NYC--A Cop Exonerated Is Not A Cop Without Guilt

Michael Mineo lost his case against Richard Kern, the cop pictured at left.The jury deliberated for under 3 days before deciding that Mineo’s case did not defeat that of the defense. The cop defense brought out the points that Michael Mineo was a member of a street gang and smoked pot regularly. They also accentuated the facts that Richard Kern and his two fellows, Andrew Morales and Alex Cruz, accused of covering the wrongdoings of Kern, were brought up in catholic schools, were outstanding family men, and were generally good-doobees.

That caused the jury to find reasonable doubt in Mineo’s story and they decided against him. A civil suit is still pending, and will not be affected by the outcome of this trial, but even with a victory at the civil level, Richard Kern will have his life go on without change, except to say he “won”. He has been in at least two other lawsuits, one of which was dismissed, and the other settled for $50K.

Tell me, did Michael Mineo injure his own anus, resulting in an internal infection and requiring a 2-3 day stay in hospital? (Cops said Mineo had a pre-existing condition.) Did Michael Mineo secretly plant his rectum’s DNA on Richard Kern’s nightstick to make the cop look guilty of sodomy? (Cops say it isn’t explainable.) And what explains the hole in the anal area of the boxer shorts? Did Michael Mineo put it there before going out in expectation of an encounter with the police baton? (Cops say it must have been there before.) With that, the jury found reasonable doubt in Michael Mineo’s case.

There is a cloud hanging over the heads of otherwise well-meaning citizens when they enter the jury box to hear a case. Is it cop retribution? Simple gullibility in court? Could it be that cops never lie, or a belief that if citizens don’t lie for cops, the cops won’t lie for a citizen when needed? Something in jury instructions? Or is it the total failure of the citizen’s lawyer to choose from the jury pool to his client’s advantage? All wrong-headed, but all very possible.

When these cases continue to favor the police, (Louima, Bell, and others), they don’t just undermine the confidence in the police department, they don’t just undermine the confidence in the judicial system, they undermine the citizen’s confidence in fellow citizens. Cops meanwhile, further divide us from our sense of justice and the desire for equal freedom in our country. This fallout must be brought to a stop with a citizen-controlled, decision-making body with singular authority to hire and fire.

Richard Kern said he wants to

“get back on the street and do what I love to do: protect the people of Brooklyn.”

He doesn’t get any wrongdoing. It is one thing for a judge to not find wrongdoing in a legal sense, but this guy thinks there was actually nothing wrong with shoving a nightstick into Michael Mineo sufficient to cause anal injury and collect identifiable DNA on it. Does he expect to reap applause from passersby when patrolling the streets of Brooklyn from now on? “Horray Kern! You really showed that guy!” Oh, please….

His buddy, Andrew Morales, is no more in touch than he is:

“Morales, one of the officers acquitted of hindering prosecution, thanked his family for supporting him during the trial."It was very hard sitting there listening to all the lies," Morales said.””

This, coming from a person in a profession that relies heavily on lying to do daily business. Hmmm…

Out of touch. Out of contact with reality. Thinking police are above the law.

This happened because of Academy training, (“You are always right, so you must always win”), police union support, (“We are behind you, Brother, no matter what, so don’t worry”), and previous jury decisions, (“Cop lawyers will do everything to convince those fools to convict their own again. You are as good as exonerated.”). That is the cop’s explanation. What’s ours?

Will NYC Kelly’s Cops Finally Meet Hire And Fire?

In a change of policy that is truly shocking on the surface, the Police Commissioner in New York City in has decided to allow the civilian review board to charge and prosecute some cases of police misconduct, those where the cop was deemed to have committed misconduct. Read It Here.

“Deemed To Have Committed”

Magic words, aren’t they? While encouraged by the announced change, this is another “throw ‘em a bone” move by Commissioner Raymond Kelly. So, let’s see here…. the citizens won’t just investigate, they won’t just recommend, they will prosecute as well. OK, as long as that means carrying out the discipline, up to and including termination if the board deems it necessary to protect the public from the misconduct the cop perpetrated against a citizen. But “deemed to have committed”? Deemed by whom? Commissioner Kelly? Another non-citizen body? Let’s leave the deeming to the citizens. Only then will Kelly’s promise be worth his expelled breath.

Mayor Domenic Sarno of Springfield MA blew this same smoke, so did Baltimore Commissioner Frederick Bealefeld III. Second-hand smoke is offensive, but we’re up to third-hand now, and the air is definitely getting funky.

Neither Sarno or Bealefeld have gotten anywhere with the smoke trick. Why should Kelly?

Why?

The whole reason for a review board is to shield the public from the effects of the lies and delusions cops suffer from every day, (cops are always right, cops own us, cops are the law, etc). Case in point, the Atlanta woman who was arrested for asking why she was being told to move along. Cop answer? “Because I said so.” Read About It. And Here's More.

This crap isn’t just in Atlanta, it is everywhere there is a cop working the streets. Cops get away with anything they are allowed to get away with, just like a young child with absentee parents. The Atlanta review board is no better than the NYC board because they do not have hire & fire, and it shows in daily cop antics, as displayed by Brandy Dolson of the Atlanta PD. With H&F, a cop would save the smart mouth for friends and relatives, or lose employment. The decision to get courteous and stay there would be easy and swift.

With Commissioner Kelly implying power to the review board for the purpose of determining the outcome of police misconduct is a good promise, but the real proof will be when a guilty cop is totally adjudicated by the civilian board from start to finish, found guilty of misconduct, and fired. Not to make him a sacrificial lamb, but to prove to the people of NYC that a civilian board’s decisions are real and will stick.

Commissioner Kelly, go big or go home. Don’t throw a bone to the citizens, give them the solution they deserve, and start today with cases you have on the books today. Hire and Fire in a Civilian Review Board is the answer, and you need to step up.

Cops Say Citizen Oversight Won't Work Part 2

Why Cops Say It Won't Work Part 1
Why Cops Say It Won't Work Part 3
Why Cops Say It Won't Work Part 4

#2-A Citizen Review Board With Teeth Violate Police Policy
Cops love their policy. It comforts them when challenged. It protects them in time of need. Or malfeasance. Or misconduct. Or dishonesty. But what the hell is it?

It is a manifesto of sorts. Self-conceived, self-declared, self-applied, and self-insured. To put it another way, it is a personally created quasi-reality that puts cops in the position of “winner”, and citizen “loser”. Show me a police policy where the arrestee is right and I will show you a typo. What is mystifying about the declared policy is how it can say one thing, and be interpreted as the opposite.

What Are The Cop Policies, Really?
Police policy, as we have come to know it, has featured cop-heavy advantages and citizen-light rights, all wrapped in language that serves to prove the lofty intentions and goals of the department. They read very well, if you can go through hundreds of pages, and they say everything the citizen would like to believe their tax-funded police department is about. Problem is, cops can assert that every move they make is within those policies. They always claim they are right, even when policy says doing it is wrong. Then cops arrest citizens for the very crimes they commit themselves. It is a one-sided force majeure.

But every cop, every Chief, every police union will swear that we citizens cannot understand policy, so cannot make any decisions about whether policy was followed during any cop activity. But magically, other cops can, and with unerring perfection. It’s all in the interpretation.

Let’s use their philosophical foundation as an example, from two cities:

Lawrence, Kansas --- “The officer is committed to the welfare of the public through the rule of law and professional service, places high value on objectivity and integrity, and maintains the highest standard in providing service.”

Madison, Wisconsin --- “Law Enforcement Code Of Ethics-- As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property, to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence and disorder, and to respect the Constitutional rights of all persons to liberty, equality, and justice.”

Madison and many other cities adapted their ethics policy from the International Association of Chiefs of Police Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, 1957.

With these attributes stated, a phony sense of righteousness takes hold as soon as the cop is sworn in, right up there with mom and apple pie. This sort of statement always begins the policy manual, and functions as an extension and reinforcement of the Academy’s message that cops are always right, must always win, and with the added layer of belief that cops always stand for justice, and they have been trained to insure the delivery of it. So, for a cop to be convinced that he is serving mankind and protecting the weak is to believe being wrong is a physical and mental impossibility for him, and losing is for citizens.

Now What?
With that psychology in place and a recruit’s ego at full speed, the rest comes automatically. If a cop stops an innocent motorist on a pretext, (a lie), it is all in the name of public safety, the very thing the code of ethics requires him to uphold. If evidence is gathered on a ruse, (lie), instead of a search warrant which leads to a legitimate arrest, the end justified the means and the Constitution can take a hike. Public safety takes precedence. If one cop gets into a possible legal bind, other cops must rescue him (alter evidence, falsify a report), because they may need the favor returned some day, and a unified front is the most effective crime fighting method. And if a cop mistakes a bottle of Mountain Dew for a weapon, and beats an 18-year-old viola player’s face in, it was all done in the name of “officer safety”, while they are keeping the citizens of the city free of crime. Jordan Miles of Pittsburgh would appreciate that. I am sure he feels “free” of crime with a beat-in face. But the cop is fulfilling the stated philosophical foundation of his profession, because his can’t be wrong. That leaves those non-cops out there, (citizens), to be wrong. It is all in the interpretation.

Clarity Is Needed
This moves us to the problem with Police Policy. So, what is it again? It is not the law as written and passed by the state legislature, it is not the word of the people who instructed their PD to carry it out, and it is not part of any federal or state Constitution. It is just a manifesto, conceived by cops who want a getouttajailfree card. While the reading of the manual makes the PD sound like the distillation of every positive character trait ever possessed, the execution of the police policy confirms the real foundation of cop training: “There are only two kinds of people, cops and assholes.”

An effective CRB will dissolve this policy façade in short order. When the manual is understood and practiced in the literal terms with which it was written, all is well. When the seeds of perfection from the Academy and the oath cops take are dismantled and replaced, we will start to get somewhere.

How? When the literal terms are violated, that cop is off-duty and his case is reviewed by the CRB, and discipline is handed out. It won’t take many episodes like that for the manual to be revised by the PD. With each revision, it will look more like what the citizens want their PD to be, and that is the only goal. Good for the people, good for honest cops whose hearts and minds are responding to an honest calling. All it takes to achieve this is a willing public. Form a Citizen Review Board, and we can put some perfume on this stinker.

Why Cops Say It Won't Work Part 1
Why Cops Say It Won't Work Part 3
Why Cops Say It Won't Work Part 4

Cops Say Citizen Oversight Won't Work Part 1

Police departments are taught and encouraged to lie about anything to make their lives more pro-cop. After the Academy training is over, one of the first things a green cop learns at his first precinct is that gray cops will teach him all he “really” needs to know. There is absolutely no attempt at honesty in that tradition. When a cop speaks a true fact, it is just a coincidence.

With that said, the following will point out some of the reasons why cops think a Civilian Review Board will never work. Remember, a cop will lie about anything he can get his thoughts around. Lying is a tool of his trade, and here is the first on the list---

#1-A CRB Isn’t Needed Because Oversight Already Exists In The PD

Oh, Brother. This excuse is Sarah Palin stupid. What oversight entity is being sited? Internal Affairs? A panel of stooges hand-picked by the department who don’t want the job and rarely show up to do it? The police Chief himself, because he is all the deciding power any city needs? Maybe a group of peers, other cops, who will objectively decide the guilt of one of their own.

Interestingly, entities like this don’t find a cop guilty of much of anything, or if guilty, there is no actual discipline. A cop is put on desk duty with pay, is asked to stay home with pay, or better yet, is given a 10 day suspension that is carried out at the rate of one day per month for 10 months. Cops are also big fans of a finding of “no wrongdoing”. That’s the one pulled out in just about every cop misconduct case that goes to court.

Such cases take years of time and tons of money on the part of the victim, (citizen), while the cop involved spends the time doing the same job he did before, the one that got him into trouble in the first place, and continues to collect the paycheck the citizen signs. What a racket. But the PD’s oversight is sufficient, right?

Don’t Worry, Be Happy

Cops say it is much more than sufficient. They say cops watch each other constantly, and desire oversight more than citizens do to protect their reputation and that of their department. So, citizens can just trundle off to the kiddie table at Thanksgiving and try not to embarrass the adults. Yeah sure, and Jack Bauer really does save the world in 24 hours.

Reality Strikes

When a citizen is accused of drunk driving, immediate steps are taken to accuse, arrest, breathalyze, and collect evidence on that citizen, (a blood draw, a roadside body search, an impound and search of the car), all of which is “used against you in a court of law”, as Miranda says. Months of financial burden and time-consuming litigation follow, often resulting in the loss of employment.

When a cop is found drunk while driving, the cop is given a ride home with a fellow cop and a “friendly” tow truck company is called to take his car home, safely depositing it in the driveway. Weeks or months later, a quick review of the facts by IA or the Chief do not reveal any need for further investigation. No expense or court time follows, and the paycheck continues uninterrupted.

Citizen: arrest, impound, breathalyzer, license suspension, lawyers, court dates, employment loss, one disruptive and costly punishment after another.

Cop: free ride home.

Internal Affairs calls this sufficient oversight. If the decision-making is left to the Chief, he may water down the offense until he can hand out a punishment that has no real meaning. Either way, nothing happens.

Some PD Chiefs claim they can’t fire or even suspend a cop because the department is short-handed. Better criminals working for the citizen than nobody at all, right?

Cops who are cut breaks after a DUI----(links taken from the BaldArchives)

Joe Zepeda, Westchester NY

Christine Phinney, Charleston SC

Jeffrey Peirce, Dennis MA

Meanwhile the jail nearby contains citizens who were over-charged and lied about by the same cops who’s crimes are overlooked and kept out of court. On occasion, a cop will be charged with a crime that has already been decided in favor of the cop, to make it look like the PD oversight is doing the job citizens want to see. They go through all the motions, and collect all their paychecks, and it is all a sham.

Want another one? OK. It’s about advocating harm to someone, but not actually doing anything…..

Citizen does it, instant and deep doo-doo.....

Cop does same thing, and well, it was just a joke, so chill out.....

.

Thanks for the above two links, Packratt.

A Citizen Oversight Panel will do something that cops cannot bring themselves to do. The panel with power to hire and fire will find cops responsible and accountable for their actions, and the constant lie factor cops use will cease its effectiveness. We will sculpt our departments, morally, physically, educationally, offensively, defensively, and with the character we want to see cops exhibit daily. We’ll get our money’s worth.

But a side-effect comes along with this in a “trickle up” effect, again good news for the citizen. Cops rely heavily on a security blanket they call their “policy”. What the hell is that, and how will a Citizen Review Board effect it? Part 2 coming.

Cops Say Oversight Won't Work Part 2

Cops Say Oversight Won't Work Part 3

Cops Say Oversight Won't Work Part 4

Springfield Mayor Sarno Wimps Out On Review Board Promise

Springfield Massachusetts must be breathing a sigh of disgust with today's anti-climactic announcement from the Mayor’s office that there is now a new civilian review board to oversee police antics against the citizenry. This board can only recommend discipline to Police Commissioner William Fitchit, but take no action on their own.

Yes, they can subpoena people and evidence to assist in their recommendations, but what good is it if Commissioner Fitchet can ignore what the board concludes? We have all been here before and for far too long. As it has played out across the nation for years, the board makes a recommendation on behalf of the citizens to stop an errant cop from repeatedly biting the hand that feeds him, the Commissioner pats them on the head and thanks them dismissively, and everything stays the same. All the Jeffrey Ashers in Cop-land go out tomorrow to beat more Melvin Jones’s with the very flashlights We The People bought them. Mayor Sarno, unless you have a Chapter Two on this subject to reveal quickly, shame on you for letting us all down.

It is called TEETH, Mayor. The citizen will hire and fire the police. How much clearer do you need it? Jeffrey Asher has been on the force for years through many occasions of misconduct and he is still there. That means the “hire and fire” guy in the PD was asleep at the switch. Get rid of Jeffrey Asher yourself if you can’t bring a citizen review board into the department to do it. Call Donald Trump to teach you the words, “You’re Fired”. Do something definitive. But please, stop stringing along the citizens of Springfield.

Baltimore Police Are Blowing Commissioner Fitchet's Smoke At Us

The Baltimore Police Department must have been in contact with Police Commissioner William Fitchet of Springfield MA with this one.

Commissioner Fitchet recently suggested that a citizen overview panel with the power to discipline cops is exactly what his city needs because he is too busy fighting crime to punish his cops himself. Springfield Mayor Sarno called for such a panel. Commissioner Fitchet then defended his cop Jeffrey Asher after the beating of Melvin Jones III, who suffered severe injuries while other cops watched. Now, which one does Fitchet really mean? Is he for or against? Maybe both? Neither? Smoke?

Whatever the logic, Baltimore Police Commissioner Frederick Bealefeld III (above and left), is now trying the same tactic in his city. Read it here.

Public Lying, 101
How do you delude the public?

First, promise them something you know they want. (The Baltimore Police Dept will release the names of officers involved in shootings.)

Next, call what you are doing the result of an epiphany. (Bealefeld consulted with various members of the community, and saw the light.)

Then, explain why you didn’t do this long ago. (“Our concern throughout this entire time has been the personal safety considerations of officers and their families, but we have an obligation as a public safety agency to balance transparency and we feel 48 hours would give us ample time to put things in place for the officer while being transparent enough for the public”.)

Smell the smoke? Is Bealefeld doing the Fitchet Shuffle in Baltimore? Sounds like it. First say yes, and then say no. The Commissioner of the Baltimore Police Department plans to give his cops a 48 hour window before identifying them to put safeguards in place after one or more cops shoots somebody. Interestingly, absolutely no description of what the safeguards are or why they are needed is ever explained. Only that they would be put in place in 48 hours. After that, the names would be released. It is getting smokier in here.

The Reality Of The Promise
Interestingly, this moment of clarity on Commissioner Bealefeld’s part comes just when Baltimore’s Mayor Sheila Dixon is on the way out and newly-elected Stephanie C Rawlings-Blake is coming in. Is the Commissioner trying to pull a fast one on the new kid in town? What a guy. There is no shortage of smoke now.

Stephanie C Rawlings-Blake and her aides revealed “frustration” about not knowing of the policy change before. Maybe that is because the decision has nothing to do with solving citizen complaints against cops in Baltimore and more to do with keeping the pot stirred and the smoke blowing.

Cops say they have citizen support for continued secretion of police names, but none of those in agreement with the current, “no name” policy have the ability to explain the protections the Commissioner would put in place in that 48 hour window, or why we are all better off leaving individual cop identity a secret. Does anybody know what this protection would be? Something like the Witness Protection Program? Maybe the cop should hide in a cheap motel on the outskirts of town until the heat is off? Possibly, they could all wear ski masks. Suspicion is, there’s no action to put in place during that 48 hours except for cops to formulate and agree upon the lie they will trot out to the news and the citizens. Just more smoke.

Ego is what cops breathe every day. Arrogance is what cops eat for dinner, and they are what they eat. The whole idea of withholding the name of a cop for any reason is an outgrowth of arrogance, especially when the citizen makes the payments on that cop’s whole existence.

By bringing this issue to the table, Commissioner Bealefeld is pulling two, worn-out liar’s tricks on us all: the distraction and the delay. Ask any magician or sleight-of-hand performer as to their effectiveness. And to make it worse, he is doing it to the new Mayor on her first week on the job. He has no intention of changing anything, if his comments are any indication.

Mayor, get some movement on a citizen Review Board, with the power to hire and fire, in gear and working. While you are at it, get on the Commissioner’s back today, and make the citizen’s right to know the names of who is shooting them a law, possibly through the use of a citizen oversight panel.

And Baltimore Police Commissioner Bealefeld, shame on you. Shame of you for trying the same old tricks, and for believing the citizen will fall for them. You are wearing a curly wool coat.