Falsely Imprisoned Man Gets $650,000 From Indianapolis Tax Payers

[oldpink]

Heavily moderated?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I would say more but this is a heavily moderated forum.

The Mods are eating too much and not exercising?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I had the privilege of being a star witness on a stupid case against a drunkard in California some years ago. When the defense asked me how I could positively ID him after 13 months I said "he was pretty funny lookin'" ala Fargo. Not only was it true, but the prosecutor, defense lawyer, and the entire jury chuckled when I said it.

In my defense he was realllllly weird looking. I ran into him a year or so later at a gym. He was not happy with me.

 

[phylodog]

I just fired some coffee through my nose, thanks BBI.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

That's not quite $60,000 per month, pre-tax.

I would think a million per month would have been more appropriate.

 

[Que]

"I have survived, and I have moved on." - Starks = Suck it up and drive on!

 

[Markus]

I don't know enough about the case to comment one way or the other. With that said, I feel strongly both ways!

 

[SSGSAD]

When I was at IUPUI, studying Criminal Justice, one of my "Instructors", said to be a "legal" "line up, you had to have two or more
people that "looked alike".....

 

[Cygnus]

Damn. That sucks for him. Well he deserves his cash. I worked with a guy out here who did 9 months at Riker's. He got $350k and said it was worth it. He said when he saw a picture of the real perp, he wasn't mad at the witness anymore. Dead ringer down to the dreads he said. Difference was....wait for it INGO............Neck tattoos

 

[mcjon77]

Anybody, want to arrest me ????? I'll do 11 months, for $650,000 .....

I would be willing to stay locked in jail for $650K if I KNEW going in that I would be freed at the end of 11 months. However, to spend 11 months in jail, with each day thinking that you will be in prison for the rest of your life for a crime you didn't commit would be too much for me. The daily mental torture isn't worth the cash.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

I haven't been keeping up like I should, but didn't we decide in another thread that this money would be coming out of the line officers pension fund instead of from taxpayers?

 

[indiucky]

I don't know anyone who enjoys being wrong and I don't know any cops interested in putting an innocent person in prison.

From reading INGO you would think they put that on their resume and bring it up during the interview process...

"And why do you want to be a police officer young man?"

"Well sir, I am a bigot who also hates hippies and nothing get's my cracker to crumble like putting innocent people in jail for crimes they didn't commit..."

"You are hired."

 

[AutomationEngineer]

From reading INGO you would think they put that on their resume and bring it up during the interview process...

"And why do you want to be a police officer young man?"

"Well sir, I am a bigot who also hates hippies and nothing get's my cracker to crumble like putting innocent people in jail for crimes they didn't commit..."

"You are hired."

The problem is not racist or corrupt or even incompetent police [ in these cases ] but the fact that the Prosecutor is an elected position that needs campaign fluff in order to have a record to run on for re-election. If Prosecutors were punished for withholding evidence or clearly pushing for the prosecution of an innocent person, you would see change, but despite the fact that there are penalties for doing this [ but only up to revocation of a Law License ] it very rarely gets punished even when discovered. There are many cases where prosecutors are faced with irrefutable evidence that they are wrong and prosecuting an innocent man, yet due to upcoming elections, or just stupid pride or the arrogance of wanting to always seen to be right, they block the release of these innocent people time and time again. Just ask anyone who works with the Innocence Project in Texas, or just about any state. They find people who have been in jail for years that were falsely accused, yet Prosecutors, some of whom have been out of office for years and will not hold office again, strongly oppose the release of these people, and for what reason? Prosecutors who worry more about their conviction rate instead of actual guilt or innocence should be, IMHO, in prison right next to all the other people who break the law.

 

[Denny347]

I haven't been keeping up like I should, but didn't we decide in another thread that this money would be coming out of the line officers pension fund instead of from taxpayers?

No no no no no and HELL no.

 

[mrjarrell]

I haven't been keeping up like I should, but didn't we decide in another thread that this money would be coming out of the line officers pension fund instead of from taxpayers?

A judge in California, as I recall, recently decided that. Two officers basically railroaded a mentally incompetent teen into a fake "confession" back in the 80's. He spent most of his life in prison and the judge gave him $7 million dollars, to be paid by the arresting officers (now retired). He'll likely see very little of the award but a precedent has now been set in that state.

 

[Fargo]

The problem is not racist or corrupt or even incompetent police [ in these cases ] but the fact that the Prosecutor is an elected position that needs campaign fluff in order to have a record to run on for re-election. If Prosecutors were punished for withholding evidence or clearly pushing for the prosecution of an innocent person, you would see change, but despite the fact that there are penalties for doing this [ but only up to revocation of a Law License ] it very rarely gets punished even when discovered. There are many cases where prosecutors are faced with irrefutable evidence that they are wrong and prosecuting an innocent man, yet due to upcoming elections, or just stupid pride or the arrogance of wanting to always seen to be right, they block the release of these innocent people time and time again. Just ask anyone who works with the Innocence Project in Texas, or just about any state. They find people who have been in jail for years that were falsely accused, yet Prosecutors, some of whom have been out of office for years and will not hold office again, strongly oppose the release of these people, and for what reason? Prosecutors who worry more about their conviction rate instead of actual guilt or innocence should be, IMHO, in prison right next to all the other people who break the law.

So, in a case where the prosecutor dismissed the case as soon as the buggered up identifications came to light, the prosecutor is who you are going to blame? You do know that the case was dismissed; he was not tried and acquitted right?

Maybe you should read up a little further on the case:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_12-cv-01008/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_12-cv-01008-0.pdf

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

No no no no no and HELL no.

OK, sorry. I must have misunderstood how that one came out.......

 

[drillsgt]

So, in a case where the prosecutor dismissed the case as soon as the misidentifications came to light, that is who you are going to blame.

Maybe you should read up a little further on the case:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_12-cv-01008/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_12-cv-01008-0.pdf

Sounds like it's more on "detective" moore and the prosecutor was just a victim of her incompetence, hopefully she doesn't have that title anymore. I also learned if you're overwhelmingly helpful to the police you're a criminal.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Sounds like it's more on "detective" moore and the prosecutor was just a victim of her incompetence, hopefully she doesn't have that title anymore. I also learned if you're overwhelmingly helpful to the police you're a criminal.

Moore is no longer in homicide. And the officer that inferred an overly helpful person is a criminal is a ****ing moron.

 

[Denny347]

OK, sorry. I must have misunderstood how that one came out.......

Actually, I could have misread your question. If the officers operated outside their authority, then I have no problem with the money coming from their pensions and THEIR pensions only. I initially read your question to mean the money comes from MY pension for an officer's action I was not involved with, THAT is what I have a problem with. Sorry for the confusion.