to look at the police chief and union for that.

PLUS, If this is about failed prosecutions, why did the DA think they had a case and indict the 'victims' the LEO's called perps?

I'm not sure I understand your question; but I would say it's necessarily because they were indicted and prosecuted that the prosecutor learned (the hard way) that the LEOs -- their main witnesses -- were so compromised that they compromised/destroyed those cases. I don't think the prosecutor is saying the defendants were "victims." Pretty much the opposite; that the guilty went free because of dirty cops.

Truly we need something more than a SJW Soro's political hack deciding things IMO.

We sure do. We shouldn't have to depend on the word of ANY government official -- whether a Soros political hack or otherwise. Hence why I'm always demanding the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. However, I do believe that would go back to the union contract for LEOs that keeps complaints against officers hidden from the public.

What are the facts. other than taking the 5th that we have? All I see are cases she claims that the LEOs where the reason the state failed to successfully prosecute which does fall on the DA accepting the case.

Bodi do you have more than the lost cases and claims by the DA (that Soro's owns) that don't add up at this point for some of us?

All I have is what we have. In addition to the examples listed in the article, we do have confirmation from Jeff Roorda, business manager for the St. Louis Police Officers’ Association, that --

...cases linked to officers on the list had already been dismissed in state court. He said the full group is linked to “dozens if not hundreds of cases.”

Why would the LEO's not be stopped from working if the DA thinks they are dirty?

Good question. But the prosecutor wouldn't have the power to terminate their employment. That would be up to the LE brass.

ETA

Both sides look shady in this deal.

That's usually the case -- rightly or wrongly.

originally posted by: Jenisiz
Officers pleading the fifth should have nothing to hide, and we as citizens should be appalled at the thought of a nontransparant government.

100% agree!

From someone very near to Saint Louis and as aware as possible on local issues, I can say that without a doubt this is totally politically motivated and more than likely racist to boot. Kim is a complete SJW race baiter as is the current mayor of Saint Louis.

What REALLY needs to happen is South Saint Louis area needs to decouple from North Saint Louis. Basically you have criminals leading the rest of the area around by the nose because of that ever dreadful race card they keep playing. It isn't a matter of time before everyone else is completely sick of it. THEY ALREADY ARE.

And I am going to be judicious myself when I say that slowly and surely things are changing. Its just that Kim and the current mayor are the pinnacle of SJW nonsense. They got to the top of the mountain and now everyone can see how naked and dumb they really are.

a reply to: Fools

Basically you have criminals leading the rest of the area around by the nose because of that ever dreadful race card they keep playing.

You may or may not be right about that; but I gotta say that to my senses, you are also playing the "race" card. Just the flip side.

It's impossible to believe that each and every officer in ANY law enforcement agency is squeaky clean. Just the law of averages says otherwise because there's always at least one bad apple. And St. Louis is well known for problem officers, as well as very expensive payouts, which is costing the entire community a whole lot of money. (And that's in addition to the "policing for profit" that was detailed in the federal report for Ferguson.)

Both payouts were among the largest of 44 settlements by St. Louis police that total $4.7 million since 2010, according to a review of the cases by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The settlements include cases that allege injuries or wrongful imprisonment or death.

Unlike trial judgments, such as the $2.5 million awarded in March to a man who was exonerated after spending five years in prison in a case that involved two former St. Louis police officers, the settlement amounts have never previously been made public. The Missouri Attorney General’s Office, which represented the police in civil cases until 2013, released a spreadsheet of the payout amounts in response to a public-records request from the Post-Dispatch.

I have no problem believing there are politics at play. I do have a problem believing that Ms. Gardner is playing the "race card" though... especially given that the police chief is also Black. There is much more to it.

And, in any event, the police have confirmed -- not disputed -- that these specific officers' conduct has resulted in the prosecutors inability to prosecute legitimate cases.

a reply to: Boadicea

Kim Gardner can be looked at two ways, she is either the most wonderful law abiding PA that ever existed or she is a SJW that seeks self aggrandizement.

The racism is on her end. I would be more than willing to believe that all of the officers put on this "short leash" are white. Probably one token black in there as well.

One of the biggest issues that Saint Louis city faces is crime (not the whole metro, just Saint Louis city and at that mainly Just North Saint Louis city and some of the suburbs that border it).

For many years Saint Louis politicians (decades now) have tried to pretend that the crime isn't as bad as it seems mainly because they are all afraid to step up and admit that 90 percent of it is young black males that got to the position after generation after generation of social handouts and wooing that basically destroyed the black family. When families are destroyed or otherwise broken, the children of those families are vastly more likely to commit crimes and develop criminal mindsets that will task them for the rest of their lives.

If one politician in Saint Louis city proper had the gusto to say publically, "yeah look we are going to cut ALL assistance and arrest and jail ALL law breakers as we see fit." then the crime rate in Saint Louis would drop dramatically. But as it is now, all politicians want to do in Saint Louis is blame the black crime issue on racist cops or white people in general. If you do not believe me, buy a ticket to Saint Louis, go hang out on MLK drive and stop some passer bys and ask them. They will all tell you, "white people be holdin us down."

And they say that because the political leaders and cultural leaders tell them that as well.

No accountability, no change. No change, no hope.

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: Boadicea

Kim Gardner can be looked at two ways, she is either the most wonderful law abiding PA that ever existed or she is a SJW that seeks self aggrandizement.

First and foremost, thank you for a very thoughtful and well written reply. Especially because we already know we see this differently! But that makes it even more appreciated. So, again, thank you!

As to Kim Gardner, no, there is always more than just two ways to look at anyone and anything. The whole truth is always somewhere in the middle.

The racism is on her end. I would be more than willing to believe that all of the officers put on this "short leash" are white. Probably one token black in there as well.

Maybe... but that means very little in and of itself. For example, if every police officer on the force is White, then of course every officer on the list is White!!! So we would have to know far more about all the whys and wherefores before we could begin to come to any conclusions.

Further, if the prosecutor is being racist, then it's up to the police chief to properly investigate, document, and explain such. The record is what it is. If the prosecutor is cherry picking LEOs, then the police chief would know, and would be the one to say so -- and I would hope, VERY publicly, and with documentation. But he has not (and perhaps cannot) do so. Either way, that's part of the problem. The people of St Louis should KNOW one way or another and not have to take anyone's word for anything. Transparency.

One of the biggest issues that Saint Louis city faces is crime (not the whole metro, just Saint Louis city and at that mainly Just North Saint Louis city and some of the suburbs that border it).

Unfortunately, given the St. Louis area's policing for profit, that really doesn't mean much. For example, are 90% of those "crimes" simple violations like jaywalking that were turned into warrants due to shenanigans at the courthouse that only threaten the city's coffers? Or are they real crimes that threaten the people?

For many years Saint Louis politicians (decades now) have tried to pretend that the crime isn't as bad as it seems mainly because they are all afraid to step up and admit that 90 percent of it is young black males that got to the position after generation after generation of social handouts and wooing that basically destroyed the black family.

Maybe. Or maybe St. Louis, like so many other municipalities, knowingly and deliberately target Blacks, while outright ignoring other potential "criminals"? When LEOs look only at people of color, then necessarily the crime statistics will reflect a disproportionate number of Black crimes.

[quote[If one politician in Saint Louis city proper had the gusto to say publically, "yeah look we are going to cut ALL assistance and arrest and jail ALL law breakers as we see fit." then the crime rate in Saint Louis would drop dramatically.

Maybe. Maybe not. Again, it depends on the current policing practices. Using my above example, if the SL police are focusing only on Black crime, but started focusing on White crimes as well, then the actual crime rate might increase. The White guy selling heroin who is ignored by police is never going to be a statistic....

No accountability, no change. No change, no hope.

Very true. When police are not held accountable for their bad behavior, there is no change, and with no change there is no hope.

a reply to: Boadicea

Unfortunately, given the St. Louis area's policing for profit, that really doesn't mean much. For example, are 90% of those "crimes" simple violations like jaywalking that were turned into warrants due to shenanigans at the courthouse that only threaten the city's coffers? Or are they real crimes that threaten the people?

In a nutshell, North Saint Louis city is probably the most violent area in all of the United States. The cops there (from the few that I have known over my life) have very little time to worry about Jaywalking or other such offenses. Rape, murder, assault, robbery, breaking and entering, you name it, and it happens on a daily basis.

Saint Louis "murder capital of the US"
patch.com...

Crime map of Saint Louis
www.stltoday.com...

Demographic map of Saint Louis
www.businessinsider.com...

Through these hopefully you can see that the actual issue in Saint Louis is a black culture issue - especially in the area of broken families. It is estimated that 80 percent of all black children in the area are fatherless and that none of the fathers help in any way with support.

Most of these young men will buy into the romantic fiction that the way to be great is to be the biggest and baddest drug dealer. The rise to that position is always war. Yes, war. Saint Louis (and many black inner cities) is involved in all out tribal war. And this isn't going to stop until we as a cultural whole start looking at the actual destruction that welfare altruism actually causes.

It's just like any normal family, you have a kid that just keeps being a F up and you eventually have to cut off monetary support. The longer you hand free lifestyle to them the longer they think being a F up is the way to be. Then with no food or money for anything they suddenly realize that showing up for work and keeping a steady job is actually a necessity. Soon (hopefully) they begin to feel proud of their accomplishments and feel driven to accomplish more personal success and responsibility. If not, then they start getting in trouble with the law. It always happens that way. Always. In the US, we have been doing that to all poor people for so long that we have generational F up's. I feel sorry for them. Mainly because our government states that welfare is such a GREAT thing that most people really can't imagine that it is the true source of all of this pain and destruction.

a reply to: Fools

Thank you for the links. Especially the demographic maps. I want to look at those a little closer and think about it. Another poster mentioned the racial disparity between police officers and the residents. I need to think about all this and put it in some kind of context for myself before I can really comment intelligently -- or even have an opinion!

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Fools

Thank you for the links. Especially the demographic maps. I want to look at those a little closer and think about it. Another poster mentioned the racial disparity between police officers and the residents. I need to think about all this and put it in some kind of context for myself before I can really comment intelligently -- or even have an opinion!

There is also a class disparity, the rich in Saint Louis are INCREDIBLY rich - I think more due to "old money" made back when practically everything west of Saint Louis was outfitted by companies and funded by companies here. That made alot of rich people in this area - an investment class if you would. These people have kept certain neighborhoods inaccessible from even upper middle class people.

So what happens is that in a 15 minute drive, you can go from a "warzone" to a neighborhood where there are nothing but mansions. Of course the "richest" areas are actually outside of Saint Louis city but within Saint Louis county.

My best pal from my Navy days is from Seattle. Before we had families, we used to visit eachother. I'd go to Seattle one year and then he would come here to Saint Louis the next. I went to Seattle first and he was showing me the "bad" neighborhoods in Seattle. I was sort of demure but stated, "they don't look that bad to me." The next year I drove him through the rougher parts of STL. He was amazed and asked if there was an actual war going on or something. And keep in miind, that was back around 1992 or so. Little to nothing has changed since then and the funny part is that it has always been 100% Democrat controlled. And it has always had one of the highest crime rates in the entire country. And it will probably never change because somehow it is to the advantage of Democrat politicians in Saint Louis. I have no idea how, but it is. I am sure there is a little graft and criminal "profit sharing" going on but if you were a journalist and wanted to stitch the pattern together you'd no doubt end up dead - being that human life means almost nothing there.

a reply to: Boadicea

THis Youtube video will show how decimated the area is:



"I have been to many ghettos in the United States, such as Detroit, Baltimore, Flint, Los Angeles, ect. None were as bad as when I went to St. Louis' Northside. These pictures are not just of one part of North St. Louis.. all of it is this bad. There is no good part, no safe zones.

It's no wonder St. Louis has always been ranked the #1 most dangerous city in the United States, or have come in the top 3. The only place I've been to equivalent to North St. Louis was East St. Louis, Illinois. When I was in Detroit I felt safer than in North St. Louis.

Urban decay at its best. Welcome to THE HOOD."