That would be nice if that is the case, but sometimes the F.B.I. never has to tell us about something.
Example:
If I were arrested for terrorism, They could keep me locked up forever and ever, never saying what I was charged with or how long I would be held. If the F.B.I. says none of the info can be released because of national security, not even the most expensive lawyer could get them to talk
Also, I think history has showed us that the F.B.I. has used this to gain advantage over the people. Without putting out another conspiracy theory, it seems with that kind of power is unsafe and is too open to misuse.
So basically, they seem to have never-ending, unquestionable power.
MJ, - in this thread, the only mention of the FBI was in relation to the incident in the OP, where one of their agents shot a person.
You posted your take on it (‘why do they rely on national security line when questions come up’). I guess I made the erroneous assumption that your post was in relation to the situation in the OP, so my response to it, still is:
gee, employer refuses to speak publically about situation involving employee. Big surprise.
At this point you’re introducing many other factors, situations, events etc, and trying to relate it to my comment.
The FBI does have immense powers in the country. They are not, however, completely w/o oversite. And, as a matter of fact, while there’s much discussion about the detainees etc, let me point out to you the important issue there’s much discussion about the detainees . Compare and contrast that w/situations in other countries where the national police force’s actions are unquestioned, unreported etc.
That appears to be your position, since you argue that they should receive greater protection under the law.
I’m not interested in whether there will be departmental hearings and civil trials against the department. I’m interested in when the CRIMINAL trials will be; my objection is precisely that police are not held accountable when they break criminal law, and that they recieve special protection not related to their official duties.
I don’t really see the point - you’re not disagreeing with the facts in these cases, you’re taking the position that ‘departmental hearings’ are equivalent to a felony trial. I also suspect that any online information on older cases will only be available on more fringesque websites, which means that the discussion would immediately degenerate into a discussion of whether the left-wing/right-wing sites were reporting the old information accurately.
I certainly consider a ‘departmental investigation’ that might, in the worst case, result in them losing ther job to be a minor administrative penalty when compared to a felony conviction (which, in addition to job loss, also involves years in prison and of course civil suits against the person).
You seem to be conceeding my point - what about the criminal cases?
I tend to regard noncoerced confessions as sufficient evidence that someone took a particular act. Are you disagreeing with the statements of the officers in both cases?
Ohh, desk duty, deary me, however will he survive? I don’t think that desk duty quite compares to time in jail, which is where they put a non-leo after an arrest (though they’ve dispensed with the arrest here too), while waiting for a bail hearing and hoping to be able to afford it. He’s not behind bars, still gets all kind of special protections (how many non-leos who shoot someone in the street with no justification run around with arrest powers)?
(You’d win that bet, BTW - a later article on the topic which I read on a ‘registration required’ site mentioned that).
Whoosh. Where’s the arrest and bail hearing?
That was my mistake, I got mixed up with a novel I was reading.
Why? A ‘civilian’ would be in jail waiting for a bail hearing.
With regard to the story about the FBI agent who mistakenly shot the kid (link in the OP):
I live in Baltimore, so of course this story has been all over the news here.
The FBI agent didn’t shoot him with a regular gun, he shot him with an assault rifle.
The poor kid has no insurance, and his family has set up a fund for him through a local bank to accept donations to pay for his medical treatment. The FBI has not offered to pay for any of his bills. :rolleyes:
And this is another example of police being exempt from a law for reasons not related to their official duties. While it is certainly neccesary and reasonable for police who are on police business to carry guns, why should an off-duty cop be allowed to carry a gun somewhere forbidden to the rest of us?
As I will continue to point out, ‘not long in prison’ is a whole lot worse than some minor administrative action. (In addition to minor things like being barred from voting…)
Are you joking? You think that, in Pennsylvania, a non-LEO who carried a gun into a school (misdemeanor, felony if concealed), allowed a minor to possess a (loaded) handgun without the express permission of the parents (felony), then handled the gun so negligently that they shot a kid (felony) would get a minor sentence?!?! I seriously doubt that someone would be able to get away with a string of felonies including shooting a child in a school without going to prison.
Except that this isn’t just an employer talking about employees, this is a law enforcement agency refusing to speak publicly about a situation involving a person who has shot someone in the street and who is currently sitting in their office. Slightly different matter…
Sorry I must have mis-read your first two sentences in your original post. I thought it was strange that the links said something different than what I thought was your point.
The sad fact is that we will never know who should have come foward. Maybe only a few cops knew. Maybe several choose not to know.
In NYC for me the real problem is the fact that if a police officer is in a shooting he gets 48 hours to talk to his/her lawyers and the other officers involved before the city can question them. Which basically gives them time to get their story straight. This is something the union got worked into their contract with the city. This, IMO must go.
There is a problem I think of a mentality of ‘us’ verses ‘them’. Civilians and Police have this stuck in their heads so that when an officer does break the law fellow officers still want to protect the law breaker from the evil ‘them’.
Of course we civilians sometimes lump all police in to a ‘them’ which just reinforces this behavior.
In last weeks Newsweek, one reporter said this is being phased out in new contracts. That is a good thing. I don’t know, however, how it can be phased out - maybe, this week 47 hours, next week 46 hours
What about a criminal trial? Lots of witnesses, cop admitting to having passed around the gun, dead kid… looks like any competent DA could make a case for involuntary manslaughter, or did the kid live? Reckless endangerment…
And in the case of a civillian who commits a crime in front of numerous witnesses? Charges are often filed and a formal arraignment is held within a few days If I passed around my pistol to a group of five or six year old kids and one of them shot himself, I’d be arraigned within 48 hours because there’s plenty of evidence. So how come the case isn’t the same for the cop?
The question was also raised as to the legality of taking the gun into the school, so I’ll amend my hypothetical situation to a Boy Scout meeting at a social hall where it is legal for me to carry the pistol. If one of those kids shot himself with my gun, you bet your rear that as soon as the police and the ambulance arrived I’d be in handcuffs, in the cruiser, advised of my rights, headed for jail and trying to remember my lawyer’s phone number.
If, after reviewing 100% of the case, the DA believes that a criminal case for reckless endangerment (no one died) is in the public interest, then so be it. Do I think that a police officer may be viewed more leniently regarding the criminality - yes! I’ve never been a lawyer, so I’m not 100% sure of the flow, but a grand jury indictment could take a month, maybe more. Then it gets scheduled for trial, and who knows how long until that happens. In the meantime, the DA and the defense are probably trying to hammer out some kind of deal to save time and money. A civilian would spend maybe a few hours to a day in holding cell, and an upstanding citizen with no record whose crime is a serious, potentially fatal, error in judgement, would have maybe a token bail amount set. [As an aside, I fairly certain here in NYC an off-duty officer is allowed to carry a weapon at all times; I don’t know here or in PA whether or not they have to remove it upon entering a school - PA said they are trained to remove it, but that doesn’t necessarily indicate the applicable rules and laws]. He or she would then go back to work the next day, still with no record. There wouldn’t be a criminal record until either there was a guilty plea (because the DA and defense agreed on a deal) or until a judge/jury obtained a guilty verdict. Then, the job rules as outlined in the police contract would say what happens, although I suspect cops convicted of any kind of a felony will be on the employment line. IMO, the officer and department have far more to worry about from lawsuits in civil proceedings.
This isn’t TV. It takes many, many months from the time of incident to a criminal trial in most cases. A clean citizen would be free all that time.
Then would come an indictment, then a trial. It’s a long process. The investigation, at the time the article was written, was ongoing. I’ve only one article to go off of, but besides being an ignorant bonehead, it didn’t specifically state any laws were broken. Therefore, the DA has to guess whether or not s/he has a good trial case (can I reasonably expect a conviction on reckless endangerment?), whether a trial is in the public’s interest, and then get an indictment. The exact same thought process would happen if it were you or me (assuming no criminal record).
Riboflavin pointed out various different crimes committed if it were a civilian who had used a pistol for show and tell. I’m still willing to bet that the civilian with a clean record would have spent a few hours to maybe overnight in a holding cell (depending on the length of time for a bail hearing) and would not get any jail time. Not every bonehead who does something illegal ends up in criminal trial either. There are a lot of factors taken into account for EVERYONE before a trial.
For the record, I’m not saying officers and agents are always treated as equal as civilians. I’m defending against over-the-top, overblown rhetoric. These are not yet good cases to make your point. Only the Louima case makes your point, and you could use the Amadou Diallo case also. I believe that NYC cops got away with murder (or manslaughter) in the latter case, but a jury disagreed (and it took around a year from the shooting to the acquittal). The Shooting of Amadou Diallo
I’d like to hear from a DA or law officer or defending attorneys what they think would happen. Any out there?
Ribo - the quote you selected from me was in response to the conspiracy theory.
Yes, we would prefer that our governmental agencies would be open w/us. HOwever, it’s unlikely that they’d be more open about such a situation than a private for profit company would be.
and D’Odds, I disagree w/your point re: civilian vs. LEO. If a civilian with a ‘good record’ had shot a kid in a classroom or on the street, they’d certainly be detained, perhaps a (high) bail would be set. but they certainly would have already appeared in a criminal court by now.
I disagree wring. A distinction is made between (i)pointed a gun and shot with malicious intent, and (ii)cleaned my gun and forgot to remove chamber from round. Not everyone who shoots someone else is guilty of a crime (poor judgement is not a crime - if it were everyone who has ever purchased an N’Sync CD would be in jial; an off-duty officer, licensed to carry a weapon, bringing it into a school, there may or may not be a crime there). The policewoman in the school hopefully no longer carries her pistol, and IMO should has shown judgement too poor to remain on the force. But with no malicious intent and presumably low flight risk, IF she was ever to be arraigned, bail would be low or non-existent. And even quick trials take a very long time, and by then, all these newspaper journalists (and I use that term quite loosely) will have found a new cat toy to chase after and won’t care to follow up. IF this thing were to go to trial (not the plea nor the grand jury investigation), civilian or officer, it wouldn’t be less than six months (at all times we are assuming an upstanding citizen with no record).
I don’t know more about the FBI case than what was printed in the article, which didn’t even indicate (IIRC) if race may have played a part (as many believe it did in the Diallo shooting and Louima assault). I’d really like to know why he was approaching with an assault rifle and what made his trigger finger so itchy. But good lawyers (which all LEOs have) do their best to stonewall the media and avoid a public opinion trial (makes it easier to get juries), whether it’s civilian or not. The FBI would be well served to issue some statements; why those nimrods can never realize that talking can be in their better interests is beyond me.
The fact remains that charges have not even been filed at all regarding this incident.
I can see no reason why charges would not be filed immediately in such a case - where the act occurred in front of numerous witnesses and the person responsible has never denied her actions.
I’m saying if it were me, and I don’t have a criminal record at all (else it would be illegal for me to own a handgun), that I’d currently be either out on bond or residing in the Allegheny County Jail while awaiting charges of reckless endangerment, possession of a firearm on school property, and whatever else the DA could think up. I’d very likely be represented by a public defender, and I’d be trying to keep my butt out of prison.
All that has happened to this police officer is that she’s suspended from her job? There hasn’t been any mention that the DAs are even looking at criminal charges AFAIK.
Why not?
Aside: When I first heard about this, it made me cringe. Not just because the irresponsibilty of an adult that children are supposed to trust harmed those she’s employed to protect, but because I am always aghast at those who act with such carelessness around firearms. I can’t help but think that incidents like this, with a police officer responsible for the dangerous situation add to the impression that gun owners are irresponsible. Such unsafe behavior with firearms is intolerable, and it would bother me terribly if someone so negligent were again given a handgun and sent out on the streets with it.
Couple of points:
(i) The article is a month old. A google search on the cops name in the article turned up not ONE link, including to the source article.
(ii) Therefore, it has not been proven that she was not ever charged of any crime. If you’ve further information, or even another link to a different source from the time of incident, it would be appreciated.
(iii) I don’t know exactly what is needed for someone to be charged with reckless endangerment, nor do I think that the article gives enough information for a resident lawyer to say whether or not it might legally meets the requirements.
(iv) Even if charges were filed immediately, it’s unlikely bond would have been anything other than a token amount. The judge will make a difference between a criminal act (like Justin Volpe’s) and a stupid act not bloody likely to be repeated (unless if the PD hasn’t the brainpower to take away her weapon). Your public defender will say you pose no flight risk, the prosecutor should have no reason to assume you might be. That would happen quickly, if at all. Then comes the grand jury indictment, then the jury trial.
(v) A lot of things go into whether or not you would have been held and on trial. The DA and PD don’t want to clog the criminal courts and their schedules any more than necessary. Without a strong mandate to remove boneheads* (or connections the family might have within the system), they are not going to care much. You’ll get an easy deal (I’m assuming that the officer was not legally prohibited from possessing a firearm on school grounds or you were not legally prohibited from carrying your gun wherever it occurred). Unless you were beligerrent in your dealings with them, they shouldn’t be out to punish you any more than the civil courts will (and that should be her bigger fear).
(vi) This assumes that all relationships are neutral - you don’t get a policeman who is biased against you because your socks don’t match, or a DA who doesn’t like the tint of your glasses and wants the book thrown at you, or a judge who feels that you tie your shoes wrong, etc. It also assumes that the boy doesn’t come from a prominent family (which shouldn’t make a difference, but it does).
(vii) I see the Philly article and I see a bonehead who shouldn’t be on the force (takes time for that to happen if it will happen) and should have her skirt sued right off. I don’t see someone, officer or otherwise, who is going to do any prison time for a felony. And if it were you (wouldn’t be me, I own no guns and plan never to own any) with a legally owned and carried weapon at an open field soccer practice (to remove the extra school legalities) showing the gun, I don’t think you would get into any serious trouble from a criminal standpoint regardless of anyone getting hit or not. There will be an investigation if someone gets shot - there has to be. But if the investigation says it is truly a tragic accident, absent other crimes, no one is going to jail. It serves no one any purpose.
*bonehead - anyone who would use a weapon in show and tell at a school - not directed in any post at any poster
P.S. Police should not be above the law. They should, and do, have different rules of conduct (carrying concealed weapons off-duty, investigatory powers, arrest powers, etc.). When they break these rules, they should be subject to prosecution, same as you or I. The FBI agent may be getting some preferrential treatment, with him making the argument that his gross error of judgement came while performing his job duties. He will probably be tried in the end and a jury will decide his fate, just like they did with Amadou Diallo’s case.
I don’t think a moron who knows neither how to unload a gun or the most basic gun safety (for example, keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to shoot) would qualify as a gun safety instructor, which means that passing around the gun wouldn’t qualify as safety training, so it’s pretty clear that there were multiple felonies involved.
There is no requirement of malicious intent for the third degree felony that was committed multiple times in this case. And my point is made by the fact that, as a cop, she WASN’T arraigned for committing a string of gun-related felonies.
I thought you were saying that you agreed that she wouldn’t go to trial earlier? While it’s certainly possible to look into it, and I’ll do that at some point, it seems rather odd that you’d both argue that you don’t expect her to face criminal charges AND to make a big deal over proving that she won’t.
As I’ve pointed out, she committed multiple felonies simply by passing the gun around to the kids. In the language most of us are using, committing a felony would constitute a ‘criminal act’.
And this hasn’t happened for her, has it?
Exactly; she’s a cop, so committing a string of felonies doesn’t even result in an arrest.
Actually, the ‘extra school legalities’ were one of my fundamental objections to the situation. The officer in question had no LE-related reason to carry the gun into a school, and thus the law should not grant her an exemption from the laws about carrying guns into schools (in that situation) that the other citizens of the state have to follow.
Let me get this straight - you honestly believe that someone walking out and committing multiple felonies involving firearms and children would not result in serious trouble?
Crimes like the third degree felony you don’t seem to believe exists?
That’s one the ‘above the law’ situations that I have specifically objected to. While I agree that police acting as police should have special treatment, I absolutely don’t agree that off-duty police should get the kind of special treatment that they do, especially being able to carry firarms into areas where a private citizen is prevented from doing so.
Even if he is tried, he has already recieved special treatment by not being arrested for gunning a man down in the street without justification.
Actually I would be in quite a lot of trouble. PUlling out my gun at a soccer field is considered ‘brandishing’ and in Pennsylvania, that’s a crime. As was explained to me by the issuing sheriff’s deputy when I got my license to carry concealed, such an act would result in the license being revoked and very possibly criminal charges against me.
I don’t think she will, in all honesty. However, I’m not willing to bet the farm on it. I am arguing against jumping to conclusions.
The DA has a great deal of leeway; if the aggrieved parties are not clamoring for a criminal trial, there likely won’t be one, civilian or officer.
Your interpretation (although it seems valid). Actual practice may or may not differ. But lets talk about a civilian, say…Jayson Williams. Accidentally shot and killed his limo driver while drunk. It was several days before he was arrested and he was immediately out on bail. Sure, they keep adding more charges, but right now, they are only charges, not indictments and nowhere near a trial.
Here in NYC, policing is a 24-hour a day job, and because of this they are allowed to carry firearms where a regular Joe couldn’t. Don’t know if they are required to, but they are allowed. An off-duty cop has a responsibility far greater than a citizen should s/he come across the commission of a crime. That’s why they carry firearms off-duty and can carry them into places non-police can’t.
Not criminally, but certainly civilly. Of course, there’s a lot of the aforementioned leeway. If instead of Jayson Williams living in a mansion (or Lizzie Grubman, PR millionairess running people over in the Hamptons), it was BillyJackBobJoe living in his mobile home, working for minimum, there will be different treatment. Is that right - I certainly don’t think so. The point - even civilians, in different positions, get preferential treatment. There is no utopia where everyone is treated the same.
Not what I said. I said I don’t know if they exist, nor do I know of specific exemption for law officers.
I argued why police carry guns off-duty above. I can’t say whether or not it is locally specific.
Now I’m put in the unfortunate position of defending the cops who gunned down Diallo, due to overreaching rhetoric. They were on duty. There was a call about armed activity in the area. They felt and testified that they believed Diallo posed a mortal threat (which of course was justification to rain down 41 bullets on him [yes, that aside was sarcasm]). It took over a year for a jury to decide that they were not criminally liable (wrongly, but that’s just my opinion). Last I heard, none of them were ever allowed back on the streets and IIRC, don’t even carry weapons. I know one left and tried to become a firefighter, although I don’t recall what became of that.
There was also another case near the same time, where a black man named Desmond something (or something Desmond) was killed after undercover cops tried to buy drugs from him, he said he had none, they insisted he did and things got ugly. I don’t believe these cops were found guilty of anything either, the theory being it was during the line of duty and the cops believed themselves to be in danger.
I bring these cases up because they make your point better than your first two cases. I believe you are relying to much on over-the-top rhetoric on current cases, not that you are necessarily wrong.
Last point: a drunk-driving cop who mowed down a family was indeed led away in handcuffs, arrested, and faced criminal prosecution. Not only that, but it exposed a lack of command leadership at his precint that saw many disciplinary actions to other cops at the precint (who had not killed anyone). So sometimes they do get it right. Often enough? Most likely not.
