Reply With Quote
Please show me how Nixon had anything to do with this, since you invoked his name.
Lost in the racial stupidity is the lack of equal protection between law enforcement and the rest of us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enf...Bill_of_Rights
There is a wiki page that describes the laws that cop unions got passed during the Nixon administration.
Amongst other things, it give them the additional rights of:
In addition, it's not the GJ in and of itself that is at issue but rather how the prosecutor who calls and administers the GJ is chosen that is at issue. Options to fix this are having the governor appoint a special prosecutor for each case and/or having an agency setup to handle that. Whatever the case, coworkers with obvious conflicts of interest should not be the ones to try to indict.Law enforcement officers, except when on duty or acting in an official capacity, have the right to engage in political activity or run for elective office.
Law enforcement officers shall, if disciplinary action is expected, be notified of the investigation, the nature of the alleged violation, and be notified of the outcome of the investigation and the recommendations made to superiors by the investigators.
Questioning of a law enforcement officer should be conducted for a reasonable length of time and preferably while the officer is on duty unless exigent cir stances apply.
Questioning of the law enforcement officer should take place at the offices of those conducting the investigation or at the place where the officer reports to work, unless the officer consents to another location.
Law enforcement officers will be questioned by a single investigator, and he or she shall be informed of the name, rank, and command of the officer conducting the investigation.
Law enforcement officers under investigation are en led to have counsel or any other individual of their choice present at the interrogation.
Law enforcement officers cannot be threatened, harassed, or promised rewards to induce the answering of any question.
Law enforcement officers are en led to a hearing, with notification in advance of the date, access to transcripts, and other relevant do ents and evidence generated by the hearing and to representation by counsel or another non-attorney representative at the hearing.
Law enforcement officers shall have the opportunity to comment in writing on any adverse materials placed in his or her personnel file.
Law enforcement officers cannot be subject to retaliation for the exercise of these or any other rights under Federal, State, or local law.
Personally, I put this up there with repeal of the Patriot Act, banking regulation, and limiting the rights of corporate en ies as my top political priorities. We are losing our rights to equal protection regardless of race.
Please show me how Nixon had anything to do with this, since you invoked his name.
Seeing how it is federal law and he didn't veto it you figure it out. Talk about a red herring.
OK, why isn't the law cited? All I saw was links to jury decisions. Nixon resigned in August of that year.
How do you know it happened under his administration, or are you assuming so?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/char...on_speech.html
I'm ignoring your red herring stupidity now.
Why?
Because I am pointing out your utter stupidity?
Afraid to answer the question?
Did Nixon sign it into law as you claim?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 12-04-2014 at 05:46 PM.
Aside from posting on a sports forum what do you intend to do to effect change on these issues?
Your interest in my private life is noted and ignored.
So far we have someone wanting to make it about me and another who wants to make it about Nixon. Anyone want to discuss based on merit?
I'm not making it about Nixon. You did that!
I'm not making about you. You said they are your top political priorities.
It was passed in 1974 after the 1972 campaign which Nixon ran on a law and order slogan and platform. You can be ignorant and incredulous all you like but the relationship between Nixon and the police unions is what it is. Perhaps you will recall Nixon's opposition's panel with Bobby Kennedy intending to create additional oversight like I am discussing right now? That was right before a series of police scandals in 1971 and 2. Conspiracy nut heaven.
Serpico talks of the issues then and now in a very good article here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ol-112160.html
This is not a new issue and just because you are ignorant and incredulous doesn't change anything. Even were Nixon not involved which is absurd, the issue remains.
I find them important. You don't?
They aren't important to my life.
Aside from posting on a sports forum what do you intend to do to effect change on these issues?
how could a president veto supreme court rulings?
Those decisions only affirmed cops 5th amendment rights. They had nothing to do with controls on investigations and all of the stuff the FOP began passing nationwide in 1974. It's funny how conservatives don't seem to apply anti-union sentiment to cops and lawyers.
And it is public law 93-xxx...
Please fill in the xxx.
according to the wiki you posted, it was adopted by states, not federally. which makes sense considering states run their police departments
So is it your contention that police lose their cons utional rights?
That's my point as well.
Here our fuzzy jackass is making assumptions and pretending they are fact. Before I made my first post, I did some searching around, and all I could find was states implementing some form of it.
I thought it was highly lib ed for him to imply it was Nixon who implemented a law when now, it is absolutely obvious he didn't do any homework on the topic. Just repeating some propaganda he saw someplace. saying it happened in the administration for a reference of 1974 with no date of a passed law gives him a 2/3rd chance of accidentally being correct, but... I seriously doubt it is public law even.
Typical fuzzy...
This has no basis in the discussion at hand but I will play along a little bit.
I live in a very libertarian county and that suits me just fine. The political action I am talking about is on the state and federal level. No one has run on these issues in the GOP primary since I have lived here.
I make an effort to identify people who campaign on these issues like McCain and Warren who if they ran for president I would vote for and actively support. I do write freshman elects when there are ones. Outside of that there has not been anyone in my cons uency worth support.
that's fair. either way the special limits on investigations and prosecutions need to go.
The DoJ could sue states under equal protection. Civil rights shouldn't be an issue of race.
police protection isn't an issue of race. there is equal opportunity for other races to become police officers
Well, I just went through the les of all 134 Public Laws that would have been signed in 1974 by Nixon. Nothing by le matches even close.
Fuzzy, can you admit a mistake for once?
ing . WC in full . Discuss anything but the topic.
BTW, I'll throw in w/Fuzzy. How or why are these special clauses warranted?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
