|
chitoryu12 posted:Maybe because they're pointing out that most jobs in the country don't allow you to avoid any and all punishment from your employer as long as no co-workers or customers sign sworn statements that you hosed up, and it's yet another example of how American police get additional privileges that let them avoid responsibility and further allows them to abuse citizens? To what end? Why are you pointing that out? Because the only good faith reason to point that out is because that's the way you believe it should be.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Having to show cause to fire someone is the case in every public sector job I'm aware of, so I don't see why police should be any different. Requiring some sort of neutral arbitrator is common in most union jobs as well. This isn't new or novel, and if people are in favor of stripping that protection from police officers and other public employees because private firms have managed to chip away at unions and workers' rights, they should be prepared to argue that at-will employment and union busting are good policy. The difference being that "police officer" is a job that allows the use of force. Don't act as though that isn't an enormous difference to any other public sector job. If my mailman fucks up delivering packages, no one ends up dead or raped. Jarmak posted:To what end? Why are you pointing that out? Because the only good faith reason to point that out is because that's the way you believe it should be. Bullshit. Someone can be against something but still think it should be applied fairly if it MUST be applied. And again, this completely ignores the nature of the power a cop wields.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Why shouldn't complaints get investigated? Also holy poo poo every second of that Aguilar video is horrifying. Starts up with a cop saying 'move and i'll kill you bitch' and when Aguilar stops moving he gets beaten several times with something that looks like a kubotan. And the fucker literally makes sure he bleeds to death while his mate threatens some witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't think anyone should be disciplined based on accusations that the accuser is unwilling to swear to the truthfulness of, police or no. Talk is cheap. Add the fact that policing is by nature a "competitive enterprise" where officers are required to confront and detain criminals, and I think it's reasonable to require a complainant we willing to make a sworn statement. I expect that they receive very few comment cards that say, "Officer DrunkYet was wholly professional and used appropriate force when he arrested me and confiscated my dope & illegal handgun." How would you explain some officers receiving [statistically significantly] more complaints than other officers [working similar beats]? Even if the job is confrontational in nature, the officer drawing more complaints is obviously not doing his job as well as all the others not drawing as many. He should receive remedial training, and if it continues, not be allowed to engage the public. Police departments have back-office jobs too. Also, you seem be ignoring documented instances of police harassing and intimidating people who make a sworn complaint. Maybe if that issue can be addressed, then it would be reasonable to require sworn statements. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Dec 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:Bullshit. Someone can be against something but still think it should be applied fairly if it MUST be applied. And again, this completely ignores the nature of the power a cop wields. I don't even understand what you're getting at, if you're saying that his point was to say that private sector workers should have the same protections then... we agree?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
What are the penalties for making a sworn statement that later is determined to be false? Is it the same as filing a false police report? I don't know how the system works but I sure as hell wouldn't make a statement and then make the bet that it can't be proven wrong with the people who get to decide its veracity, especially if it would mean I'm now facing charges once they clear the cop of any wrongdoing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
bango skank posted:What are the penalties for making a sworn statement that later is determined to be false? Is it the same as filing a false police report? I don't know how the system works but I sure as hell wouldn't make a statement and then make the bet that it can't be proven wrong with the people who get to decide its veracity, especially if it would mean I'm now facing charges once they clear the cop of any wrongdoing. It's not "prove wrong" it's "proved to be lying"
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It's not "prove wrong" it's "proved to be lying" After a thorough investigation by the people the claim is made against.  "Your report claimed Officer Oinkins made threats towards you. Well we asked him and he said he didn't, you lying liar." bango skank fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Dec 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I don't even understand what you're getting at, if you're saying that his point was to say that private sector workers should have the same protections then... we agree? It's a pretty self explanatory statement. Not sure what the is to not get.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:It's a pretty self explanatory statement. Not sure what the is to not get. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Dec 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So you think that every worker should be pulled down to the level of those with the least protection in the interest of fairness? Can you explicitly state your position? A Fancy Bloke posted:I think cops should be held to the same standards that most employees are held to regarding complaints about their performance. IE if they receive complaints they should at THE VERY LEAST be investigated. It would not be a tragedy or dystopian future in any way, shape, or form if an officer was dismissed for multiple complaints re: the same issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I don't even understand what you're getting at, if you're saying that his point was to say that private sector workers should have the same protections then... we agree? The point is equality. Either private sector workers get extended the same privileges as police currently do (even investigation of claims is ignored, let alone punishment, if witnesses to the misbehavior don't sign a legally binding document), or police lose those privileges and become just as vulnerable as everyone else to being fired or investigated if sufficient numbers of people complain about their behavior. As it stands, police get more than everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The point is equality. Either private sector workers get extended the same privileges as police currently do (even investigation of claims is ignored, let alone punishment, if witnesses to the misbehavior don't sign a legally binding document), or police lose those privileges and become just as vulnerable as everyone else to being fired if sufficient numbers of people complain about their behavior. I don't think stripping workers of their protections until everyone is equally vulnerable is at all a just idea. Personally, I'm very pro-union, but "no one is allowed to unionize unless everyone does" isn't the way to get there. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Dec 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Hey, that crab is getting too close to the top of the bucket!" Oh gently caress you. We're not all in this together. If I gently caress up at my job, my company is out money. If a cop fucks up, people's civil rights have been abused and they may be dead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Hey, that crab is getting too close to the top of the bucket!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It's not "prove wrong" it's "proved to be lying" These are the folks who decide if you have been "proved to be lying" and arrest you. Maybe you get the one bright shining DA who isn't buddies with the cops, so you only spend the weekend in jail. Maybe you get the DA who puts you in jail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8v7lF5ttlQ
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 04:08
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Hey, that crab is getting too close to the top of the bucket!" Nobody actually wants a world in which you need to go through a mile of red tape to have it be known that another employee dropped his pants and told you to "kiss the birdie if you don't want your tires slashed." Union protections are about ensuring people aren't abused by the bosses, not about putting barriers in place for their own sake.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Being punished for unsubstantiated complaints is bad. Being unable to lodge substantiated complaints because of an abuse of power is bad. I would call it worse. Police often have a great deal of power over citizens, and have control over the investigations meant to substantiate complaints. This problem is somewhat exceptional due to police being government workers, and being able to use force and compulsory tactics. This can lead to the mechanism meant to remove bad cops, substantiated complaints, to be very hard to carry out. One means to overcome that would be to lower the requirement of what constitutes a substantiated complaint. This is not perfect, and creates unfairness, since it is holding police to a different de jure standard, in the name of correcting a de facto difference in standards. In my opinion, I care about the results, and the current situation sees police at a very superior position compared to generally everyone, in terms of protection from complaints. This is very bad as they are given a lot of power over the public that means the things they can get away with are very extreme compared to a private worker, including shooting people for perhaps not good reasons. So I think demanding higher standards is okay, and complaining that it's a bias against police to do so is a false equivalence, as police are rather unlike other careers in what they do. okay is there anything there people want to call me a huge fucker on
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't think anyone should be disciplined based on accusations that the accuser is unwilling to swear to the truthfulness of, police or no. Talk is cheap. Add the fact that policing is by nature a "competitive enterprise" where officers are required to confront and detain criminals, and I think it's reasonable to require a complainant we willing to make a sworn statement. I expect that they receive very few comment cards that say, "Officer DrunkYet was wholly professional and used appropriate force when he arrested me and confiscated my dope & illegal handgun." Here's the problem. That's not how the private sector works. At all. Your perception is colored by the fact that you've not seen how private institutions handle these requests. That's a simple, verifiable fact. Your position, and Kalman's as well, is that unsworn statements should be discarded because that's not how the system should work. Except it is literally the case of how the system works in the private sector, which is where the majority of us work. If you want them to keep that protection, then you need to acknowledge that this is an administrative benefit that police have over citizens. And the best part, the part you refuse to acknowledge, is the decades of history police forces have in discouraging and outright rejecting requests to issue these sworn statements. Or how the police will go out of their way to lie and cover for their brothers first, instead of confronting their illegal behavior. Hell, in this very thread, we had a case where a police officer raped 17 women, and got away with them based on instilling his victims with the fear that if they reported him, their reports would be ignored, and it worked. We had another case where a police officer shot and killed a man, and then hid all video footage of it, who then allegedly wiped the information off a third party recording system. And the only reason they didn't get away with it was one reporter who doggedly followed up on the whole fiasco. Or we can refer back to Tamir Rice's case, wherein the officer's reports justifying why they opened fire on a child don't match the video footage of what happened. Or we can go back to Michael Slager, wherein officers again falsified reports to cover up that their prisoner had died, which were later proven wrong thanks to a civilian's camera. Please let me know if you want me to keep going, I'm sure I can dig up even more cases wherein the police are proven to be human and lie just like you and I do. Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Dec 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
I'm going to step out from the norm here.Dead Reckoning posted:I don't think anyone should be disciplined based on accusations that the accuser is unwilling to swear to the truthfulness of, police or no. I do. I mean, ideally? Sure, maybe not. But until things are fair for everybody else then I absolutely think that those with the most power should suffer alongside all of the rest of us. I do. "How's my Driving? Dial 1-800-555-5555." Do you think that when you call that number they ask you to sign an affidavit? Of course they don't. And if a driver consistently receives negative calls, he's out. "Comments? Complaints? Leave a card!" Do you think if you drop a note saying your waiter was surly they're going to call you back and request a notarized copy? Of course they don't. And if a waiter consistently receives negative comments, he's out. "Hey John, we keep getting calls from customers saying they're hearing you use racial slurs, but we don't have any actual signatures yet. It's weird that nobody else has this problem but ah well, guess we can't do anything!" Is that how you think it works? It's not. It's absolutely not. If an employee consistently receives accusations of racial slurs, he's out. A consistently bad reputation shouldn't be enough to put a person in jail, by any means, but it's certainly reasonable that it might cause a person to lose their job. And again, you can absolutely argue that it's not an ideal situation and in an ideal world I'd be inclined to agree. But as many police investigation results have taught me, we can't judge by the ideal but instead have to judge by what a reasonable person in that same situation might experience. That's the common defense, right? It's not, "If an ideal person acted ideally." It's "If a reasonable person acted like any other reasonable person might." So why shouldn't that work for employers? If the powerless have to suffer the empowered should have to as well. I love the idea of 'a rising tide lifts all boats' but in my experience it's more of a see-saw. If one side goes up the other is pushed down. Fix things for the guy who works at Walmart and then I'll want it fixed for cops too, but until then I absolutely think that the people with guns and powers of arrest, the people tasked with breaking up the assemblies of other workers trying to consolidate, should sit in the same rotten pit as the rest of us. And also, dumb as they may be, these opinions are mine and mine alone though. You probably shouldn't use them later in an attempt to paint the situation as "everybody else is saying."
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Maybe actually asking what people mean and accepting their answer instead quote mining "See you said THIS three pages ago" would save the thread it's bi monthly derail. Just a thought. And the one time I went to file a complaint the sergeant wouldn't give me the form until I understood he wouldn't want to be me next time I got pulled over for complaining about one of his upstanding officers. At least the rear end in a top hat cop came back when he was off duty to apologize for being a dick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
The guy who was shot after a DWI accident while trying to climb out of the wreckage died today. Apparently his death alters some of the legal variables and maybe now the DA can perhaps do something. With the vigorous pursuit of justice this DA has previously displayed, should the officer be charged I look forward to his inevitable acquittal late next year or in early 2017.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:The guy who was shot after a DWI accident while trying to climb out of the wreckage died today. Apparently his death alters some of the legal variables and maybe now the DA can perhaps do something. With the vigorous pursuit of justice this DA has previously displayed, should the officer be charged I look forward to his inevitable acquittal late next year or in early 2017. Well hold on now, we'll need to convene a grand jury and the DA will need time to find expert witnesses to testify on the officer's behalf.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is egregiously disingenuous, in the last page two people have explicitly stated that cops should be punished/fired for unsubstantiated complaints if there's enough of them, and about three others have chipped in to support them by arguing that's how everyone else's job works. It is how other people's jobs work, though. And if a cop is getting a big number of complaints, then yes, something should happen--not necessarily punishment, but, you know, some effort to resolve those complaints. Remember that right now almost none of this is actually investigated. If it were, if people had confidence in that, then they wouldn't be calling for such broad-scale measures. Police have a lot of work to do in repairing that trust. Dead Reckoning posted:Having to show cause to fire someone is the case in every public sector job I'm aware of, so I don't see why police should be any different. Requiring some sort of neutral arbitrator is common in most union jobs as well. This isn't new or novel, and if people are in favor of stripping that protection from police officers and other public employees because private firms have managed to chip away at unions and workers' rights, they should be prepared to argue that at-will employment and union busting are good policy. "My job doesn't offer a pension, so no one's job should in the interests of fairness" isn't a logical argument. Again, what people want is these complaints actually investigated. If that happened, this argument would be moot. Jarmak posted:It's not "prove wrong" it's "proved to be lying" Hah those are the only options you can think of? For gently caress's sake, you literally think that any allegation that can't be substantiated is 'proved to be lying'? Dead Reckoning posted:I don't think anyone should be disciplined based on accusations that the accuser is unwilling to swear to the truthfulness of, police or no. So how do you deal with the fact that it is obviously going to be the most corrupt cops, the ones most in need of investigation and policing, where accusers are unwilling to swear for fear of retaliation? And again, the current situation is that we have lots of cops who have been judged to have abused their power remaining on the force. That alone sends the message that this doesn't really matter that much, certainly not enough for someone to lose their job over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 12:38
|
|
|
Honestly "employee investigated thoroughly after receiving a certain amounts of complaints and then punished if that investigation is corroborated" is probably a step UP for most employees in the U.S so acting like if police having to deal with that is a huge labor issue is pretty ridiculous. That's not even considering the way they are able to punish people that lodge complaints against them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It is how other people's jobs work, though. And if a cop is getting a big number of complaints, then yes, something should happen--not necessarily punishment, but, you know, some effort to resolve those complaints. Remember that right now almost none of this is actually investigated. If it were, if people had confidence in that, then they wouldn't be calling for such broad-scale measures. Police have a lot of work to do in repairing that trust. So are you intentionally misrepresenting everyone's posts or are you actually just incapable of parsing human communication? Bolded above is especially  , did you even read the post it was replying to? Because I was answering someone's question on whether they can charge someone if their sworn statement can't be proven/is wrong.We just got done with the first "who really said what" derail caused by your earlier attempt to reframe the argument, how bout you just stick to arguing what is actually being said? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:So are you intentionally misrepresenting everyone's posts or are you actually just incapable of parsing human communication? Ah, sorry, I did misunderstand what you said there. That makes more sense. Sorry for misunderstanding you, apparently it was super-traumatic. I get that you were saying that people should be punished only for a proven false allegation, and that's cool. However, what people were talking about was also the non-legal retaliation, as well. Again: quote:If a cop is getting a big number of complaints, then yes, something should happen--not necessarily punishment, but, you know, some effort to resolve those complaints. Here's all the substantive poo poo you skipped over, if you want to take a whack at it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:So are you intentionally misrepresenting everyone's posts or are you actually just incapable of parsing human communication? Why should police officers have special treatment in this area? Also how are you rationalising the videos above about people being arrested for attempting to fill in complaint forms?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:So are you intentionally misrepresenting everyone's posts or are you actually just incapable of parsing human communication? It's good to see that you've progressed from not only misinterpreting other's posts to misinterpreting your own. You didn't answer my question, you only made a snarky comment that amounted to, "Well if the police can't substantiate their claim, they must be lying.  "
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
bango skank posted:It's good to see that you've progressed from not only misinterpreting other's posts to misinterpreting your own. You didn't answer my question, you only made a snarky comment that amounted to, "Well if the police can't substantiate their claim, they must be lying. No that's not what I said, you said they can get charged for filling a false report if their report is proven wrong. I said no not proven wrong, proven lying. Obdicut posted:
I didn't skip it, I wasn't contesting it, I was only arguing with the people I disagreed with amazingly enough. Antinumeric posted:Why should police officers have special treatment in this area?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Antinumeric posted:Also how are you rationalising the videos above about people being arrested for attempting to fill in complaint forms? This ones also good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfLwdyMbSHE Gee, I wonder why there's a lack of 'sworn' complaints. Edit: My favorite part -I need your IDs. -Can I have yours -I don't have it on me I'm sure I'm wrong but isn't providing an ID to a cop only required if your under arrest or a suspect? Not driving a car, just walking down the street. Of course a cop in his patrol car can just say he doesn't have one, and I'm pretty sure the person in the video is correct that in MA a cop must provide his ID. Edit part two: Yup, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter41/Section98d So yet again cops don't have to follow even simple laws. I'm sure filing a complaint about this guy literally breaking the law on camera would get serious consideration. You can get arrested because a cop is having a bad day, but if he refuses to follow the law 
Toasticle fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Dec 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
That is 'amazing', actually. Why not acknowledge the areas you agree? You're making this absolutely pointlessly combative by only focusing on areas of contention. You agree there's a huge problem with police abuse of power and complaints against police not being investigated. The whole 'punish without investigation' thing is totally moot if you just do the investigation. If you don't do the investigation, you will have people calling for punishment based on the sheer volume of complaints because that's the only data you've given them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No that's not what I said, you said they can get charged for filling a false report if their report is proven wrong. I said no not proven wrong, proven lying. No, I asked if there were any consequences for making a sworn statement in a complaint against an officer that the police later decide happened differently. You know, as part of the discussion as to why police should or shouldn't account for complaints without sworn statements. That first question still hasn't been answered by anybody but surely you can see in a hypothetical situation, where someone has had their rights violated by a member of the police, why they might be reluctant to give them a reason or shortcut to do so again. Again, I don't know that this is how it works, but if someone is victimized by a group with authority and their only recourse is to go to that same group to file a grievance, whereupon that group then gets to decide whether it did anything wrong or if the complainant is now liable for filing a false report, that's a system that no reasonable person would find acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Also do you know what a sworn statement is? You seem to think it's a signed letter or something. "Sworn statement" can mean different things. A notarized affidavit is a type of sworn statement, but it's not always required - federal courts (28 USC 1746) and some state courts give signed declarations the same legal force. More or less a signed statement that includes something like, "I certify the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury." I don't know much about IL law, but some quick Googling says it's one of the states that's adopted a similar affidavit-substitute law for court. However, there's also the IL State Police Act, which specifically requires an affidavit whenever somebody wants to make a police complaint, and is probably what the Tribune was complaining about. If that's the case, then you can't just submit a complaint through the mail or over the internet and certify that it's true; you have to personally appear before a Taker of Oaths (  ), too.If Chicago PD is leaning on that, there's an easy and sensible counter-argument: a certification good enough for superior court is probably also good enough for investigators to launch an internal investigation. It's still a serious-business statement with potential penalties for lying, and it removes a lot of the inconvenience for people trying to make complaints. I'm sure there are other jurisdictions don't require sworn statements at all, but it seems reasonable as a low-level bullshit filter, especially in a department that big.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
http://gothamist.com/2015/12/22/cop_watch_season_2_the_reckoning.phpquote:Manhattan prosecutors have done something rare indeed: indicted a cop for allegedly falsely arresting someone and lying about it. NYPD Officer Jonathan Munoz, 32, was arraigned this morning on two felony charges of filing false reports, and three misdemeanor charges of official misconduct and false statements. Once again, had there not been video of the incident, an innocent person would have fallen victim to corrupt policing practices. The word of the police in question was enough to get a man charged with several crimes very quickly, but it was only a video that got the charges dropped, and it still took more than a year for charges to be filed against the cop in question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Ooops, remember all those SF cops fired for saying racist and homophobic poo poo? They get their jobs back!quote:A San Francisco Superior Court judge has ruled that police officers who sent racist and homophobic text messages can't be fired because the city missed a deadline. So these officers receive pay for doing nothing and the city can't fire them because police took too long. edit: some other details from an SF gate article here: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Judge-rules-in-favor-of-S-F-cops-who-wrote-6713191.php quote:Goldsmith said Monday that he was upholding the ruling because the Peace Officer Bill of Rights, in particular the statute of limitations, exists to protect not just law enforcement, but the public. The idea that somehow its best for the public to punish SFPD by forcing them to employ racist officers is amazingly disconnected from reality. quote:City attorneys and police officials said they plan to appeal the decision, which has many upset over what they see as a free pass for bigoted behavior. The messages contained racist and antigay remarks calling African American people “monkeys” and encouraging the killing of “half-breeds.” Even other officers aren't protected from racism from police. quote:Officer Rain Daugherty filed a claim against the city in May along with eight unnamed officers identified in the texting, moving what would have been a disciplinary matter overseen by the Police Commission to Superior Court. I have a feeling that in other workplaces, even in the government, it wouldn't be so easy to stop your boss from making personnel decisions. quote:According to the district attorney’s office, 13 cases have been dismissed because of the officers’ involvement. So even if all you care about is putting the "baddies behind bars" letting racists stay on the force only hurts. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 10:12 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ooops, remember all those SF cops fired for saying racist and homophobic poo poo? They get their jobs back! Statutes of limitations are a thing, though. I agree that these officers really ought not be in positions of authority, and I don't buy the argument that it's okay because they were just telling their sergeant what he wanted to hear. Hopefully the claim that the delay is due to a pending trial is true, and the judge allows the process to continue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
Am I looking at this the wrong way or is it more than just a little bit hosed up that the police can avoid charges or penalties or firings because the statute of limitations ran out because the police waited until the statute of limitations ran out before doing anything?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:http://gothamist.com/2015/12/22/cop_watch_season_2_the_reckoning.php Stuff like this is why the argument that we need iron clad evidence before we can even think about investigating officers is absurd. The system is certainly fine with proceeding against a man based on the (false) testimony of an officer but if a bunch of cops are accused of destroying evidence by a manager of a burger king and that evidence is indeed missing and they have a perfect motive for erasing it and were the ones "examining" it, well I'm sorry our hands are tied and we can't do anything. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
Police union contracts really ought to have clauses that when firing decisions are reversed solely on procedural errors, but for cause, that the only remedy is shitloads of cash instead of reinstatement. It's not reasonable that an arbitrator has to come to the decision of "Well yeah, we really need to fire them because they're bad police officer. BUT, you waited too long. So to remedy this unfairness to the police officer, we have to punish the public too."
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 14:19
|
|