TexasCHLforum.com

GlockenHammer wrote:

KBCraig wrote:Johnston fired a single shot from a .38-caliber revolver, according to the Fulton County prosecutor. Ballistic evidence showed that she did not hit any of the six officers, but that they fired 39 shots, striking Johnston five or six times, including a fatal blow to her chest.

I am a wee bit surprised to not see any further discussion of what appears to be a freindly fire incident on top of everything else.

I'm wondering if the friendly fire wasn't also staged. Remember that the injuries were very minor.

Liberty wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:As you know I am a strong supporter of the police and am opposed to knee-jerk reactions to bias news reports.

That said, if the police make mistakes, they need to be reprimanded and corrected. If they engage in criminal conduct, they should be prosecuted.

However, CI's lie. Period.

I refuse to indict these officers based on the word of an informant. I'll trust the FBI to sort it out.

Just curious, What do you think of these guys now? If it smells like pork, it probably is pigmeat. It smelled like pork right from the begining.

I just saw this, so I will respond.

I am saddned and angry over this incident. It appears the officers involved were inept, corrupt or both, and should, IMO, face severe consequences.

Liberty wrote:The news is full of stroies of run away law enforcement. When this story broke out, there was some law enforcements officers here that had a hard time acknowledging that the police could be at fault. and that they would reserve judgement until later.

The fact is, so many are willing to believe ANY bad news about the police, even over common sense or when the police were 100% right, that I refuse to jump to the same conclusions. You post your doubts, and I will refute. Its called communication. Why would you have a problem with that? See, I have BEEN a cop, I have seen corruption from the inside, and I fight both sides of the fight.

What is disturbing is that these incidents aren't so isolated. The New York Times is now reporting that the officers have told federal investigators that their behavior was not out of the ordinary. That corruption, planting evidence, and giving false testimony are routine at APD.

I have yet to see that article, but if true, the entire force needs a shakedown. The public has most likely lost trust in this department, and that will take YEARS to repair. That said, I imagine there are more honest cops than bad there. However, the bad MUST be dealt with, on that I agree.

Check out Corey May or Duke Rape Case. or James Giles who was convicted in 1982 or raping a woman in Dallas County, Texas. Giles served 10 years in prison and a 14 as a registered sex offender.

Maye and Duke are completely different. Maye was in a residence not listed on a search warrant. (where have I heard THAT before?) The duke case was investigated by the police and turned over to a prosecutor, who blew it. I believe he will suffer severe consequences for his malicious and unwarranted prosecution, do you not?

Giles was a cluster too. Thank Goodness for DNA evidence and prosecutors who are willing to correct these horrendous mistakes.

We will never clean up our streets while we have crooked cops. Until we have law enforcement that respects the law, we can't expect folks to respect the police officers.

while I agree with your first point. your implication that there are no current cops who "respect the law" is absurd. You have pointed some extremely bad cases of police corruption. However, those are the minority of officers. The vast majority do adhere to the law, and respect the position of trust they have been given.

I won't throw out the baby with the bath water. We, society, need to be vigilant and intolerant of any LEO who violates the law or is corrupt. But I refuse to indict all officers, or even to be suspicious of them. When evidence presents itself, then fire away.


On a side note, you might find it interesting that I just stirred up a hornets nest on another forum, a cop forum. A cop made a highly officious and inappropriate statement on a public forum in response to a citizen question about police behavior.

I jumped him with both feet. The conversation ended up in a restricted section, where the officers could hash it out "as in the locker room". The offending officer received a thorough thrashing from the other cops about his attitude towards his public, and his general arrogance and lack of respect. I told him he didn't get respect by wearing a badge, but by what he does while wearing that badge.

I hope this gives you a little insight into my position.

txinvestigator wrote:The fact is, so many are willing to believe ANY bad news about the police, even over common sense or when the police were 100% right, that I refuse to jump to the same conclusions. You post your doubts, and I will refute. Its called communication. Why would you have a problem with that? See, I have BEEN a cop, I have seen corruption from the inside, and I fight both sides of the fight.

Corruption inside is terrible whether it is political, police judges or prosecutors. I also have seen what such corruption can lead to. It destroys. It destroys the towns, it destroys real lives. One of the things makes this corruption grow and exist is the willingness to pretend and not see the evil in bad cops. The same cops who will look at the citizens with suspicion will seldom look at their brother officers with the same eye. While we all know that most cops are honest and given a choice they will perform honorably. It only takes a few to screw up years worth of reputation and confidence. whats going to happen in Atlanta now? Any case these officers touched will be in doubt. Because it took the Feds to expose this corruption, How much confidence will the Altanta residents have in the police department. These officers should have been instantly suspended. Instead the department let them participate in the investigation. while it may be only 10% or 5% or 6 people in the whole department that are corrupt. Becacause the chief and the department initially defended these people and waited until the Feds solved the case. The whole of the Atlanta police department comes under suspicion while the Drug dealers will thrive. All of this happens because of the "blue Brotherhood" a reluctance for cops even good ones to go after their own. Most cops won't even give another cop a speeding ticket.

I have yet to see that article, but if true, the entire force needs a shakedown. The public has most likely lost trust in this department, and that will take YEARS to repair. That said, I imagine there are more honest cops than bad there. However, the bad MUST be dealt with, on that I agree.

We can agree on this. but what I hope happens is that the Altlanta department doesn't wait for the state or the Feds to clean house. The department should keep its on house clean

Maye and Duke are completely different. Maye was in a residence not listed on a search warrant. (where have I heard THAT before?) The duke case was investigated by the police and turned over to a prosecutor, who blew it. I believe he will suffer severe consequences for his malicious and unwarranted prosecution, do you not?

Giles was a cluster too. Thank Goodness for DNA evidence and prosecutors who are willing to correct these horrendous mistakes.[

Duke and Giles weren't caused by a defective police dept. but the prosecutors office. It still a part of destroying confidence in a corrupt system.

We will never clean up our streets while we have crooked cops. Until we have law enforcement that respects the law, we can't expect folks to respect the police officers.

TXI wrote:while I agree with your first point. your implication that there are no current cops who "respect the law" is absurd. You have pointed some extremely bad cases of police corruption. However, those are the minority of officers. The vast majority do adhere to the law, and respect the position of trust they have been given.

I didn't mean to imply that the anywhere near most officers are corrupt. But it takes a very small minority to ruin a depatments credibility. I do think that a lot of officers take a see no evil hear no evil speak no evil aproach to their fellow officers. and this is how the corruption is able to exist. The sole public whistleblower in Atlanta was the informer. The indictment comes from the feds and not internal. The chief was giving speaches defending these guys while us outsiders were shaking our heads in disbelief.

TXI wrote:I won't throw out the baby with the bath water. We, society, need to be vigilant and intolerant of any LEO who violates the law or is corrupt. But I refuse to indict all officers, or even to be suspicious of them. When evidence presents itself, then fire away.

Its this lack of aggresiveness that allows the corrupt cops to thrive and advance. A department that polices itself is less likely to have these things happen. If they are the ones that find and toss the bad cops out, they will be able to maintain the publics confidence. It is shameful that Atlanta had dragged its feet on this one.

TXI wrote:On a side note, you might find it interesting that I just stirred up a hornets nest on another forum, a cop forum. A cop made a highly officious and inappropriate statement on a public forum in response to a citizen question about police behavior.

I jumped him with both feet. The conversation ended up in a restricted section, where the officers could hash it out "as in the locker room". The offending officer received a thorough thrashing from the other cops about his attitude towards his public, and his general arrogance and lack of respect. I told him he didn't get respect by wearing a badge, but by what he does while wearing that badge.

I hope this gives you a little insight into my position.

Awful things happen to the department and the citys when things get too carried away. A police officer is a powerful position of public trust. I think its important that they are held to a higher level of accountability than the rest of us.

Liberty wrote: Most cops won't even give another cop a speeding ticket.

So what? That is called discretion. A cop does not have to issue any particuar person a ticket. However, I don't know ANY officer who would stand by and look the other way over criminal activity of another.

txinvestigator wrote:

Liberty wrote: Most cops won't even give another cop a speeding ticket.

So what? That is called discretion. A cop does not have to issue any particuar person a ticket. However, I don't know ANY officer who would stand by and look the other way over criminal activity of another.

What happened in Atlanta with warrents how it was routinely handled. Lies and fast-tracking. Didn't anyone ever question it? Even if they weren't doing it themselves were they watching each other? I've been on the right side of being practically ticketproof in one town. but it doesn't make it right, If this discretion is good to ticketproof all cops, is it also a good idea to ticketproof all the white guys. or anyone who is well dressed. or any women if she is cute. Cops treating other cops special is the tumor for which the cancer grows.

`nuff said from me ...

Liberty wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

Liberty wrote: Most cops won't even give another cop a speeding ticket.

So what? That is called discretion. A cop does not have to issue any particuar person a ticket. However, I don't know ANY officer who would stand by and look the other way over criminal activity of another.

What happened in Atlanta with warrents how it was routinely handled. Lies and fast-tracking. Didn't anyone ever question it? Even if they weren't doing it themselves were they watching each other? I've been on the right side of being practically ticketproof in one town. but it doesn't make it right, If this discretion is good to ticketproof all cops, is it also a good idea to ticketproof all the white guys. or anyone who is well dressed. or any women if she is cute. Cops treating other cops special is the tumor for which the cancer grows.

`nuff said from me ...

You are wrong on this issue. As I have already pointed out, a cop does not have to write ANYONE in particular a citation. Why should that be different if he stops another LEO. I gave plenty of warnings to non-LEOs, and just let others go with a verbal notice. If I choose to warn a cop, that is discretion.

Any cop who believes he is ticketproof and drives like that will soon find himself sitting in a supervisors office, internal affairs, or a courtroom after being written by someone who was just tired of his arrogance.

Its funny to me, because of a cop does not write another cop it does not affect YOU at all.

txinvestigator wrote:Its funny to me, because of a cop does not write another cop it does not affect YOU at all.

What is the purpose of traffic laws? Is it public safety? Why are violators given citations? Are they endangering public safety?

- Jim

Traffic Laws?
Public Safety?

Nope.

My first programming job was putting Accident Reports on Computer. News on traffic violations still catch my eye.

There isn't a relationship between speeding tickets and accidents.

I consider all traffic law enforcement to be the "Tax Accessor" part of the police officers job.

tomneal wrote:Traffic Laws?
Public Safety?

Nope.

My first programming job was putting Accident Reports on Computer. News on traffic violations still catch my eye.

There isn't a relationship between speeding tickets and accidents.

I consider all traffic law enforcement to be the "Tax Accessor" part of the police officers job.

I disagree. As one who enforced traffic laws, speeding is a significant cause of accidents AND increased severity.

I just studied the city of Plano's budget. ALL municipal court fines collected (includes code violations, traffic, etc) account for less than .6% of the total city revenue.

What might the officers face for falsifying evidence. The damage done by being caught doing this is severe both for the victim and the police department.

They should have huge manditory minimums for planting evidence. Like, triple whatever the accused would be facing. Or if someone is seriously injured while doing so - 10+ years, if someone dies - they should get life. At their hands - the death penalty.

Didn't I already see this movie?
Don't tell me, it was.... Leo DiCapprio.... and Matt Damon..... Jack was in it....

tomneal wrote:Traffic Laws?
Public Safety?

Nope.

I strongly disagree. Most traffic laws are truly safety related and are directly related to the causes of accidents. Not all, but most.

My first programming job was putting Accident Reports on Computer. News on traffic violations still catch my eye.

There isn't a relationship between speeding tickets and accidents.

If there is not a relationship between the tickets and the accidents, then the enforcement was not done properly. When I was working traffic, or supervising a section, I always ensured my traffic enforcement occurred in direct proportion to the percentage of accidents in that area. I would try to lower the accident rate by enforcing traffic laws.

But, I will also point out that there is an obvious problem with the way you are correlating the two. If you entered the accidents and not the tickets, you do not have a fair basis of comparison. Even entering both might not give you a fair comparison since the heavy traffic enforcement might have the actual effect of cutting the accidents in this area, thus making the data looked skewed. Unless you do a full, unbiased, scientific study to compare the accident rate in areas with and without the enforcement, under properly set up conditions, this is also going to lead to an invalid conclusion. Anecdotal evidence and gut feel checks can be proven wrong by a proper study, much as they can also be proven right.

I consider all traffic law enforcement to be the "Tax Assessor" part of the police officers job.

Having pointed out that there are officers who enforce traffic laws strictly based on safety (and I do think it is the majority), I will freely stipulate that there are some police administrations, city administrations, and state legislators who do see traffic enforcement as a source of revenue. This is even more true of the state than of any other entity.

In most cases, the cities do not get to keep that much of the ticket fine. They are caught between a rock and a hard place in trying to keep the overall fines low enough that people do not rebel against the city and the rising amount of court costs that must be sent to the state for each conviction. In the average ticket, the state gets over half the funds and sometimes as much as 3/4. Check all the funds mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure that any conviction must have included and I think the current total is either $87 or $92.

Then consider that to get any money, the city must have a judge, a prosecutor, and a clerk at the minimum, plus pay for the courtroom and its associated costs (utilities, furniture, etc.). In a small town like Luling, we can safely figure about $150,000 per year in direct court costs (three salaries, training, court room costs, etc.). The bailiff comes out of the PD budget, as do the salaries for the officers on duty writing the tickets and the overtime for testifying in court. Rounding the numbers off, we can estimate that the cops need to get 1500 convictions per year ($100 per ticket). That is 30 convictions per week, which is a good ratio for any court. It is doable, but then, it is not really easy either. Add in the police part of the budget, and it becomes real questionable if there is any profit in tickets for a small town. Larger cities can get some economy of scale to help, but still cannot cover a significant portion [abbreviated profanity deleted] the police budget and the court budget too.

By contrast, the state gets the court costs for the funds at the cost of adding a few clerks to the comptroller's office. Then we add a few more to DPS's office and we start looking at the surcharges for people who get certain tickets or too many points. Every time there is a new special fund somehow even loosely tied to crime, there is a new court cost added on. The surcharges were added under a finance compromise bill and not part of public safety debates. This convinces me that the state legislators see traffic enforcement as revenue and not public safety.

Overall, I think you will find very few officers who write tickets for revenue gains (yes, there are still a few). I think the number of towns who see tickets as revenue has shrunken greatly in the past 20 years, especially with the anti-quota laws passed to stop putting pressure on officers. But, the state does see it as revenue and we need to talk to the legislators about that, not blame the officers.

According to the Texas Budget for 2006-2007 Biennium the total State revenue from "Fees, Fines, Licenses and Penalties" was under 10% of the state revenue.


I could not find a breakdown of that from traffic fines only, but that list includes ALL licensing done in Texas, such as CHL, Private Security, etc,

srothstein wrote:

tomneal wrote:Traffic Laws?
Public Safety?

Nope.

I strongly disagree. Most traffic laws are truly safety related and are directly related to the causes of accidents. Not all, but most.

The problem is that the violations aren't necessarily unsafe, even if the majority of unsafe drivers who cause accidents are also violating those traffic laws.

For instance: the traffic code declares that exceeding the posted speed limit is prime facie evidence of "unsafe speed". The TC then declares that this does not apply to emergency vehicles. The same applies for most moving violations. (I admit I'm not as familiar with TC as PC, so correct me if I'm wrong.)

Sorry, it's either unsafe, or it's not. It's not less safe because the driver is a LEO in a marked unit with active lights. And I'll note that most traffic stops involve the officer driving in ways that are greater violations than the subject committed.

Yes, I've been the beneficiary of "professional courtesy" for speeding. Speed isn't necessarily unsafe, and if I worked the streets, I wouldn't have written a citation under those circumstances.

Now, if we want to talk about "too fast for conditions", then let's talk. But exceeding the posted speed does not automatically constitute "unsafe speed", no matter what the law says.

Kevin