Prosecutors in NC won’t reveal which officers are too untrustworthy to testify
- Thread starter AR10ShooterinNC
- Start date
- Replies 13
- Views 1,164
NCLivingBrit
Well-Known Member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Lovely. Not America's largest criminal extortion group covering each other's backs at all.
Jeppo
Bold inspired solutions for America 😂
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Benefactor
Life Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
It's not all about crooked cops. Sometimes it's because they are bad witnesses.
I've warned cops about this many times. You get a reputation with the DA's by bringing BS charges, overcharging, failing to investigate and jumping the gun. The DA's know who's who and what cases to plead out.
I always felt that if it's worth arresting for it's worth at least trying to win in court.
I've warned cops about this many times. You get a reputation with the DA's by bringing BS charges, overcharging, failing to investigate and jumping the gun. The DA's know who's who and what cases to plead out.
I always felt that if it's worth arresting for it's worth at least trying to win in court.
We had one in Catawba County who was the sheriff’s son and their drug czar who was Giglio. He ran for sheriff after daddy and it was released to the public by the former DA. Over 300 drug bust became at risk in Licoln and Catawba.
He got beat badly in the election for sheriff. Add he used tracking devices from the department to keep tabs on a former girlfriend and was texting her about her location. The lady lived in Lincoln County who would not investigate it because his daddy was the Catawba County high sheriff. They sent it to Gaston County who wanted nothing to do with it and sent it to the SBI. So nay cops don’t protect each other do they? Thank goodness that reign of terror is over and we have a good man in the office now.
He got beat badly in the election for sheriff. Add he used tracking devices from the department to keep tabs on a former girlfriend and was texting her about her location. The lady lived in Lincoln County who would not investigate it because his daddy was the Catawba County high sheriff. They sent it to Gaston County who wanted nothing to do with it and sent it to the SBI. So nay cops don’t protect each other do they? Thank goodness that reign of terror is over and we have a good man in the office now.
Don't you think the High Sheriff's son might have gotten different treatment than the rank and file?
And yeah, he was a monster and should have been taken down a lot sooner.
Last edited:
Yes he got better treatment because of daddy. Even before working for daddy while in Lincoln County. You know the man so you know there is many more stories about him. Complete corruption.
So help me to understand this.
SCOTUS has ruled more than once that previous "lack of candor under oath" (called perjury when committed by peons) has a bearing on any future cases and must be disclosed to the defense under discovery because concealing it deprives defendants of potentially exculpatory evidence, and law enforcement* officials just choose to not do so.
And further, that any law enforcement* officer with such a history of breaking the law remains fit for office.
Do I have that correct?
* Full Disclosure - the term "law enforcement" is used tongue in cheek.
SCOTUS has ruled more than once that previous "lack of candor under oath" (called perjury when committed by peons) has a bearing on any future cases and must be disclosed to the defense under discovery because concealing it deprives defendants of potentially exculpatory evidence, and law enforcement* officials just choose to not do so.
And further, that any law enforcement* officer with such a history of breaking the law remains fit for office.
Do I have that correct?
* Full Disclosure - the term "law enforcement" is used tongue in cheek.
NCLivingBrit
Well-Known Member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
BACK THE BLUE! THIS PASTE IS DELICIOUS! THIN BLUE LINE! MY MOMMY IS MY GIRLFRIEND! COPS ARE OUR FIRST LINE OF DEFENCE!So help me to understand this.
SCOTUS has ruled more than once that previous "lack of candor under oath" (called perjury when committed by peons) has a bearing on any future cases and must be disclosed to the defense under discovery because concealing it deprives defendants of potentially exculpatory evidence, and law enforcement* officials just choose to not do so.
And further, that any law enforcement* officer with such a history of breaking the law remains fit for office.
Do I have that correct?
* Full Disclosure - the term "law enforcement" is used tongue in cheek.
They're are the State's Chosen People, they don't have to obey laws like us little nobodies.
The real problem is that an officer can get "Giglio'ed" by a DA with no due process and no ability to defend against an unfounded or bad faith allegation. And he or she can also get "Giglio'ed" for conduct that may, or may not, actually affect their credibility. The lack of 'enforcement' standards and remedies makes the letters themselves somewhat unreliable.
A better way to handle this would be to do like the bill suggests, and REQUIRE all Department/Agency heads and DA's to document and report potential officer credibility issues (and actions) to both the Criminal Justice and Sheriff's Training and Standards Commissions. But also go a step further and allow those Commissions to revoke the law enforcement certification of officers whose (bad) actions are proven or confirmed through the revocation/hearing process. Then, the resulting Order of discipline if confirmed would be public record. This way, a 'good' officer cannot get politically smeared without recourse, and a bad one could not be shielded by discretionary reporting standards.
A better way to handle this would be to do like the bill suggests, and REQUIRE all Department/Agency heads and DA's to document and report potential officer credibility issues (and actions) to both the Criminal Justice and Sheriff's Training and Standards Commissions. But also go a step further and allow those Commissions to revoke the law enforcement certification of officers whose (bad) actions are proven or confirmed through the revocation/hearing process. Then, the resulting Order of discipline if confirmed would be public record. This way, a 'good' officer cannot get politically smeared without recourse, and a bad one could not be shielded by discretionary reporting standards.
OP
Would it not better to just hang any LEO that commits perjury? It's the most unsocial and underhanded thing an LEO can do to society, I think of it as treason.
Sure, but you'd need to actually prove the perjury first in accordance with our legal standards for that criminal act - presumption of innocence and all. And second, Giglio and that line of action is not just about perjury. It can be nearly anything someone thinks erodes confidence in the officer's credibility.
No one should be vulnerable to losing their career and means to provide for their family based on an allegation that may not have been investigated and given due process. But if it’s proven that there was lying, a propensity to create a case where none exists, or the like, then he shouldn’t be in the profession. The current “shunned but not fired” seems wrong for everyone.
And the proposed legislation could be easily circumvented anyway. If it passes, DA’s would likely start privately communicating their concerns about that officer to his chain of command and it would have the same effect, without any accountability, transparency, or portability.
And the proposed legislation could be easily circumvented anyway. If it passes, DA’s would likely start privately communicating their concerns about that officer to his chain of command and it would have the same effect, without any accountability, transparency, or portability.