What's up with [some] cops in Chicago?

Alferd_Packer said:
I have to object to the characterization of this a Chicago only issue.

Trust me there are bad cops all over this country doing the same thing.

Only there is no videotape available.
Click to expand...

True, but let's face it, Chicago has reputation for police corruption on a large scale going all the way back to Al Capone..and probably before that.
 
How about LA's Ramparts division and their special drug unit?

Bikew*, how is that going? (I haven't followed it.)
 
I should point out that these incidents involved 6 officers out of a force of 12,000. Or 0.05% of the total force. It doesn't excuse the individual incidents of course but they were individuals involved.

I would also object to the hand wringing over the fact that Abbate's attorney tried to paint the victim as the aggressor. Was Abbate not entitled to a lawyer who would act in the interests of his client just because the client was supposed to be a law officer?
 
squealpiggy said:
I should point out that these incidents involved 6 officers out of a force of 12,000. Or 0.05% of the total force. It doesn't excuse the individual incidents of course but they were individuals involved.

I would also object to the hand wringing over the fact that Abbate's attorney tried to paint the victim as the aggressor. Was Abbate not entitled to a lawyer who would act in the interests of his client just because the client was supposed to be a law officer?
Click to expand...


Two comments. First, it's that 1% or 5% that make the job of the rest of the cops so hard, because it only takes one event to teach mistrust to a whole town. I know rather well that good cops hate this even more than the regular citizens.

As to the "victim as aggressor", sorry, no, the attourney is an officer of the court, his job is to advocate, not lie.
 
Bikewer said:
Years ago, 60 minutes did a little segment on the corruption problem in Chicago. They went in an rented a bar, and did the setup so that it appeared that the place was changing hands.
Then, they started the parade of civil-service workers who had to come by and give thier OK to the various licencing and inspections and so forth attendant to every new business.

Every single one openly and blatantly solicited bribes, right on camera.

We think of this as a third-world or "developing country" problem. A friend of ours, an Americanized Indian, returned home a few years back to attend a wedding. He came back appalled at the degree of corruption. You literally could get nothing done without paying bribes.
In Russia, any auto trip of any length outside of the major cities involves numerous police-run checkpoints where they just tell you how much you'll have to pay to proceed.
You have to tote up the price of gas, oil, and bribes for your destination.

We like to think ourselves free of this nonsense, but in some areas, it's still very much part of the local culture.
Click to expand...

I have made one trip to India and had to pay a bribe to get my tools in. This was a "fine" paid behind closed doors with no receipt. had only been on the ground for less than half an hour.

I have made several trips to Russia and never had any issues with bribes. Heard lots of stories about low level corruption in the Yeltsin years. But I started traveling there in the middle of Putin's first term. I was on the road between Moscow and Yaroslavl several times and never stopped. High level corruption in Russia? Never was in a place where I would have seen it.
 
squealpiggy said:
I should point out that these incidents involved 6 officers out of a force of 12,000. Or 0.05% of the total force. It doesn't excuse the individual incidents of course but they were individuals involved.

I would also object to the hand wringing over the fact that Abbate's attorney tried to paint the victim as the aggressor. Was Abbate not entitled to a lawyer who would act in the interests of his client just because the client was supposed to be a law officer?
Click to expand...

You may have misinterpreted my position. I agree that even the guiltiest of suspects have the Constitutional right to a lawyer acting in their best interests. On the other hand, I am not sure that a lawyer actually is acting in the best interests of his client when the lawyer suggests the bartender was the aggressor in this videotaped altercation and the 6-foot-1, 250-pound, somewhat-inebriated off-duty cop, in order to defend himself, had to come behind the bar, throw the bartender to the ground, and pummel and kick her while repeatedly telling her no one can tell me when I have to stop drinking.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
That sucks. Nothing at all left over for her?
Click to expand...
I think that just means under joint and several liability they only have to go after the city for payment, even though others were also found liable. The city can sue the other parties if they wish. She'll get a good chunk.
 
Who pays?

The system sees to it that the people ultimately responsible for the attack will pay the penalty. That would not be the cop who did the dirty deed, but the poor, dumb taxpayers of Chicago.
 
Bikewer said:
As a police officer, I can say that this is something that we all hate to see. This may be just coincidence; a few high-profile cases occurring in a small group.

However, as we have seen before, there often develops among police agencies a certain "culture" of corruption and acceptance of bad behavior. We saw this in LA, we saw this in New Orleans, and certainly Chicago is not without it's history.
When I started in police work back in '68, it was pretty well accepted in my own department. When I was in the academy, we used to go out on Saturday and ride with a precinct officer as part of the training. On my very first visit to the precinct station, I arrived to hear a horrible banging and crashing from the back room. "What's that?", I inquired. "Oh, that's just officer so-and-so interrogating a prisoner..."
It was well understood that "you get your evens on the street, cause you won't get them in court."
The normal response to a resisting case was to break a nightstick over the fellow's head. (Literally) It was permissible to shoot at "fleeing felons", and one would get attaboys for good marksmanship in such cases.
This was all simply the norm.
Click to expand...



I know that you posted about all that in 2007, but it was very odd that I just read your post today within an hour of seeing a news article about all of it from your local newspaper!!


Old St. Louis police cases need scrutiny, lawyers for released man say
 
Robert Prey said:
The system sees to it that the people ultimately responsible for the attack will pay the penalty. That would not be the cop who did the dirty deed, but the poor, dumb taxpayers of Chicago.
Click to expand...

You seem to have left out the police and city employees who threatened the bar owner and the bartender. Oh, and the police who tried to get the charge downgraded to a misdemeanor. Oh, and the police who tried to hide the existence of the videotape. This was not just a case about a drunk off-duty officer punching someone.
 
Robert Prey said:
The system sees to it that the people ultimately responsible for the attack will pay the penalty. That would not be the cop who did the dirty deed, but the poor, dumb taxpayers of Chicago.
Click to expand...

Only them? Not the rich smart ones? Why?
 
respect said:
Drinking with Hollywood producers and spinning tall tales to convince them to make movies about all the awesome things he never actually did.
Click to expand...

Oh, I am perfectlly aware that Elliot Ness in real life had only a minor role in the bringing down of Capone. But just could not resist the joke....
 
WildCat said:
Last week a Chicago zoning inspector's conviction for accepting bribes was overturned on appeal, because the $1,200 bribe he admitted taking wasn't big enough.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/156915...h-so-conviction-overturned-appeals-court.html
Click to expand...

Not accurate. That's just bad reporting.

According to the decision, it wasn't over the value of the bribe, but over the value of what was given for the bribe. The federal statute they were prosecuting him for requires that the value given be at least $5000. The court ruled that prosecution failed to show evidence that the occupancy certificates given were of that value.

[ETA: In fact, the only allege value given for the bribes was expediting the occupancy permits. FWIW, here in St. Louis, I needed to occupy my home before I had it inspected and got my permit. It only cost me something like $80--some 6 or 7 years ago-- to do that. Not as a bribe, but following the rules.]

I'd blame prosecutors for filing the wrong charges. [ETA: Or whoever set up such a poorly conceived sting operation.]

At any rate, I don't buy the argument that this sort of corruption is somehow the cause of drunk off duty cops committing violent crimes.

On something of a tangent, St. Louis finally got home-control of its municipal police department back from the State (a legacy of the Civil War era when the police department was controlled by Confederate sympathizers and viewed as nearly a Confederate militia)---sort of. The same change in state law also said that for St. Louis' municipal police department alone*, disciplinary files, even alleging crimes, are to be kept private (an exemption to the state's sunshine law) preventing us from establishing a viable citizen oversight board without first changing state law.

*Technically the wording specifies any city that is not part of any county: a set with just one member, St. Louis.
 
Last edited:
jj said:
Two comments. First, it's that 1% or 5% that make the job of the rest of the cops so hard, because it only takes one event to teach mistrust to a whole town.
Click to expand...

This is true but it's not exactly the result of rational thinking.

As to the "victim as aggressor", sorry, no, the attourney is an officer of the court, his job is to advocate, not lie.
Click to expand...

This is also true but functionally in the adversarial system the defense lawyer's job is to act in the best interests of their client and create doubt in the mind of the jury. It is also to look for technicalities that can acquit even a guilty client.

This happens with attorneys all the time. But for some reason the expectation is that police officers are not entitled to the same defense as citizens.
 
squealpiggy said:
This is also true but functionally in the adversarial system the defense lawyer's job is to act in the best interests of their client and create doubt in the mind of the jury. It is also to look for technicalities that can acquit even a guilty client.

This happens with attorneys all the time. But for some reason the expectation is that police officers are not entitled to the same defense as citizens.
Click to expand...

Yep. There's certainly no reason to apply a different standard for cops accused of a crime than anyone else accused of a crime.

And even if we have strong motivation to be certain justice is done to bad cops, it's all the more reason to cross every "t" and dot every "i" when we prosecute them for their crimes.

As I mentioned, claiming the other side started it is a typical assault defense. You'd probably have grounds for appeal if your lawyer didn't ask you about that possibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom