Posted on 01/24/2003 11:24:43 AM PST by Pahuanui
Newsbrief: This Week's Corrupt Cops Story
It never ends. This week's winners are Jefferson County (Greater Louisville), KY, Metro Narcotics officers Mark A. Watson and Christie Richards. The daring duo is on trial this week in Louisville on charges of using photocopied judges' signatures to create bogus search warrants, lying on affidavits to obtain search warrants, and pocketing money they were supposed to be paying to informers. Watson faces 472 counts, while Richardson faces 467.
The pair are accused of 133 separate incidents of wrongdoing, according to court documents. Watson and Richards were suspended in February 2000 after questions were raised about improprieties in pay Watson was receiving for court appearances. The Louisville Courier-Journal reported in March that 21 of Watson's 41 cases in 2001 were dropped because he failed to appear in court, but he nonetheless collected court pay for 10 of the missed cases.
As their misdeeds came to light, more cases they made have crumbled. Judges have overturned eight convictions and prosecutors have dropped charges against 32 defendants in 19 cases in circuit court and dismissed an additional 15 cases in district court. Meanwhile, a class-action lawsuit naming the pair, the city of Louisville, and two former Jefferson County police chiefs remains on hold pending the outcome of the criminal trial. The plaintiffs, who are people investigated by Watson and Richards, accuse them of violating their constitutional rights and accuse other officials of condoning such activities.
Watson and Richards' misconduct also sparked a $60,000 review of Metro Narcotics by the Police Executive Review Board. That review found that Metro Narcotics supervisors missed or ignored warning signs. Jefferson County Police Chief William Carcara, who retired last month when the city and county police forces merged, implemented some changes in the unit, including encouraging detectives to pursue cases involving higher level dealers, requiring commanding officers to witness informant payments, and evaluating the quality of arrests and whether they result in convictions. Oh, yeah, and now officers have to prove they were in court to testify before they can get that overtime pay.
We had such an America once. The WoD is a 20th Century 'innovation'. So I suppose that America prior to the WoD was a total disaster zone, right?
It is legitimate to question the vision of a present where the authorities openly flout the law.
You should start watching "The Shield" on FX.
No, you quite clearly don't get it: no other type of activity falling under criminal code offers either the vast amounts of money or the innumerable opportunities for informing that the drug trade does. Murder doesn't even come close. I understand you are incapable of proportional reasoning, but I do hope this spells it out for you.
I now see why you're against the WOD. You're on crack.
I see why you lack the mental facilities for logical discourse: you assume facts not in evidence, and are forced to backpedal and make excuses when confronted with reality.
Up your dosage. Quickly.
Mostly they are.
Legalize drugs, and the magical temptations of petty cash and illicit opportunities for corrupt cops vanish into thin air.
Name any other law that allows cops to have opportunities to take cash and property from people in this manner. There are none. The crime is also the evidence. That for starters stands law on its head. When the evidence is the crime, you need not prove any crime. Its the easiest opportunity for corruption.
I now see why you're against the WOD. You're on crack.
Well, you win. I can't beat brilliant arguments like that.
Your extremism has run amok.
Along with their political party.
Pro-drug? Hardly. Anti-WOD.
And what makes you think that you don't have such a society now or are you just another member of the extremist choir of Chicken Littles, running around declaring the end of the world has come?
I'm sorry, could you point out exactly where I am condemning an 'entire branch' of people?
And if you think the number is 'miniscule' in regards to police corruption vis a vis the WOD, you are sadly mistaken.
Careful, such a thought will unleash enough saliva from pro-druggies that it could wash away a small town.
You should really try to understand the word semantics before actually trying to use it with those who already do.
I am not 'pro-drug' in any sense, and exhort people not to use them in the first place, alcohol included. I am, however, vehemently against the authoritarian legal codes that currently dictate the WOD.
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
But then came those whose drug-infested lifestyles began to adversely affect the wholesome lifestyles of most. When that happened, laws came in to protect society from those nitwits.
Don't blame the WOD, blame those who ruined a good thing because of their inability to be responsible.
But you don't hear stories like this about homicide cops, do you? What does it say about the War On Some Drugs that it attracts the dregs of law enforcement?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.