Jump to content

Police Misconduct In Public Office - When Criminals Wear Badges


Recommended Posts

Like millions of other free-minded, Truth-seeking citizens of Michigan / America who are - at least as much as I am - fully disappointed and dissatisfied with the Worldly Corporate Mass-Media's lack of insightful, intelligent news coverage of the all too commonly wide-spread and blatant "Police Misconduct in Public Office," particularly when we are all the more disgusted and disturbed by the deliberately violent, terroristic hate-crimes horrifically committed against "We The People" of Michigan / America by the fear-driven, weapon-wielding, masked agents of the Oakland County Sheriff's Department, I decided to do a bit more proper investigating on my own, as most of us are inclined to do so when we are - as we normally are - left with no alternative other than to uncover The Truth of any relevant matter for our always compassionate, caring and very concerned selves.

 

The POLICE, as most people in Michigan / America hopefully and finally realize, are NOT "above the Law," as much - I am as sure as most of us cannot help but see - the most violent of people with badges and guns might like themselves to be.

 

But, we almost fear and hate to ask, to what degree of violent crimes are certain so-called "Public Servants" of Michigan / America more than willing and inclined to commit against "WE" the very citizens of "The State" of Michigan that these criminal-minded agents of government "of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE" are allegedly sworn "to serve and to protect"?

 

Well, if you're fully prepared to be at least as whole-heartedly perturbed and disgusted by the vile and revolting actions of the "anti-free" patient, free-minded citizen-robbing "Agents of MIS-Fortune," like Sheriff Bouchard and his gang of Law-abusing, rights-robbing, gun-toting thieves unlawfully shielded by the likes [and, apparently, dis-likes] of Prosecutor Jessica Cooper ... then read on:

 

*******

 

“Misconduct in office” charges also apply to officers who criminally assault prisoners. Defendant was a lieutenant in a police department who while on duty was notified that a prisoner had dropped dog feces on the floor of the jail. The lieutenant ordered the subject to pick the feces up but the prisoner refused.

 

When the prisoner refused, defendant grabbed the prisoner by his shirt, pulled him out of his cell, slammed him into some lockers, and proceeded to hit him in the face, knocking him to the floor. Defendant then began striking the prisoner’s arms and legs with nunchucks and pushed the prisoner’s hands over the feces.

 

The prisoner was then stripped down and placed naked back in the jail cell.

 

The officer was convicted of assault and battery and “misconduct in office.”

 

“To convict on the charge of misconduct in office, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant (1) is a public officer, (2) the misconduct occurred in the exercise of the duties of the office or under the color of the office, and (3) is corrupt behavior. “

 

[The Court] HELD – “It is undisputed that defendant was a public officer and that the misconduct against the prisoner occurred in the exercise of defendant’s duties or under the color of the office. Further, it is apparent that defendant’s misconduct was intentional, i.e., resulted from a corrupt intent, in that his acts ‘demonstrate a tainted or perverse use of the powers and privileges granted them, or a perversion of the trust placed in them by the people of this state, who expect that law enforcement personnel overseeing inmates will do so in a manner that is fair and equitable.’”The defendant argued that if his conviction were upheld it would strike fear in police officers around the state from enforcing the laws for fear of being charged with crimes.

 

The court replied that, “If our holding will strike fear in the hearts of police officers throughout this state so that no public officer, under color of the office, will feel entitled to behave in the egregious manner that this defendant did, it would achieve a result that will certainly benefit our criminal justice system. A badge, although a shield offering protection against the imposition of criminal and civil liability for legitimate acts attendant to the performance of official duties, is not a license to perpetrate crimes against or terrorize people during the performance of those duties. When a misguided police officer abuses or contorts the special privileges and powers afforded him or her, a public confidence is breached, resulting in a unique harm to society that threatens our system of justice.” People v Milton, C/A No. 234080 (July 8, 2003).

 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2003july_71109_7.PDF

 

For further legal review (especially more so for "public servants" like YOU, Ms. Cooper!), please, see:

 

"People v Milton"; found here:

 

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1354967.html

 

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-505

 

Well, speaking for myself, I can honestly - as much as I do regretfully - say:

 

"My confidence feels ...well, pretty darn breached"! (In fact - Waaay breached"!)

 

How 'bout YOURS?

 

Please ....

 

End Our Pain!

 

FREE The CURE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah!!

 

you tell it, bro!

 

Wow! Thanks for the smiles!

 

Much obliged!

 

I was happily surprised, when I just got done with posting "a thank you" to you, to come back to find your reply!

 

Sure glad you can appreciate the article.

 

And, CHEERS! to Synchronicity at it's finest!

 

Long live Serendipity!

 

(And, remember: "In life, there ARE NO 'Coincidences'!")

 

Be FREE!

 

And, SHARE The HARVEWST

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 People v. Aldrich, 246 Mich.App. 101, 124, 631 N.W.2d 67 (2001).  “Jury instructions must include all the elements of the charged offense and must not exclude material issues, defenses, and theories if the evidence supports them.”  People v. Canales, 243 Mich.App. 571, 574, 624 N.W.2d 439 (2000).  

I copied that from the finding link you posted.. why is this precident being ignored in many cases of affimative defense.. Such as in Archie Keils case.. the jury was not allowed to use affirmative defense defense in his case..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually i said that wrong.. the defense attornies werent allowed to use the affirmative defense.. the Jury was not given the full information about the case and when they asked to see a copy of the mmma rules they were denied that.. How can judge allen of crawford county get away with not allowing them to see That particular element of the charged offense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to

bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.

 

Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.

 

The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.

 

During 2009, the FBI investigated 385 color of law cases. Most of these crimes fall into five broad areas:

 

• excessive force;

• sexual assaults;

• false arrest and fabrication of evidence;

• deprivation of property; and

• failure to keep from harm.

 

Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive."

 

Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the person if he or she doesn’t comply.

 

False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person's civil rights may occur.

 

Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.

 

The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.

 

Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.

 

Filing a Complaint

 

To file a color of law complaint, contact your local FBI office by telephone, in writing, or in person. The following information should be provided:

 

• all identifying information for the victim(s);

• as much identifying information as possible for the subject(s), including position, rank, and

agency employed;

• date and time of incident;

• location of incident;

• names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es);

• a complete chronology of events; and

• any report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.

 

You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office in your district or send a written

complaint to:

 

Assistant Attorney General

Civil Rights Division

Criminal Section

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest

Washington, DC 20530

 

FBI investigations vary in length. Once our investigation is complete, we forward the findings to the U.S. Attorney’s Office within the local jurisdiction and to the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which decide whether or not to proceed toward prosecution and handle any prosecutions that follow.

 

Civil Applications

 

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a pattern and practice investigation include:

 

• Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers' actions;

• Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force;

• Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and

• Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries.

 

Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, the Department of Justice has the ability to initiate civil actions against mental hospitals, retardation facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention facilities when there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of institutionalized persons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...