Pixiq

This is rich!
Schismenos, ” 15 days is wrong, you should change it!” Mayor, ” your right, make it 45 days.” This is putting your foot in it, up to your neck. Look out for that guy in the motor boat!

Maniacal laughter.

I do think he should be fired or even prosecuted for a crime. not much chance of that though.

I really like the outcome of this appeal. Sometimes it’s hard to believe that there really are pockets of resistance around the USA that are ready, willing and most importantly, ABLE, to bring down the hammer on corrupt cops.
Rob´s last blog ..Compass Cards Unloaded

Looks like appearances and intelligence in his case are inescapably linked.

Does anybody look at that picture and think that, one of these day’s he’s going to pop?
Workingindust´s last blog ..USAF MH-60A

Ah, the Thin Blue Whine gets something closer to what it deserves.

But yes, I would think in most any job blatantly doing the opposite of what your boss just told you and kidnapping someone would get you fired instantly. Have to love that “higher standard.”
Michaelk42´s last blog ..OH COME ON yeah you guessed it

Is Schismenos suspended with pay, or without pay?

Good question that the article does not answer. I would guess that in this case it’s without pay, but you never know.

Call me cynical, but this is consistent with being just so much theatre intended to look tough in the face of public scrutiny and media criticism while still leaving things substantially unchanged in the long term.

If he’s been a problem before and still is a problem despite previous attempts at correction, just get rid of him.

NICE!

Perhaps Officer Schismenos can now spend all of Lent in meditation and repentance, undistracted by the concerns of the usual workaday world.

I agree. He needs more then a slap on the wrist as he obviously thinks he’s above all consequences and doesn’t have to listen to nobody, including superiors. Wonder what else he’s gotten away with?

Unfortunately, he still has bills to pay. So he will probably be working as a temporary security guard, and still harassing photographers.

You bring up an interesting point, that a large majority of cops are Catholic and consider themselves people of faith. Kind of ironic when you look at their actions. But what did we expect when we started calling a profession that accepts ANYBODY with no real screening process, no supervision with teeth, yet we’ve given them authority over us??, “heroes”.

Yes but if they took action they’d be labeled nuts; the cops would look like the victims thus 99% of America would support them without thinking. What Carlos is doing here is more valuable. The pen not the sword.

@Florida

No screening process? Every department I know has an extensive process. This includes a backgroud check (including talking to past and present neighbors, bosses, and associates), a psych exam, a polygraph, and an oral board. Once hired they are constantly evaluated in the academy and then assigned to a training officer for several months. Even when no longer riding with the trainer, the officer is still on probation for several months after that.

Nope. No screening process at all.

Save the BS for your fellow cops. My own mother had a cop neighbor who wouldn’t have passed ANY psych screening. Nobody from the dept. ever talked to her about this disturbed PSYCHOPATH who liked to intimidate his neighbors for no reason.

so in essence, as long as they make it past 18 without an adult criminal record, keep their nose clean for a few months after getting into the force, they can pretty much do whatever they want because they were “screened”?

i personally know police officers that passed the screening because they’d never been caught doing illegal activities. I have to pass a more rigorous screening process when i get hired and i don’t even get to wear a gun!

And yet, despite all that, cops fired for misconduct are hired in other jurisdictions all the time. Over at Injustice Everywhere there’s an update on Mr. Simmons, a man who had his life /destroyed/ by a lying cop. Simmons is still homeless, and according to IE, the lying, terminated cop found a job as a cop elsewhere.

Some “screening process”. *Ptooey*

Oh, and obviously the “gypsy cop” phenomenon is purely a myth. Clearly the “screening process” /always/ prevents bad cops from staying the in the law enforcement field. Sure it does. Admit it. Bad cops are never hired elsewhere. Never ever. Not never. Nohow. Can’t happen. There’s a screening process. Once a cop’s fired for misconduct, that’s the end. The swcreening process prevents further work in the law enforcement field. Yup, that’s it. That’s the ticket. Just ask my girlfriend, Morgan Fairchild!

@Nemo: That’s awesome, I didn’t know you were dating Morgan Fairchild!

So how would you screen applicants? With a crystal ball? Sorry folks but no process is perfect. However the hiring process has many steps and checks that catch most unsuitable applicants. A few may slip through the cracks but that is rare. Consider the number of officers out there and then consider the percentage that are bad cops.

Whoops! I forgot what audience I was speaking to. Of course you think 100% of the police are corrupt. Nemo, man you are way too angry. Sorry if you got a speeding ticket in the past.

Let me just say that I don’t think the officer in this case broke the law but I do agree that he should be punished for disobeying his boss. 45 days sounds excessive to me but he rolled the dice by appealing the original 15 days.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches

I don’t think the officer in this case broke the law

So, Johnny Law, it was just fine for him to disobey a direct order from a superior officer and arrest someone because she annoyed him by exercising her First Amendment rights?

I certainly hope that with an understanding of the law like that, you’re not enforcing it in my neck of the woods.

Is there ever an authoritarian impulse that you don’t serve as an apologist for?

But then again, you’ve ignored all my previous questions to you, so I’m not expecting you to be interested in having a real conversation here.

Disobeying a direct order from a superior officer is not a violation of the law. It is an internal issue between an employer and an employee. If your boss tells you to do something and you ignore it, is that illegal?

He did not arrest her at the scene. He put the facts of the case in a PC affidavit and a judge issued a warrant for arrest. Apparently the judge felt there was sufficient evidence for an arrest warrant. I haven’t seen anything in this story that accusing the officer of lying on the affidavit.

The fact that the DA decided to drop the charges simply shows the DA did not want to prosecute the case. It happens all the time with cases that take plea bargains or with cases in which the DA feels they wouldn’t win if it went to trial.

Sorry if the facts of this case don’t meet your agenda. No laws were violated by this officer but he was insubordinate to his boss and needs to be punished.

Is that conversation enough for you?
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches

JL – You keep digging yourself into a bigger hole with each passing paragraph. Take a lesson from the story of Donald Schismenos.

“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt”
- Samuel Clemens
Workingindust´s last blog ..USAF MH-60A

Reasonable enough.

I suspect that the affidavit was likely strictly true, but not the whole truth, if you know what I mean. I say that simply because, given the state of the law, there’s no way an arrest warrant SHOULD issue based on the total facts as presented.

But, it does seem it’s more a violation of his duties than an illegal act. Assuming he legitimately thought (even if incorrect) that she broke the law, then it’s not unlawful arrest (absent more facts), and I’m not sure what else there is there.

Suspension? Sure. Firing? Depends on the rest of his record.

Haven’t you people figured it out yet, Johnny Law is a troll. He’s a cop cheerleader and short of a cop opening fire on other cops, he will never turn against them. Stop feeding the troll and ignore his posts,

JL is correct in so far as he decides to massage the issues.

1) Some departments do have screening processes which are certainly more strict than others. Of course, that obviously means some processes are less strict. He fails to clarify which in and of itself doesn’t make it a lie, but an omission is no better than a lie (or so some might think).

2) In the case of the woman arrested. It is true that the officer applied for a warrant and the warrant was issued. JL makes the inference of validity and excuses the officer from any wrong doing based on the issuance itself (the judge signed it so that is evidence there is no wrong doing). The prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute somehow bolsters the inference, the officer did nothing illegal.

However, these are only THEORIES not fact. JL would have us believe that the theories to which others ascribe to are just that, theories; while his theories couched within the authority of his employment are actually facts. They are not.

The issue then is; can an officer, who applies for and receives a warrant for arrest, have done something illegal (whether civil or criminal).

The answer is yes. If an officer knew or should have known a persons conduct was not illegal but effects an arrest anyway the officer’s conduct is illegal. The fact that an officer is not prosecuted criminally for those actions is not evidence no illegal activity occurred.

This woman has more than a few causes of action against the officer, the department, and on up the food chain. I hope she avails herself of the opportunity to use our judicial system.

@johnny-

how many years ago do you think bernard kerik went through the all mighty and flawless screening process?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/nyregion/19kerik.html

It… it seems like there was something to do with this recently around where I live…

http://iminurfortkillingurdudes.blogspot.com/2009/12/hard-to-let-go.html

OH YEAH. It led to this:

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20100109/LOCAL07/301099971/-1/LOCAL11

“It began with three applicants.

“Three people vying for spots with the Allen County Sheriff’s Department in 2007, all with law enforcement experience and a good record with their previous department. The only problem was that none passed the psychological exam given to sheriff’s applicants, even though they passed previous exams with other agencies.

“These were good officers who were diligent, hardworking and honest in their police work,” said Allen County Sheriff Ken Fries, who had his eye on each applicant throughout the hiring process. “I began to wonder, is this (psychological) testing fair?”

“The situation caused Fries to overhaul the testing requirements last year for his prospective officers, making the test similar to those of other departments in the area. Whereas a clinician did not oversee or review written testing for the sheriff’s department before, a local psychologist now evaluates test results.

“With testing he considers far better than before, Fries cannot estimate how many good applicants he might have lost because of previous evaluations, or how many people might be on the department that might not have been able to pass the current testing.

“‘You can’t have it one way without the other,’ Fries said. ‘What happened in the last month, though, shows we have a process in place, that we have checks and balances, so if there is someone we are concerned about, we can take the appropriate actions if they must be removed.’

“Last month, the sheriff’s merit board fired former officer Brent Whan for anger problems he’s accused of displaying while on duty during new officer training. Fries petitioned the board for the officer’s termination in November after he received psychological and medical evaluations he ordered to be conducted on Whan.

“Whan was hired in early 2007 after going through the old psychological evaluations.”

…

Yeah, I think I’m going to give weight to an actual LEO that’ll put his name to his statements, and can admit and take action when he sees that the testing doesn’t always work.

You know, as opposed to some clown on the internet calling himself Johnny Law who seems to think screening is working a lot better than it is.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..OH COME ON yeah you guessed it

“The issue then is; can an officer, who applies for and receives a warrant for arrest, have done something illegal (whether civil or criminal).

The answer is yes. If an officer knew or should have known a persons conduct was not illegal but effects an arrest anyway the officer’s conduct is illegal. The fact that an officer is not prosecuted criminally for those actions is not evidence no illegal activity occurred.”

Do you how the warrant process works? The officer lays the facts out in front of a magistrate. The magistrate reviews it and if he/she thinks probable cause has been met, he/she issues a warrant for arrest. As long as the officer was truthful in the warrant, that makes the arrest 100% legal.

Probable cause is a lesser burden what what is needed to convict. Just because there is probable cause doesn’t mean that the DA has to take it to trial. In this case the DA looked at it and felt they probably wouldn’t get a conviction. That is their right.

No illegal act was commited by the officer. It doesn’t matter how you try to twist it, the facts don’t change. I know that bothers you but there it is.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches

Not sure what this is supposed to prove. I never said the process was flawless. Re-read my post. I’ll wait…

As long as we recruit from the human race, we are gonna have officers that screw up. It is very flattering that you expect perfection but its never going happen. At least you will always have something to be outraged about.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches

Sooo you think I have a problem with the fact that this agency decided to improve their selection process? Where do you get that? Good for them. No amount of screening is going to catch all problem applicants but to say there is no significant screening process in place is simply untrue and ridiculous, even for you.

Well…maybe not for you but for most.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches

Nope, I’m just pointing out your assertions seem to lack the weight you imply.

“No screening process? Every department I know has an extensive process.”

Well, isn’t that dandy. Except you’re replying to someone who stated no REAL screening process. You just changed the statement around to fit your ends.

“but to say there is no significant screening process in place is simply untrue and ridiculous, even for you.”

Good, because I didn’t say that. But you do so love putting words in other people’s mouths to suit your statements… and attempts at insults.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..OH COME ON yeah you guessed it

Pot, meet kettle.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches

Who or what are you even replying to?

Oh yeah, that’s right, when you’ve lost you tend to fall back on insults, even if they don’t make sense. Don’t know how I forgot that, you do it every thread.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..OH COME ON yeah you guessed it

Read, read, read, and when you think you have it….read it one more time before commenting.

gl

@ Michael42

“Oh yeah, that’s right, when you’ve lost you tend to fall back on insults, even if they don’t make sense. Don’t know how I forgot that, you do it every thread.”

“But you do so love putting words in other people’s mouths to suit your statements… and attempts at insults. ”

“You know, as opposed to some clown on the internet calling himself Johnny Law who seems to think screening is working a lot better than it is.?”

Sooo…pot, meet kettle. That clear enough for you? If not, please read the definition of “hypocrite” and maybe you will understand.

Now that we have that out of the way, you wrote,

““but to say there is no significant screening process in place is simply untrue and ridiculous, even for you.”

Good, because I didn’t say that.”

So I guess that means we agree that there is a significant screening process in place but that there is always room for improvement. Good to know you agree with me. So what are you arguing? I swear Mike, sometimes you seem so focused on trolling my comments and throwing up insulting smiley faces that you forget what the heck it is we are even discussing.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches

Oh, now I’m the troll… lol. XD

The thing is Johnny, you ARE just some clown on the internet that calls himself Johnny Law. That’s an actual, factual *description*, and it’s really the only one we can verify. So no, not an insult on its face.

“but to say there is no significant screening process in place is simply untrue and ridiculous, even for you.”

And yet you continue to miss the point that YOU are the only one who said that.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..OH COME ON yeah you guessed it

Having a policy in place is worthless if they don’t enforce it. Then again, police have proven you can’t be trusted to police yourselves.

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/public_safety/article_15f4f3be-de37-52d1-...

Friday, July 10, 2009 | Lowell Bruce, a deputy sheriff who fatally shot his wife in their Alpine home in 2006, twice failed the county’s psychological evaluations and was rejected for employment by eight other law enforcement agencies, but was ultimately hired by the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department anyway.

Paint him green and he would look just like a fat frog.
The problem with screening is that often there are no signs until after they are on the force. The “blue society” tends to bring out latent tendencies in this area, then cover for them.

This rouge Police Officer, Donald Schismenos, had a 61 year old citizen arrested without probable cause on a felony warrant of tampering with evidence, a day after the incident. He trespassed onto her private property to demanded she hand over her property without a warrant. Sgt. David Hammond (his Supervisor), told him to “let it go” because it was not worth confiscating the woman’s camera for a disorderly conduct arrest, (a misdemeanor).

If more charges are not pending on this Police Office the community is in grave danger from its police force!

While the Akron Police Department and Mayor has dealt with the disregard for his sergeant’s reasonable directive, they have in NO WAY dealt with the false arrest of the citizen!

He should be terminated immediately and a charges of willful misconduct under color, for the false arrest and attempting an illegal confiscation of personal property of a clearly innocent citizen to a grand jury.
This would be no less than what the Police would charge any citizen with under the same circumstances.

There should be several Lawyers at her front door to file a law suite on her behave.
I would greatly encourage her to do so, rarely has a Police department change its demeanor to the public which it serves without a sizable judgment against them.
The Akron city government does not seem to be taking the necessary steps to correct
this issue of public trust for its Police force.