Mass Cops Getting Away with Murder READ THIS
Posted in the Boston Forum
#1 Jan 24, 2010
In a third grade classroom, little Johnny is accidentally knocks over the fishbowl, causing it to crash to the ground, shattering. The little goldfish squirms helplessly at his feet. In the first scenario, the teacher hears the crash, runs over and finds little Johnny alone and in tears, the blood of the class goldfish on his hands. In scenario two, half the class has first rushed over and there is so much commotion that by the time the teacher arrives, nobody actually remembers who did what and none of the children wants to give poor Johnny up as the culprit.
While little Johnny's life will go on, the family of Thomas Howe will have to live forever without a father and husband. First read the report here:
Of course the State Police, knowing every detail of the law are sure to point out the difference between a murder and a homicide. Nobody will be held responsible because, the police knew that if they called in enough troops, they will be able to surround the victim with cops and block out other viewers. They knew that lots of cops would create more confusion and a greater sense that they needed THIS MANY MEN to subdue this one man who was allegedly drunk. When someone's figerprints are on the bloody knife, but the dead person had a heart condition, the jury is not likely to be swayed to rule that the person could have died from a heart attack. This many cops, this much trauma, unions refusing to comment and cops pointing out that homicide is not always murder makes it hard to believe that the police are not covering up their own abuse.
How was it that during a checkpoint stop that they were able to round up this many cops from multiple departments to chase down the guy? How important was it to subdue him with a dozen men, given the allegations?
What better way to insure that nobody blows the whistle on the cop who beat the man to death, than to surround the situation by enough cops so that the whistleblower would know that he risks retaliation by many if he speaks.
If this obvious attempt to cover police abuse which may have caused a father of three to be beaten to death doesn't upset you enough, let me just remind you of these things:
1) These cops have a license to carry a gun and to use it.
2) These cops carry a badge and can and do abuse it.
3) These cops are paid big salaries with money negotiated by unions and are supported by YOUR hard earned money.
Every cop who has abused a citizen of Massachusetts better remember that those citizens who you took advantage of will sit on juries. I hope and pray that those very people are selected to be jurors in this case. That family deserves money for what was done to this man and that money better come out of their pay, not our pockets.
And in all likelihood, the cops will insure that criminal charges will never be filed. That will be relatively easy to do because no cop will be the one to press the charges and the family wont be able to tell which cop in that crowd was the culprit.
By the way, guess which department has jurisdiction over this homicide.
You guessed. The Massachusetts State Police.
#2 Jan 26, 2010
You bring up many good points. How does a man wind up getting beaten to death as a result of a routine stop at a checkpoint?
Of course, the police will tell us that this man was somehow a threat, so they had every right to beat him to death. And, as you point out, the investigation will be performed by the Mass State Police themselves.
It is high time that this country instituted Civilian Review Boards to be used in cases such as this. The idea of having the police policing themselves in a what could very well be a homicide investigation is an insult to the intelligence of anyone paying attention to such things as this.
The police; the police unions and the Fraternal Brotherhood of Police are strongly opposed to the idea of Civilian Review Boards. Needless to say, it could mean the difference between a cop getting charged with murder; or getting off scott free........
#3 Jan 28, 2010
I noticed that when there is an online article about police doing something wrong, all of the information is very controlled, like this ------
we cannot confirm or deny whether there was wrong doing but the matter is under investigation
-----You never get an objective view of police misconduct never and who investigates it, please tell me?
So would a civilian review board mean that citizens who are not police would over see police? I think this is a great idea. Is it done anywhere else? President Obama said in last nights speak that he thinks earmarks should be posted online. I think that accusations of police abuse should be online. If they can post the name of anyone who is ever arrested online (and they can!) why should we not post online the names of police officers who are accused of wrongdoing. What should be more public, private citizens who are suspected of committing crimes or public servants, supported by taxes who are suspected of committing crimes? seems very obvious to me!
#4 Jan 28, 2010
I agree with you 100%. But, as far as the subject of Civilian Review Boards go; as I pointed out previously, the Fraternal Order of Police has been fighting against the idea for years. So have the cops themselves; along with their unions. Obviously, they know damn well that they will not be getting a free pass and a get out of jail free card nearly as often as they now do; if and when they actually have to answer to the Taxpayers. I guess that the fact that they are nothing more then public servants; who work for the Taxpayers; does not overly concern them. This is because the police and their unions have too much power these days.
The Taxpayers are no longer allowed to dictate to our police departments what we expect as Taxpayers. The new method of thinking for our nation's lawmen is "we answer to no one; and keep your noses out of ALL police business." Needless to say; this is completely absurd; but it is now the cold hard facts.
We have countless examples of police ineptness; police brutality and police corruption that either goes completely unchecked; or results in a light slap on the wrist of the offender in the hopes that the general public will feel vindicated.
When do we all say "enough is enough".......
#5 Jan 28, 2010
Hello could you please clarify what you are saying because it isn't making sense to me. You are saying that the police don't want this but why would the police be asked what they think about the tools that the citizens would like put in place to insure that government is working properly. It almost is like the bank management saying to the tellers that they are installing surveillance cameras behind the desk to insure that employees are being honest with cash and the employees saying, no we don't want that. Or a senator saying, hey we are going to cancel next years election because we don't want someone else running against us. How can you say that the police are making the decisions about who oversees them and not the higher levels of government (who are ultimately those elected by the people). Are you sure that your information is correct because it makes no sense.
#6 Jan 28, 2010
Yes, I am 100% sure that my information is correct.
I suggest that you pay a visit the the website for the Fraternal Order of Police.(FOP) This organization basically operates as another police union; but they do not call themselvs a police union.
Once you get onto their website; you can see a list called "Legislation Opposed by the National Fraternal Order of Police". And, on that list you will see that they are opposed to "Legislation which would create or fund "civilian review boards" of law enforcement at any level of government".
So, this shows us two things. Number one; Civilian Review Boards cannot be instituted without there first being legislation to do so. And two, the National Fraternal Order of Police will be fighting any and all legislation to do so.
So, it is not as easy as the Taxpayers saying that "we want this" and it happens. There first must be legislation to do so. And, the police unions as well as the Fraternal Order of Police will be fighting against it. And, sadly, they have very deep pockets and they only back political candidates who will not back the idea of Civilian Review Boards. This is a fact; the Fraternal Order of Police sends out questionaires to any and all candidates; making sure that they won't upset the applecart for the police. Again, this is factual information, and can be found on the FOP website.
#7 Jan 29, 2010
This seems like a serious loophole in the system. All government employees are either elected, or are ultimately hired by using mandates and practices created by elected officials, or they are appointed by elected officials. In this case you have a closed loop, where the government basically appoints there own, supervises themselves and has final say in the systems that oversee themselves. Its a little like taxation without representation. The only chance for public overview is to take advantage of the Freedom Of Information Act to request documents on the actions of police. If the police are not willing to accept civilian review, then some non-government group needs to compile publicly available information on police misconduct, to compile it, analyze it and make it available for the public so that ultimately they will see who is failing and call for reform where needed. Otherwise, we basically have a self-contained government agency that we pay for. No wonder there is so much corruption among Massachusetts police!
By the way I found this site which I thought was an informal compilation. Not exactly what I'm talking about but at least this guy has the guts to provide some information:
#8 Jan 31, 2010
If claification is needed concerning legislation oppossed by the FOP look at the list I have attached.
Legislation Opposed by the National Fraternal Order of Police
H.R. 59 (Jackson-Lee, D-TX), the "Ex-Offender Voting Rights Act," would allow convicted felons to vote in Federal elections if these felons are denied the ability to vote by the State in which they reside;
H.R. 68 (Jackson-Lee, D-TX), the "No More Tulias: Drug Law Enforcement Evidentiary Standards Improvement Act," which would significantly limit States who fund anti-drug task forces from receiving Federal funding from the Edward J. Byrne Memorial Justice Assistant Grants program;
H.R. 73 (Jackson-Lee, D-TX), the "Traffic Stops Along the Border Statistics Study Act," would require the U.S. Attorney General to collect race and other data on traffic stops made by State and local law enforcement officers;
H.R. 1409 (Miller, D-CA), the "Employee Free Choice Act," which would replace the current democratic process of secret ballots in the selection or certification on a union as the bargaining units with a "card check" system;
H.R. 1459 (Scott, D-VA), the "Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act," would eliminate the increased and mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses involving crack cocaine as well as repeal the existing restrictions on the court to grant probation or suspended sentences for drug offenses involving cocaine;
H.R. 3245 (Scott, D-VA), the "Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act," would eliminate the increased and mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses involving crack cocaine;
H.R. 3251 (Gingrey, R-GA), legislation that would would repeal certain provisions of Title 5, United States Code, that allow Federal employees, including law enforcement officers, who represent their colleagues, to negotiate collective bargaining agreements on official time;
H.R. 3335 (Conyers, D-MI), the "Democracy Restoration Act," would allow convicted felons to vote in Federal elections if these felons are denied the ability to vote by the State in which they reside;
S. 560 (Kennedy, D-MA), the "Employee Free Choice Act," which would replace the current democratic process of secret ballots in the selection or certification on a union as the bargaining units with a "card check" system;
S. 650 (Feingold, D-WI), the "Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act," would abolish the death penalty option for all Federal crimes which currently carry that penalty;
S. 1789 (Durbin, D-IL), the "Fair Sentencing Act," would abolish the mandatory minimum for possession of crack cocaine and substantially reduce the penalties for other crack cocain offenses;
TOP PRIORITY Legislation which would mandate participation in Social Security for all newly hired State and local employees;
Legislation that would impose any tax, direct or indirect, on any employer-sponsored health coverage;
Legislation which would weaken the overtime protections for law enforcement officers in current Federal regulations;
Legislation or amendments that would have the effect of weakening P.L. 106-185, the "Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000";
Legislation which would create or fund "civilian review boards" of law enforcement at any level of government;
Legislation which would normalize relations with Cuba until that nation ceases to be a safe harbor for cop-killers and other fugitives; and
#9 Feb 1, 2010
Good post. I agree with you: what the police have managed to create for themselves is a closed loop system. They police themselves. They have their own internal review boards and they have their own internal affairs departments. What typically happens on a local and City level is that these departments simply report to the Chief of Police. So, the mission is typically to downplay and outright ignore police wrongdoing and corruption. Again, without Civilian Review Boards there are no checks and balances in place for our Lawmen. And, that is why the police; the police unions and the National Fraternal Order of Police are so strongly opposed to the idea of using Civilian Review Boards. They do not want the police facing the same exact consequences as the general public faces for their wrongdoings and criminal behavoir!
There is a system in place where the DA can investigate things if he feels that the police have not properly stepped up to an issue. But, there are at least two major problems with this approach. It is reasonably safe to say that most cases of criminal behavoir and wrongdoing by a cop DO NOT get exposed. They are covered up within the department; so they never make it to the DA's attention anyway. And, even if they do; the DA is basically on the same side of the law as the police themselves; so his motivation is to keep an effective working relationship going with the entire department. He is more likely to take a softer line with police misconduct than the general public would take.
Certainly; a system where the police simply police themselves is a sham. It should never be allowed. And, as you pointed out; the Taxpayers should be calling the shots on this subject; and not the police.
#10 Feb 1, 2010
Sure, The National Fraternal Order of Police is opposed to other legislation, besides the legislation for the instituting of Civilian Review Boards. But, what you posted has no bearing at all on the subject that we are discussing here: that the police are currently policing themselves.
As Taxpayers, we should not allow this system to continue. The original story here involves the death of a father of 3; after he was stopped in a routine police check point. You can bet your bottom dollar that with the Mass State Police investigating this case; which involves the behavoir of the Mass State Police themselves; there will be a finding of "no wrongdoing on the part of any officers involved".
But, with the investigation being handled by Civilian Review Boards; the outcome could be completely different. Needless to say; it could be the difference between a man (or a few men) being charged with murder or getting away with murder.......
#11 Feb 2, 2010
The Fraternal Order of Police is just like any other special interest group, lobbying for whatever best suits their needs. As citizens also, they have the right to spend whatever they want lobbying for how they want the laws to read. My problem is that they have a say in how the laws are shaped but we don't have a say in how they do their job, enforcing the laws. The Freedom Of Information Act explicitly requires government to be transparent, as long as that transparency is not violating the rights of others to privacy (such as in police records - unless someone is arrested), risking safety of others or the country or impeding that agency from doing its job. The fact that police are hired and evalated by their own chiefs and the chiefs are all part of the same brotherhood anyway, and are just hired from within - this pretty much assures that the loop is closed. Do we not see this as a huge huge problem? As said above, with the State Police investigating this homicide, how on earth do we expect to get any truth out of the investigation? No cop will give up the other guy and the cops know the law so well that they will be able to find all of the loopholes.
Someone posted a while back that the Mass Chiefs of Police Association endorsed Martha Coakley. I wonder if that didn't hurt her cause. No policitian should be willing to allie themselves with any police union. I realize that there are plenty of cop voters, but there are way way more citizens out there who support the transparency of police, not to mention putting some control on the overspending that has been forced by these unions.
I understand too that many police chiefs are retiring lately and that the FBI has investigated Stoughton and found deep deep abuse in that department and fired their chief. Isn't that a wake up call that there needs to be some sort of oversight of police????
#12 Feb 2, 2010
Most police officers are outstanding people and conduct their work with integrity. An interesting development has been the use of DNA testing to exonerate wrongly convicted individuals. www.InnocenceProject.org
What concerns me is how many people were wrongly convicted because of police manipulation of evidence, brutality, personal agendas and dislikes of the individual, etc. While the court does try to weed this out, the police control the information systems and police have more access to information during the investigatory period (which is the time where evidence is freshest) than defense attorneys.
Also, keep in mind that even if an innocent person is not convicted, the simple case of being arrested and accused can destroy their lives and cost them tens of thousands of dollars to prove their innocence. Even then they can never take back the publicity, court records, etc. Amazingly, police will maintain the privacy of any accusation against one of their own to the full extent of the law. An officer wrongly accused will rarely suffer, but a civilian wrongly accused will suffer.
Add your comments below
|Trump's immigration crackdown sparks East Bosto...||13 hr||United we stand||32|
|Need clean urine - will pay for!||Tue||khood555||1|
|Racist Disgusting Boston (do not visit here)||Tue||An unexceptional ...||7|
|Wong to DeLeo: City will take slots - Sentinel ... (Jul '10)||Feb 20||Twelve angry men||12|
|Donald Trump for President ... and here's Why...||Feb 20||Palm Beach or bust||9|
|Townie Tidbits||Feb 19||Heavy feet lighte...||2|
|Dr Brian Awbrey (Oct '10)||Feb 19||Worth Avenue Willy||541|
Find what you want!
Search Boston Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC