Reply With Quote
It appears to me to be primarily a list given to officers about their workplace protections already guaranteed by existing law. So they know their rights.
It's OK when you do it though?
Let me ask you this. Do you think the protections afforded to police in the OP should be removed?
Do you take issue with any of those workplace protections?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.
Now I am one who dislikes most of what unions get agreed to. However, unions do many good things as well. Now maybe I missed an angle on one of these protections, but I don't see how it protects a police officer from abusing their power.
It appears to me to be primarily a list given to officers about their workplace protections already guaranteed by existing law. So they know their rights.
That is besides the point I am making.
Sure
I think you mistake my complete lack of respect for you with an inability to admit fault.
Those aren't workplace protections. That is a limit to an investigation that they themselves do not have to honor in their own investigations. You think a DA or state police limits how and where they can interview suspects like that? Do you think they as a matter of course alert the suspect as to the particulars of the investigation? You think the DA limits their investigation of suspects to working hours?
You are so willfully stupid it's unbelievable.
The police do not need nor should they be afforded supra legal protections. They law average joes live under should suffice.
Fine. Specify.Now maybe I missed an angle on one of these protections, but I don't see how it protects a police officer from abusing their power.
I just pointed out several examples of rights to a limited investigation that the rest of society does not enjoy. I noticed you ignored it.
If you cannot figure out how that protects misconduct relative to the rest of society that is pretty sad.
Thanks for the straight answer, it wasn't a trick question or anything. I don't think it is entirely off topic to ask someone what they intend to do to effect change that they believe is important.
Give me an example of what misconduct may occur that wouldn't otherwise please.
What the Police Bill of Rights does is akin to closed shop laws when it forces any investigation to report it to the suspect. IOW, if you are an law enforcement agency concerned about the behavior of another and want to investigate you have to tip them off so they can close ranks on you. Thin blue line GO COP UNION!
People that style themselves as conservative that are not cops and don't call for action confuse me. "The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a traitor to himself and to his fellow-men." -George Ingersoll
Choking a guy to death when he tells you he cannot breathe.
he didnt let go of the choke hold after hearing he couldnt breathe? did you watch the video?
He repeated it continually throughout the choke. It was ruled a homicide and the only way past that is to build a self defense case. What you want to bet said self defense case went uncrossed to the grand jury to prevent an indictment?
can you answer my questions?
Whether or not I watched it? Yeah I did. Did you?
don't play stupid, despite your instincts
I'm sorry you believe that.
How would a rule change keep someone from breaking rules? IA can still intervene, and those changes wouldn't affect a Grand Jury decision.
Let me make something clear. I hate how law enforcement abuses their power.
First off, this officer will face a NYPD investigation. The protections in the OP will apply to this.
Again, the Grand jury, idiotically determined not to bring this case to trial. The protections did not apply to this.
I want to see police officers ousted and jailed for their actions when warranted, and I think these officers that chocked the man should have gone to trial and jailed. I do hope they are fired when the investigation is complete.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 12-05-2014 at 05:56 PM.
Fuzzy are you bleeding again?
What happened to your other handle, holmes? And of course I am broken in tears.
Well I answered the other question from that post. Sorry if it was not in the manner you wanted and made you mad. You need to do a better job if you want to lead me in a narrative.
How about: I never saw him release the chokehold despite the victim's pleas.
I imagine that isn't the narrative you want me to say either. Keep trying.
i'm not mad. your attempts to be coy and dodge questions is amusing though
well this one answers my question. however, i would advise you watch the video again so this mistake of yours can be correctedHow about: I never saw him release the chokehold despite the victim's pleas.
there's no narrative i'm looking for. i watched the video and saw everything there, including a choke. i suggest you watch the video in full so you can have a more accurate assessment of the events thoughI imagine that isn't the narrative you want me to say either. Keep trying.
I asked you what question. You asked several and then complain when I answer the one that I had not in fact answered.
You are trying to lead me into your argument and I am not going to do it. There is nothing coy about that.
If you have a time stamp of the video you think is important then say so. I watched the video I saw the takedown and the guy still choking as the cop obstructs the camera shot and shuttles them away. I saw the seizure. I saw them trying to talk to him and accusing him of playing possum. I saw that EMT arrive and take his vitals etc.
What you are being coy about is your supposed hidden revelation in the video. That is being coy. You should go meet some scientologists. They do the same the same way. Creepy ers.
I think his pussy hurts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions