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

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Boadicea

I remember a few years back the locals quit prosecuting mj cases unless the officers would call the prosecutor and get them on scene during the bust. It was done cause they were losing so many cases.

Interesting... do you recall why they were losing cases?

I'm wondering if jury nullification had anything to do with it. I know I wouldn't vote to convict anyone for a simple marijuana possession charge, probably not even a distribution charge. I do reserve my right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case!

I really do not know the details. It was various technical procedures not being carried out and then hot shot lawyers finding loophles.They were losing cases on large bust alot. I do recall there was a couple mentions of people having to wait hrs on the side of the road for a dog to show up but now that is changed and the person can not be held beyond the normal time it takes to write a ticket if permission for search is not givin. If the cops do not have the dog with them now then they can't make someone wait on one to arrive.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

I don't know about you, but I'd rather citizens have the upper hand when it comes to constitutional rights.

Public servants shouldn't be able to plead the fifth in the context of their capacity while on duty.

Try going to your boss and pleading the fifth while being asked about something you did at work and get back to me on how that works out.

a reply to: Boadicea

It might sound good in theory, but Kim Gardner has her own corrupt tendencies that make her questionable herself.

a reply to: UKTruth

...sounds like she is crap at her job and wants to blame everyone else.

Hmmm... sounds like? But you have absolutely nothing to substantiate such an accusation? Just "sounds like"? Care to actually substantiate your charges? Because it sure "sounds like" you're just attacking her to protect dirty cops...

But I'm happy to hear any/all arguments to substantiate your accusations. There are plenty of precendents cited and linked to in the OP. You could start there...

so your home is robbed, your wife raped and badly beaten. you call the police. they come, they do their job, they arrest the suspect. yet the prosecutor decides not to even accept the case. and so the felon is just let go free? just because you had the bad luck to have the police officers that were sent to deal with the crime are blacklisted? sounds like a situation that can easily result in vigilantism. and the thing is the vigilante would actually be in the right, in this type of situation, to take justice into their own hands because the legal system refuses to do their jobs.

i am sorry but not just no, but HELL NO to a prosecutor being allowed to discriminate over what cases get to be taken to court, based upon solely the police officers involved. this prosecutor needs to immediately be fired and disbarred from practising law. and they should probably be investigated with criminal charges pending to see if they have allowed their bias to get in the way of justice.

if there is an issue with certain police officers, then those police officers in question need to be taken off duty (NO PAY, loss of benifets and pensions), and be propperly investigated for wrongdoing. if they are indeed found guilty of crimes, then they should of course be charged and prosecuted for those crimes. if they are found not to have done anything, then their jobs can be regained with back pay and restoration of pensions and benifets. that is the propper way to deal with the situation. not a prosecutor deciding to prosecute crimes based upon the police officers involved.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

You think public servants should be aloud to plead the fifth while in the process of trying to convict a citizen with a crime?

Exactly.

I would never take an officer's right to plead the fifth from them... that's what makes it a "right" and not a "privilege." But that should ONLY be necessary and proper in which charges have been brought against the officer specifically. NEVER in a case that officer brought against someone else.

Indeed, in such a situation, all charges should be dropped against the defendant. If the officer cannot and will not provide the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then the entire case is tainted and suspect.

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
a reply to: CriticalStinker

What do I mean identity politics?

Have you lived under a rock for the past 5 years?

St. Louis, home of the "hands up, don't shoot" fabrication about the evil White police forces targeting poo defenseless minorities?

I love how coy and dumb some of you play.

Soo....

You must be a big eric holder fan!

That is who oversaw the fed investigation on that cover up.

Apparently to some that is the only thing obama and crew ever got right in 8 yrs.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I said nothing to be perceived as subjective in my last post with the exception of my hypothesis that this is a publicity stunt.

So don't go boxing me in as though I've taken a 'pro or con' position. I merely stated the facts as they are.

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
a reply to: CriticalStinker

What do I mean identity politics?

Have you lived under a rock for the past 5 years?

St. Louis, home of the "hands up, don't shoot" fabrication about the evil White police forces targeting poo defenseless minorities?

I love how coy and dumb some of you play.

WTF does that have to do with cops not presenting all evidence to a judge/jury?

You're the only one playing identity politics on this topic, the rest of us are viewing this as citizen rights.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
This won't last.

Due process is constitutionally guaranteed. Judges can't just circumvent the constitution because they don't want to deal with the case load, regardless of whether her logic is just.

What due process??? The officers are not being charged with a crime. Nor do any officers have any right to be an LEO. That's a privilege, not a right. Nor do any officers have a right to testify against someone.

So what due process is being compromised?

This is a publicity stunt, meant to draw attention to the alleged shady law enforcement.

You cannot possibly believe that every single law enforcement agency and every single LEO is squeaky clean. That just isn't possible, therefore it's not realistic.

So do tell me how/why you KNOW that the St Louis LE agencies would be?

a reply to: generik

so your home is robbed, your wife raped and badly beaten.

How about a big no to that one....

if there is an issue with certain police officers, then those police officers in question need to be taken off duty (NO PAY, loss of benifets and pensions), and be propperly investigated for wrongdoing.

You are somewhat correct in your thinking but perhaps this is not about crimes that could be charged but possibly about some that are just not upto par with their abilities. Maybe this is is about incompetence and not criminality and in that case it just becomes an administrative action.

If a prosecutor can "ban 2.5% of a force and raise the prosecution rates then they should. They very much follow the corporate model on the admin side of things.

a reply to: Boadicea

That speaks to 2 things: Prosecutor's conviction percentage and the integrity of the police department.

Prosecutors are "graded" based upon their conviction percentage; a higher conviction rate = more bonus points and makes them look "tough" on crime, no matter what the truth is. These prosecutors can then move on to becoming judges or DA's.

Police departments really have a responsibility to the community, which is what they seem to forget. They work for the community and they should be a part of the community but they should also NEVER consider themselves above the law or better than the community in which they serve. They should be the "good guys" and they should arrest the "bad guys." Instead it seems that they tend to create the bad guys, or create situations in which they can arrest or execute citizens to keep themselves in power.

It really speaks to the human condition when people are deathly afraid of law enforcement officers, to the point of not calling them when a suspected crime is in progress. Quite sad really.

a reply to: Boadicea

It's opposite day every day here. Members complain about police all the time and to excess. A judge tries to tackle the bad ones and suddenly the police are victims. Opposite day mixed with people who check who's R or D before commenting.

a reply to: steamiron

The best case of irony I see is people who humor the Q thread, and that the deep state is out to screw everyone....

But god forbid 28 police officers be held accountable for shady tactics in one city, the humanity.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Boadicea

It might sound good in theory, but Kim Gardner has her own corrupt tendencies that make her questionable herself.

Thank you -- and not to minimize or discount your point, but with the current politics and criminal charges against the Governor, I'm inclined to think politics are playing a big role in all of these. I know some folks aren't happy about the deal she made with the governor:

ST. LOUIS • Attorneys for Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens contacted St. Louis prosecutors on Saturday, proposing that he would resign from office if Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner would drop a felony charge against him.

Both moves came to fruition this week, with the governor’s abrupt announcement Tuesday that he’d leave office by the end of the week, and Gardner’s agreeing to drop the computer tampering charge he faced in St. Louis.

ETA: Source
Perhaps Ms. Gardner is the problem. Perhaps she is misusing and abusing her powers.

But for me, the more important point, is that a prosecutor does have the power and authority to refuse cases from LEOs whose conduct jeopardizes legitimate cases... and/or who bring illegitimate cases to her office for prosecution. Of course it can be abused, and perhaps Ms. Gardner is, but it is a valuable tool when used rightfully.

a reply to: Boadicea

From the information in OP and source, this seems to be warrented and an excellent step toward ensuring real justice! Good news for everybody except the crooked cops (as you mentioned this is exactly what the good LEOs need).
Thanks for posting, Boadicea.

a reply to: Boadicea

Thank you -- and not to minimize or discount your point, but with the current politics and criminal charges against the Governor, I'm inclined to think politics are playing a big role in all of these. I know some folks aren't happy about the deal she made with the governor:

Politics do play a big role in that case and any others that Kim Gardner has handled.

Here's what a former prosecutor had to say about Kim Gardner:

I Worked In St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s Office. Her Indictment of Gov. Eric Greitens is Most Disturbing.

medium.com...@dwightwarren2940/i-worked-in-st-484d601c8c87

When asked about the evidence in court, the Circuit Attorney told the judge that she needed time to collect it. The time they needed was just until the mid-term elections in November. That date can seem arbitrary, but it’s not. I think this smacks of politics.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Q

The cops should be charged with contempt. They're supposed to be working for justice not turning up to disrupt it. 28 blues with bad reps ain't so bad out 1200 officers. 2% be good.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

I do have some experience in this subject, albeit from my spouse:
The officer IS the main witness if they plead the 5th, or fail to appear there is no case.

If the officer lies in cases, they are no longer a credible witness.

example... 4 officers from a rural police force refused to show up to court cases, which had to be thrown out. The excuse they used was they lived several hours to the south in a large city ( where they were formerly employed as officers), where they alleged they never had to appear...no witness no case. After many cases of this my spouse would no longer accept cases from said officers.
after a inquiry it turns out the officers had been fired from the former jobs for egregious reasons, and the only place that would hire them was the tiny rural town, of which the made up a quarter of the force.

Here's the thing about St. Louis. The entire city from top to bottom is one huge embarrassment to the state of Missouri. Including the area's representatives in state government and in our U.S. Congress. You can't trust any of them. They probably all deserve each other.