Comments on: Cops lie and people die

By: Kerwin

Kerwin — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:20:41 +0000

I used to admire police and other law enforcement personnel as the good guys. Highly educated and more experienced than most rookies, I saw first hand how racism, boozing, lies, ego junkies and evil personalities saturated law enforcement. Police are way of out of control and are dishonest to the core especially in recruitment. Police hirings are often executed by unfit and uneducated burnt out cops who, personnel deploy them in this stations to get them off the streets. Often recruitment is extremely unsterile and dirty internal connections, nepotism and tokenism (affirmative action) has diluted the job. In Canada, like others I have seen idiotic hiring in RCMP, OPP, Peel Regional, Redcliffe, Metro Toronto, CP Railways, Lethbridge, Vancouver, etc. that is purely mindboggling and defies public morality.

Sadly put, instead of the cream of the crop, we are digging at the bottom of the barrel. Nowhere is this more prevalent than the RCMP who often recruit, inexperienced young cadet (early 20’s) who lack social skills, work experiences, life experiences, etc. Their PARE physical fitness test has been diluted to appease the weaker sex, women with a joke qualifying time. Even as a deputy sheriff in Vancouver long ago, I saw contemptible managers, chronic boozing, etc. that was repulsive. Simply put, its a cohesive rat pack mentality with no accountability and this contribtes to the spiral down spin in public confidence.

Are the best recruiter, not even close. Incompetence and unprofessional misconducts are a way of life. Who protects us from them, not the law…
Kerwin Maude

By: renae jones

renae jones — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 05:07:23 +0000

I am white and without lots of money. (Thats what i believe its all about.)My father in law is also a retired .. county deputy sherriff.I am now out of Ca. living in another state and I know if I was still in Ca. I wouldnt be dealing with what I am. I am leary and afraid to say but I am talking about lies ! lies to benefit them.I hope and pray it all works out for me (the one not lying)

By: SPO

SPO — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 05:17:08 +0000

Wow, the bit dog barks.

I guess it’s ok to kill a “snitch”, but not ok to kill a witness who is mistakenly believed to be a “snitch”. I get it.

And just so you can follow the arguments, Edin, remember, I first talked about providing the addresses of a witness, which has been justified in here. Second, news reports indicated that the info used to ambush the target was gotten from a defense attorney (who, I am sure, sleeps soundly).

By: Edintally

Edintally — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:56:00 +0000

I’m impressed. No it’s admiration. The way you fight back from an indefensible position is inspiring. I raise and you come back over the top of me making me wonder if my royal flush is any good! Screw it, I’m all in;

I’ve got immoral police using an innocent citizens (read NOT a witness) name while interviewing a suspected murderer. The only relevant issue.

I’ve got you trying to compare the elements of this case with the Sir Mario Ownen’s case. Not even close.

I’ve got you inferring that a defense attorney gave up the names of the witnesses against Mr. Owens TO Mr. Owens. They were witnesses for the prosecution and point of fact, they were actually witnesses. See elements of;

And I’ve got you making a bad argument and telling half lies because you don’t have the moral fiber to know when you should just fold your cards and get up from the table.

Where is my W.S.O.P. bracelet?

BTW: Please don’t infer that I’m a criminal defense attorney. I haven’t earned the right to be called that………….yet.

By: SPO

SPO — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:09:01 +0000

So it’s ok to put people at risk if they know you’re putting them at risk . . . .

Whatever. And how many witnesses know that defense attorneys are risking their lives . . . . the victims of Sir Mario Owens in Colorado certainly did not. So what does that mean . . . . I guess it’s bad when the cops do it, but noble when you guys do it. Oh that’s right, it’s noble because the defendant “owns” a file–yeah, a file that the state paid for.

By: Edintally

Edintally — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:08:01 +0000

yea because not warning the girl is the issue.

By: SPO

SPO — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:56:08 +0000

Yeah, it’s difficult to justify this little maneuver without so much as warning the witness. I’d have a hard time sleeping at night. Of course, you’re the guys that justify handing over witness’ addresses to hardened criminals.

By: Gideon

Gideon — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:18:58 +0000

Isn’t that the remarkable thing? These were supposedly experienced detectives who have had dealings with gangs and gang members in the past. They had to have known. It was irresponsible and reckless.

By: dan

dan — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:04:50 +0000

I know the focus of this is tolerance of deception as an investigatory tactic, but I couldn’t help but notice the sheer stupidity of it. Surely the police knew that person existed and would be at risk.