Are you there? I was looking for a link to this law. I can’t believe a person accused of crime can be compelled before a grand jury without a lawyer. I believe that is the point you are trying to make. If I’m wrong please corrrect me. Radley first brough it up, perhaps he can direct me to this law. The one where there are separate grand jury process for cops and civilians. Or perhaps is more “exaggerating for effect”

I’m unaware of such a law either in California or anywhere else. Radley say it’s different for cops, maybe it is, but not that I’m aware of. If you disagree with the law, change it, but don’t blame someone for seeking protection if it’s granted by the law. Kinda like, there’s no need to plead the 5th if you’ve got nothing to hide right?

Or is that just “anecdotal?”

When a police officer is accused of misconduct is not the same as when a police officer is accused of a crime. A crime is always misconduct, but misconduct is not always a crime. See the difference? Internal investigations are covered by specific laws that apply to how they can be conducted.

Not lying — exaggerating for effect, but only a little. You did imply that Cory’s tattoo made him less sympathetic, did you not?

And yes, you were out and out wrong about several details of the case.

This just isn’t true. Just a few examples:

In most places when a police officer is accused of misconduct, he’s usually given anywhere between a week and a month to consult with a lawyer and his union rep before he’s questioned. Pretty sure regular citizens aren’t afforded that privilege. In most states, police officers can have a lawyer present when they’re questioned before a grand jury, can cross examine witnesses, and can’t give “closing statements.” Regular people aren’t allowed to do any of those things, either.

This is a poor argument. Only guilty people have a reason to lie. Being arrested and/or having your door knocked in doesn’t equal being guilty. Before you knock Radley for bias, you might examine your own.

Also, before you complain about “strawman” arguments, please show where Radley or anyone here has insisted on having a “perfect” system.

Cops are held to the same standard as everyone else. That’s it, You can cite all the anecdotal evidence you want, it doesn’t make your point true.

So if case after case after case of cops who receive lighter penalties than civilians for doing similar things have been documented (as they have), you still won’t believe that cops aren’t held to the same standard as everyone else. I hope you’re able to see how this makes you appear uninterested in objective truth.

You’re the one who said Cory Maye must be guilty, because he has a tattoo.

You also were pretty misinformed about the details of Cory’s case.

This site is predisposed to fault the police for misconduct based solely on the compaint of someone who has a reason to lie. There’s little to no investigation into what actually happened, except for the occasional search of a plaintiff’s lawsuit, which I’m happy to remind everyone here isn’t evidence of anything.

I’m also not opposed to pointing out times when cops do make mistakes, (those are excellent learning points) or break the laws, (That’s always news anyway, and they deserve to be prosecuted). But that’s not what happens here and you know it. So quit being obtuse. People like Radley seem to try to turn honest police mistakes into misconduct or criminal behavior, and in a system that relies on intent, it’s just not there. Then they turn around and use those examples as proof the system favors cops.

Yes I am the same Patrick from Talk Left, no need to hide behind different names, and I’ve brought up numerous examples of how the Corey Maye story was misused over there. My positions and style and attitude are consistent so I’ll take your observation as a compliment.

Cops are held to the same standard as everyone else. That’s it, You can cite all the anecdotal evidence you want, it doesn’t make your point true. There is injustice in the criminal justice system. It’s a human system too. I guess I forgot how perfect you were.

“are there mistakes, misconduct, criminal behavior on the part of the police? certainly there are.”

why then should these things not be pointed out? why then should there not be a call to punish and **prosecute** the cops who’ve done it? whining about how most of the time cops do a good job isn’t going to cut it: if john q. citizen has a 40-year clean record and then gets busted for causing the death of another - say, a *cop* - cops aren’t going to rise to his defense. DA’s aren’t going to say “accidents happen”. should a harried mom forget her baby in the car, and it dies of heatstroke, the cops will charge and arrest her. for a tragic mistake. should a COP accidentally shoot someone through a closed door - as balko has documented - HE faces no charges. is that fair? is that right?

or is it exactly what it seems to be: that cops are held to a lower standard than non-cops?

look in the mirror. YOU “condemn the practice” of pointing out stupid/dirty cops, but “offer no alternative” except excuses for them, and complaints about bad publicity. was mike nifong arrested by a SWAT team? why not?

Are there mistakes, misconduct, criminal behavior on the part of the police? certainly there are. That is what gives you your kernel of truth. But the real truth of the matter is that in virtually every circumstance these activities are undertaken with the safety of everyone at the top of the list of priorities. They are done safey, legally and ethically. That’s the truth.

What you fail to account for time and time again are the number of raids that are successully conducted, where evidence is properly seized, and where risk to human life on both sides of the issue is minimized. To demand perfection from any system is fallacious and intellectually dishonsest. That failures in this system can result in serious injury or death is tragic, but there’s no way to make it perfect. If there was someone would have already thought of it.

It is appropriate to follow the U.S. Constitution, the laws of the land and rulings of judges appointed or elected into office. Right now drugs are illegal, the law allows for the reasonable search of citizens, and SWAT and other tactical entry teams are best suited for reducing the risk to everyone. You have come out against the “militarization” of law enforcement. Having served in both disciplines I can say that’s a false analogy. That being said, if a warrant needs to be served, and the threat or danger is not known, who better to serve the warrant than a team specfically trained to do so, be they called SWAT or SAFE or whatever the acronym? You condemn the practice but offer no alternative.

Yes, a well-trained SWAT team executing raids on nonviolent offenders is preferable to a poorly trained or untrained group of police officers. Who is advocating the latter?

How about not using violent tactics on nonviolent offenders at all? You say I’m “willing to bet someone’s life” on the small chance that some drug dealer will knowingly decide to take on a raiding SWAT team. I guess I am. That’s the risk you take when sign up to be a cop. And you’re willing to risk the lives of people who didn’t sign up for that risk to make sure small-time dealers don’t flush drugs the toilet (and let’s face it, if the guy’s supply was small enough to be flushable, he wasn’t a major dealer).

I don’t know how long you’ve been reading, but I’ve documented hundreds of raids, even by well-trained SWAT teams, that went violently wrong in a hurry. The margin for error is too low. The mistake can be on the part of the SWAT team or on the person they’re targeting. But it only takes a small mistake in judgment to get someone killed.

And over what? Dope? What’s the point? Do you really think it’s appropriate to be kicking down doors and invading the homes of American citizens to stop people from getting high?

You’re clearly be willing to bet someone else’s life on such a thing, and most times you’d end up being right, but it only takes one time being wrong. As you point out there are certainly enough violence inherent in these raids, having less trained cops doing them isn’t going to decrease that.

The other point being, this was a frat house, but I imagine they only account for something less than 1% of all warrants served. What about the other 99%? Still OK with that? Again you’re betting someone’s life that everyone in the location to be searched is going to be cooperative. A door can be fixed, hurt feeling and bruised egos heal, even embarrasment fades, but someone dying is forever. I for one believe it’s safer to use a team that trains and practices together.

Or, you could have a couple of uniformed cops politely knock on the door to the fraternity house, ask for the guy who signed for the package, and question/arrest him without tearing the door off its hinges, throwing people the ground at gunpoint, and strip-searching them.

Given that this is a fraternity of college students, that the suspect was an honors student with no priors, and that this was a nonviolent crime, wouldn’t that be a better option?