Bad Experience with Carmel PD

[Hotdoger]

My point was that my soul isn't worth "following the law". Not every conviction or an attempt at one brings liberty.

No but it does put money in some part time city attorneys pocket.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Thank you for your concern but I am no longer employed by the City. I was finishing up some matters while on-contract.

I am in private practice now, chasing the billable hour. The reality is that it costs me money to post here - I can't bill for it.

So at least the trial wasn't a total loss if we got you off the government teat.

Good, post away. The more time you spend posting the better off the citizens of this country are.

 

[finity]

Wow - I knew this place would generally be unwelcoming, but such intense personal hostility is surprising.

It's not personal...really. Ok, maybe a little.

What did you expect when you came here & tried to justify you (the city) taking this case to court when in most peoples eyes (here at least) it was obviously a travesty for him to even be cited let alone tried?

Anyway, let me address a few specific things:
If I had done anything unfair (in the legal sense) there were 2 other attorneys in that proceeding that could have stopped me. They didn't.

Since when does "doing the right thing" depend on the input of, or enforcement by, others?

Also, I did not, and would not, present perjured testimony. I don't need to. Which raises another point: ain't no way on God's green earth that either I or that officer would sacrifice our careers over LS. Just. Not. Gonna. Happen. Officers, particularly CPD officers, know that if they get caught 1 time doing something like that, they are done.

Is it really a career concern if the officer involved (or attorneys for that matter) NEVER even have a chance of being found out because no investigation will EVER be undertaken?

How could there EVER be any fear of losing a job over perjury if, even in this one glaring example, the officers testimony was never even questioned by those in authority when it was in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the statements of EVERY witness at the scene? How much more obvious does misconduct have to be before you (the city) will even begin to look into it?

That's why I'm a good attorney. In this case, I should've presented more evidence from the animal control officer about the behavior of "vicious" dogs. I could've done a better job of presenting evidence that the dog was not in "attack mode."

How exactly could you do that? Were you there when the attack occured? Was the officer there? Was the "expert" there? Nope. It was just LS, the dogs & his witnesses.

The only way to "provide more evidence" of the viciousness of the dogs at the time LS pulled the trigger was to just make it up out of thin air or base it on the officers report (which in this case that would be no real difference compared to the "thin air" option).

I cannot and will not divulge the specific privileged conversations about the decision not to dismiss this case.

However, I will point out 2 things:
1) That the officer did not witness the event is unusual for ordinance violations (usually speeding, not stopping at stop signs, etc.) but certainly not unusual for prosecutions generally. Likewise, the fact that the officer has one version and the defendant has another version is not particularly unique. Neither of those compel dismissal.

But aren't those two different versions of events USUALLY based on SOME objective investigation of the incident? Isn't the officers report NORMALLY a documentation of material evidence at the scene, statements by those involved & other witness statements? Only then can it be used to come to some conclusion OTHER than the one the defendant is presenting as a defense. In this case it didn't look like that happened. It seems that the officers report was written to justify citing LS.

When an officers report is completely different than the initial report (which in this case happens to be by the defendant) corroborated by witness reports & testimony then whose version is more likely to be true? I know which side I lean toward.

2) The undisputed facts support prosecution

Whose undisputed facts?

The officers?

If the "facts" that you say support his prosecution were used as the minimum standard to arrest & prosecute someone in a self-defense case then there would almost NEVER be anyone who wouldn't be arrested & prosecuted in a self-defense case if the BG was ultimately uninjured.

If I am getting robbed and I pull a gun on the person and they immediately run away without me having to shoot am I now to be arrested/tried for "pointing a firearm" because the situation didn't necessitate me actually USING the gun to shoot at the robber? According to your "logic" then I obviously didn't ACTUALLY feel that the "robber" was committing a forcible felony since I didn't pull the trigger so I wasn't ACTUALLY justified in pointing a gun at him in the first place. Yep, now I'm suddenly the criminal. Makes perfect sense.

: LS shot his gun inside City limits and that he was not shooting at the threat that he perceived. As the hypothetical conversation I posted last night points out, the failure to issue a citation is more absurd than issuing one.

I thought that the decision to arrest/prosecute someone had to be made out of the "totality of circumstances" not just cherry picking certain "facts" to justify taking someone to jail?

Enforcement of the law will always be a financial net loss for any government entity. It will always be cheaper not to prosecute.

I don't think the "net loss" the poster was talking about was only the financial kind.

Carmel <> real world
Carmel <> Cincy

Edit:
Too much of a hurry, but I should elaborate. Carmel, for good or bad, is different. Shooting is uncommon. OC is uncommon. Most people in Carmel want it that way. One role of City government is to reflect the will of the people, not just the people we agree with.

Sorry - maybe more later.

I know others have already whipped your ass for this but this is important enough to add one more ass-whipping to the mix.

Peoples rights aren't just protected as long as the majority agrees with them. If that were the case then there would be no need for a Constitution. Rights mean NOTHING unless they are still Rights even when the majority vehemently disagrees with you exercising them.

It was not a "disagreement".
The "officer" lied about the incident to bolster his citing LS. Plain and simple.

Yep.

 

[T.Lex]

Is it really a career concern if the officer involved (or attorneys for that matter) NEVER even have a chance of being found out because no investigation will EVER be undertaken?

How could there EVER be any fear of losing a job over perjury if, even in this one glaring example, the officers testimony was never even questioned by those in authority when it was in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the statements of EVERY witness at the scene? How much more obvious does misconduct have to be before you (the city) will even begin to look into it?

Credibility is really a requirement for police and attorneys.

The officer did not commit perjury. The "misconduct" is only "obvious" to those around here who wish to see it.

Believe it or not, except to only the most hard-core of binarians, there is room for both LS and the officer to be telling the truth.

How exactly could you do that? Were you there when the attack occured? Was the officer there? Was the "expert" there? Nope. It was just LS, the dogs & his witnesses.

The only way to "provide more evidence" of the viciousness of the dogs at the time LS pulled the trigger was to just make it up out of thin air or base it on the officers report (which in this case that would be no real difference compared to the "thin air" option).

The county animal control officer was more than willing to testify that the description of the dogs' behavior was not that of an enraged animal. I didn't spend much time on that, as I didn't think it was necessary to my case.

In retrospect, perhaps it should have been.

But aren't those two different versions of events USUALLY based on SOME objective investigation of the incident? Isn't the officers report NORMALLY a documentation of material evidence at the scene, statements by those involved & other witness statements? Only then can it be used to come to some conclusion OTHER than the one the defendant is presenting as a defense. In this case it didn't look like that happened. It seems that the officers report was written to justify citing LS.

People see what they want to see. The officer's report was consistent with what LS said, also.

Whose undisputed facts?

You do know what "undisputed facts" means, right?

If the "facts" that you say support his prosecution were used as the minimum standard to arrest & prosecute someone in a self-defense case then there would almost NEVER be anyone who wouldn't be arrested & prosecuted in a self-defense case if the BG was ultimately uninjured.

In my experience, and as stated by the judge, self-defense cases happen in a large gray area of the law. They are difficult to balance out in terms of whether to prosecute or not - even "minor" ordinance violations.

When in doubt, let the judge sort it out. At least, that's what we want our officers to do.

If I am getting robbed and I pull a gun on the person and they immediately run away without me having to shoot am I now to be arrested/tried for "pointing a firearm" because the situation didn't necessitate me actually USING the gun to shoot at the robber? According to your "logic" then I obviously didn't ACTUALLY feel that the "robber" was committing a forcible felony since I didn't pull the trigger so I wasn't ACTUALLY justified in pointing a gun at him in the first place. Yep, now I'm suddenly the criminal. Makes perfect sense.

That's your logic (and hypothetical), not mine.

I thought that the decision to arrest/prosecute someone had to be made out of the "totality of circumstances" not just cherry picking certain "facts" to justify taking someone to jail?

a) No one was taken to jail.
b) You are free to approach your prosecution of cases as you see fit.

Peoples rights aren't just protected as long as the majority agrees with them. If that were the case then there would be no need for a Constitution. Rights mean NOTHING unless they are still Rights even when the majority vehemently disagrees with you exercising them.

The courts are in place to prevent both tyrannies - by the majority and the minority. The system worked.

 

[4sarge]

T. Lex, Here is what We do know about Carmel. Supposed Gun Crimes are Prosecuted in Carmel to the fullest extent of the law. Perverted Sexual Assaults allegedly Committed by Members of Carmel's Athletic Community are swept under the rug, the victims are thrown under the bus and Both Law Enforcement & Prosecutor Staff seem to be complicit in these cases.
These assaults have happened on more than one occasion, members of the swim team and then involving members of the basketball team. You were correct about One thing though, the Carmel elitists are very selective in their arrest and enforcement (prosecution) of select laws that they wish to be enforced dependent upon the social (Money) status of the alleged perpetrators.

 

[LPMan59]

T. Lex, Here is what We do know about Carmel. Supposed Gun Crimes are Prosecuted in Carmel to the fullest extent of the law. Perverted Sexual Assaults allegedly Committed by Members of Carmel's Athletic Community are swept under the rug, the victims are thrown under the bus and Both Law Enforcement & Prosecutor Staff seem to be complicit in these cases.
These assaults have happened on more than one occasion, members of the swim team and then involving members of the basketball team. You were correct about One thing though, the Carmel elitists are very selective in their arrest and enforcement (prosecution) of select laws that they wish to be enforced dependent upon the social (Money) status of the alleged perpetrators.

QFT and repp'd

 

[Liberty Sanders]

The officer did commit blatant perjury on at least two points.

He stated that I told him that I fired the shot to "scare" the dogs through the fence. I never stated such a thing or anything close to it.

The officer stated that I demonstrated firing the shot in front of me, rather than behind me, which would have defeated my entire purpose in firing the shot.

Both of these acts of perjury were calculated and premeditated to prejudice the judge against me and make it appear that I was both untruthful about what happened and reckless in the way I fired the shot.

Fortunately, Judge Poindexter had not only the sense to see what was happening in his courtroom, but the integrity to rule appropriately.

Go ahead...keep trying to explain these things away.

 

[INGunGuy]

The officer did commit blatant perjury on at least two points.

He stated that I told him that I fired the shot to "scare" the dogs through the fence. I never stated such a thing or anything close to it.

The officer stated that I demonstrated firing the shot in front of me, rather than behind me, which would have defeated my entire purpose in firing the shot.

Both of these acts of perjury were calculated and premeditated to prejudice the judge against me and make it appear that I was both untruthful about what happened and reckless in the way I fired the shot.

Fortunately, Judge Poindexter had not only the sense to see what was happening in his courtroom, but the integrity to rule appropriately.

Go ahead...keep trying to explain these things away.

So again, as I said, it looks like there is a Brady Cop in Carmel who is allowed to continue on the force and lie his way thru.... Sounds to me like the POS cop deserves a jail cell...

INGunGuy

 

[Walter Zoomie]

Credibility is really a requirement for police and attorneys.

How's that working out for you right about now?

Better study some more or go to Sam's Club and buy you a dump truck full.

You're runnin' on EMPTY, brother.

 

[T.Lex]

He stated that I told him that I fired the shot to "scare" the dogs through the fence. I never stated such a thing or anything close to it.

Similar to how you didn't recall his point about "if this happens again" when you testified?

The officer stated that I demonstrated firing the shot in front of me, rather than behind me, which would have defeated my entire purpose in firing the shot.

You disagreed as to the direction. That is not perjury.

 

[Bunnykid68]

The county animal control officer was more than willing to testify that the description of the dogs' behavior was not that of an enraged animal. I didn't spend much time on that, as I didn't think it was necessary to my case.

I aint read this whole thing nor have I read the court record on it. BUT I would be surprised if a State Employeed Animal Control Officer is capable of determining a dogs intent based on peoples impression of a charging dog. A dog running at me and I am sure I am going to stop see if it looks mad then determine whether I should run. Big dog runs at me I ge the **** out of the way.

But your right, he should have took his chances and tried to blast the stupid animal away and just hoped for the best

 

[E5RANGER375]

im sure the cop testified lock step with what the prosecutor told him to say.

 

[E5RANGER375]

The county animal control officer

so thats what they call the dog catcher in todays PC world where we bulk up peoples resumes with big words huh?

yeah, Id hardly consider a dog catchers testimony expert

 

[Bunnykid68]

so thats what they call the dog catcher in todays PC world where we bulk up peoples resumes with big words huh?

yeah, Id hardly consider a dog catchers testimony expert

Hey, he works for the STATE, he must be an expert just like the cop that issued the citation. Who are we to question the king?

 

[patton487]

Credibility is really a requirement for police and attorneys.

If that were the case, there would be only a few thousand police in Indiana. And maybe 3 or 4 attorneys. And you would not be one of them! LOL

 

[Hammerhead]

So wait, you think that a dog catcher, who wasn't there during the attack and only saw the dogs after the event (and how long after the event did he see the dogs, or did he see them on some other occasion before this incident?) would be happy to say that the dogs, now back in their yard behind the fence were the happy, lovable, joyous slobber machines they all are all the damn time?

Of course they were not all hyper and in attack mode anymore, he scared the crap out of them by defending himself with a loud machine that propels projectiles and they ran with their tails tucked between their legs and calmed down right quick and in a hurry.

 

[finity]

The officer did not commit perjury. The "misconduct" is only "obvious" to those around here who wish to see it.

And I can argue that the misconduct was not obvious to those there who wished to not see it because they have a vested interest in not seeing it.

Believe it or not, except to only the most hard-core of binarians, there is room for both LS and the officer to be telling the truth.

If I tell the officer "A" & he subsequently writes in his report that I said "B" then there are only two reasonable options:

1 - The officer lied to bolster his case against someone who he just cited.

2 - He's incompetent & his incompetence caused a citizen to be unecessarily prosecuted at great expense to him & the city.

Take your pick.

Either one is pretty damn scary for an officer who is entrusted with the authority to effect the freedom (or lives) of the citizenry.

I'm not saying honest mistakes can't happen (and any way you slice it, a "mistake" is still a form of incompetence) but let's put this into perspective.

If I make a serious enough "honest mistake" at work I will be fired. & my job doesn't entail ANYTHING to do with the public trust or impact anyone's liberty.

At what point does a cop's "honest mistake" demand attention? When an innocent person is executed for a murder they didn't commit? I know that's an extreme example but I really think that, even in that situation, most cops would not be held accountable for that "mistake". It's just the way it is...but that doesn't make it right.

People see what they want to see. The officer's report was consistent with what LS said, also.

I could be wrong, but I think LS disagrees with that statement.

Nahhh. I'm not wrong.

You do know what "undisputed facts" means, right?

You said yourself that facts can be "misinterpreted" & truth is subjective.

I was just asking who's interpretation of the facts or subjective truth you used to arrive at the claim of them being "undisputed"?

The above two sentences are using sarcasm to make a point. Just like when I asked about "whose undisputed facts" in my last post.

a) No one was taken to jail.

This time...

The system worked.

Through no help of yours. Especially even now when you come on here saying that you still think that LS should have been found "responsible" (ie convicted).

That was lucky for LS that the system did, indeed, work. It could have easily went the other way if the judge would have "beliefs" similar to yours.

 

[Eddie]

Credibility is really a requirement for police and attorneys.

The officer did not commit perjury. The "misconduct" is only "obvious" to those around here who wish to see it.

Believe it or not, except to only the most hard-core of binarians, there is room for both LS and the officer to be telling the truth.


The county animal control officer was more than willing to testify that the description of the dogs' behavior was not that of an enraged animal. I didn't spend much time on that, as I didn't think it was necessary to my case.

In retrospect, perhaps it should have been.


People see what they want to see. The officer's report was consistent with what LS said, also.


You do know what "undisputed facts" means, right?


In my experience, and as stated by the judge, self-defense cases happen in a large gray area of the law. They are difficult to balance out in terms of whether to prosecute or not - even "minor" ordinance violations.

When in doubt, let the judge sort it out. At least, that's what we want our officers to do.


That's your logic (and hypothetical), not mine.


a) No one was taken to jail.
b) You are free to approach your prosecution of cases as you see fit.


The courts are in place to prevent both tyrannies - by the majority and the minority. The system worked.

"The system worked." "I was just doing my job." "I was representing my client."

Those are the age old cries of the attorney who loses. You lost. You were the loser; the one who did not win. The Judge ruled against you.

Get over it and move on. Your continued attempts to justify your position are just making you look foolish. Let it go.

 

[CarmelHP]

At what point does a cop's "honest mistake" demand attention? When an innocent person is executed for a murder they didn't commit? I know that's an extreme example but I really think that, even in that situation, most cops would not be held accountable for that "mistake". It's just the way it is...but that doesn't make it right.

T.Lex used to do habeus appeals. We don't know how many were sent to an unjustified eternal dirt nap because of his unique view of truth and justice.

 

[Jack Ryan]

im sure the cop testified lock step with what the prosecutor told him to say.

...and right there you have one of the biggest problems with our court system. Cops, prosecutors, judges are all buddies who hang out together on the same team. A lot of the lawyers who are not even on the prosecution side do everything they can to break in to that clique and be a part with them. Because it affects cases.

Go sit in a traffic court some time, especially in a smaller city and watch the cops, the prosecutor all in and out chatting up their schemes and getting their story straight. In and out sucking up with the court officials. While the mere citizens are held out in the "cattle pen".

Direct quote of a defense lawyer, "The cop showed up and I was going to ask for a continuance but I play golf with this judge. We'll go ahead and try it. Just tell the judge what happened. Nothing fancy just answer any question, no more."

... and T. Lex still blew this one and got tossed after 7 years on the job.