Do you snitch when...?

Y

yy

New member
I have a point to make about cover ups.

First a story for comparison:
When a high school friend told me that his brother knew how to get marijuana through the mail, I did not feel an overriding need to call the police, tell the principal, or tell his parents. Whether making marijuana illegal is morally repugnent and creates criminals is for another place and time. My point is that such knowledge was a token secret a friend shared with me and I was not about to snitch.

Now fast forward to present day and look at police application of force/deadly force.

To all LEO's, ask yourself what you'd do given the following situation.
To all civilians, please post what you THINK would happen given the following situation.

Let's say Leo is a police officer in a large metropolitan area and patrols the slums/shady areas of the city. Leo is a good man, a good father, and a good officer. His partner, BC, has a bad temper, a bad marriage, and loves to drink. But otherwise and othertimes a outstanding officer. They back each other up in many life-threatening situations.

Problem: BC comes on patrol one day with a huge hang-over after a nasty fight with his wife the night before. His head hurts. He has a bad temper and is looking to take it out on some perp who deserves it. Leo found all this out during their coffee break a few hours into the patrol. They go back to patrolling and encounters a drunk and disorderly suspect who was disturbing the peace. Leo and BC tried to talk the drunk down but the conversation escalated from bad temper from both sides. The drunk slipped or lunged at Leo and BC interprets it as an attack and roughly handled the drunk. The drunk, who is now a perp for possible assault on LEO, knows martial arts and gets mad. He trips and restrains BC. Leo talks the perp out of it. The perp stands down, only to be punched by BC. They start to get into a fist fight, Leo intervened. There's a struggle. Somehow BC shot the perp.

Leo feels it was an excessive use of force because BC started the fight and the perp was un-armed and was standing down. BC feels the perp deserved it because the perp knew martial arts and was a real threat. The perp turns out to be a martial artist, some kind of folk hero, who drank too much because of his pending divorce. Now the perp's influential family turns up the heat, demands an investigation, hires Johnny Cochran.

Now. Does Leo betray his partner and tell that his partner started the fight. Had been looking for a fight. Had shot an unarmed man who was standing down?

Or does he emphasize the real threat that the martial art drunk presented to the two officers? Leo's family needs him. Money is tight, unlike the martial art drunk's rich family. BC's personal life is on the rocks. Another load like this could ruin BC's life. Besides, BC is a good friend. BC just handles suspects a little roughly. After all, the drunk did seem to lunge at Leo to begin with. Maybe BC was defending Leo like a good partner.

Does Leo testify that the use of deadly force was JUSTIFIED? Does Leo wish their superiors judge the use of deadly force was JUsTIFIED?

Finally, will the press have a circus with police brutality? Certainly.

I have set the place. I want to generate a talk between good LEOs and fearful civilians. Sometimes the best intentions and humanity still end in tragedy. Justice and Reparations dont do squat for the deceased. Prevention does.

why, why? (yy)
 
Oh, Lord. I shouldn't respond to this but I will.
My opinion--Having never been in this situation nor even gone on a ride-along, I'd say BC definitely screwed the pooch and it's Leo's job to turn him in. If a fellow teacher provoked a student physically and tried to blame him for the ensuing fight (not unheard-of) I would definitely feel I had to tell what I saw.

What Leo will actually do--This is harder to say. Like you said, Leo likes BC for some reason and trusts him. I'm sure the bond of partners who've backed each other up in life-or-death situations is probably much more than between teachers. I would say that Leo will cover for BC. This particular case would be unusually tempting because the perp really does have the ability to hurt the officer and there really was a scuffle that can be proven--not some lady sitting in a car. But I'm not sure how much good it will do, because it seems to me that every liberal and most of us here would ask why the officer skipped over his baton and pepper spray and went straight to deadly force against an unarmed opponent. I apologize if I've hurt anybody's feelings here, but I've told y'all my history with LEOs in my area. One thing I can say for sure--no matter what would happen elsewhere, I honestly believe that if this happened in Virden, Illinois there would definitely be a coverup. I don't think it's happened before but I wouldn't be shocked if a gun or knife appeared in the perp's hand.
 
1. The pot story is irrelevant to the overall issue. Most people are vaguely aware of some other people's knowledge of arguably victimless illegal activities. It's not our business, we're innocent bystanders, it's not our job (as citizens) to enforce laws. Snitching on a _rumored_ minor drug deal is nowhere close to "snitching" on a murder.

2. Leo is OBLIGATED by OATH, LAW, and MORALITY to tell the TRUTH about what happened in the MURDER OF A CITIZEN. He has SWORN to enforce the law (ok, so there's probably a better way for me to phrase it, but you get the point). It's his JOB to apprehend criminals, especially if he witnesses a capital crime. He has a MORAL obligation to assist justice in prosecuting a heinous crime. To _not_ turn BC in is not a neutral stance, it is aiding a violent criminal.

3. For Leo to _not_ turn in BC is what makes citizens suspicious and hateful of LEOs in general. LEOs enjoy a superior legal position which allows for such abuses. By covering up such occurrences, we citizens learn that such horrid abuses occur, but DON'T KNOW WHO...so the fear and loathing gets directed to LEOs in general for lack of any way to narrow such emotions down to the guilty parties. We need to protect ourselves against _someone_, and can only be as precise as LEOs in general.

4. Many excuses were offered in the scenario description. My Bible study group was discussing such concepts just last night: creating and supporting excuses for evil behavior does not mitigate the fact that the behavior is indeed evil and guilt exists. I may be sorry that BC was ill and depressed, and there may be all kinds of psychological and physiological excuses given, but BC still _chose_ to murder and violated the law on many levels. Even if we could somehow rationally prove that BC did not _choose_ to do evil, he still did it and we simply can't tolerate anyone murdering others; Charles Manson might have been totally insane and "not responsible for his actions", but we still don't let him go looking for his next lunch.

5. yy- Get to your point quick so the inevitable flailing is mitigated.
 
Leo's dilemma is not that uncommon. Unfortunately, Leo's problem is not confined to just BC's shooting the martial artist. Over the course of his career Leo has undoubtedly chosen to ignore other instances of excessive force by other officers. Perhaps even his own. The desire to get along within the department is strong, hence
the so-called blue wall of silence.

A friend of mine was a highway patrolman. He was often paired up with another officer who had a habit of antagonizing drunk drivers he was arresting so they would take a swing at him. Joel finally got tired of the circus and told his partner if he started a fight with a drunk he could finish it by himself.

Eventually it happened, his partner goaded a drunk driver into taking a swing and the fight was on. Joel sat on the hood of the patrol car while his partner and the drunk rolled around in the dirt. Finally his partner subdued the drunk and handcuffed him. Indignant, the partner wanted to know why the hell Joel wouldn't help him. Joel reminded him what he said before. If it happened again he would report it to their superiors.

Leo's problem in your scenario is he didn't tell BC to calm down during the coffee break or go home. Also, good partners have a signal they use to tell their partner to back off when they are getting too angry to be sensible.

As for Leo testifying as to whether the shooting was justified or not, in all probability he will only be allowed to tell what he saw and heard. His opinion will be inadmissible. If he tries to shade his report to favor his partner, it probably will be obvious to anyone who reads it what he is trying to do. It will drag him into the mess.

As for the suggestion a gun or knife suddenly appear in the hands of the martial artist, Leo would be well advised to watch what is happening in Rampart Division, LAPD. An officer convicted of stealing evidence locker cocaine is trying to save his hide by implicating everyone he can think of or remember in his crimes.

Someday BC will need to sell Leo down the river to save his hide.
 
Your either honest or your not = it's that simple. Are you a snitch if you tell the truth? If you were a partner and a friend with [bc] you would have helped him out personally and found out why and what his problems are and tryed to help him through his maritial problems. I have made it a point to tell other officers i work around that i will never lie for any reason and expect the same from them. The truth is always the best solution to solve problems, also it's the simplest job related duty any peace officer has to perform. Creditability is of utmost importance in law enfircement work...
 
This is from today's NY Times. Draw your own conclusions about the truth vs. the group.

By ALAN FEUER

H is voice seething with controlled rage, a high-ranking police union official grudgingly testified yesterday that he had told several officers at the 70th Precinct in Brooklyn to "sit tight" and not talk to investigators about the vicious assault on Abner Louima. But he denied that he had coached the officers in getting their stories straight. The union official, Michael Immitt, was called as a government witness in the trial of Charles Schwarz, Thomas Bruder and Thomas Wiese -- three police officers accused of covering up
the assault on Mr. Louima in the bathroom of the 70th Precinct station house nearly three
years ago.

Mr. Immitt, a trustee of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, was truculent and angry from the moment he took the stand in Federal District Court in Brooklyn, answering difficult questions by a federal prosecutor with heavy sarcasm and a steady, glaring gaze.

Under a fierce examination by the prosecutor, Alan Vinegrad, Mr. Immitt conceded that on
Aug. 13, 1997, four days after the attack, he met behind closed doors in the station house basement with the three defendants and Justin A. Volpe, the former officer who pleaded guilty last year to sodomizing Mr. Louima with a broken broomstick. Mr. Volpe's brother, Officer Damian Volpe, and a police lawyer, Hugo Ortega, were also in the room, Mr. Immit said. Referring to the attack, Mr. Immitt then conceded that he had told the officers: "Sit tight, don't talk about it. Don't talk to anyone unless something official comes down." He also testified that after the assault, he appeared at numerous roll calls at the station house and told the officers he met there to keep silent about the incident.

Mr. Immitt insisted that it was not unusual for union officials to meet with officers under suspicion of wrongdoing. His advice to be silent, he added, was part of his role as a union trustee. "I didn't want anyone else involved that wasn't involved," he said.

But suggesting that the meeting was held for a darker purpose, Mr. Vinegrad hammered Mr. Immitt with a battery of similar questions. Was the meeting conducted to make sure people had their stories straight? To make sure that everyone agreed to keep their mouths shut? To make sure that the investigation by the Police Department's Internal Affairs Bureau would
not succeed? Stern but obviously perturbed, Mr. Immitt answered no to each question.

Mr. Vinegrad was visibly surprised at one point when Mr. Immitt testified that he had no
idea when he went to the meeting that Mr. Louima had been sexually assaulted, even though on the morning the meeting was held The Daily News had published a photograph of Mr. Louima in his hospital bed accompanied by a banner headline that read "Tortured by Cops"
and a smaller headline beside it referring to a "sex assault." "You had no knowledge that the story of this case was on the front page of The Daily News?" Mr. Vinegrad asked.

"Correct," Mr. Immitt replied.

Moments later, Mr. Vinegrad asked incredulously, "You were the union trustee in charge of Brooklyn South at the time?"

Again, Mr. Immitt said, "Correct."

For days, both sides in the case have been battling over Mr. Schwarz's role in the assault.
The government contends -- and a jury in a previous trial has found -- that Mr. Schwarz
restrained Mr. Louima as Mr. Volpe jammed the broken broomstick into Mr. Louima's rectum. The government is arguing that after the assault Mr. Schwarz conspired with Officers Bruder and Wiese to lie to the authorities to exonerate himself. Defense lawyers maintain that there was no conspiracy about Mr. Schwarz's involvement because Mr.
Schwarz was not involved.

Yesterday, however, the trial focused directly on the question of a conspiracy to obstruct justice as the lawyers for both sides argued endlessly about the three defendants' versions of what happened on the night of the attack, Aug. 9, 1997. Unlike the first trial, which covered the details of the assault itself, the cover-up trial has mostly focused on how accounts of what happened that night have changed over time.

Mr. Vinegrad used his questioning of Mr. Immitt and other witnesses yesterday to show
instances where Officer Wiese had changed his story in an interview with Internal Affairs
investigators and that Officer Bruder had changed his account after retaining a lawyer.

The government contends that these changes were an effort by the two men to tailor their
accounts to make it seem it as if Mr. Schwarz was not involved in the attack.
 
BC made a mistake (actually quite a few, with this end result) and has to face the consequences. His actions refelect negatively on the rest of us as well.

Leo has a greater obligation to society than to his partner. It's that simple. The right thing is never the easiest, is seldom profitable but is always right. Therein lies justice.
 
The Law Enforcement profession has absolutely NO places for hot-heads and ego maniacs. While this is the ideal, we also know that child molesters gravitate towards positions of authority over children (ie: daycare centers, scouting and the priesthood), and sometimes hot-heads and egomaniacs gravitate towards law enforcement. This isn't to say that everyone or even a majority of these professions are CM's or HH's. Actually the number is suprisingly low. Especially law enforcement. Let me explain:
I worked in the County Sheriffs office for a while, and observed a lot of cops. There were 3 basic types.
Type 1- The guy who has the job because he doesn't have any other skills. He does his job reluctantly, but does it well enough to get by. You will hardly ever meet him unless you're being really stupid. He's the one sleeping in the remote areas of the county, or reading in his patrol car somewhere just passing time and providing a "presence".
Type 2- This is the cop of cops. He loves the challenge and the chance to help people. He's the good cop, and respects his position, and doesn't tolerate bad cops. While he enforces the law, he doesn't "run you in" for spitting on the sidewalk. He's usually busy preventing crime, and helping people. You will probably not meet him even though he's 80% of the police force, because he's out doing the work that is his duty.
Type 3- This is the ego-maniac and Hot-head. You can be assured of running into him. He's why you fear cops in general although my guess is that he's only 5% of the force. He exceeds his ticket quota, and then puts in overtime for free so he can harass the "lessor members of society". Although he's the minority, he makes the most contact, and therefore makes the biggest impression on folks. He's ridiculed behind his back by the good cops, and he usually doesn't make it very high in the department. Next time you get pulled over for somthing petty, look on the sleeve of the cop. I bet you don't see many if any stripes.
That's my take on cops from my experience. It was reassuring to work with them, because I learned that most are honest to a fault, and great people. Like any profession, it doesn't take many bad apples to ruin impressions of people. One bad experience can turn lots of folks against cops. I've worked with cops who stood up to corruption, got fired, and kept at it until the corrupt person was publicly disgraced. It mattered that much. There is a group of them in an organization here that I am proud to call them friend.
Oh and yes, Leo will assuredly turn bc in.
 
I've mentioned this before, but a situation similar to this happened to me. Granted I didn't end up dead, and its most likely because I restrained the cop until another police officer arrived.

So, did the other cop tell the truth ? No, my lawyer caught him lying. The other police officer said I was beligerant and he had to help the other officer wrestle me into the car. Fact is, when he approached, I let the cop go and willingly put my hands on the car. the arresting cop cuffed me, and as I sat down in the car, he and the other cop sprayed me right in the eyes, then rolled up the window. in the police report, he didn't even report that the cop was on the scene, when he gave testimony that he "wrewstled me into the car", my lawyer offered the report as evidence. This "24 year vet" ended up looking like a real ass. Still got convicted though.....
 
Jack Webb: "Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts."

Leo is nothing more than a witness, it's not his place to anylize or judge the situation.

He can talk to his clergyman about telling the story any other way, but it's not going to change his reality. Leo is a man of integrity, and nothing should sway his honesty.


"The Bible is my lawbook. I turn the other cheek when applicable, and spend the rest of my days resisting evil on every front, until I have breathed my last breath."

[This message has been edited by fastforty (edited February 18, 2000).]
 
Where's the dilemma? The Truth is the Truth, and if it hurts someone, so be it. Personal feelings of commradeship cannot be allowed to stand in the way of justice. Do you really want to be friends and/or partners with someone who would commit a deadly force assault upon another person as a matter revenge over a perceived humiliation?
It's a sad thing when a LEO turns into the very thing he most despises, but it's an even sadder thing to know it has happened and allow it.

------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center http://forums.delphi.com/m/main.asp?sigdir=45acp45lc
 
What has happened to out society when we look at telling the truth and doing the right thing as "snitching"? There is no middle ground between right and wrong. I belive in the truth and authority of the Bible, and from my study of it I believe that if you do not choose to do what is right- you have chosen to do evil. Leo should tell the truth about what happened. From my own experiences with LEO's (great-uncle is the Dallas CO sheriff, uncle is a deputy, and a cousin in a city PD) I belive upwards of 90% of peace officers are decent and will tell the truth. However, I personally think Leo should have spoken to his partner and then supervisor about BC's attitude long before now. What happened was preventable, to all appearances. Having a prearranged signal for one partner to let the other know he needs to cool it sounds like a good plan to me.

------------------
Only in America, we're slaves to be free/Only in America, we kill the unborn, to make ends meet/Only in America, sexuality is democracy/Only in America, we stamp our god "In God we trust"

What is right or wrong?
I don't know who to believe in
My soul sings a different song, in America

If it isna Scottish, it's CRAP! RKBA!
 
KJM may have a pretty good handle on the types, though there are "subtypes," I suspect. Back to the situation: As everyone agrees, the TRUTH is the only acceptable thing. Not just for the moral/duty reasons, but for the practical reasons. The truth usually comes out, anyway. If you don't bring it out, it's called perjury. In the courts, unless you are Bill Clinton, this is serious stuff. No friend or even partner is worth your job and everything else you will lose. If a BC does this, you don't want him as a friend or partner, so no need to lie to cover for a guy you don't respect anymore, right? I have never seen covering for or excusing a BC's behavior, even things MUCH less serious, lead to anything but grief. The ones who do get caught up in the cancer and suffer, and the BC doesn't care about anything but his hide and will not suffer when those who cover for him suffer. It's self-defense, you take care of yourself and career first, not some moron. Too simple?

------------------
When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; IT IS that they shall be destroyed forever...Psalms 92.7
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top