About . . . . . . Classes . . . . . . Books . . . . . . Vita . . . . . . . Links. . . . . . Blog

by Peter Moskos

April 30, 2010

Ex-police officer Pogan convicted

This is the guy who pushed over the bicyclist in Times Square. Pogan was convicted of filing false statements (saying that he was assaulted by the victim). Pogan was also convicted of a misdemeanor for attesting to the complaint's truthfulness.

Patrick Pogan, who was only on the job for 11 days, was acquitted on assault charges. Judging from the video, he looked guilty to me. But police should be given benefits of doubt on use of force. And I wasn't in the court room or on the jury. So I'll pipe down on the assault charge. The important thing is that Pogan was convicted and won't be getting his job back. Good riddance to him. The NYPD can do better.

14 comments:

PCM said...

The supervisor didn't see what happened. The supervisor has an obligation to help a new officer write a good report.

It's up the officer to tell the truth. I'm pretty sure Pagon didn't say, "Sarge, I just assaulted a guy by pushing him off his bike for no reason other than I thought he deserved it. How should I write that up?"

PCM said...

And now Pagon is a convicted liar.

Johnny Law said...

Cleanville just wants his pound of flesh no matter what the facts are. I am sad that an 11 day rookie had this happen to him but this job is about integrity and if he got away with lying in the beginning, it would just get worse over time.

PCM said...

I just amazes me how you always think you have it all figured out. I sure wish I felt the same about my own beliefs.

PCM said...

A little of both. Their self-assurance--which comes off as less cocky--is more rooted in knowledge and experience.

Cleanville Tziabatz said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"I just think that Pogan is telling the truth when he says that his supervisor told him to lie."

And you know this how? You were there? You can read minds?

Cleanville Tziabatz said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"are you people saying that you are less certain than I am"

Unless you're privy to the full record, which of course you're not, you're simply speculating. Leaping to conclusions based on speculations is inherently illogical.

PCM said...

But as a former cop, and speaking for active-duty officers who post here, our opinion is based on 1st-hand knowledge of knowing police culture in general and being at crimes scenes in particular.

We have dealt with awkward situations and report writing and peers and supervisors. So yes, I think our speculation counts for more.

When somebody without any real knowledge of police writes about how things went down, it simply does not ring true. No, we don't know what happened here with 100% certainty. But we can certainly give things the proverbial sniff test and call B.S. when we smell it.

An officer does not go to a supervisor and say, "I assaulted somebody for no reason, how should I write it up?" The two do not then get together, rub their hands together, and come up with some lie that could end both of their careers.

Cleanville Tziabatz said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
PCM said...

You have no clue no desire to listen to, much less learn from, those who do. I'm done with you.

Anonymous said...

"All professions lie and police more than most."

And your proof for that is where?

This is what I meant about leaping to conclusions based on speculations. Apparently PCM thought my comment was directed at him, which it wasn't.

"I think our speculation counts for more."

One might postulate it was an informed estimate based on first-hand knowledge and observations of similar factual situations, not a mere speculation.

When someone pulls stuff out of his ear, based solely on reading news articles, and extrapolates about what "really" happened in a tone as if he was an eye-witness, that is bald speculation and the antithesis of factual knowledge.

Anonymous said...

"I have more experience in that area than any of you ever will."

Considering you haven't a clue who I am and therefore no basis for the presumption that you have more experience than I will ever have, you've conclusively proven you have no idea what you're talking about and spin arguments out of thin air.

(And, in the future, before you hold yourself out as a supreme authority on something, you might want to do it with a less ridiculous profile than one that affirms your "expertise" is about as substantial as meringue. When we need a DJ for a party, however, we'll be sure to give you a call.)