|
Kevyn posted:In a shocking twist of irony, Officer Darren Wilson was found guilty and forced to take the black. http://www.theonion.com/video/judge-rules-white-girl-will-be-tried-as-black-adul,18896/ ?
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:If he refuses to participate in his ordinary duties of employment (in this case because he may have violated some other employment policies) then he should be subject to termination just like I would be. The fact that he can't be is an employment protection, not a criminal protection (although for some reason that employment protection comes from the 5th amendment), availed to them but not other citizens. I'm *pretty* certain if I killed someone at my office I could not be forced to include that information in my weekly status report.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The government is not allowed to coerce a confession from either you or a police officer. Where is the protection availed to them but not to other citizens? You can argue whether they should have a right other citizens do not possess. You can't argue that they don't have that right. (I assume this ruling doesn't even apply to contractors, right?) GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:As someone who's seen every episode of The Sopranos, I think the FBI has a plausible RICO case against the Ferguson PD. If they can seize records and FPD was dumb enough to be like , "let's arrest more blacks to drive up numbers" in such language, a RICO case may work. Typically I'd say that's too dumb to expect but these guys... I mean the last NYPD crackdown had cops going on record saying "haha just arrested that negro" so who knows. As for the Wire it is a great show but we already know David Simon's thoughts. He already came out and said the FPD police chief is one of the worst he's ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I'm *pretty* certain if I killed someone at my office I could not be forced to include that information in my weekly status report. You could not be forced to under penalty of imprisonment. You could certainly be fired for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The protection is the right to keep their job despite not doing the duties required of them, because it might implicate them in a crime. Why do you think the public would get a better police report if the killer wrote the police report rather than a different officer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
I guess this goes waaaaaaaaaaay back to the beginning of everything, but is it normal for a police officer to be patrolling in that situation alone, and not with another officer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I understand what the jurisprudence on the issue is, I just disagree with it. I think we can separate for 5th amendment purposes the role of the government as prosecutor and the role of the government as employer, just like we do for first amendment purposes. I'm fine with a rule that says government employees can't be forced to participate in an criminal investigation against them. However, I'm not saying he has to submit to an interview with investigators. Writing a report after a call is standard procedure and one of the officer's duties of employment. If he refuses to participate in his ordinary duties of employment (in this case because he may have violated some other employment policies) then he should be subject to termination just like I would be. The fact that he can't be is an employment protection, not a criminal protection (although for some reason that employment protection comes from the 5th amendment), availed to them but not other citizens. So government employees can't be forced to participate in a criminal investigation against themselves, unless that's part of their job. If so tough titty. GlyphGryph posted:Are you dense? The protection is the right to keep their job despite not doing the duties required of them, because it might implicate them in a crime. Private companies do not have to protect your rights, the government does. Just because a private company can do something does not mean the government can, or that government employees are racking up special rights denied other citizens. Why are we so dead set on forcing someone to create a legal document that could be used against them? Is this document then supposed to be worth the paper it's printed on?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I guess this goes waaaaaaaaaaay back to the beginning of everything, but is it normal for a police officer to be patrolling in that situation alone, and not with another officer? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I guess this goes waaaaaaaaaaay back to the beginning of everything, but is it normal for a police officer to be patrolling in that situation alone, and not with another officer? Yes. e: fug
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why do you think the public would get a better police report if the killer wrote the police report rather than a different officer? What other officer? One who wasn't there and can't interview the people who were?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Kevyn posted:In a shocking twist of irony, Officer Darren Wilson was found guilty and forced to take the black. Build the danged wall!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I guess this goes waaaaaaaaaaay back to the beginning of everything, but is it normal for a police officer to be patrolling in that situation alone, and not with another officer? It's completely up to the departmental procedures whether officers are partnered up or ride solo. Callahan vs California Highway Patrol(s) was a tough 5-4 ruling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
Gyges posted:So government employees can't be forced to participate in a criminal investigation against themselves, unless that's part of their job. If so tough titty. You're moving the goal posts now. Any non-government employee must participate in the employer's incident reporting process. If the employee worries that participation may be used to incriminate him, he as the option of resigning or refusing and being fired. The police are given a special just-for-police privilege against being fired while charges are pending. What's so hard about this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
All this talk about supposed Fifth Amendment rights is rather optimistically out of date. In recent years the US Supreme Court has delivered some pretty serious blows to "right to silence" protections - holding in 2010 that mere silence was insufficient to trigger Fifth Amendment protections and recognition (Berghuis v. Thompkins), and last year ruling that mere silence could indeed be used as evidence against the accused (Salinas v. Texas). While these opinions are of course terrible 5v4 ConservaCourt trash, they are also the law of the land. They have a clear impact on Garrity-type cases, since any refusal to submit a report is no longer implicitly backed by constitutional guarantees. If Darren Wilson simply refused to submit a report, rather than delivering a report that explicitly invoked the Fifth Amendment, then he has significant legal liabilities. Of course he'd never be seriously charged by the state prosecutors since he's a cop, but it's possible that federal prosecutors would take a firmer line.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Federal prosecutors can't terminate him for breach of duty though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:What other officer? One who wasn't there and can't interview the people who were? One that comes when there's been a killing and interviews people like a police officer does. Do you really think that if Mike Brown's killer had tried to interview people he would have both gotten an interview and then written down the truth? I'm really struggling to imagine how people think its a bad thing that the official police record isn't written by the guy who just killed someone. (The fact that FPD didn't actually investigate the shooting the day it happened is what's awful, not that the shooter didn't write down the report.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:You're moving the goal posts now. Any non-government employee must participate in the employer's incident reporting process. If the employee worries that participation may be used to incriminate him, he as the option of resigning or refusing and being fired. The police are given a special just-for-police privilege against being fired while charges are pending. What's so hard about this? Your non-governmental employer is not required to uphold your rights, the government is. The private sector can do any number of things that the government is not allowed to, firing employees for exercising their 5th Amendment rights is one of those. This is not the government handing out special rights, this is the government not infringing on established rights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Why are we so dead set on forcing someone to create a legal document that could be used against them? Is this document then supposed to be worth the paper it's printed on? It's hardly the only additional protection government workers have, but you're literally arguing with reality by saying they aren't getting any more rights here than someone else would, since someone else would, in fact, be required to fill out such a report or get fired, legally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:What other officer? One who wasn't there and can't interview the people who were? GlyphGryph posted:I made no comment on whether the police should be forced to fill out such an incident report. Only the fairly obvious statement that the police are given what is clearly a protection that non-government employees do not have under similar circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Your non-governmental employer is not required to uphold your rights, the government is. The private sector can do any number of things that the government is not allowed to, firing employees for exercising their 5th Amendment rights is one of those. This is not the government handing out special rights, this is the government not infringing on established rights. Like I said last time you brought that up, we make a distinction between government as sovereign and government as employer in first amendment law and we could do so in fifth amendment law as well. It's a point you didn't address last time it came up and we're talking in circles now. You keep saying the same things without really engaging the people you're talking to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:You're moving the goal posts now. Any non-government employee must participate in the employer's incident reporting process. If the employee worries that participation may be used to incriminate him, he as the option of resigning or refusing and being fired. The police are given a special just-for-police privilege against being fired while charges are pending. What's so hard about this? It's not just for police - it's government employees in general.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It's not just for police - it's government employees in general. or because its "departmental policy" in places without strong unions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Who exactly do you expect needs to be interviewed for an officer's personal report? Right, that's my point. The report of the officer who wasn't there is worthless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Right, that's my point. The report of the officer who wasn't there is worthless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
KernelSlanders I've been thinking about a counter argument but upon consideration I've been convinced that Police should be required to self-incriminate provided its only admissible in disciplinary hearings. It's Friday night and I'm not sober so that's my excuse I guess lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
SirJohnnyMcDonald posted:KernelSlanders I've been thinking about a counter argument but upon consideration I've been convinced that Police should be required to self-incriminate provided its only admissible in disciplinary hearings. quote:The application of Garrity warnings provides that an employee can be ordered to cooperate in an internal or administrative investigation and be compelled to truthfully answer questions that are specifically, directly, and narrowly related to the employee’s official conduct. Any statements made pursuant to an order to cooperate in such an investigation—and any evidence derived from that statement—may not be used against the employee in a criminal proceeding. For Garrity to apply, the statement must be compelled and not voluntary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I made no comment on whether the police should be forced to fill out such an incident report. Only the fairly obvious statement that the police are given what is clearly a protection that non-government employees do not have under similar circumstances. This is not an extra right. Unless people who are working from home get extra rights not afforded to Fast Food employees. When you blow up a lab your job requires you to write up what happened. When he shoots someone his job allows someone else to write up what happened. When someone requires medical attention at my job I am not allowed to write up a report of what happened as that must be completed by someone else. Which of us has special rights?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:This is already the case. Garrity does not protect you from administrative punishment. The Canadian equivalent is much the same way and I'm not quite sure what I was thinking. The Charter protects an officer from self incrimination provided there was reason to believe that the Crown may prosecute at the time the report was filed. The evidence may not be permitted if it was compelled by a person of authority and/or coerced through oppression. A person of authority in this case would be superior officer and oppression is considered the threat of discipline. However, the evidence only violates the principal of Fundamental Justice if it is provided in criminal proceedings. The weighing of the officer's right to not self-incriminate facing criminal charges against the public's interests is in favour of his rights, whereas a in a disciplinary hearing the bar is lowered completely reasonably and the public's interests outweigh the officers rights. This makes complete sense of course and I wouldn't argue with it at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Everyone has exactly the same protection. The government can't force you to violate your 5th amendment rights under threat of termination either. Especially there's an established precedent for differences in how government interacts with individuals as private citizens and employees. The government is already allowed to punish employees for things that would be a violation of an individual's rights if that person was working as a private employee and the government attempted see them terminated for it, and the courts have upheld the right of the government to terminate employees for engaging in constitutional behaviour. (See: Waters v. Churchill, Branti v. Finkel, Broadrick v. Oklahoma) The government should not be able to require officers to report behaviour outside of their official activity, of course. They shouldn't be able to punish someone in the courts for refusing to incriminate themselves even if they were a government employee. But there is legal precedent and argument for the idea that such a restriction doesn't cover activities done while executing your duties as an employee in such a way as to protect you from disciplinary consequences up to and including termination, and that doing so is not a violation of the employee's rights. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Like I said last time you brought that up, we make a distinction between government as sovereign and government as employer in first amendment law and we could do so in fifth amendment law as well. It's a point you didn't address last time it came up and we're talking in circles now. You keep saying the same things without really engaging the people you're talking to. Because the government can not act as a separate sovereign entity and employer entity in a 5th Amendment case. You are suggesting that the government can not coerce you into doing something, but if you don't do it the government can fire you. How is that not coercion?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
Edit: --actually, ignore this post, it brings in too many other side issues--
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Like I said last time you brought that up, we make a distinction between government as sovereign and government as employer in first amendment law and we could do so in fifth amendment law as well. It's a point you didn't address last time it came up and we're talking in circles now. You keep saying the same things without really engaging the people you're talking to. That an employer can fire you for non-job related speech doesn't mean that the government can even in acting in their role as employer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
Isn't going for a cop's gun essentially like acting with deadly force upon him? A 300 pound man going for the cop's gun probably made him panic and do the Mozambique drill twice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
amuayse posted:Isn't going for a cop's gun essentially like acting with deadly force upon him? A 300 pound man going for the cop's gun probably made him panic and do the Mozambique drill twice. The cop shot him six times from behind with the gun he "went for?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
"going for my gun" is cop-speak for "I executed a person and need a bullshit excuse that can't be dis-proven."
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The cop shot him six times from behind with the gun he "went for?" Twice from behind, six time from the front. With the gun he "went for."
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Twice from behind, six time from the front. With the gun he "went for." With no gun residue on Mike so he wasn't anywhere near the cop. And witnesses who also back up that theory.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
I'm getting conflicted witness reports via google search with some saying he bumrushed the cop, others saying he was running away. I am certain he was shot in the front though, according to the autopsy reports. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
amuayse posted:I'm getting conflicted witness reports via google search with some saying he bumrushed the cop, others saying he was running away. I am certain he was shot in the front though, according to the autopsy reports. The only people saying he bumrushed the cops are the cops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 13:27
|
|
