Falsifying reports?
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 89
 
  1. #1
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Falsifying reports?

    Both should have been handled by SI instead of IA. Great work giving lawyers dismissal firepower. Way to restore public trust Chitty.

  2. #2
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Both should have been handled by SI instead of IA. Great work giving lawyers dismissal firepower. Way to restore public trust Chitty.
    Care to elaborate?

  3. #3
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Care to elaborate?
    Sure, a supervisory inquiry was the correct action to take in a few recent IA's. Founding accusations of falsifying reports isn't exactly good for the image or future criminal cases.
    PN 8552
    PN 8962

  4. #4
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Sure, a supervisory inquiry was the correct action to take in a few recent IA's. Founding accusations of falsifying reports isn't exactly good for the image or future criminal cases.
    PN 8552
    PN 8962
    That really doesn’t help to clarify.

  5. #5
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    That really doesn’t help to clarify.
    Check the two most recent IA's... I do not know how to be more clear than that. I didn't wish to put them on blast and name them so I gave you their personnel numbers. Sometimes you have to research a little to get answers. My problems are not with police in general, just those who misuse their authority. Case Closed

  6. #6
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Check the two most recent IA's... I do not know how to be more clear than that. I didn't wish to put them on blast and name them so I gave you their personnel numbers. Sometimes you have to research a little to get answers. My problems are not with police in general, just those who misuse their authority. Case Closed
    They look like pretty minor issues to only get a simple write up. Seems as if the guys took responsibility for their actions and kept their jobs. What’s your point exactly?

  7. #7
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    They look like pretty minor issues to only get a simple write up. Seems as if the guys took responsibility for their actions and kept their jobs. What’s your point exactly?
    Exactly what I wrote... A good lawyer will strike their testimony, and also the falsification of reports is doubt. Our systems of law are based off of reasonable doubt. My point is that it should have been handled in house and not by an Internal Affairs investigation, which will provide a reasonable doubt in any court of law... Hard to believe "beyond any reasonable doubt" when doubt is staring you in the face as a juror. Maybe retrain or corrective councilling would have been a better avenue to take, wouldn't you agree? Professional courtesy so to speak. The fact that they both took their lashings without protest has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of their smeared records jeoprodizing future cases. I am glad they've kept their jobs and weren't "wacked" as the king says. I look at situations from a logical and common sense standpoint.
    And to further my point. What does this accomplish with the negative perception of law enforcement? "dey lied mayun, dat ain't my stuff in dare. One of dem dirty cops framed me". It doesn't take a smart person to figure that these types of founded accusations stay on your records forever and will eventually cost cases. When an officer cannot be trusted, you take away his ability to effectively do his job. I'm not suggesting just forgetting the act, I am suggesting that on paper these acts look really bad to future juries. I'm sure you understand my point, if not maybe you should look into a new career where common sense isn't a requirement.
    When purgery, falsifying reports and mismanagement of evidence is documented, good luck winning a criminal case. You may win in traffic court, but you cannot bet on plea deals for every case.
    It is sort of exactly like VCSO policy when you file a complaint against an officer or deputy... Administration doesn't look at the validity of the complaint, they look at the complainant and attempt to discredit their character. As if being a dirtbag is a liscense to violate their rights. Ask Joel Turney, he runs DAVID checks prior to the complaint being filed and intimidates potential witnesses. I have records (actual paper records) that date back to 2000 to document and verify this. Along with an admission from administration that this is commonly practiced and accepted. So when the truth gets out, and it will, people will begin to use the same practice and mentality to discredit VCSO.
    Knowing "the game" is half of the battle. Staying out of the publics eyes is the best avenue to pursue. Public records are just that... Public awareness is the goal. "We investigated ourselves and found no fault" will soon be a practice of the past. It wont take much effort to get petitions signed to promote change. The Sheriff knows this as his prior department's mistakes caused the supreme court to add a citizen watchdog to oversee complaints and actions not handled properly by the department. (IAO) Integrity and Accountability Office was the term. I suggest we enact a Citizens Oversight Panel (COP) to assure proper investigation handling. Sort of like the council where decisions and votes are made to determine the best outcome. Not just some kangaroo court where coverups are the norm. Just my .02 cents. I have spoken about this at council chambers... Check the archives.

  8. #8
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Exactly what I wrote... A good lawyer will strike their testimony, and also the falsification of reports is doubt. Our systems of law are based off of reasonable doubt. My point is that it should have been handled in house and not by an Internal Affairs investigation, which will provide a reasonable doubt in any court of law... Hard to believe "beyond any reasonable doubt" when doubt is staring you in the face as a juror. Maybe retrain or corrective councilling would have been a better avenue to take, wouldn't you agree? Professional courtesy so to speak. The fact that they both took their lashings without protest has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of their smeared records jeoprodizing future cases. I am glad they've kept their jobs and weren't "wacked" as the king says. I look at situations from a logical and common sense standpoint.
    And to further my point. What does this accomplish with the negative perception of law enforcement? "dey lied mayun, dat ain't my stuff in dare. One of dem dirty cops framed me". It doesn't take a smart person to figure that these types of founded accusations stay on your records forever and will eventually cost cases. When an officer cannot be trusted, you take away his ability to effectively do his job. I'm not suggesting just forgetting the act, I am suggesting that on paper these acts look really bad to future juries. I'm sure you understand my point, if not maybe you should look into a new career where common sense isn't a requirement.
    When purgery, falsifying reports and mismanagement of evidence is documented, good luck winning a criminal case. You may win in traffic court, but you cannot bet on plea deals for every case.
    It is sort of exactly like VCSO policy when you file a complaint against an officer or deputy... Administration doesn't look at the validity of the complaint, they look at the complainant and attempt to discredit their character. As if being a dirtbag is a liscense to violate their rights. Ask Joel Turney, he runs DAVID checks prior to the complaint being filed and intimidates potential witnesses. I have records (actual paper records) that date back to 2000 to document and verify this. Along with an admission from administration that this is commonly practiced and accepted. So when the truth gets out, and it will, people will begin to use the same practice and mentality to discredit VCSO.
    Knowing "the game" is half of the battle. Staying out of the publics eyes is the best avenue to pursue. Public records are just that... Public awareness is the goal. "We investigated ourselves and found no fault" will soon be a practice of the past. It wont take much effort to get petitions signed to promote change. The Sheriff knows this as his prior department's mistakes caused the supreme court to add a citizen watchdog to oversee complaints and actions not handled properly by the department. (IAO) Integrity and Accountability Office was the term. I suggest we enact a Citizens Oversight Panel (COP) to assure proper investigation handling. Sort of like the council where decisions and votes are made to determine the best outcome. Not just some kangaroo court where coverups are the norm. Just my .02 cents. I have spoken about this at council chambers... Check the archives.
    You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. Handling it “in house” instead of internal affairs wouldn’t mean it wouldn’t be documented. Your .02 cents is worth exactly that. You should really educate yourself because you make yourself look dumber by the day. With all of your experience with public records requests should know better. You spoke about it at council chambers and looked like such a moron that you were laughed at.

  9. #9
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    That really doesn’t help to clarify.
    The IA's are for Bivone and Hodges. They will have a law enforcement lifetime of having PD's and attorneys question everything they memorialize in reports.

    http://volusiaexposed.com/investigat...9006Bivone.pdf

    http://volusiaexposed.com/investigat...9003Hodges.pdf

  10. #10
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Exactly what I wrote... A good lawyer will strike their testimony, and also the falsification of reports is doubt. Our systems of law are based off of reasonable doubt. My point is that it should have been handled in house and not by an Internal Affairs investigation, which will provide a reasonable doubt in any court of law... Hard to believe "beyond any reasonable doubt" when doubt is staring you in the face as a juror. Maybe retrain or corrective councilling would have been a better avenue to take, wouldn't you agree? Professional courtesy so to speak. The fact that they both took their lashings without protest has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of their smeared records jeoprodizing future cases. I am glad they've kept their jobs and weren't "wacked" as the king says. I look at situations from a logical and common sense standpoint.
    And to further my point. What does this accomplish with the negative perception of law enforcement? "dey lied mayun, dat ain't my stuff in dare. One of dem dirty cops framed me". It doesn't take a smart person to figure that these types of founded accusations stay on your records forever and will eventually cost cases. When an officer cannot be trusted, you take away his ability to effectively do his job. I'm not suggesting just forgetting the act, I am suggesting that on paper these acts look really bad to future juries. I'm sure you understand my point, if not maybe you should look into a new career where common sense isn't a requirement.
    When purgery, falsifying reports and mismanagement of evidence is documented, good luck winning a criminal case. You may win in traffic court, but you cannot bet on plea deals for every case.
    It is sort of exactly like VCSO policy when you file a complaint against an officer or deputy... Administration doesn't look at the validity of the complaint, they look at the complainant and attempt to discredit their character. As if being a dirtbag is a liscense to violate their rights. Ask Joel Turney, he runs DAVID checks prior to the complaint being filed and intimidates potential witnesses. I have records (actual paper records) that date back to 2000 to document and verify this. Along with an admission from administration that this is commonly practiced and accepted. So when the truth gets out, and it will, people will begin to use the same practice and mentality to discredit VCSO.
    Knowing "the game" is half of the battle. Staying out of the publics eyes is the best avenue to pursue. Public records are just that... Public awareness is the goal. "We investigated ourselves and found no fault" will soon be a practice of the past. It wont take much effort to get petitions signed to promote change. The Sheriff knows this as his prior department's mistakes caused the supreme court to add a citizen watchdog to oversee complaints and actions not handled properly by the department. (IAO) Integrity and Accountability Office was the term. I suggest we enact a Citizens Oversight Panel (COP) to assure proper investigation handling. Sort of like the council where decisions and votes are made to determine the best outcome. Not just some kangaroo court where coverups are the norm. Just my .02 cents. I have spoken about this at council chambers... Check the archives.
    “In house” investigations are still public record and is part of their personnel files. You should know that being the public records expert so does it make a difference? You remind everyone of the crying left wing nut jobs. Cry about everything Chitwood does no matter what it is. Get out of your moms trailer and go get a life you loser.

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •