These are the same a-holes that arrest a person traveling through their crappy city for just owning a gun locked in a box.
How many people has he watched cry when he salted their cars with dope.
Every case he was ever involved in needs to be researched and those people set free. I bet that won’t happen.
Congratulations.
You may not know it but you just gave everybody the reason Perot was in the 1992 and 1996 election and what was the root of Hillary's “Scorched Earth Policy” during Clinton's impeachment.
You might recall in 1992 Perot claimed Bush was going to orchestrate a coup and overthrow the govt. Stopping the mandatory release of thousands perhaps tens of thousands of prisoners is what he was talking about.
Let me explain.
In 1991 with the R King beating, Bush ordered a review of all complaints filed against police with the FBI in the previous 5 years. There was around 15,000 complaints filed but only around 42 complaints had been pursued in court. Following the LA riots, the FBI claimed there was nothing in the files. Bush then ordered the US Attorneys to review the complaints.
The reason the complaints weren't parsed, lack of evidence of a FEDERAL crime being committed.
The reason for the lack of evidence?
Police are agents of the city govt., city govts. are liable for their actions, so the city govts. will orchestrate a cover up to avoid or lessen their civil liabilities.
How do they do it?
They prosecute the victim of police misconduct even though they know they are innocent.
The County or District Attorney takes on a dual role. Not only does he act as a prosecuting attorney, he acts as a defense attorney for the city and police. They will use the criminal court system to create a defense to civil liability.
Notice in the article it says these type of cases are routinely dismissed. They are usually dismissed AFTER the prosecuting attorney has established a defense to civil liability.
A perfect example, Mike Nifong and the Duke La Cross players. He never intended to have the players found guilty, he just intended to use the criminal court system to create a defense to civil liability. Had the players attorneys cooperated he would have gotten away with it.
Perot was in the 92 election to stop Bush from releasing the findings of the US Attorneys in the review of the 15,00 complaints, that the overwhelming DEMOCRAT controlled city govts. had a policy of prosecuting innocent people to cover up police misconduct. This would have resulted in the MANDITORY release of thousands of prisoners and hundreds of thousands of convictions for lesser crimes being overturned. Basically it would mean a complete collapse of the legal system.
The dems were threatening to orchestrate race riots in every city if Bush released the findings of the US Attorneys.
Collapse of the legal system. mandatory release of thousands of prisoners, and race riots in every city, Bush's only option would have been to suspend the constitution to restore order. Thus Perot's claim Bush was going to orchestrate a coup.
The release of the contents of the FBI files on complaints filed against police with the FBI (there is apx. 3000 new complaints filed every year) is what the Clinton's threatened to do during BC’s impeachment.
The Clinton's attempted to set the plan in motion on March 20, 1999. A few weeks later is when Holder arraigned for the release of the FLAN (?) terrorist.
Recall the outrage?
Multiply that outrage times several thousands then add in race riots in every city and you have Hillary's “Scorched Earth Policy”.