Corrupt Cop Can Keep His Pension

[editec]

Who here thinks that this kind of police corruption is only happening because of the OTHER PARTY?

Seriously..who is willing to admit that they are that partisan?

 

[Mini 14]

What "criminal actions" was he charged with (other than the perjury, which resulted from his testimony in a civil trial)?

Again, you're trying to apply common-sense and logic in an environment where it is irrelevant.

The man was never even accused of criminal behavior associated with his employment as a police officer. He was accused of civilly liable damages, and apparently in that trial, he committed perjury. The article does not indicate the outcome of that trial (if and what damages were awarded).

He was sued, and committed a crime during a civil trial. That crime (perjury) had absolutely nothing to do with his employment as an officer.

Do I think he's a slimeball?

Yep.

Do I think he probably "did it."

Yep.

And even in light of all that, the Board made the only legally appropriate decision they could.

And mark it down.....he's going to sue for defamation......the writer, maybe a board member or two (depending on what they said in the hearings, but more importantly, HOW they said it), and anyone else a creative lawyer can think to throw on the pile.

The man was fired and rightfully should have been prosecuted at the time for criminal activity while he was serving.

The fact that there was enough evidence to fire him in 1993 over the allegations of abuse and make it stick but no charges were filed nor was his pension revoked at the time is suspect, but not unheard of. There is a lot of truth to the concept of the blue wall, and apparently he wasn't the only officer involved.

In 2003, he testified in a Federal civil rights case based on the same allegations of abuse that got him kicked off the force in 1993 and was tried for and convicted of felony perjury as a result of his lies under oath to cover up his criminal acts and avoid liability. Right there, he should have been brought before the pension board.

In 2006 a special investigator appointed for the purpose found he and his officers did, in fact, torture and abuse suspects in order to obtain confessions. That is against the law. The fact that the State was time barred from filing charges does not bar the pension board from taking action in relation to both his felony conviction and that finding.

No allegations, accusations, findings, investigations, actions or convictions related to his time as an officer? Really?

This guy got off easy till now. The people who protected him and/or were involved and afraid for their own skins are probably gone, which is most likely why it took as long as it did to attempt to do anything about it. But the fact is that statutes of limitations do not apply to anything but the criminal law, and there was more than one official determination that the abuse took pace.

Anybody can sue anyone for anything, but to pass the giggle test and get past a summary dismissal there must be a prima facie case for the elements of the tort - which means, among other things, an actual false statement of fact in a defamation case. Just not liking someone's "tone" isn't enough.

You have said absolutely nothing that would change my opinion, or would warrant the denial of his pension. The important thing (and you said it yourself) is that he was never tried, never convicted, never accused. A special investigator's finding is not a trial, just as a Grand Jury Indictment is not a conviction.

And I agree, tone has nothing to do with it. If I say "I think he tortured those men back in 1993," that's free speech and my opinion (usually, but not always). If I say "he tortured a bunch of guys in 1993" that's an accusation, a statement of fact, and if I can't prove it is factually accurate, I'm liable for any damages it may cause the victim.

The bottom line is they screwed the pooch with this guy. If he coerced confessions or tortured inmates, they shouldn't have waited 18 years to address it.

Whether he did it or not, he's now legally innocent of any crime (other than his perjury).

I understand you disagree with the board's decision, and you think it sucks. You can write the minority opinion.

I think they got it right, and I think it sucks too

But that is the difference in what is legal, and what is right. The two don't always (don't usually, even) equate.

 

[goldcatt]

What "criminal actions" was he charged with (other than the perjury, which resulted from his testimony in a civil trial)?

Again, you're trying to apply common-sense and logic in an environment where it is irrelevant.

The man was never even accused of criminal behavior associated with his employment as a police officer. He was accused of civilly liable damages, and apparently in that trial, he committed perjury. The article does not indicate the outcome of that trial (if and what damages were awarded).

He was sued, and committed a crime during a civil trial. That crime (perjury) had absolutely nothing to do with his employment as an officer.

Do I think he's a slimeball?

Yep.

Do I think he probably "did it."

Yep.

And even in light of all that, the Board made the only legally appropriate decision they could.

And mark it down.....he's going to sue for defamation......the writer, maybe a board member or two (depending on what they said in the hearings, but more importantly, HOW they said it), and anyone else a creative lawyer can think to throw on the pile.

The man was fired and rightfully should have been prosecuted at the time for criminal activity while he was serving.

The fact that there was enough evidence to fire him in 1993 over the allegations of abuse and make it stick but no charges were filed nor was his pension revoked at the time is suspect, but not unheard of. There is a lot of truth to the concept of the blue wall, and apparently he wasn't the only officer involved.

In 2003, he testified in a Federal civil rights case based on the same allegations of abuse that got him kicked off the force in 1993 and was tried for and convicted of felony perjury as a result of his lies under oath to cover up his criminal acts and avoid liability. Right there, he should have been brought before the pension board.

In 2006 a special investigator appointed for the purpose found he and his officers did, in fact, torture and abuse suspects in order to obtain confessions. That is against the law. The fact that the State was time barred from filing charges does not bar the pension board from taking action in relation to both his felony conviction and that finding.

No allegations, accusations, findings, investigations, actions or convictions related to his time as an officer? Really?

This guy got off easy till now. The people who protected him and/or were involved and afraid for their own skins are probably gone, which is most likely why it took as long as it did to attempt to do anything about it. But the fact is that statutes of limitations do not apply to anything but the criminal law, and there was more than one official determination that the abuse took pace.

Anybody can sue anyone for anything, but to pass the giggle test and get past a summary dismissal there must be a prima facie case for the elements of the tort - which means, among other things, an actual false statement of fact in a defamation case. Just not liking someone's "tone" isn't enough.

You have said absolutely nothing that would change my opinion, or would warrant the denial of his pension. The important thing (and you said it yourself) is that he was never tried, never convicted, never accused. A special investigator's finding is not a trial, just as a Grand Jury Indictment is not a conviction.

And I agree, tone has nothing to do with it. If I say "I think he tortured those men back in 1993," that's free speech and my opinion (usually, but not always). If I say "he tortured a bunch of guys in 1993" that's an accusation, a statement of fact, and if I can't prove it is factually accurate, I'm liable for any damages it may cause the victim.

The bottom line is they screwed the pooch with this guy. If he coerced confessions or tortured inmates, they shouldn't have waited 18 years to address it.

Whether he did it or not, he's now legally innocent of any crime (other than his perjury).

I understand you disagree with the board's decision, and you think it sucks. You can write the minority opinion.

I think they got it right, and I think it sucks too

But that is the difference in what is legal, and what is right. The two don't always (don't usually, even) equate.

I understand what you're saying here, but you're missing the fact that under the law there are different processes, procedures and standards for different venues. Attempting to apply the standards of a criminal court to an administrative hearing and saying there are no legal grounds under that standard is erroneous.

You are also assuming there must have been a criminal conviction for the torture itself in order to deny the benefit. Unless the contract specifically states this, in which case there would have been no hearing at all, that is also in error.

But it appears we'll have to agree to disagree, as did the Board - split down the middle.