Drug War

Cops Forget Not Guilty Doesn't Mean Innocent, When It's One of Their Own

Cops accused of wide array of misconduct found not guilty, jurors said evidence was lacking

|

PPD

A jury of twelve found six former Philadelphia narcotics officers charged with racketeering, violating the civil rights of suspects, and other crimes, not guilty. Another former officer, Jeffrey Walker, turned state's evidence, and the case against the cops was built largely on his testimony and that of the officers' victims, identified as drug suspects by the nature of the officers work.

Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey fired the six officers, but now their lawyers are demanding the cops get an apology. Philly.com reports:

Jack McMahon, who represented Reynolds, blasted Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey, who fired the officers.

"The commissioner of our city owes these guys an apology," McMahon said. "When he says to these men that their badges should be burned and this is the worst case he's seen, when he didn't even know the facts, he is not a commissioner of these men. He's not a loyal guy at all. That's not a leader of men, and he should apologize to them."

The lawyer for at least one of the officers predicts they'll get their jobs back too because it appeared "the allegations were meritless." Philly.com reports the allegations:

In six weeks of testimony, government witnesses repeatedly said the squad conducted their duties like street thugs. They accused the officers of employing ganglike tactics like roughing up drug suspects, ignoring due process, planting evidence, pocketing seized money and lying on official police reports to cover up their crimes.

Targets who put up a fight, they said, were dangled over balconies, threatened with the seizure of their homes, held in hotel rooms for days, or beaten as the officers kept score on who could inflict the most debilitating injuries.

Prosecutors alleged that Police Department top brass never asked too many questions because the squad was one of the most productive on the force, often raking in large hauls of seized money and drugs.

The officers' supervisors testified on their behalf, saying they had never seen anything untoward, even on multiple raids they observed where some of the alleged misconduct took place. McMahon would probably consider them each a "loyal guy" and "leader of men."

Failing to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as a finding of innocence. Police officers, who can threaten to take people's property or life, should be held to a higher standard. There's even one being misapplied by the feds in the higher education system that might fit better.

The district attorney threw out more than 270 cases based on the cops' testimony after the FBI began investigating more than two years ago.

Advertisement

NEXT: Terry Michael on How Harry Reid Sold Out Dick Durbin and the Democratic Party's Soul

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He’s not a loyal guy at all.

    And there we have it. Gang loyalty above all else is what’s important. We already knew this, but they get more and more blatant about it every day.

    1. Guy even sounds like a Mob lawyer, ugh.

  2. …he is not a commissioner of these men.

    Well, they were fired. So…

  3. I think i’ve reached outrage fatigue again. I need a safe space. Does Reason have a room with bubbles and puppies and such?

      1. If I make a play-doh gun and shoot play-doh police officers, is that a microagression, or does that get me arrested for terroristic threats?

        1. Arrested for terroristic threats, natch. How dare you microagress our Heroes iN Blue!

    1. Each puppy comes with a story of a sibling that was gunned down in a wrong door drug raid. The bubbles are of the financial sector. You will be triggered.

      1. Is there a drug room then? Or a suicide booth? Suicide booths are currently 7 years overdue, after all.

      2. You mean, “you will be fingered“, right? I mean…this is H&R.

        1. Not just fingered, fingered by STEVE SMITH.

          1. While Warty watches and masterbates in the corner.

            1. No one puts Warty in the corner.

              1. He starts off in the corner to not frighten away STEVE SMITH, but once the rapesquatch becomes accustomed to his presence, he moves in closer to finish bukkake style on Andrew S’s face.

            1. That ain’t my belly button, neither….

              /old joke, reversed

  4. Prosecutors alleged that Police Department top brass never asked too many questions because the squad was one of the most productive on the force, often raking in large hauls of seized money and drugs.

    The end justifies the means.

    1. Sounds like The Shield.

      1. There’s a reason The Shield is my favorite police drama of all time (or second, if you can count The Wire as a police drama). It’s the only one that tells the truth.

        1. Best ending to a tv show ever. And the most brutal to a main character. And Vic deserved every little bit of it. Also…holy fucking shit, Shane.

          1. I was hooked by the ending of the very first episode. Although, owing to a number of circumstances, I still haven’t seen the last couple of seasons.

            1. The first episode goes farther than the farthest episode of most other shows. It was amazing way to rope people in (it worked on me too).

              Dude, go finish. It’s worth it.

              1. I plan to do so in my free time. I anticipate seeing the final episode sometime in 2020.

              2. I’ll watch it when it’s streaming on NetFlix.

                1. You can stream it on Crackle.

                  1. You can stream it on Crackle.

                    Dang. That looks like a good service. The only device I own that it would work on is my phone. I’ve got a Wii, a dumb tv, and a pc with shitty graphics. Oh well.

          2. I watched the finale with a friend, who complained that Vic got off easy. Which I mean… no. Not even close.

            But yeah. Shane… yeah, all you can say about Shane is “holy fucking shit”.

            1. Vic loses everything that means anything to him. That’s not getting off easy.

              The final Shane episode was just…whoa.

          3. And Vic deserved every little bit of it.

            Which is why the ending was rather unrealistic.

  5. The district attorney threw out more than 270 cases based on the cops’ testimony after the FBI began investigating more than two years ago.

    Seem like very impeachable witnesses. Sure, make them cops again.

  6. The jurors figured out that they would suddenly start accumulating a significant number of driving infractions and zoning violations, if they ruled the other way.

    1. No to mention no-knock raids that guarantee that their pets catch bullets and drugs are found where no drugs existed prior to the raid.

  7. I guess this is as good a place as any:
    http://www.dailybreeze.com/gen…..n-indicted

    This is a big fucking deal.
    /biden

    1. Why are these fucks allowed to surrender like gentlemen? They’re not gentlemen, they’re thugs. Go to their homes, kick in the door, drag them out in handcuffs and parade them in front of the TV cameras like any other criminal.

  8. Due process prevails.
    .
    BOOYAH!

    1. There’s no double standard, Brooks. Any other gang would be acquitted for undertaking the same tactics against their enemies.

      h2h

    2. Hold your tongue, citizen!

  9. Now that their faces are public, I’d be willing to put them back into the field in dangerous undercover operations in Central America, but only after we’ve tattoo’ed “Cop” on their foreheads.

    1. Carve the word “cop” into their foreheads, Aldo Rains style. Tattoos can be removed.

  10. ” Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey fired the six officers, but now their lawyers are demanding the cops get an apology.”

    I’m sorry your clients are a bunch of corrupt lard asses. Now, do you wanna leave my office down the stairs or through the window?

    1. What sort of apology did the Phonesavanhs get? Cory Maye?

  11. That picture is like being in a video game where every cop has the exact same head.

    1. And the same giant fat neck.

      1. I noticed the same thing – uncanny.

  12. The standard for putting someone in a cage and the standard for taking away their badge ought to be different.

    “He’s not a loyal guy at all.”

    By “loyal,” he means “loyal to the public,” right?

  13. CopsReason Forgets Not Guilty Doesn’t Mean Innocent Means Not Guilty, Even When It’s One of Their Own A Cop

    BOOYAH! We are winning!

    hth

    /derpfee

  14. “Failing to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as a finding of innocence.”

    I hate cops, but this is incorrect. The defendant is presumed innocent. That presumption continues unless or until the government establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the government does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt then the presumption of innocence stands.

    These are legal terms, if you’re trying to use them colloquially you should so specify; otherwise they have a specific legal meaning that you should respect.

    1. I would prefer to say “innocent for criminal purposes,” because there could still be civil and employment consequences.

  15. Failing to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as a finding of innocence.

    Ever heard of the phrase “innocent until proven guilty?”

    1. STOP RIPPING OFF MY POSTS, FUCKSTICK!!!

  16. government witnesses repeatedly said the squad conducted their duties like street thugs. They accused the officers of employing ganglike tactics like roughing up drug suspects, ignoring due process, planting evidence, pocketing seized money and lying on official police reports to cover up their crimes.

    It’s almost like the only difference between governments and the mafia is PR. Color me shocked that enforcers for an organization openly claiming the power to take other’s people’s money and freedom without their consent — do just that.

  17. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998! ?????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  18. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.work-cash.com

  19. re: “Failing to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as a finding of innocence. ”
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    Oh, I disagree.

    Accused people in this country, even police, have a *presumption* of innocence in law. When found not guilty, that presumption remains intact.

    Regardless my feelings or suspicions on this particular case, a finding of not guilty *must* leave that presumption intact.

  20. @RonGood I agree, the wording in the article is either unfortunate or the article is incorrect.

    The problem is that there are so many conflicts of interest. It’s essentially the government vs the people. UNLESS the accused is a police officer, in which case it’s the government vs, the government, and too often the government is more than too willing to go easy on the accused in that case. “Presumed innocent” is something that our forefathers probably intended more to protect the people from the government. Unfortunately as I stated, there are conflicts of interests that prevent both the people and government individuals from getting a fair trial. For people, as I stated, the prosecutor, judge, and police are all government officials. Fortunately there is the jury system, but it isn’t perfect, we forget the “presumed innocent” part because we allow ourselves to assume the person is guilty and in need of proving their innocence rather than rather than innocent until proven guilty. For police, it is the opposite problem, we see them as benign and likely to be innocent, and the government is often easy on them not showing things that could actually be proof of their guilt. And that is if it even gets that far. It might not even get an indictment.

    It is important to recognize that while “not guilty” is not proof of innocence, that innocence is presumed, and it is up to the people to ensure that everybody gets a fair trail, not biased for or against the accused.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.