# Prosecutors: Police witnesses uncooperative in Ohio shooting



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

Prosecutors are preparing to question more than a dozen police officers as hostile witnesses if they continue to be uncooperative before the trial of another officer accused of firing the final shots of a 137-round barrage that killed two unarmed suspects in November 2012, according to court documents.

Prosecutors: Police witnesses uncooperative in Ohio shooting


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

40 hits out of 137 shots, almost 1/3 shots on target. These guys could be used as sharpshooters on NYPD.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Sounds crazy to shoot that much. I wonder what went down prior?


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Camel923 said:


> Sounds crazy to shoot that much. I wonder what went down prior?


Article says high speed chase but they were unarmed. Speeding?


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

If the only violation was speeding and no other note worthy things happened, these guys will and should go to prison. I would just like to hear the entire story.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Camel923 said:


> If the only violation was speeding and no other note worthy things happened, these guys will and should go to prison. I would just like to hear the entire story.


I was joking on the speeding. Presumably they were wanted for something, but 137 shots at someone who is unarmed is something you'll find from time to time. Notice of these incidents goes back at least as far as Amadou Diallo. The odd thing seems to be the hostile witness designation.


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

My issue is that the cops are refusing to cooperate with the prosecutor because of the one cop jumping on the hood of the car shooting the victims after they had already been shot is being charged. Clearly in the wrong but still being protected.

I understand the police are a brotherhood but why protect a guy when he was in the wrong = public mistrust. In my opinion, I feel every one of the police officers not cooperating should be fired.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

MaterielGeneral said:


> My issue is that the cops are refusing to cooperate with the prosecutor because of the one cop jumping on the hood of the car shooting the victims after they had already been shot is being charged. Clearly in the wrong but still being protected.
> 
> I understand the police are a brotherhood but why protect a guy when he was in the wrong = public mistrust. In my opinion, I feel every one of the police officers not cooperating should be fired.


Well, we've had a bunch of threads on just that subject and most of the cops on the forum seem to think I'm an idiot because I don't trust the police. Somehow they think I have a character flaw because I don't trust the untrustworthy.

IMHO the only way for the police to restore trust with the public is to do exactly the opposite of what they are doing, i.e. get rid of bad cops instead of protecting them. Since that seems unlikely to happen I am in favor of sticking a camera on every one of them.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Those cameras are undependable. Always malfunctioning.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Not sure how hostile witnesses are questioned different than other witnesses..but it sounds plausible Cant believe the cops wouldn't just go ahead an confess to whatever the prosecutor was wanting to hear. Hope they have smart lawyers.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

Crime of passion
The most violently denied among them because it's human, happens and there is not a consideration for "he got up on it a little".
Out there they don't say "yeah, people do" they all line up and say ""AUM!!"


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Deebo said:


> Those cameras are undependable. Always malfunctioning.


And if the thing is turned off, all charges should be dropped against anyone arrested. Simple.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

Diver said:


> Article says high speed chase but they were unarmed. Speeding?


Sounds about right.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

MaterielGeneral said:


> My issue is that the cops are refusing to cooperate with the prosecutor because of the one cop jumping on the hood of the car shooting the victims after they had already been shot is being charged. Clearly in the wrong but still being protected.
> 
> I understand the police are a brotherhood but why protect a guy when he was in the wrong = public mistrust. In my opinion, I feel every one of the police officers not cooperating should be fired.


This is why the tide of public opinion is shifting against the police. There have been far too many cases of police brutality and misconduct that have gone unpunished and unprosecuted in recent years. Police circle the wagons and protect one another, even when they have very clearly violated the law.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Diver said:


> I was joking on the speeding. Presumably they were wanted for something, but 137 shots at someone who is unarmed is something you'll find from time to time. Notice of these incidents goes back at least as far as Amadou Diallo. The odd thing seems to be the hostile witness designation.


!st How does one determine they are unarmed if they're inside the car and you are outside. Know I don't have x-ray vision and I doubt if any cops out there do either.

2nd what part of you have the right against self incrimination don't we understand? Just cause the DA hasn't yet charged them those that were there and did fire shots all could be eventually charged. So If you have a right to remain silent, why don't these cops? What they're servants and not full citizens?


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> !st How does one determine they are unarmed if they're inside the car and you are outside. Know I don't have x-ray vision and I doubt if any cops out there do either.
> 
> 2nd what part of you have the right against self incrimination don't we understand? Just cause the DA hasn't yet charged them those that were there and did fire shots all could be eventually charged. So If you have a right to remain silent, why don't these cops? What they're servants and not full citizens?


Why fire 137 shots at someone who isn't shooting at you? Maybe after you've fired the first 50 shots with no return fire, that's a clue.

As for right against self incrimination, that only applies for the person charged. It doesn't apply if you aren't charged. If the issue was self incrimination all the hostile witnesses need to do is request immunity from prosecution.


----------



## jdbushcraft (Mar 26, 2015)

MaterielGeneral said:


> My issue is that the cops are refusing to cooperate with the prosecutor because of the one cop jumping on the hood of the car shooting the victims after they had already been shot is being charged. Clearly in the wrong but still being protected.
> 
> I understand the police are a brotherhood but why protect a guy when he was in the wrong = public mistrust. In my opinion, I feel every one of the police officers not cooperating should be fired.


If you are accused of some, any legal infraction, what are you going to do? Are you going to have a long chat with the prosecutor about what happened or clam up and refuse to answer anything except through your lawyer? Do you cooperate and let them search you and your car when pulled over?


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

Diver said:


> Why fire 137 shots at someone who isn't shooting at you? Maybe after you've fired the first 50 shots with no return fire, that's a clue.
> 
> As for right against self incrimination, that only applies for the person charged. It doesn't apply if you aren't charged. If the issue was self incrimination all the hostile witnesses need to do is request immunity from prosecution.


I agree, 137 shots fired and no return fire is kind of excessive and if it was me I would request immunity, but then I would probably be hated and labeled a snitch.


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

jdbushcraft said:


> If you are accused of some, any legal infraction, what are you going to do? Are you going to have a long chat with the prosecutor about what happened or clam up and refuse to answer anything except through your lawyer? Do you cooperate and let them search you and your car when pulled over?


You didn't read the story right. Its not the officer being charged that clammed up it is the other officers that were present at the time that refuse to talk to prosecutor. They are not being charged, they are just a witness.


----------



## jdbushcraft (Mar 26, 2015)

MaterielGeneral said:


> You didn't read the story right. Its not the officer being charged that clammed up it is the other officers that were present at the time that refuse to talk to prosecutor. They are not being charged, they are just a witness.


They aren't free and clear by any means. Anyone that fired a shot could be charged at any time. I don't think throwing someone else to the wolves makes them any safer. I dunno. I don't think I'd be quick to say anything either.


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

jdbushcraft said:


> They aren't free and clear by any means. Anyone that fired a shot could be charged at any time. I don't think throwing someone else to the wolves makes them any safer. I dunno. I don't think I'd be quick to say anything either.


It is their duty though. If they do not want to say what happened in the performance of their conduct or another officers conduct then they should be fired and all charged.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Deebo said:


> Those cameras are undependable. Always malfunctioning.


That's the"get out jail free" card.


----------



## jdbushcraft (Mar 26, 2015)

MaterielGeneral said:


> It is their duty though. If they do not want to say what happened in the performance of their conduct or another officers conduct then they should be fired and all charged.


They have a whole internal affairs dept whose job is to investigate.


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

This is beyond internal affairs.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

There ought to be a lot of dashcam footage from this case as well. With the number involved they would need ALL the cameras turned off and hope the jury was truly stupid.


----------



## jdbushcraft (Mar 26, 2015)

MaterielGeneral said:


> This is beyond internal affairs.


All the more reason to lawyer up and shut up


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

jdbushcraft said:


> All the more reason to lawyer up and shut up


True, but it should also be grounds for firing.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

No matter how it ends up, . . . it won't be pretty.

A lot of the "shooting" that has been done in some of cases in the last few years seemed to have been "well, . . . my buddy, Joe, was shooting, so I thought I'd help him put fire on the subject(s)", . . . and not from any personally observed reason for firing.

I'm thinking this is indeed most of the rounds down range here.

Whatever, though, . . . just reminds me I never had a real need to go to Cleveland.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## jdbushcraft (Mar 26, 2015)

Should a Leo expect fewer legal protections than any other citizen? 
I just see people constantly railing about how their rights are always being infringed, but put a Leo in that position and suddenly it's hang em high.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

jdbushcraft said:


> They aren't free and clear by any means. Anyone that fired a shot could be charged at any time. I don't think throwing someone else to the wolves makes them any safer. I dunno. I don't think I'd be quick to say anything either.


Perhaps we ought to make JDB here a senior member. I'm curious why he's the only one to comprehend that there is no statute of limitations on murder. That means that any of he officers involved can be charged at any time with everything from an accessory before or after the fact to murder.

And the right to not self incriminate oneself starts when question one is asked. That's why if we believe you've committed a crime and you're not free to leave we have to read you Miranda. And the first part is "You have the right to remain silent"

JD welcome to PF. Most of these guys and gals are straight shooters most of the time. Don't judge them just by what they've posted in this thread


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Diver said:


> There ought to be a lot of dashcam footage from this case as well. With the number involved they would need ALL the cameras turned off and hope the jury was truly stupid.


Maybe quite a bit, but you have to understand how dash cams work. If the strobes in front are activated the dash cam is supposed to come on. However if you only have your warning blues (the back flashers) the dash cam usually doesn't activate. Also if you shut off the front strobes the cam cuts off


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> Maybe quite a bit, but you have to understand how dash cams work. If the strobes in front are activated the dash cam is supposed to come on. However if you only have your warning blues (the back flashers) the dash cam usually doesn't activate. Also if you shut off the front strobes the cam cuts off


This doesn't sound like it was a small number of cops, and if I were a cop involved in this situation I would want footage and would make every effort to see that my cameras were working. If one car didn't get footage, there would still be footage from other cars.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Lesson to be learned do not run from the Police. STOP .Put your hands up sort it out. If you do not know what those flashing lights mean you should not be driving.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Diver said:


> This doesn't sound like it was a small number of cops, and if I were a cop involved in this situation I would want footage and would make every effort to see that my cameras were working. If one car didn't get footage, there would still be footage from other cars.


As I said, it all really depends on which emergency lights were activated. We had a shooting here about 16 or 17 years ago back when dash cams were new. Both deputies had their full light bars activated thruoughout the shoot out. It was a good training tool. You could see from the second on scene deputy's camera how the first deputy is missing until he lifts up his head and takes a good aimed sight picture. At the next shot the bad guy went down for the count.

Again it would be nice to have all the camera's working, but I'm guessing that more than a few were not


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Milwaukee COP enacted NO chase policy , now everybody just hits the gas a go. Police are not allowed to chase them. Help reduce over crowding in the jails and courts I guess.
Crime is down with arrest not being made.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> Lesson to be learned do not run from the Police. STOP .Put your hands up sort it out. If you do not know what those flashing lights mean you should not be driving.


Would you advise the same thing when multiple cops start trying to shoot you?


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> Milwaukee COP enacted NO chase policy , now everybody just hits the gas a go. Police are not allowed to chase them. Help reduce over crowding in the jails and courts I guess.
> Crime is down with arrest not being made.


Any reason not to take a plate number and pick the guy up later? It should also reduce the number of cops killed in traffic accidents.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Diver said:


> Any reason not to take a plate number and pick the guy up later? It should also reduce the number of cops killed in traffic accidents.


Plate number is worthless on a stolen car or stolen plates. If LE happens to know who it was and they do get them latter DA will not take the case.
Wake up we live in a messed up world. LEO did not out him at risk he put himself there all he had to do was stop.
If you run from LEO and put others in danger and you get shot justice is served.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Diver said:


> Any reason not to take a plate number and pick the guy up later? It should also reduce the number of cops killed in traffic accidents.


First you've got to be able to prove joe schluckatelly was behind the wheel when you go to swear out the warrant for him or her.

Second most cops that die in traffic accidents are responding to calls not in chases. So I guess that while you're getting beat up by Joe Schlukatelly that it would be ok by you if the responding officer traveled at 5 under the speed limit.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

jdbushcraft said:


> Should a Leo expect fewer legal protections than any other citizen?
> I just see people constantly railing about how their rights are always being infringed, but put a Leo in that position and suddenly it's hang em high.


The cops in question here are not charged with anything. If a cop won't act as a witness when a crime is committed can he really function as a cop?


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> First you've got to be able to prove joe schluckatelly was behind the wheel when you go to swear out the warrant for him or her.
> 
> Second most cops that die in traffic accidents are responding to calls not in chases. So I guess that while you're getting beat up by Joe Schlukatelly that it would be ok by you if the responding officer traveled at 5 under the speed limit.


Well, you don't seem to need to prove who was behind the wheel for all the red light camera tickets so that isn't a problem. We're presumably talking about something like an outstanding warrant. If the guy is so unimportant that the cops won't go pick him up, is he important enough to have a high speed chase? Particularly one that ends with shooting a couple unarmed people more than 20 times each?

As for getting beat up I don't see how a high speed chase lessens the risk of that. If the guy is driving he isn't beating anyone up. Besides the local cops are on record they won't protect me. They didn't when I was attacked by the schizo and they told me they won't protact me in the future.

I have never called 911 except to report traffic accidents at the side of the road (required in NJ) and I don't intend to call in the future, so don't lay some BS on me like these jerks are going to respond if I am getting beat up. I won't be reporting it and they won't be doing anything. Totally irrelevant.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

Screw ups all around. They should not have fled from the police. There was misinformation being fed to the officers. But 49 rounds by the one cop seems like major overkill to me.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Diver said:


> Well, you don't seem to need to prove who was behind the wheel for all the red light camera tickets so that isn't a problem. We're presumably talking about something like an outstanding warrant. If the guy is so unimportant that the cops won't go pick him up, is he important enough to have a high speed chase? Particularly one that ends with shooting a couple unarmed people more than 20 times each?
> 
> As for getting beat up I don't see how a high speed chase lessens the risk of that. If the guy is driving he isn't beating anyone up. Besides the local cops are on record they won't protect me. They didn't when I was attacked by the schizo and they told me they won't protact me in the future.
> 
> I have never called 911 except to report traffic accidents at the side of the road (required in NJ) and I don't intend to call in the future, so don't lay some BS on me like these jerks are going to respond if I am getting beat up. I won't be reporting it and they won't be doing anything. Totally irrelevant.


I don't know where to begin with you and your lack of knowledge about police work.

First - and I will say that my information is dated - the last time I saw a picture from a speed control camera, it clearly had the License plate and a good frontal photo of the driver. And since my information is many years old, I wouldn't be surprised that the red light cameras operate in a similar manner.

Second - we really don't care about your issues with your local police. You've got them and seem to believe that it's all the police's fault. One could never imagine that Diver would ever be at fault for anything that may have befallen him.

Third - knock off badgering the new kid. You seem to believe that only you have rights and us servants (or is it serfs) aren't afforded the same constitutional protections that your sorry - - - __________ XXXXX has. Want to try badgering someone try me sonny.

Fourth - you've never explained just how the cops are supposed to know that the two in the car were unarmed. I don't know how to do that and I don't think you can explain that either.

Fifth - they did possess a weapon. And it wasn't concealed. It's called a car. Let one clip you at about 20 MPH and you'll as a minimum be hobbling around for a week or so.

Sixth - folks that drive recklessly (see your state code for that definition ) place everyone elses' lives at risk. Hey for a laugh why not rent Mad Max the first version and watch the opening chase scene. Would you want some reckless driver who didn't stop for a stop sign running down your (child, grandchild, wife , girlfriend significant other)? Don't think so.

And while I may have been answering a silly post of yours, my question is for the general audience. My belief is that every woman being beaten by her worthless boyfriend want that responding cop to be there yesterday.

And I really wish you would be more respectful of those that may have mental health issues. We don't call you a ret - - - not out of respect for your feelings, but we truly understand that their afflictions are most likely not of their making while your's may be self generated


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

Well just another oby type thing


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> I don't know where to begin with you and your lack of knowledge about police work.
> 
> First - and I will say that my information is dated - the last time I saw a picture from a speed control camera, it clearly had the License plate and a good frontal photo of the driver. And since my information is many years old, I wouldn't be surprised that the red light cameras operate in a similar manner.
> 
> ...


The fellow that attacked me actually is a paranoid schizophrenic. That's his psychiatric diagnosis. I mean no disrespect to anyone here who may be a psychiatric patient by referring to my attacker as a "schizo". My disrespect is reserved for that individual and the idiot cops who subsequently brought him into my home without my permission after he had attacked me.

As for someone else calling 911, I suppose that is their prerogative. Given my experience it is my recommendation you deal with the situation yourself.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

I am skeptical of ALL LE due to bad experiences and abuse of my rights for over 40 years.

Yes, doing NOTHING wrong/illegal. Those bad apples should have been culled long ago. Some/most are still out terrorizing the public and many should be in prison.

I have also been helped by a good many respectful and kind officers. Why they tolerate and condone the rotten element is beyond comprehension?

I trust NONE of them. And I am sorry to say this as there are good LE.

Maybe some of the good LE can enlighten us to why the rotten filth is tolerated and in some cases held in high esteem?


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

No please don't start a "worse than religion!" Cop thread!


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

oddapple said:


> No please don't start a "worse than religion!" Cop thread!


Well religion would lead to beheading. Cops seem to prefer shootings with the occasional strangulation. Completely different.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Mad Trapper said:


> I am skeptical of ALL LE due to bad experiences and abuse of my rights for over 40 years.
> 
> Yes, doing NOTHING wrong/illegal. Those bad apples should have been culled long ago. Some/most are still out terrorizing the public and many should be in prison.
> 
> ...


Not by I. I've done my share to put at least five back into civilian life where they belong. Bad cops give all of us good ones a bad reputation.

But going back to why these other officers are not testifying, I firmly believe that they can see anything that they say being used against them. As I said in a previous post they have the same right to remain silent just like you do and murder has no statute of limitations on it.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Thank you good Sir.

Some should not be civilians, they are not civil, they should be inmates.

God bless you all on good Friday, and happy Easter


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Mad Trapper said:


> Thank you good Sir.
> 
> Some should not be civilians, they are not civil, they should be inmates.
> 
> God bless you all on good Friday, and happy Easter


You won't get an argument from me on that. Putting them there is hard some times.

In some cases it has not so much to do with the officers guilt or innocence but what would happen to the thugs he put behind bars that matters


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> Not by I. I've done my share to put at least five back into civilian life where they belong. Bad cops give all of us good ones a bad reputation.
> 
> But going back to why these other officers are not testifying, I firmly believe that they can see anything that they say being used against them. As I said in a previous post they have the same right to remain silent just like you do and murder has no statute of limitations on it.


Ask for immunity. End of problem.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> You won't get an argument from me on that. Putting them there is hard some times.
> 
> In some cases it has not so much to do with the officers guilt or innocence but what would happen to the thugs he put behind bars that matters


And if some of the "thugs", are innocents?


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

Push the "let the dead fight with the dead" button and move on to worthy pursuit


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Mad Trapper said:


> And if some of the "thugs", are innocents?


If they're innocent they should be released, but There aren't many - in my experience - that are "innocent". But those that are ought to go free.

What you expect me to say no one is innocent? Nah!


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> If they're innocent they should be released, but There aren't many - in my experience - that are "innocent". But those that are ought to go free.
> 
> What you expect me to say no one is innocent? Nah!


Of course with the two unarmed guys with 20 bullets each we don't need to worry about whether they were innocent.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Diver said:


> Of course with the two unarmed guys with 20 bullets each we don't need to worry about whether they were innocent.


You know you're just like a broken record.

Let's try something. Let's see if I can tell if you're armed. Guess what I can't . Want to know why? Cause I can't see on the other side of the barrier.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> You know you're just like a broken record.
> 
> Let's try something. Let's see if I can tell if you're armed. Guess what I can't . Want to know why? Cause I can't see on the other side of the barrier.


Actually you can. I'm in NY during the day and NJ in the evening. It is illegal for me to be armed outside my home in either place. That's because of the onerous gun laws passed to protect the cops. Of course no one cares whether mere citizens live or die. The local cops have made that crystal clear.

Back to the OP, you could also tell they were unarmed by the fact they weren't shooting, before, during, or after being shot at 137 times. Now the guy that jumped on the hood and pumped the last 15 bullets into them point blank was probably pumping bullets into dead bodies, but on the off chance one of those guys was actually still alive and might have survived if given medical care, what do you think the appropriate charge would be for the that cop? and if the witnesses (the other cops) won't testify in this case, is there any reason any of us should ever testify either to help solve a crime, or on behalf of a cop accused of a crime?

From your position so far it sounds like one should always plead the fifth, not matter what the situation is. Unless of course there is not even one cop who was at the scene who did the right thing and kept his gun in his holster.

What we have here is a total screw up by the cops who were shooting, at best. Anyone who wasn't shooting and still won't testify is covering up for those who were shooting. I think the ones who aren't charged should be fired. If they won't help solve a crime, they shouldn't be cops.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Diver said:


> Actually you can. I'm in NY during the day and NJ in the evening. It is illegal for me to be armed outside my home in either place. That's because of the onerous gun laws passed to protect the cops. Of course no one cares whether mere citizens live or die. The local cops have made that crystal clear.
> 
> Back to the OP, you could also tell they were unarmed by the fact they weren't shooting, before, during, or after being shot at 137 times. Now the guy that jumped on the hood and pumped the last 15 bullets into them point blank was probably pumping bullets into dead bodies, but on the off chance one of those guys was actually still alive and might have survived if given medical care, what do you think the appropriate charge would be for the that cop? and if the witnesses (the other cops) won't testify in this case, is there any reason any of us should ever testify either to help solve a crime, or on behalf of a cop accused of a crime?
> 
> ...


You have a right to your opinion. Wrong headed as it may be. Was it a good shoot? I don't know as I've not seen any of the documentation that has been put together by the OIS team, the Feds or the State Attorney Generals Office.

That said, I go back to my original premis. If you think you're going to be charged with a crime for what you did, then go to the first part of Miranda. You have the right to remain silent.

Since a charge of murder can be brought against a person at any time up until he's in a pine box, then each officer's decision to testify is based on his belief of how likely he is to be charged and convicted.

As for firing them, those that were going to be fired have been. At least that's what one of the local papers said. Others have been disciplined by the police force. Should they be fired?
Well if the PD, the state AG nor the Feds can dredge up something on them, then only each officer knows why he/she is not testifying.

He - - you don't want your rights violated, why are you so darned set on denying this group of folks their Constitutional Rights?

Or is it cause you (like the idiot at 1600 PA Ave) know in your heart what needs to be done to obtain justice.

If I wore you I wouldn't whine about someone violating my Constitutional Rights for anything that happens to you. Not after how you've singled out this group of officers for your brand of lynch mob justice


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> You have a right to your opinion. Wrong headed as it may be. Was it a good shoot? I don't know as I've not seen any of the documentation that has been put together by the OIS team, the Feds or the State Attorney Generals Office.
> 
> That said, I go back to my original premis. If you think you're going to be charged with a crime for what you did, then go to the first part of Miranda. You have the right to remain silent.
> 
> ...


I am not suggesting denying them constitutional rights. You have no constitutional right to keep a job as a cop (or any other job) if you won't do the job. Testifying in criminal cases is part of the job of being a cop. I wouldn't charge them with anything based on not testifying, but I wouldn't employ them as cops either.

It is only these dumb, unionized, government jobs that would keep someone on board despite an outright refusal to do the job. That's what we are really looking at here.


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

Indicted cop can't recall shooting suspects from hood of car

Indicted cop can't recall shooting suspects from hood of car


----------

