160

Across the country, police have undermined and resisted reform. To protest a prosecutor, one detective was willing to let murder suspects walk free, even if he’d arrested them and believed that they should be behind bars.

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 49 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Police officers should have their pensions removed when they knowingly obstruct justice in this fashion.

Do your fucking job, or GTFO.

EDIT: Also, I'd bet any amount of money I can guess, 100% correctly, who this jackass voted for in the past 4 elections.

[-] logicbomb@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago

The most relevant part of the article:

In 2019, Gardner added [St. Louis police detective Roger] Murphey to a list of police officers who would not be allowed to apply for criminal charges because of questions about their credibility, and she said her office would evaluate whether those officers could testify in court. Although the identities of those officers were not made public, one of Murphey’s supervisors notified him that his name was on Gardner’s list.

Weeks later, a prosecutor in Gardner’s office notified Murphey that the office not only would actually let him testify in the cases he had led that were heading to trial — it expected him to.

Murphey, who retired in September 2021, said he felt stuck in a Catch-22. If Gardner was going to impugn his character and question his credibility, he decided, he wouldn’t cooperate with her prosecutors. He believed that if he went to court, defense lawyers would use his inclusion on Gardner’s list to attack him on cross-examination, making the trials more about him than the defendants.

Since that time, he has refused to testify in at least nine murder cases in which he served as lead detective. He said he told prosecutors that, if they subpoenaed him to testify, “I’m going to sit on the stand and I’m not going to answer any questions.”

My response is...

First of all, how would defense lawyers know he was on the list if the list wasn't made public? This seems like an obvious lie to me. He wasn't stuck in a Catch-22. This was not about the outcome of the trial, but about him getting revenge for the prosecutor essentially ending his career of arresting criminals. He'd probably be stuck with a desk job or something like that.

He was mad that his past actions had finally caught up with him, but blamed the person who finally held him accountable. It's not like the prosecutor was randomly adding names to the list of officers without credibility.

And if you needed any proof to back up his character, it's that he was willing to let nine murderers go free in revenge. Nine deaths he was willing to let the murderer get away for personal reasons. It sounds like the prosecutor made the right call.

[-] NightGaunts@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That's a good point. My first read I thought maybe it wasn't entirely black and white, maybe he had a reason (however unethical his reaction was). But you are right, he was probably on the list for good reason, and his actions show that he probably belongs on it.

[-] quindraco@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

This article can't be true, because you can't just refuse a prosecutor demanding you testify. That's literally why we have subpoenas. Gonna google this.

EDIT: I missed the part where he straight-up said he'd refuse to apeak if subpoenad. That's how you get contempt charges. Prosecutor should have called his bluff.

[-] snownyte@kbin.social 9 points 2 years ago

You know, I cannot wait to be off this god forsaken world. Death can't come enough. What's it gone to, when the very people we're to "trust" are thrown into their own chaos like this.

What good is justice when we have assholes like this guy? A convicted murder is on the stand, guilty as charged but..."YOUR HONOR...I...I HAPPEN TO NOT LIKE YOU AND BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE YOU, THIS GUY SHOULD BE SET FREE AND IN FACT, I WILL SABOTAGE MY CASE TO MAKE SURE HE IS FREE!" fuckstick comes up in defense.

[-] Hairyblue@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

At work, I work with people I don't like and sometimes hate to get the job done. It is called being a professional and having honor in the job I do.

[-] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

If only all cops would do this for all cases until the prisons/jails are improved...

this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
160 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24936 readers
2359 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS