this @DELTAFOX91
2 Likes
Yeah, we’re currently working on a replacement for the directive that causes this issue.
3 Likes
someone’s mad i called them unfunny 
3 Likes
isnt it Fedlaw tho
2 Likes
no
fedlaw is no IA, that doesn’t mean command can’t look into things themselves and pass things that need full investigation up to DPS
2 Likes
Okay, so regarding the unreasonable stuff. It isn’t underhead of DPS overstepping the line and saying they are doing something but legally they can’t. Like 3 months ago I had my first DPS case, accidentally OC’ed a guy. The investigator said that I should be prosecuted for crimes that require malice, and have to re do POST and 3 weeks of suspension. At the end, thankfully I just got a verbal warning. But investigators need more legal training.
The other thing is that due to a PSD all complaints have to go thorugh DPS, which causes some problems. Like minor stuff like unproffessionalism, and such should go thorugh the department, and the sergeant or LT of the officer takes care of it. DPS should handle MAJOR things like false arrest, OIS, etc…
With biases can’t do much since we are human, but being able to change investigators and have a senior investigator supervising new investigators would be nice.
2 Likes
Don’t worry, changes are in the works!
As far as I’m aware and known it to be, Probationary Investigators complete a case under the supervision of an Investigator or Senior Investigator before becoming an Investigator themselves.
Maybe it could do with some alteration, we’ll see.
2 Likes
Well, sounds good. We all understand that DPS is there because people do dumb crap, but at the same time we don’t like it because its a hazzle specially for minor stuff and considering before DPS micromanaged a lot the departments. But hey! Good start in asking what you can improve.
3 Likes
Exactly my thought when I saw this LMAO
2 Likes
he also deleted evidence that was used in a dps complaint against his co-worker, in an incident that directly involved him, off of medal
sounds like an honest chap
I obv have reservations on the case as a whole but deleting evidence in an attempted coverup is just something else lol
3 Likes
The updated card
2 Likes
It wasn’t an attempt to cover it up. It was a classified video that was deleted upon request by a member of SWAT command when alerted of the leak.
SWAT or not, friend or foe, every complaint is thoroughly investigated regardless.
I don’t condone what he did but that doesn’t mean I’d use a classified video to expose him.
It’s illegal.
1 Like
No it wasn’t.
And if you want to raise illegality:
The act of destroying evidence shall be the act of altering any form of evidence that the subject knows to have been admitted into a trial, proceeding, inquiry, or investigation, such being authorized or permitted by law, in such a way that would inhibit persons involved in such process from utilizing such evidence in the aforementioned process, without their explicit consent.
3 Likes
Hmmmmm, sounds shady.
2 Likes
Just make me secretary instead!
3 Likes
no, who we need as secretary is chrisman himself!
1 Like
Okay, you got me. I deleted a video but shouldn’t have, that’s on me and I’ll admit to that.
As far as I was aware though, it was considered classified because I’ve always been told that anything SWAT related is classified. Then again, I could have educated myself on that by checking for myself.
yes that’s what happens. the directive wasn’t signed without consulting the department heads and the agreement was made that although all complaints originally go to DPS, departments can a) take the matter internally and if they don’t actively seek it b) minor matters are automatically handed back
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.