Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Spoke Lee
Dec 31, 2004

chairizard lol
You are on the clock at your job. At the end of the day your employer wants to know what you did today. You refuse to tell them. They insist, you double down. You plead the 5th. They wonder what you were doing on the job that would be considered incriminating in the first place. Your employment is terminated for being a shady motherfucker. At some point legal action is taken against your friend and co-worker for a crime committed during the shift you wouldn't account your time for. You are called to the stand to testify but plead the 5th. You go home that day because you can't be held in contempt for exercising your right against self incrimination.

If you are a cop you can do this AND keep your job as long as you are doing it to hide criminal activity.

Am I missing something?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Spoke Lee
Dec 31, 2004

chairizard lol

rockopete posted:

Yes, you are. Private sector employees do not 'plead the Fifth' with their employer, in the same sense that a private employee has no recourse to the First Amendment if fired for speech. Outside certain protected classes and Equal Employment Opportunity issues, private companies are bound only to the contract they have made with their employees. Police officers are employed by the government, so the Fifth comes into play there.

e: as things currently stand. I don't know enough about constitutional law to say if it's possible to legislate a special exempt status for police and the like, but as far as I know it would be unprecedented legally, and at minimum a very heavy lift in even a Democratic congress. I'm leaning toward jarmak's view that under the circumstances, the best way to actually eliminate abuse and corruption is cameras always on and around cops.

Unfortunately this also feels like a tacit concession to corruption in the absence of cameras, when as far as I am aware there have been police forces pre-camera that have been impartial and clean--though I doubt any of them were American. It also doesn't address wider problems such as majority black urban areas being patrolled by largely white police from the suburbs, local politics that favor police departments for revenue generation over tax hikes, deliberately low recruiting standards with ceilings, and wreckage from the War on Drugs like the 1033 program, all of which worsen the divide between the police and the poor and minorities. And which are in turn fuelled by a sneering certainty that the poor have only themselves to blame and are basically animals to be kept in line, up to and including the death penalty. That will take time to change, but hopefully cameras can help force the system to face its contradictions and speed things along while reining in the worst excesses.

I know that. That is why they were fired in that scenario because you can't do it.

Spoke Lee
Dec 31, 2004

chairizard lol
Why do you keep mentioning "motioning to his waistband" like it means anything when they rolled up and shot him too fast to even react to that. They themselves thought it was so indefensibly fast they lied on their report to hide that fact.

Spoke Lee
Dec 31, 2004

chairizard lol

Waco Panty Raid posted:

What are you talking about? He was clearly reacting before the car stopped.

Pretty much anything other than reaching towards the realistic looking toy gun in his waistband would have been better.

Either address this or drop this bullshit argument.

Spoke Lee posted:

Why do you keep mentioning "motioning to his waistband" like it means anything when they rolled up and shot him too fast to even react to that. They themselves thought it was so indefensibly fast they lied on their report to hide that fact.

  • Locked thread