|
Dead Reckoning posted:Officers cannot be forced to file a report in which they may incriminate themselves. They can be required to file a report which incriminates their peers. In New York State, if I refuse a breathalyzer test (invoking the 5th Amendment), my driver's license will immediately be suspended pending an investigation of the matter. Can't we at least expect police officers to be automatically suspended if they refuse to file a report under 5th Amendment grounds? Being a police officer is a privilege, not a right.
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:OK, so let's say that, because he has the equivalent of a Boy Scout's first aid merit badge, the officer applies a bad tourniquet to the leg, and it ends up having to be amputated. Is the officer liable for that? Except dogpiling a non-violent suspect until he suffocates can not by any stretch of the imagination be called a necessary medical intervention. Was Freddie Gray suffering from an acute case of verticalitis?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I was responding to Falcon's general suggestion that police should have an affirmative legal duty to render medical assistance to suspects in custody. This came up earlier too, when someone was asking why the police don't perform first aid on the people they shoot. I'm not sure what the various state laws say about the matter, but I agree that they should have a duty to ensure that suspects receive adequate care. I just don't think it's necessarily wise to require the officers to provide that care themselves, for the reasons I outlined above. It might be possible to write some sort of Good Samaritan exception, but that requires accepting that police will be off the hook if they gently caress up treating the person they just shot. One thing that came out from a report following a grand jury investigation into the semi-recent death in custody of local Albany man Dontay Ivy is that quite a few police officers have had EMT training. But you don't even need that much to provide basic life support, and considering the circumstances police may be working under, perhaps EMT training should be added to their requirements. ETA: Sorry, didn't see your edit. I don't think what you're saying is true, because I am pretty sure that if I committed a crime, someone got fatally hurt during its execution, and died in spite of me attempting to subsequently save their life, it would still be considered a homicide.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah it was a joke, hence the devil smiley, I know it's unconstitutional currently. My objection to this would actually be the opposite of DV's: I would point out that incestuous local relations between police forces, municipal governments, and the judiciary are not uncommon in countries with strictly nationwide forces. At least in the US the levels of local, State, and National mean that you have a few forces independent of each other where the higher levels are less likely to be embroiled in lower-level corruption simply because they have limited authority in that area unless things go south. quote:E: But I also think states' rights are poo poo. Sorry the south ruined it by being terrible in every way with every chance the constitution gave them, gently caress federalism let's have a real nation-state. If anything international trends are towards more federalism and devolved legislation, not centralization. Just look at places like the UK or Spain, and there are many struggles over this in terms of how the EU is supposed to run as a whole. The US is singular in having tackled head-on many of these issues in the past, and while the way things are done here is not perfect, I am not sure that further centralization is the solution, especially with how gridlocked the central institutions are.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yeah, the states rights element is a checks and balances component of civic republican government as old as Machiavelli. It's very much a feature and not a bug. Imagine the effects of a federalized police force under the Bush W administration after 9/11- or one more directly controlled by the Republican Revolution of the 90s. Again, my objection is the opposite. For example, in Haifa in the 1950's, the mayor Abba Hushi had such a strangle-hold over the party machine, police, judiciary and municipality of the city that a radical newspaper took to naming the area Hushistan. And this is in a country where the police force is nominally heavily centralized: there is only one police force with regional nexuses of the same chain of command leading up to the Chief of Police.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
I seem to recall that IDF soldiers get charged with "misuse of a firearm" under these types of circumstances, at least if there's sufficient outcry by rights groups about someone "accidentally" getting killed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
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. Instead of this deteriorating into a slapfight any further, could you quote these two people so other readers can ascertain whether this statement is true?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:What is the point of posting about how in any other job people would get punished for unsubstantiated complaints, in the context of responding to a post saying they shouldn't be punished for unsubstantiated complaints, other then disagreement? Unsubstantiated and unsworn are not the same thing. Jarmak posted:Are you really going to make the statement "I wasn't actually advocating for that I was just saying it wasn't a bad thing" in the same breath you accuse me of pedantry? It seems clear to me from context that what is being stated is that what you and Dead Reckoning and others are presenting as a completely unrealistic job expectation actually is in a lot of other jobs. So that argument against making this the new policy for cops doesn't work. It's not the same as saying that this should be the policy for cops, but you are all going to have to find a different reason to dismiss it, or defend the status quo better than you have so far.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I mean if people think they're being misunderstood then why don't they clarify and actually affirmatively state their position instead of sitting back and sniping at people then making accusations of bad faith whenever someone fails to divine their position correctly from context. That sounds like a great idea.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:...and right below it is the line where the judge found that argument to be lacking merit. Except the boss is your friend, knew about it in 2013, but waited until now to tell you, knowing that the delay means nothing will happen to you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 21:07
|
|