Stay Focused

**marinepilot** · 08-08-11 03:59 AM

Originally Posted by 1811_bound

I understand he broke the law...and I assume the ADA, the judge, and the Governor were also aware. And, like them, I believe he should be allowed to continue to one day become a LEO.

Here's the problem with your thinking, which we're all trying to explain to you. If you understand that he BROKE THE LAW at the FELONY level, then how worthless do you think his credibility will be as someone who is supposed to ENFORCE THOSE SAME LAWS?!?!? His testimony would be absolutely worthless in court and he would never be able to win a single case, so any investigations he does and any arrests he made would be a waste of time because all a defense lawyer (yes, even a Public Defender) would have to do would be to get him on the stand and ask him "Is it not true that you've been previously convicted of a felony, a law that you are now supposed to enforce?" Boom, defense wins again. WORTHLESS as a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

Originally Posted by 1811_bound

If you did read the pdf; you of course read the part where the judge wrote that the reason there are things such as Relief of Disabilities and Certificates of Good Conduct are so that individuals such as this guy can have a SECOND CHANCE. I'm no lawyer but if a judge who is the expert in matters of law decides that this person merits becoming one...I would give that a lot more weight than someone who merely clears an NYPD "checklist". Good moral character is not defined by the absence of wrong doing.

Yes, a judge is an expert in the matters of the law. He is NOT, however, an expert in picking those who ENFORCE the laws. The experts in those matters are the ones who made the NYPD checklist. Even a judge knows that if this guy was an LEO and came before him with a felony record, he would be the death of any case he tried to make and an instant win for the defense.

As for good moral character not being defined by the absence of wrong doing, I would state that this statement is moot in your argument. This person has been CONVICTED of wrong doing, therefore there is no ABSENCE of wrong doing, it's plainly out there and in his record. How can he, therefore, be declared to have good moral character? Could he have changed in the mean time? Sure, happens every day. Doesn't mean his prior choices don't have dire consequences for his future. Consider Magic Johnson. Very talented athlete, overall pretty good person from what I know of him. But he made some bad choices in his past which affect him now. Mainly that being that he can never be free of AIDS due to his choices, no matter HOW GOOD HE IS NOW. He will ALWAYS have to live with the consequences of those decisions, just like this guy who is a convicted FELON.

**1811_bound** · 08-08-11 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by marinepilot

Here's the problem with your thinking, which we're all trying to explain to you. If you understand that he BROKE THE LAW at the FELONY level, then how worthless do you think his credibility will be as someone who is supposed to ENFORCE THOSE SAME LAWS?!?!? His testimony would be absolutely worthless in court and he would never be able to win a single case, so any investigations he does and any arrests he made would be a waste of time because all a defense lawyer (yes, even a Public Defender) would have to do would be to get him on the stand and ask him "Is it not true that you've been previously convicted of a felony, a law that you are now supposed to enforce?" Boom, defense wins again. WORTHLESS as a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

I'd like to first say that I'm not looking to fight with you guys on this. I hope this is all being taking in the context of different opinions. We are all on the same side.

Now, I'll say that I understand the points you guys are making. What I'm saying is that the opinion of several people from various backgrounds have already stated that the guy deserves a chance. The military commanders who wrote letters of recommendations, and the retired detective. Next we have the ADA, who has the job of prosecuting the crimes LEOs allege defendants committed, endorsing this guy. The ADA!! It is his job to get the conviction....not a LEO. If the ADA does not feel that this guy is less credible as a witness... I don't think a jury would. If I'm sitting on that jury I wouldn't have a problem with a guy who made a mistake years ago . If it was robbery..yea; if it was fraud..yea; if it was lying under oath..yea. Carrying a gun.... I need more info. I carry one everyday. And, I am in total agreement with the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment right to carry and bear arms is a right not a privilege. And, the Constitution is both the source and limit of a LEO's authority so unless he was committing some other crime...he paid the price for breaking the law. I mean there was no more malice in his mistake than let's say speeding, running a red light, jaywalking, etc. Don't get me wrong..he broke the law so he deserved to get arrested. That's the way it works. He broke the law, got caught, did his time, paid his debt, and is now being given a second chance.

Originally Posted by marinepilot

Yes, a judge is an expert in the matters of the law. He is NOT, however, an expert in picking those who ENFORCE the laws. The experts in those matters are the ones who made the NYPD checklist. Even a judge knows that if this guy was an LEO and came before him with a felony record, he would be the death of any case he tried to make and an instant win for the defense.

The judge is better equipped to make unbiased decisions concerning the law. And I agree that he may not be the best person to do the hiring. But, as we all know...there are a lot of LEOs who made it through that should not have made it. Also, I'm not sure how things work on the state/local level, but with the feds the head of the Executive Branch of government is the head of enforcing laws; The top dog. The Governor, I would think, is the head of the Executive Branch for the state of New York. That means he is the top LEO in New York and he gave this guy the pardon so he could continue on his path to one day be a LEO.

Originally Posted by marinepilot

As for good moral character not being defined by the absence of wrong doing, I would state that this statement is moot in your argument. This person has been CONVICTED of wrong doing, therefore there is no ABSENCE of wrong doing, it's plainly out there and in his record. How can he, therefore, be declared to have good moral character? Could he have changed in the mean time? Sure, happens every day. Doesn't mean his prior choices don't have dire consequences for his future. Consider Magic Johnson. Very talented athlete, overall pretty good person from what I know of him. But he made some bad choices in his past which affect him now. Mainly that being that he can never be free of AIDS due to his choices, no matter HOW GOOD HE IS NOW. He will ALWAYS have to live with the consequences of those decisions, just like this guy who is a convicted FELON.

I was not speaking about him. I was talking about the people who have not been arrested. The ones that make it through the "checklist". The proof of character is in the actions when tested...looks like a lot of people feel this person has that. All I'm saying is...I agree.

edited to remove references to me being a LEO.

**retdetsgt** · 08-08-11 04:49 PM

The bottom line is, sometimes dumb@ss decisions you make in your life follow you to varying degrees the rest of your life. That's just what is.

Life is like a baseball field, about a quarter of the circle drawn from home plate is fair territory. The rest isn't fair, you just have to get used to it.

**1811_bound** · 08-08-11 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by retdetsgt

The bottom line is, sometimes dumb@ss decisions you make in your life follow you to varying degrees the rest of your life. That's just what is.

Life is like a baseball field, about a quarter of the circle drawn from home plate is fair territory. The rest isn't fair, you just have to get used to it.

I agree with you. Sucks for him.

**Big Sexy** · 08-08-11 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by 1811_bound

Carrying a gun... I carry one everyday.

the Constitution is both the source and limit of our authority

The judge is better equipped to make unbiased decisions concerning the law.

I'm not sure how things work on the state/local level, but with the feds the head of the Executive Branch of government is the head of enforcing laws;

Your name says you are 1811 bound. BIG's positions says he's 1811 arrived.

Peppered throughout your post are suggestions, hints if you will, you are a LEO of some sort. As per the rules of the site, once you claim such, you must prove such or be banned accordingly.

So, are you or are you not an LEO and if so, with who?

**1811_bound** · 08-09-11 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by Big Sexy

Your name says you are 1811 bound. BIG's positions says he's 1811 arrived.

Peppered throughout your post are suggestions, hints if you will, you are a LEO of some sort. As per the rules of the site, once you claim such, you must prove such or be banned accordingly.

So, are you or are you not an LEO and if so, with who?

I removed the "...our authority.." part. I don't think the others suggest I'm a LEO. Carrying a gun everyday isn't unusual; a judge does make better decisions, and I was a political science major so I know how the feds work. Am I in compliance now?

**retdetsgt** · 08-09-11 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by 1811_bound

I removed the "...our authority.." part. I don't think the others suggest I'm a LEO. Carrying a gun everyday isn't unusual; a judge does make better decisions, and I was a political science major so I know how the feds work. Am I in compliance now?

A judge makes better decisions? You are new to the game aren't you? And yeah, criminal justice majors all know how the police work too......

Your "know it all" attitude is laughable...... I've been around the game for a long, long time and seen a lot of people like you come and go with your demeanor. And I assure you, coming to a police forum with lots of experienced police officers and trying to impress us with your "knowledge" doesn't say much for you. Take it for what it's worth and I don't care if you heed my advice or not, but you're becoming joke. I would suggest post less and read more.

**1811_bound** · 08-09-11 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by retdetsgt

A judge makes better decisions? You are new to the game aren't you? And yeah, criminal justice majors all know how the police work too......

Your "know it all" attitude is laughable...... I've been around the game for a long, long time and seen a lot of people like you come and go with your demeanor. And I assure you, coming to a police forum with lots of experienced police officers and trying to impress us with your "knowledge" doesn't say much for you. Take it for what it's worth, but you're becoming joke. I would suggest post less and read more.

Here I thought that it was a discussion with different view points. I guess any opinion that disagrees with yours must be from a "know it all". I've kept it strictly professional unlike others. Comments such as the above are antagonistic. I cannot be baited into a verbal tit for tat. Stay safe.

**retdetsgt** · 08-09-11 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by 1811_bound

Here I thought that it was a discussion with different view points. I guess any opinion that disagrees with yours must be from a "know it all". I've kept it strictly professional unlike others. Comments such as the above are antagonistic. I cannot be baited into a verbal tit for tat. Stay safe.

Disagreements based on knowledge and experience are always welcomed. Comments like "a judge makes better decisions" shows a lack of both. Some judges make great decisions, some make horrible ones. A blanket statement like you made is silly.

Saying you know all about how feds work is equally dumb because you majored in PS. Unless you work in the field, you're just guessing or taking the word of others who don't know either. I majored and have a graduate degree in sociology. My professors knew very little about real life, I saw that immediately.

**Joeyd6** · 08-09-11 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by 1811_bound

I'd like to first say that I'm not looking to fight with you guys on this. I hope this is all being taking in the context of different opinions. We are all on the same side.

It is. You are holding a respectful discussion even though we disagree. No problems with that!

What I'm saying is that the opinion of several people from various backgrounds have already stated that the guy deserves a chance. The military commanders who wrote letters of recommendations, and the retired detective. Next we have the ADA, who has the job of prosecuting the crimes LEOs allege defendants committed, endorsing this guy. The ADA!! It is his job to get the conviction....not a LEO.

Yes, but when you have a Giglio file....they will simply decline to prosecute any case you give them. Thus your street value is worthless and you are a waste of taxpayer money.

If the ADA does not feel that this guy is less credible as a witness... I don't think a jury would. If I'm sitting on that jury I wouldn't have a problem with a guy who made a mistake years ago . If it was robbery..yea; if it was fraud..yea; if it was lying under oath..yea.

Have you sat on a jury? The criminal process in theory should work as you say, but it does not!

I mean there was no more malice in his mistake than let's say speeding, running a red light, jaywalking, etc. Don't get me wrong..he broke the law so he deserved to get arrested.

100% wrong! What you are describing are violations or misdemeanors. Things under the law established by our elected officials, that do not require you to lose your rights, aka right to vote or bear arms. He was underage, and made a choice to get a gun; he went and then got a gun; and then decided to carry the gun. A criminal justice student doing office work PT for a private detective. He was attempting to play cop.

That's the way it works. He broke the law, got caught, did his time, paid his debt, and is now being given a second chance.

Key word is CHANCE. Not a guarantee, not a promise. he had a chance and the NYPD said no.

there are a lot of LEOs who made it through that should not have made it.

Actually, when you look at the numbers, there are very few. Very few...and most....were let in due to an "exception" or a bending of the rules, like the case you mention here.

Also, I'm not sure how things work on the state/local level, but with the feds the head of the Executive Branch of government is the head of enforcing laws; The top dog.

Not really true. Its the Attorney General, not the President.

The Governor, I would think, is the head of the Executive Branch for the state of New York. That means he is the top LEO in New York and he gave this guy the pardon so he could continue on his path to one day be a LEO.

Not true again. The NY State Attorney General is the top law enforcement official.

A political science degree is nice....but if you have a BA, MA/MS or PhD, and never worked for the government, you have no idea how it works. Same as if you have never been on a jury, you have no idea how a court case is handled by them. Most of us here have time in the game, in the trenches, dealing with this stuff all day. We know because have experienced it. There is a big difference between academic theory and knowledge and the way it really works. That is something you need to learn and accept. I understand your "innocence" and eagerness to have it work out the way you were taught, but once you get over the reality it will never be that way you will have a better chance at landing the 1811 gig you want.

**retdetsgt** · 08-09-11 09:51 AM

To quote Dr. Thomas Sowell, an American economist, "A burning passion for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about."

**1811_bound** · 08-09-11 10:21 AM