Challenge Match. Eyewitness86 v Semperfortis: Bad Cops, page

I will present evidence that proves conclusively that the police of today are far different than those of yesteryear, and in ways that dramatically affect you and I, everyday citizens. Today, the police are trained to ' Testily ' in the academy, meaning that they are taught to skirt the truth and to avoid perjury charges while getting convictions.

Also, I will examine the deleterious effects that ' Consent Searches ' have on our Constitutional Rights and our safety, and how many jurisdictions are restricting Consent Searches or stopping them altogether after many sudies have shown that racial profiling and illegal searches and arrests are made against minorities all across the nation, thus undermining the very principles that make us a free nation.

Before I present my case in chief, I will ask that interested observers first review the following links so terms are understood and the basics of my case outlined.

Consent Equals Confusion


Widespread Perjury in all Major Cities

Police Misconduct Pervasive

I will be referring to these and other links when in the main part of my case, and I will quote various experts who will substantiate the belief that the issues we see today are not the exception, but the rule. Police departments today are radically different, and in negative ways, than ever before. Perjury is commonplace, with Officeer's trained to try and determine what is ' material ' to the case and what is not, thus making the cop on the stand the determiner of what is truth and what is not. This of course destroys due process and devastates the rights we still enjoy.

Consent searches are the new bread and butter of the modern police force, gaining dollars and property from siezing and selling the asset's of those people caught up in the vicious cycle of consent searches and asset forfeitures for petty offenses. Task forces rely almost totally on racial profiling, intimdation and coercion to get consent to search for their profits. The agency that makes the arrest normally get a share of the loot from cars and property that is siezed ( stolen legally ) by the cop's, thus giving them EVERY reason to stretch the truth and the boundaries of the law itself.

When this is said and done, the observer will be left with no alternative but to believe that a pervasive and deleterious influence has crept in and taken over the ' peace officer's ' that we used to look uo to and turned them into jackbooted thugs with no regard for the law and less for the accused. Police misconduct stand primarily on the legs of consent searches and perjured testimony, and both are rampant and accepted parts of the modern arsenal that the police use on us, the People, every day. Here is a partial list of facts from the above linked site listed last:



· " No felony is committed more frequently in the United States than the genre of perjury and false statements

· Criminal cases often are decided “according to the preponderance of perjury”

· Police perjury in criminal cases is so pervasive that “hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests” alone

· The most heinous brand of lying (perjury by police officers) is the giving of false testimony that results in the imprisonment or execution of an innocent person

· Less egregious, but still quite serious, is false testimony that results in the conviction of a person who committed the criminal conduct, but whose rights were violated in a manner that would preclude conviction if the police were to testify truthfully

· Police Officers are almost taught how to commit perjury when they are in the Police Academy

· Police perjury is not anecdotal. Many commission reports prove rampant abuses in police departments throughout the United States

· Judges and prosecutors tolerate if not encourage police lying in court all in the name of convicting the factually guilty

· According to the Mollen Commission[2] the practice of police falsification is so common that it has spawned its own word – testilying

o Officers commit perjury to serve what they perceive to be “legitimate” law enforcement ends

o In the viewpoint of most police officers, regardless of the legality of the arrest, the defendant is in fact guilty and ought to be arrested

· When prosecutors are preparing for a trial, they often arrange “dry runs” as part of the trial preparation procedure. Frequently, prosecutors skirt along the edge of coercing or leading the police witness

o As a result, impressionable young cops learn to tailor their testimony (commit perjury) to the requirements of the law

· There are hundreds of thousands of police officers in the United States today that break the law and commit felony perjury as a calculated, premeditated offense designed to undercut the constitutional rights of unpopular defendants".


It is NOT uncommon anymore, it is the norm, for cop's to abuse the law and the People in their desire to gain money and career advances at the expense of our freedoms and laws.

I end this segment and await the opening statement from my esteemed opponent.

Challenge Debate

Eyewitness86 V Semperfortis

"Today’s police use devious and underhanded methods to get results as a matter of standard practice, and perjure themselves routinely and without conscience".

Semper’s Opening:

Thank you TheVagabond for working as hard as you do and allowing us to settle differences in a structured debate as befits civilized and intelligent people.

Opening:

In this debate, we are going to examine a very controversial and emotional subject; that of police corruption.

We all are aware that corruption exists in the world of Law Enforcement, to deny this is to violate the premise upon which ATS is founded; Denying Ignorance.

Yet look at the title of the debate, chosen by my opponent;

"Today’s police use devious and underhanded methods to get results as a matter of standard practice, and perjure themselves routinely and without conscience".

You should immediately notice several key words and phrases.

Devious
Underhanded
Standard Practice

And

Perjure
Routinely
Without Conscious

Definitions:

Standard:
Something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.

Practice:
Habitual or customary performance; operation: office practice.
Habit; custom: It is not the practice here for men to wear long hair.
Repeated performance or systematic exercise for the purpose of acquiring skill or proficiency:

Routine:
A customary or regular course of procedure.

Conscious:
The part of the mind comprising psychic material of which the individual is aware.

Dictionary.com


As you read this debate and even judge it for yourselves, remember those key words and what we are debating. Not whether or not corruption exists in all of its many evil forms, but that it is standard practice, routine and without conscious.

I will prove to you that it is not standard practice, it is not routine and certainly not without conscious.

I will accomplish this by showing you exactly what standard practice is all across the nation as standardized under the Commission for National Law Enforcement Accreditation that the majority of Police Agencies are now complying with or moving towards. Certainly all larger agencies.

We will look at the standards required by each agency to be accepted for accreditation and then what each agency must maintain in order to not lose that standard.

We will look at what advantages each agency gains by establishing accreditation and the incredibly strict regulations imposed by the Accreditation Commission.

We are going to look at the number of sworn officers in the United States (Where I am familiar) and the number of corruption cases and you will see as I have the percentage is lower than you may imagine. Thus proving it is NOT Standard Practice, Routine or Without Conscious. While corruption and perjury exist, my opponent MUST PROVE that it is
A. Standard Practice
B. Routine
And
C. Without conscious

As you read this, require both opponents to PROVE any allegations or postulations they may present to you. I will assure you that my debate will stand on facts and not “common stories” or “What happened to Johnny” tales of woe.


If he fails in any one area of this, he has failed to PROVE the premise of the debate title which he himself selected.

Proposition:

As a young man just getting out of the Marines, I made the choice to become a police officer. Why? I had a college education, I was motivated and disciplined, just the sort of person set to succeed in the business world today and spend my life making money and never looking back. So why would I throw all of that away and enter a profession, a career, that has little opportunity for monetary gain?

Power? Not by a long shot. One of the very first things I learned as a young officer is that the badge takes away far more power than it ever bestows. The badge gives to its wearer responsibility, obligation and purpose.

To use an often coined phrase, “Money is Power” and I was not likely to make much money anytime soon in my career as a Law Enforcement Officer.

I was correct in that assessment.

Responsibility
Obligation
Purpose

The responsibility of acting in a manner befitting my station as a protector of the innocent, Defender of the Offended and upholder of the Law.

The obligation to never run from a fight, turn from danger or allow another to be hurt in my presence as long as I draw a breath. The obligation to assist where needed and to act in a blink of an eye correctly, as my actions would be examined at length in the after math.

The sense of purpose achieved in helping people; in seeing those that would do harm to others face our legal system and always standing when others would not, fighting because others wont and sacrificing my health and relationships for the common good.

So why then would a sane person enter a profession in which it is a requirement to run to a fight instead of away; to stand in a riot and attempt to create peace; to move into a field of gunfire instead of ducking away; to change a tire on a highway in the middle of a downpour, to carry a dead or dying child to a waiting ambulance or hold the hand of a dying woman trapped under her car until the paramedics arrive?

As funny as it may be to some, it is a desire to help people.

Regardless of any individual horror stories anyone reading this may have experienced from Law Enforcement, the fact is if you ask enough Officers, you will find the vast majority joined in order to help people. Did some get turned along the way? Of course, that is a fact of life. Yet you will find the VAST majority still stay in the profession because they believe they can make a difference.

Statistically Speaking:

In 2004 there were 836,787 sworn police officers in the United States.

Bureau of Justice

Policing a population of over 300 million.

From 1997 to 2006 there were 562 Law Enforcement Officer Feloniously Killed in the line of duty.

Additionally 739 were killed while performing their duties in 2006 alone.

In 2006 alone 58,634 officers were assaulted in the line of duty. That works out to 7% of all officers in the United States suffered an assault in the line of duty in one year alone.

Comparison:

In 2006 there were 1,417,745 violent crimes in the United States reported. In a population of almost 300 million, that works out to 4/10%

As you can clearly see, the police profession is fraught with danger compared with the average citizen, yet we continue to perform our duties regardless of the statistics.

Source for Statistics

Catch a Cop with a bad attitude?

Either report him to his superiors (Being one of those superiors now, trust me we want to know) or rack it up to his having a day far worse than the average person.

Socratic Question #1
“With over 800 thousand sworn Law Enforcement Officers in the United States; exactly how many cases of perjury against a sworn officer are brought to trial each year?”

Socratic Question #2
“How many sworn Officers must be brought to trial to fulfill your perception of Standard Practice, Routine and Without Conscious?

Socratic Question #3
“What percentage of sworn Law Enforcement Officers would YOU consider to be ROUTINELY corrupt?”


Summary:

Remember as this debate progresses I am not trying to prove that corruption does not exist, or that corruption is not bad or that corruption should not be fought as rigorously or more so than any other crime; I am simply and succinctly going to prove that it is NOT

Standard Practice
Routine
Or
Without Conscious

My opponent will undoubtedly attempt to turn you with horror stories that we all already know happen. He will appeal to your own negative contacts that may have happened in your life with a police officer.

Always remember what it is he MUST prove.

A. Standard Practice
B. Routine
C. Without Conscious

In Point of Fact:


"Today’s police DO NOT use devious and underhanded methods to get results as a matter of standard practice, and NEVER perjure themselves routinely and without conscience".

Thank you,

Semper

First, I want to link to a page that the observer should read well. Then I will comment about the current state of affairs in the realm of police perjury. Perjury is widespread and accepted as a normal means of convicting the ' factually guilty ' which is anyone the officer believes to be guilty of a crime. Since Federal law says that a perjurious statement must be ' material ' to the case, it leaves the individual cop deciding what is ' material ' and what is not. This gives them the ability to lie without conscience.

Perjury a Nationwide Epidemic

Alan Dershowitz, Havard Law Professor and defense counsel for many years layed it all out in the above linked article:



· No felony is committed more frequently in the United States than the genre of perjury and false statements

· Criminal cases often are decided “according to the preponderance of perjury”

· Police perjury in criminal cases is so pervasive that “hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests” alone

· The most heinous brand of lying (perjury by police officers) is the giving of false testimony that results in the imprisonment or execution of an innocent person

· Less egregious, but still quite serious, is false testimony that results in the conviction of a person who committed the criminal conduct, but whose rights were violated in a manner that would preclude conviction if the police were to testify truthfully

· Police Officers are almost taught how to commit perjury when they are in the Police Academy

· Police perjury is not anecdotal. Many commission reports prove rampant abuses in police departments throughout the United States

· Judges and prosecutors tolerate if not encourage police lying in court all in the name of convicting the factually guilty

· According to the Mollen Commission[2] the practice of police falsification is so common that it has spawned its own word – testilying

o Officers commit perjury to serve what they perceive to be “legitimate” law enforcement ends

o In the viewpoint of most police officers, regardless of the legality of the arrest, the defendant is in fact guilty and ought to be arrested

· When prosecutors are preparing for a trial, they often arrange “dry runs” as part of the trial preparation procedure. Frequently, prosecutors skirt along the edge of coercing or leading the police witness

o As a result, impressionable young cops learn to tailor their testimony (commit perjury) to the requirements of the law

· There are hundreds of thousands of police officers in the United States today that break the law and commit felony perjury as a calculated, premeditated offense designed to undercut the constitutional rights of unpopular defendants."


The last paragraph above should be read by my opponent very slowly. It is NOT a random event for a cop to lie on the stand, it is an expected and everyday occurence that is encouraged by Prosecutors and police superiors. The academies teach young cop's to ask devious and misleading questions to gain consent, and to lie at will. Cop's have the LEGAL right to lie to the people they ' serve ' and they do so all the time. The police also have NO legal requirement to tell us the truth. So if a citizen does not know the facts, he may well become a victim of police skullduggery in the name of ' crime prevention'.

" Of all the instances when and where police officers commit perjury, the enforcement of drug laws top the list. And when it comes to discovering illegal drugs in a defendant’s vehicle, residence, possessions, or on their person, police have no fear or deterrent against conducting illegal searches and committing felony perjury; first by filing a false sworn affidavit, then by testilying in court.

Examples of this sort of felony perjury are also found in the Mollen Report. Examples are as follows:


When officers unlawfully stop and search a vehicle because they believe there are drugs in it, officers will falsely claim in police reports and under oath that the car ran a red light or committed some other traffic violation

Once pulled over, the police officer will search the occupants of the vehicle as well as the vehicle – with or without consent – although the police officer will always indicate that they had consent

If consent is adamantly opposed by the occupants, the police officer will report, under oath, that the contraband was in plain view

To conceal an unlawful search that does not involve a vehicle, police officers have been taught to report and testify that they saw a bulge in the person’s pocket or saw drugs and money changing hands

To justify unlawfully entering a residence where officers believe drugs or cash can be found, cops commit felony perjury by claiming that they had information from an unidentified civilian informant.

From the same report:

"Are police officers in South Carolina falsifying documents, conducting illegal searches, and lying under oath? Bearing in mind the information contained in the Mollen Report and the testimony of Alan Dershowitz, here are a few examples taken from sworn affidavits made by police officers of the Charleston Police Department and the North Charleston Police Department between September 1, 2005 and January 31, 2006. Each involves an arrest for violating South Carolina drug laws. Only the police department and complaint number will be listed in the following examples, as these are ongoing criminal cases:



Charleston Police Department



Complaint #: 0521531 – Defendant was observed driving his 1995 Toyota Pickup (SC 587 XXX) in a high drug area, and was approached by an unknown black male, who then appeared to engage the defendant in a hand to hand transaction. The vehicle left the parking lot and was stopped for the suspicious activity, as well as a non-functioning tag light. The defendant voluntarily consented to a search of the vehicle.



– If you live in what police consider a high drug area, shaking hands could be considered suspicious activity – particularly if you’re a black male. Note that the arresting officer included a non-functioning tag light to justify the stop. By all accounts, the defendant had .8 grams of cocaine in his vehicle, and knew it was there, so why would he consent to having his vehicle searched?



Complaint #: 0521634 – Officer J. XXXXX conducted a traffic stop of a silver Ford Winstar, (SC 759 XXX) in which defendant was a passenger. After asking the defendant to exit the vehicle, and receiving consent to search her purse, Officer XXXXX located a white rock-like substance, which field-tested presumptive for cocaine base substance inside the purse. Officer XXXXX additionally located a crack pipe in side pocket of purse.



- If making a routine traffic stop, why was the passenger even spoken to by the arresting officer? Why was the passenger asked to exit the vehicle, and who in their right mind consents to the search of their purse if they know that they have crack cocaine and a crack pipe in their purse? Nobody consents to such a search.



Complaint #: 0523979 – In that defendant did have a clear small zip lock style bag protruding from the band of his baseball style hat which contained (5) off white-in-color rock like items which field tested presumptive as cocaine base by Cpl. J. XXXXX with a street value of ($100).



– Not only is this sworn statement suspicious, but the zip lock bag seems to be defying the exact laws of gravity. The arresting officer would have us to believe that the defendant was walking the street with $100 worth of crack in plain view as casually as carrying a cigarette behind one’s ear.



North Charleston Police Department



Complaint #: 05037505 – Having received a tip from Crime Stoppers of illegal drug activities from Room 223 of Super 8 Motel, Cpl. D. XXXXXX made contact with the defendant and asked for and received consent to search the defendant’s room for illegal drugs. During the consented search, Cpl. XXXXXX located approximately 3.4 grams of off white rock-like substance in a plastic baggie, in the nightstand drawer near the defendant’s bed.



Again, who in their right mind gives consent to such a search if they know that they have 3.4 grams of cocaine in the drawer of their nightstand? There is simply no plausible explanation for such consent.


The police today see themselves as ' handcuffed ' and held back by the civil rights law and the Constitutional Rights we still have left. They see ' little white lies ' on the stand as actually ' good ' police work because in the end, they get the conviction they so desperately want, and the end justifies the means. At least to a cop willing to cross the line, and most all of them will and do so regularly and with no feeling of having done wrong.

And finally, another from the Los Angeles times by veteran police Chief Joseph D. McNamara:

"Are the nation's police officers a bunch of congenital liars?

Not many people took defense attorney Alan M. Dershowitz seriously when he charged that Los Angeles cops are taught to lie at the birth of their careers at the Police Academy. But as someone who spent 35 years wearing a police uniform, I've come to believe that hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests.

These are not cops who take bribes or commit other crimes. Other than routinely lying, they are law-abiding and dedicated. They don't feel lying under oath is wrong because politicians tell them they are engaged in a "holy war ' on crime"

More to come next segment.

Challenge Debate

Eyewitness86 V Semperfortis

"Today’s police use devious and underhanded methods to get results as a matter of standard practice, and perjure themselves routinely and without conscience".

Semper’s Reply #1

Reflection:

Please closely examine my opponent’s last post. You will find it a simple and unchanged almost word for word copy of the link he provided. This is disappointing, but not unexpected considering the weak nature of his stance.

Rebuttal:

Perjury is widespread and accepted as a normal means of convicting the ' factually guilty ' which is anyone the officer believes to be guilty of a crime.

Again I will ask you for some form of proof of these wildly subjective allegations. And please if you finally decide to post some truth, try and find a link that does more than exactly what you are doing.
Posting wild and unsubstantiated claims without a single shred of proof.

But I must ask this, what is basically wrong with convicting the “Factually Guilty”?

Alan Dershowitz, Havard Law Professor and defense counsel for many years layed it all out in the above linked article:

You have to be kidding right?

Your one single solitary source is from the Defense Attorney specializing in litigation to overturn heinous trials. The very same individual that was able to assist in setting free O.J. Simpson when the entire world knew he was a murderer.

Among some of Dershowitz’s more infamous clients include:
OJ Simpson
Patty Hearst
Mike Tyson
Leona Helmsley
Claus von Bülow
And
Jim Bakker

Quite a source you have there; possibly the only person alive that hates the police more than you.

Perhaps you could find a source that does not consist of a defense attorney, ambulance chaser or convicted felon. I for one would consider sources like those as suspect due to the nature of their emotional stability in regards to the police.

Still I invite the judges and readers to examine this link and find for themselves the “proof” you claim is there. Trust me, it is not. It is nothing more than the same ramblings you have so far provided us here. Still after two full posts, you provide us no proof or substance to support your contention.

It is NOT a random event for a cop to lie on the stand, it is an expected and everyday occurence that is encouraged by Prosecutors and police superiors.

“SIGH” Again I ask for proof, I do not expect it, but I feel I must ask again.

The academies teach young cop's to ask devious and misleading questions to gain consent

Please enlighten us as to how the form I provided, one accepted all through the nation, is devious or misleading.

You have NO proof of anything that is taught in the academies. I have attended three full academies in three different states. One Common Wealth, One Statutory and One Common Law; and I have the necessary qualifications to state with complete confidence that the academies DO NOT TEACH WHAT YOU CLAIM. Quite the opposite in fact.
In Drug Interdiction Classes, (Where search procedures are taught extensively) the student is taught to ask direct and relevant questions and to explain the form, (See Provided) in detail so that the subject knows exactly what they are doing.
(I am a certified Narcotics Intervention Officer)

What I can attest to is that consent will be given in 90% of all traffic stops that develop either reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause after the Laws concerning Consent to Search, including their absolute right to refuse, are explained in detail.

Side Note:

While the form I have provided in my previous post is universally accepted throughout the nation and clearly explains the right to refuse a search, the fact is the POLICE use that form and go above and beyond what the Supreme Court has decided.

The courts have made clear that police officers do not have to tell people that they can refuse to consent to a warrantless search. In other words, a police officer does not need to read you your rights before asking you to consent to a search. Also, despite the widespread myth to the contrary, an officer does not need to get your consent in writing. Oral consent is completely valid.

Neon Joint
Emphasis Mine

So you see, the Police go above and beyond what is required of them in order to MORE CLOSELY guard a citizens rights.

Now my good opponent, look above. THAT is PROOF.

police have no fear or deterrent against conducting illegal searches and committing felony perjury; first by filing a false sworn affidavit, then by testilying in court.

Now I would say that a Criminal Conviction and loss of employment is an excellent provider of fear and a deterrent.

Be that as it may, though I am sure it is getting old for the readers and judges, I must ask again for proof.

Now as the remainder of my opponents post is taken directly from the pages of the Dershowitz link, I will simply ask again for some proof. Statistics, numbers of arrests, convictions ANYTHING. I need some material here to debate you on.

Proposition:

Perhaps some of those that routinely like to place all blame of any misconduct in criminal proceedings should focus their blame elsewhere.

Durham County prosecutor Mike Nifong had withheld exculpatory evidence in the case which exonerated the three young men.

There was a cover-up all right, only it was perpetrated by Nifong and a forensic expert who covered up the fact that crucial DNA evidence vindicated the three young men

In one recent situation in upstate New York, a police officer testified under oath that he didn't want to arrest the person because no law had been broken but he had been ordered to do so by the sheriff, his superior and if he didn't make the arrest, he would have lost his job for insubordination. Exculpatory evidence was then erased from a video tape and the special prosecutor lied as did the witnesses

North Country

Lots more to read in the link provided.

The thing everyone should remember is that while like every profession, there are great cops, good cops, poor cops and bad cops. No different from electricians, plumbers, prosecutors and nurses.

But in the Criminal Justice System, the Police Officer is but the initial link in any case beginning with a crime. Witness testimony, Direct Evidence, Indirect Evidence, MO, Motive, Opportunity and Ability all are essential and subject to corruption by many other people besides the police.
Include the Prosecutor, Judge, Criminal Defense Attorney and Jurors and you have MANY more possibilities for corruption that can NOT be laid at the feet of the Police Officer.

Having known many “many” police officers, I can guarantee to you that most are not capable of the incredibly complicated acts of corruption many seem to want to blame them for. Now don’t get me wrong, Police Officers are not “dumb” by any means, but if they were as sophisticated as my opponent would have you believe, then 75% of all criminal actions would not be going unsolved.

In order for my opponent to establish his foundation and support his debate to you, he MUST prove:

"Todays police use devious and underhanded methods to get results as a matter of standard practice, and perjure themselves routinely and without conscience".

As discussed previously, the key words are:
Standard Practice
Routinely
Without Conscious

Four links to corruption cases and some copy and paste from a police hater’s web site hardly qualifies.

Summary:

I will draw the reader and judges to the obvious omission of my opponents Socratic answers to my proposed questions as provided in the rules and regulations for this debate. Apparently his argument is too weak to stand up to my questions.

What we have here is a case of fact versus fiction, hyperbole versus supported evidence, copy and paste versus debate. There has yet to be anything of substance in my opponent’s debate, not even the emotional appeal I had so expected.

My opponent lists no less than four cases of corruption as his evidence. Now as I have already admitted that corruption exists, I must therefore conclude that he is providing statistical information. Assuming his statistics are complete, (No reason not to) one can only surmise that in his estimation there have been four cases of corruption in the 800,000 Sworn Officers serving today. I would say that is a pretty good percentage.

Now of course I am being facetious, but I can find nothing else in my opponent’s posts to work with.

Perhaps this will improve.

Until then it is evident and clear that:

"Todays police DO NOT use devious and underhanded methods to get results as a matter of standard practice, and DO NOT perjure themselves routinely and without conscience".

Thank you,

Semper