Cop faces 3 corruption counts

A federal grand jury indicted a 30-year veteran of the Minneapolis police force on three counts of corruption for allegedly accessing law enforcement databases and giving nonpublic information to someone he ...

[Clete]

Wow, even Ron Edwards hangs him out....

[Good God]

So allegedly the information passed to the gangbanger was info about a witness to his drug trade? I find it hard to believe that a 30-year veteran cop would trade the safety and well-being of a good, honest (and brave) citizen for a few hundred bucks. I don't believe it at all.

[Good God]

johnny wrote:

<quoted text>
dude - you live on some fantasy island....come back to the real world....

I sometimes wish I lived on a fantasy island. And it's "dudette."

It would be far more believable a crime if the story included the outcome of the alleged "sold" confidential info. Was the compromised individual harmed or threatened by the thug? Is the individual in protective custody? If the answer is "no," then I can't make the leap. A thug is a thug is a thug. If he really bought insider info from the cop, he would've used it to his own advantage to intimidate or harm--immediately.

[Cindy Stainker]

Good God wrote:

<quoted text>
I sometimes wish I lived on a fantasy island. And it's "dudette."
It would be far more believable a crime if the story included the outcome of the alleged "sold" confidential info. Was the compromised individual harmed or threatened by the thug? Is the individual in protective custody? If the answer is "no," then I can't make the leap. A thug is a thug is a thug. If he really bought insider info from the cop, he would've used it to his own advantage to intimidate or harm--immediately.

Great come back, and great questions.

Why would he throw 30 years down the drain? He could lose everything, his pension, his freedom, everything. Makes no sense.

[officer squeee]

So the thug--oops, I mean cop--was being paid to provide confidential and personal information of another cop--umm, informant thug--to another cop--ahh, gang member.

The unnamed informant was probably ratting out on Officer Roberts' pal TT outside of their territory--er, precinct.

[Just Speculating]

All down the drain for $200?

Probably not, maybe he was targeted because he's been doing this for years. Most likely all the cops knew about it and finally someone narked on him - most likely THAT happened because he cut someone out of the action.

Again, I'm just speculating but c'mon guys, there is no real Joe Friday. There is a certain personality type that becomes a cop.

[Diogenes At Large]

Good God wrote:

So allegedly the information passed to the gangbanger was info about a witness to his drug trade? I find it hard to believe that a 30-year veteran cop would trade the safety and well-being of a good, honest (and brave) citizen for a few hundred bucks. I don't believe it at all.

Agreed.

Something here isn't right.

This appears more like an internal suit effort for a promotion. Why would this officer do something so openly traceable in a digital age?

A large amount of taxpayer money is being spent on this. If the officer is exonerated, I hope the people who prosecuted him are held accountable.

[Sarah D]

johnny wrote:

<quoted text>
its not for you to understand,, ppl do crayz thing that cant be explained to make you feel good. why did bush say there were WMD?, why do teachers have sex with students? why do ppl have child porn? all these ppl know they can get into trouble and they have alot to lose too...

In this case I am perfectly content to wait for all the evidence to come out in the trial where it can be examined.

I do have a wee suspicion that had this been a white cop that you wouldn't be so vehemently convinced of his guilt given that he's a 29 year veteran of the force.

If the evidence is strong against him and the jury convicts him then he will be punished. Otherwise he will be exonerated.

[Consistent]

Sarah D wrote:

<quoted text>
In this case I am perfectly content to wait for all the evidence to come out in the trial where it can be examined.
I do have a wee suspicion that had this been a white cop that you wouldn't be so vehemently convinced of his guilt given that he's a 29 year veteran of the force.
If the evidence is strong against him and the jury convicts him then he will be punished. Otherwise he will be exonerated.

LOL....the FBI doesnt tend to bring investigations where there is no "Smoke".
Tossing in the Poor Black Man crap gits real old.
Corrupt is corrupt...even if the corrupt official is green.

His melanin level has nothing to do with this, except that it gives him access to the Gang Bangers that own him.

[AndrewEss]

Sarah D wrote:

<quoted text>
In this case I am perfectly content to wait for all the evidence to come out in the trial where it can be examined.

Well at least we can make the exception of being a poll and public opinion source for the verdict. In this exception, and in all the cases that are judged by the great Sarah, what qualifies this one case, any different than any other. Just asking.

[Dick In Dixie]

I think this cop has been doing this for years and has finally gotten caught. He probably thought since it was such little money being made on the side, who would ever notice, and he is dealing with gang bangers, so who would care if any of those people disappeared, right? I find it hard to believe the FBI would waste their time if it was only $200 and that's it. They are a little more thorough than that.

[truthy]

I'm thinking that a federal grand jury does not hand down an indictment without substantial evidence or because of "internal promotional consideration" within the MPD, as another poster has suggested.

And as for whether or not this information has yet been used in a harmful manner - that doesn't really matter, does it? If the private, protected information was indeed provided, it is a crime. A very serious crime with grave repercussions. I know how I would feel if I gave information about a drug dealer who was affecting my life, family and/or neighborhood and then found out that a cop sold me out to said dealer for a small amount of cash!

Perhaps the cop thought he was being discreet. I'm sure it's routine for cops to access this type of information on a daily basis for work purposes. The system does not have a way of knowing or tracking how that information is used, just that it was accessed, and by whom and when.

Perhaps this gang member was threatening him or his family.

Perhaps he plain ol’ didn't care. The bottom line is that we can never truly be sure of the motivations driving anyone other than ourselves. But no matter what the reason, if he did do this, he is on equal footing with those he has sworn to protect us against.

IMHO - If blind faith in people who wear the badge (or people in general) render us incapable of even comprehending any wrong-doing on their part, that's not only ignorant, it's dangerous. Cops are human beings and just as fallible as the rest of us.

[Serina L]

Ok, I'm tired of the media always picking on cops when they do something wrong. Why don't they publish a story when PLUMBERS, or LAWYERS or ANY OTHER PROFESSION screws up? Why, because it wouldn't be interesting. They are human beings that screw up, just like anyone else - so go pound sand media people and start writing about people in other professions when they scew up.

[rusirus]

This is one story I would be real interested in finding out all the facts, it sounds like there is a snake in the wood pile somewhere.
When the whole story does come out, I'm sure a few people will be left scratching their heads. I know I'll be one of them.
We can only believe a small portion of what the paper prints, the entire set of actual facts will probably not be heard until "trial", and then you have to sift through that mess also. What's a person to really believe now days?
I for one do not take the PP take on anything, they only want to increase sales.IMO
I guess only time will tell!

[JJWalker]

Serina L wrote:

Ok, I'm tired of the media always picking on cops when they do something wrong. Why don't they publish a story when PLUMBERS, or LAWYERS or ANY OTHER PROFESSION screws up? Why, because it wouldn't be interesting. They are human beings that screw up, just like anyone else - so go pound sand media people and start writing about people in other professions when they scew up.

Um DUH, because A: Cops work for the people and should be trustworthy and B: THEY DO publish this kind of thing about regular people - if they are indicted. Come on out of the cave, it's summer time!

[Sam]

Well Bill "Corky" Finney are you next? The Feds are looking arn't they?

[Sarah D]

Well more information has emerged. His lawyer is saying that he was "set up" and "entrapped".

Now whenever I hear entrapment the alarms go off. Mainly because I don't really understand the concept of entrapment. OK so they tempted you but you didn't have to accept the temptation did you.

[g1956don]

why do they allways play the race card it never fails iam so sick of the race card theroy , come on

[****]

Good God wrote:

<quoted text>
I sometimes wish I lived on a fantasy island. And it's "dudette." .... Was the compromised individual harmed or threatened by the thug? Is the individual in protective custody? If the answer is "no," then I can't make the leap. A thug is a thug is a thug.

Uhhh "Dudette"?

The "Thug" in this case wasn't actually a "Thug" or weren't you paying attention to that part of the story? Or in this case do you actually believe TT was a real life gangbanger and that's what makes the allegations unbelievable?

The absolute obsession in these responses to believe that law enforcement is anything but pure as the driven snow just reinforces how lily whitebread and hotdish Minnesotans are relative to the real world.

There are crooked cops everywhere even in the world where everyone's children are all above average/

[****]

Sarah D wrote:

Well more information has emerged. His lawyer is saying that he was "set up" and "entrapped".

Of course that's what he said

have you ever heard a defense lawyer come out and say "ya my client is guilty as h-ll"?

it's what you'd expect a criminal defense attorny to say

Just FYI ... it Isn't more information coming out ... there is nothing 'factual' in making a claim to the media ... really c'mon ... what people accept and even project as being factual evidence of a criminal act in the newspapers and before a trial

you 'observation' is just naive