Bad Experience with Carmel PD

[dross]

Sorry, guess I got my panties in a bunch...

Common thing for ladies

Okay, so it's late afternoon here, a little warm, and I'm bored. Now you two have got me thinking about ladies' panties all bunched up. Thanks. Thanks a lot.

 

[CarmelHP]

Okay, I feel like I'm representing this guy now, but here goes.

I'm reporting you for unlicensed practice of law.

He said in one of his posts that he came from a military family. Addressing other guys as "ladies" is common in the military and isn't really meant as derogatory except in a gentle kind of joking way, which is the way I took it.

But he, apparently, wasn't in the military. Jeez, drop the pretense.

Also, I think ladies are awesome, so I'm not sure how calling someone a lady is a personal attack.

It all depends on if you're looking to be the wife or husband, doesn't it.

 

[Roadie]

Okay, so it's late afternoon here, a little warm, and I'm bored. Now you two have got me thinking about ladies' panties all bunched up. Thanks. Thanks a lot.

Long cruise was it, Sailor?

 

[boileralum]

[snip]

(In retrospect, I'm pretty sure I could've convinced the judge the dogs weren't vicious, too.)

[/snip]

[snip]

You are entitled to your opinion. I think what he needed to do was a little Mozambique Drill on the pooch. YMMV.

[/snip]

So you think he should have killed the dogs even though you don't think the dogs were vicious? Seems to be a bit of a contradiction in your logic, no?

Props for getting on here though. Thanks for providing some insight into the other side of the incident, and welcome to INGO.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok, lads (since some of you are apparently sensitive about your masculinity....)

It's been a long day, so I'll make this brief.

First, I guess I should elaborate on using this thread at trial. The bias or prejudice of a witness will always be material and relevant. Several of LS's comments could illustrate such bias/prejudice, so they were fair game. Plus, I was prepared in case he denied making them, or even if he claimed to not remember (which sometimes happens to witnesses when faced with something they're not comfortable admitting). I would've been able to impeach him with his statements, in that case, which could affect his credibility. He played it straight, though, so the effect was minimal.

It was a fair play, though.

Second, regarding the officer's actions, turn it around. Let's say the officer still cites the dog owner for having his dogs loose, but doesn't cite LS. Everything in CPD is documented. I mean everything. So, the next time his Lieutenant sees him, a conversation something like this would take place:

LT: So, what did you do with guy who shot the dog?
SGT: Oh, he didn't shoot the dog.
LT: Oh - wow. So he missed?
SGT: Well, no. He's a retired officer, so I think he would've hit it if he was aiming at it.
LT: So, he didn't shoot?
SGT: Oh no - he shot. He even called 911 to tell us he shot. One of the first things he did was admit that he shot.
LT: Wow - so did you arrest him for criminal recklessness?
SGT: No, I couldn't do that, he was getting attacked by a dog.
LT: Ah, ok, so he shot at the dog that was attacking him?
SGT: Well, no, he actually shot away from it. To scare it.
LT: So he shot away from a dog that was attacking him?
SGT: Yep, that's why I didn't arrest him.
LT: Was he hurt bad?
SGT: Nope, not a scratch that I could tell.
LT: He shot away from a dog that was supposedly attacking him, but didn't have any injuries?
SGT: Yep.
LT: So, did you impound the dog?
SGT: No.
LT: Did you cite the owner for having a vicious animal?
SGT: No. Just for having the dogs out loose.
LT: So, a non-vicious dog, attacked, but didn't injure, a guy who shot away from the dog, in a residential neighborhood in the middle of the afternoon? And all you did was write a ticket for dog-at-large?
SGT: Yep.

Ok, it isn't quite "Who's on First?" but I hope you can appreciate the absurdity of NOT writing LS a citation.

@boilaralum - that contradiction was my big problem through the trial. The more vicious LS made the dog out to be, the less sense his actions made. I should've been clearer. Plus, even if the dog was vicious, I think I'm persuasive enough to have gotten the judge to think it wasn't, based on the available evidence.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Plus, even if the dog was vicious, I think I'm persuasive enough to have gotten the judge to think it wasn't, based on the available evidence.

ok you have said this at least two times now. I believe the dog was vicious since it bit his pants, even if it was being territorial in his yard and barking and showing teeth, I think thats being vicious. so if your so confident in your abilities to convince judges of conjured up evidence then why didnt you do it? please dont give me an answer like "my morals prevented me from it" or I will never believe you.

 

[critter592]

It's been a long day, so I'll make this brief.

I thought you said this would be brief?

LT: So, what did you do with guy who shot the dog?
SGT: Oh, he didn't shoot the dog.
LT: Oh - wow. So he missed?
SGT: Well, no. He's a retired officer, so I think he would've hit it if he was aiming at it.
LT: So, he didn't shoot?
SGT: Oh no - he shot. He even called 911 to tell us he shot. One of the first things he did was admit that he shot.
LT: Wow - so did you arrest him for criminal recklessness?
SGT: No, I couldn't do that, he was getting attacked by a dog.
LT: Ah, ok, so he shot at the dog that was attacking him?
SGT: Well, no, he actually shot away from it. To scare it.
LT: So he shot away from a dog that was attacking him?
SGT: Yep, that's why I didn't arrest him.
LT: Was he hurt bad?
SGT: Nope, not a scratch that I could tell.
LT: He shot away from a dog that was supposedly attacking him, but didn't have any injuries?
SGT: Yep.
LT: So, did you impound the dog?
SGT: No.
LT: Did you cite the owner for having a vicious animal?
SGT: No. Just for having the dogs out loose.
LT: So, a non-vicious dog, attacked, but didn't injure, a guy who shot away from the dog, in a residential neighborhood in the middle of the afternoon? And all you did was write a ticket for dog-at-large?
SGT: Yep.

I think I saw this in a Monty Python movie one time.

 

[windellmc]

Well I like lawyers a lot less after reading this thread...

 

[Benny]

ok you have said this at least two times now. I believe the dog was vicious since it bit his pants, even if it was being territorial in his yard and barking and showing teeth, I think thats being vicious. so if your so confident in your abilities to convince judges of conjured up evidence then why didnt you do it? please dont give me an answer like "my morals prevented me from it" or I will never believe you.

I'm awaiting the answer as well.

This dude is so full of **** he stinks.

 

[Roadie]

Ok, lads (since some of you are apparently sensitive about your masculinity....)

It's been a long day, so I'll make this brief.

First, I guess I should elaborate on using this thread at trial. The bias or prejudice of a witness will always be material and relevant. Several of LS's comments could illustrate such bias/prejudice, so they were fair game. Plus, I was prepared in case he denied making them, or even if he claimed to not remember (which sometimes happens to witnesses when faced with something they're not comfortable admitting). I would've been able to impeach him with his statements, in that case, which could affect his credibility. He played it straight, though, so the effect was minimal.

It was a fair play, though.

Second, regarding the officer's actions, turn it around. Let's say the officer still cites the dog owner for having his dogs loose, but doesn't cite LS. Everything in CPD is documented. I mean everything. So, the next time his Lieutenant sees him, a conversation something like this would take place:

LT: So, what did you do with guy who shot the dog?
SGT: Oh, he didn't shoot the dog.
LT: Oh - wow. So he missed?
SGT: Well, no. He's a retired officer, so I think he would've hit it if he was aiming at it.
LT: So, he didn't shoot?
SGT: Oh no - he shot. He even called 911 to tell us he shot. One of the first things he did was admit that he shot.
LT: Wow - so did you arrest him for criminal recklessness?
SGT: No, I couldn't do that, he was getting attacked by a dog.
LT: Ah, ok, so he shot at the dog that was attacking him?
SGT: Well, no, he actually shot away from it. To scare it.
LT: So he shot away from a dog that was attacking him?
SGT: Yep, that's why I didn't arrest him.
LT: Was he hurt bad?
SGT: Nope, not a scratch that I could tell.
LT: He shot away from a dog that was supposedly attacking him, but didn't have any injuries?
SGT: Yep.
LT: So, did you impound the dog?
SGT: No.
LT: Did you cite the owner for having a vicious animal?
SGT: No. Just for having the dogs out loose.
LT: So, a non-vicious dog, attacked, but didn't injure, a guy who shot away from the dog, in a residential neighborhood in the middle of the afternoon? And all you did was write a ticket for dog-at-large?
SGT: Yep.

Ok, it isn't quite "Who's on First?" but I hope you can appreciate the absurdity of NOT writing LS a citation.

@boilaralum - that contradiction was my big problem through the trial. The more vicious LS made the dog out to be, the less sense his actions made. I should've been clearer. Plus, even if the dog was vicious, I think I'm persuasive enough to have gotten the judge to think it wasn't, based on the available evidence.

SO, let me get this straight..

You think that LS, the witnesses, and the Judge, were all wrong about the dog, but YOU are right? Isn't that what this boils down to?

Oh, and sorry if I missed it, but I am still wondering why you felt the need to use posts from this website in your case, if it was as strong as you keep implying it was?

 

[Jack Ryan]

Ok, lads (since some of you are apparently sensitive about your masculinity....)

It's been a long day, so I'll make this brief.

First, I guess I should elaborate on using this thread at trial. The bias or prejudice of a witness will always be material and relevant. Several of LS's comments could illustrate such bias/prejudice, so they were fair game. Plus, I was prepared in case he denied making them, or even if he claimed to not remember (which sometimes happens to witnesses when faced with something they're not comfortable admitting). I would've been able to impeach him with his statements, in that case, which could affect his credibility. He played it straight, though, so the effect was minimal.

It was a fair play, though.

Second, regarding the officer's actions, turn it around. Let's say the officer still cites the dog owner for having his dogs loose, but doesn't cite LS. Everything in CPD is documented. I mean everything. So, the next time his Lieutenant sees him, a conversation something like this would take place:

LT: So, what did you do with guy who shot the dog?
SGT: Oh, he didn't shoot the dog.
LT: Oh - wow. So he missed?
SGT: Well, no. He's a retired officer, so I think he would've hit it if he was aiming at it.
LT: So, he didn't shoot?
SGT: Oh no - he shot. He even called 911 to tell us he shot. One of the first things he did was admit that he shot.
LT: Wow - so did you arrest him for criminal recklessness?
SGT: No, I couldn't do that, he was getting attacked by a dog.
LT: Ah, ok, so he shot at the dog that was attacking him?
SGT: Well, no, he actually shot away from it. To scare it.
LT: So he shot away from a dog that was attacking him?
SGT: Yep, that's why I didn't arrest him.
LT: Was he hurt bad?
SGT: Nope, not a scratch that I could tell.
LT: He shot away from a dog that was supposedly attacking him, but didn't have any injuries?
SGT: Yep.
LT: So, did you impound the dog?
SGT: No.
LT: Did you cite the owner for having a vicious animal?
SGT: No. Just for having the dogs out loose.
LT: So, a non-vicious dog, attacked, but didn't injure, a guy who shot away from the dog, in a residential neighborhood in the middle of the afternoon? And all you did was write a ticket for dog-at-large?
SGT: Yep.

Ok, it isn't quite "Who's on First?" but I hope you can appreciate the absurdity of NOT writing LS a citation.

@boilaralum - that contradiction was my big problem through the trial. The more vicious LS made the dog out to be, the less sense his actions made. I should've been clearer. Plus, even if the dog was vicious, I think I'm persuasive enough to have gotten the judge to think it wasn't, based on the available evidence.

I'm no doctor, not even a lawyer, but I think you are delusional. You do realise the trial is over don't you?

 

[Fargo]

First, I guess I should elaborate on using this thread at trial. The bias or prejudice of a witness will always be material and relevant.

Really? Just how does LS's feelings about a potential lack of impartiality on the part of a judge have:

any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Just what fact related to what element of the offense does it make more or less probable? Bias toward a judge is far from automatically relevant and I would expect you to know that.

Additionally, it is almost always going to far more prejudicial than probative so you are going to have issues there as well.

As to materiality, how is LS's concerns about a judge material to any element of the offense? Things aren't fair game just because you want them to be.

Plus, I was prepared in case he denied making them, or even if he claimed to not remember (which sometimes happens to witnesses when faced with something they're not comfortable admitting). I would've been able to impeach him with his statements, in that case, which could affect his credibility. He played it straight, though, so the effect was minimal.

You are aware that you can't ask questions seeking inadmissible testimony just so you can impeach aren't you? Questions about what LS said about the incident are certainly on the table as statements by a party opponent or for impeachment; but statements he made about judges almost certainly are not.

It was a fair play, though.

No it wasn't. LS's feeling about potential bias by a judge are not relevant to any element of the offense.

I, and most every attorney I know, consider trying to get inadmissible evidence in which is calculated to sway the personal feeling of a judge to be the opposite of fair play.

Ok, it isn't quite "Who's on First?" but I hope you can appreciate the absurdity of NOT writing LS a citation.

No, I appreciate the absurdity of the "he gets one so you do to" politically correct crap that apparently has replaced rationality within certain elements of carmel law enforcement.

@boilaralum - that contradiction was my big problem through the trial. The more vicious LS made the dog out to be, the less sense his actions made. I should've been clearer. Plus, even if the dog was vicious, I think I'm persuasive enough to have gotten the judge to think it wasn't, based on the available evidence.

You know, I know this isn't a criminal case as 3.8 contemplates but maybe you should go back through the comments to the special duties of a prosecutor section of the rules of professional responsibility before you go on the web bragging about your ability to deceive judges.

A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence. Applicable law may require other measures by the prosecutor and knowing disregard of those obligations or a systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could constitute a violation of Rule 8.4.

Maybe your should brush up on your candor before the tribunal part as well.

No wonder so many people hate lawyers and prosecutors. You can't even meet a "more likely than not standard" and you are here with a bunch of PC reason you needed to try this? I'm really at a loss here.

Joe

 

[Walter Zoomie]

At one time many MANY moons ago, the legal profession was revered.

Now, like Jack Ryan said earlier, lawyers and their tax-devouring butt-buddies in government invent new ways to perpetuate the need for their own existence.

The Mafia has more honor and integrity than the legal "profession."

What a bunch of legalese gobbledygook horseshit this guy T.Rex just spewed out...

Do these people ever stand for anything besides their own enrichment?

Go away troll.

 

[theweakerbrother]

The trial is never over, it will always be the "one that got away," but don't worry, Liberty, they will try and snag you on something else. You know, not for the love of Blind Justice but because it's a numbers game.

 

[Walter Zoomie]

I'm no doctor, not even a lawyer, but I think you are delusional. You do realize the trial is over don't you?

....and that you LOST!!!!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha!!!!!

 

[MinuteMan47]

This dude is so full of **** he stinks.

Haha. I am wondering where all his rep is coming from...

 

[Jack Ryan]

He still has the golden tongue in his own mind.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

There is one unfortunate reality of modern life that hasn't been addressed here yet.

One very chilling statement made here sums up what this entire thing has been about from the beginning:

"Even if the dogs were vicious, I could have convinced the judge that they weren't."

Think about that for a minute...if that statement doesn't freeze the blood of any patriot in his veins, nothing will.

Mark this down and don't forget it: It is NOT the job of a prosecutor to seek justice; it is the job of a prosecutor to GET CONVICTIONS!

If the defendant is guilty, fine. But if a guilty defendant isn't available, an innocent one will do nicely, just as long as it gets the prosecutor's office another win.

We have a rare opportunity here. We are actually witnessing an officer of the court readily admitting that even if he knows that a statement made by a defendant is absolutely true, he will attempt to convince the judge that it is not true (in my particular case by encouraging perjured testimony) if such a twisting of the truth will help him win! The guilt or innocence of the defendant is completely irrelevant.

Can there be a more accurate definition of corruption and tyranny than this?

Not long after I reached the rank of lieutenant in Cincinnati, I committed a crime so heinous and so outrageous that for the next seven years the main priority of the Cincinnati Police Administration was to get rid of me.

What was this crime?

I testified, in my official capacity, for the defense in a criminal trial! My superiors went stark raving mad.

Cincinnati had passed a typically unconstitutional "assault" rifle ban and were champing at the bit for an arrest under the ordinance. They found one, a young black man from the ghetto who owned a GI carbine inherited from his father. No one would care about a young, black, poor and powerless gunowner from the ghetto, right?

What my superiors didn't realize was that in the Second Amendment Community there is no litmus test of power or prestige to be a gunowner, and there is no racism.

The young man's attorney knew nothing of the technical issues of the case and appealed to the gun community for advice. They referred him to me.

I assisted the attorney in his case preparation and testified in the case.

The young man was acquitted on all charges. The city had lost its much vaunted test case, because of my testimony. My superiors were furious.

I was actually brought up on departmental charges of "Failure of Good Behavior" for responding to a subpoena and giving truthful sworn testimony in a court of law.

How could you do such a thing? Don't you know the police department supports this law to take guns out of the hands of citizens? It's your JOB to support our efforts to do this!

No, I replied. It's not my job. I didn't swear an oath to support the city council, or the police chief. I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Police chiefs come and they go...the people we're sworn to protect are always there.

There it was again. I was not supposed to seek justice. I was supposed to help the prosecution. And If I possessed information that would prove the innocence of a defendant, it was my job to keep my damned mouth shut.

Never forget that a prosecutor is perfectly willing to utterly destroy you and your family for nothing more important than another mark in the "win" column.

 

[Roadie]

Well said LS!

..and just think how: "Even if the dogs were vicious, I could have convinced the judge that they weren't."

Could be turned into:
"Even if the accused were cooperating, I could have convinced the judge that they weren't."

or:
"Even if the shooing was justified, I could have convinced the judge that it wasn't."

Justice was served in LS's case, but she was bloody battered and bruised.

 

[SirRealism]

The front sight is so big that I could file an edge on it and use it as a cutlass.

You have a way with words. You might have missed your calling as an author.

There is one unfortunate reality of modern life that hasn't been addressed here yet.

One very chilling statement made here sums up what this entire thing has been about from the beginning:

"Even if the dogs were vicious, I could have convinced the judge that they weren't."

Yeah, I hadn't commented on that, but I didn't like the sounds of it. However, based on what I heard in the courtroom, I doubt he could have convinced the judge of that. It seems to me he tried and failed.

I thought the whole "sweet puppies" thing was laughable, anyway. I have seen lots of dogs who acted very aggressively toward one person one minute, and then docile the next. Dogs don't understand warning shots, but they instinctively read body language and act based on that. Heck, I have a lab who cowers at the sight of stuffed animals that make noise, but will stand his ground and growl at guys in hats. They're not always predictable, even to their owners.