Police Misconduct and ‘Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights’ Laws

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.cato.org/blog/police-misc...rs-bill-rights

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Unlike a member of the public, the officer gets a “cooling off” period before he has to respond to any questions. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is privy to the names of his complainants and their testimony against him before he is ever interrogated. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is to be interrogated “at a reasonable hour,” with a union member present. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can only be questioned by one person during his interrogation. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can be interrogated only “for reasonable periods,” which “shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary.” Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation cannot be “threatened with disciplinary action” at any point during his interrogation. If he is threatened with punishment, whatever he says following the threat cannot be used against him.

What happens after the interrogation again varies from state to state. But under nearly every law enforcement bill of rights, the following additional privileges are granted to officers: Their departments cannot publicly acknowledge that the officer is under investigation; if the officer is cleared of wrongdoing or the charges are dropped, the department may not publicly acknowledge that the investigation ever took place, or reveal the nature of the complaint. The officer cannot be questioned or investigated by “non-government agents,” which means no civilian review boards. If the officer is suspended as a result of the investigation, he must continue to receive full pay and benefits until his case is resolved. In most states, the charging department must subsidize the accused officer’s legal defense.

A violation of any of the above rights can result in dismissal—not of the officer, but of the charges against him.

[SupremeGuy]

These darn cops just want to kill minorities!

[boutons_deux]

These darn cops just want to kill minorities!

they do it a lot, while remaining essentially immune to accounatability.

[SupremeGuy]

they do it a lot, while remaining essentially immune to accounatability.

I know man, these darn cops are killing our minorities.

[Winehole23]

Racism carries a social stigma nowadays, thank god the police still observe it

[boutons_deux]

I know man, these darn cops are killing our minorities.

US police were created in the 19th century specifically to shut down, control blacks, and then to do the same to the Ms of immigrants from Europe.

[SupremeGuy]

They're killing our minorities!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Minority has nothing to do with it.

To put it in terms the local racist dumb s will get: when they beat you near to death when they come to take your guns from your mentally ill ass, you will not be afforded an equal investigation nor due process.

[SupremeGuy]

Darn cops killing our minorities!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Unlike a member of the public, the officer gets a “cooling off” period before he has to respond to any questions. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is privy to the names of his complainants and their testimony against him before he is ever interrogated. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is to be interrogated “at a reasonable hour,” with a union member present. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can only be questioned by one person during his interrogation. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can be interrogated only “for reasonable periods,” which “shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary.” Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation cannot be “threatened with disciplinary action” at any point during his interrogation. If he is threatened with punishment, whatever he says following the threat cannot be used against him.

What happens after the interrogation again varies from state to state. But under nearly every law enforcement bill of rights, the following additional privileges are granted to officers: Their departments cannot publicly acknowledge that the officer is under investigation; if the officer is cleared of wrongdoing or the charges are dropped, the department may not publicly acknowledge that the investigation ever took place, or reveal the nature of the complaint. The officer cannot be questioned or investigated by “non-government agents,” which means no civilian review boards. If the officer is suspended as a result of the investigation, he must continue to receive full pay and benefits until his case is resolved. In most states, the charging department must subsidize the accused officer’s legal defense.

A violation of any of the above rights can result in dismissal—not of the officer, but of the charges against him.

http://www.cato.org/blog/police-misc...rs-bill-rights

[Infinite_limit]

US police were created in the 19th century specifically to shut down, control blacks, and then to do the same to the Ms of immigrants from Europe.

LOL. Just like they shut down and control Africa

[Clipper Nation]

they do it a lot, while remaining essentially immune to accounatability.

So why have police killings of African-Americans dropped by 70% over the last 40 years?

http://www.cjcj.org/news/8113

[Clipper Nation]

US police were created in the 19th century specifically to shut down, control blacks, and then to do the same to the Ms of immigrants from Europe.

Nope. Policing's roots in this country date all the way back to the "night watch" and "day watch" systems and privatized police forces in the early colonies. Nice try, though.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Thread is getting entertaining, Fuzzy is starting to double tap.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So why have police killings of African-Americans dropped by 70% over the last 40 years?

http://www.cjcj.org/news/8113

Begging the question again? jfc you guys are clueless how to present an argument. You are being trained for it too.

[Clipper Nation]

Begging the question again? jfc you guys are clueless how to present an argument. You are being trained for it too.

I know you think that just randomly blurting out the names of logical fallacies means you win the argument, but raising the question (which is what I did) is not the same thing as begging the question.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know you think that just randomly blurting out the names of logical fallacies means you win the argument, but raising the question (which is what I did) is not the same thing as begging the question.

You still don't get mutual exclusivity. Your as dumb as the TSA account in that regard. Can raising a question also be begging the question? Yes it can.

When you assume the premise of your question to be true to make your argument then yes it is begging the question. This is doubly so when you follow me around and parrot it over and again. In this case prove the link between the decrease in officer shootings and police accountability rather than making a question that assumes the link and waving your hands.

[Clipper Nation]

Your as dumb

Irony.

When you assume the premise of your question to be true to make your argument then yes it is begging the question.

I see no reason to assume that the premise isn't true. Or is this just another one of your vast "thin blue line" conspiracies?

In this case prove the link between the decrease in officer shootings and police accountability

I was mainly responding to boutons_shill's claim that "they do it a lot" by pointing out that "it" is on the decline.

Where is the hard evidence for "a lack of accountability"?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Irony.


I see no reason to assume that the premise isn't true. Or is this just another one of your vast "thin blue line" conspiracies?


I was mainly responding to boutons_shill's claim that "they do it a lot" by pointing out that "it" is on the decline.

Where is the hard evidence for "a lack of accountability"?

You go for a typical nym typo and I go for your inability to use critical thinking skills. You have an issue with relative significance. You've abandoned your argument and now want to talk about something else as well.

I've never claimed a conspiracy. That is your narrative and a poor rationalization. The conflict of interest and discrimination is obvious and open with police investigating themselves and the extra rights granted by LEOBR respectively. Specifically:

Unlike a member of the public, the officer gets a “cooling off” period before he has to respond to any questions. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is privy to the names of his complainants and their testimony against him before he is ever interrogated. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is to be interrogated “at a reasonable hour,” with a union member present. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can only be questioned by one person during his interrogation. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can be interrogated only “for reasonable periods,” which “shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary.” Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation cannot be “threatened with disciplinary action” at any point during his interrogation. If he is threatened with punishment, whatever he says following the threat cannot be used against him.

What happens after the interrogation again varies from state to state. But under nearly every law enforcement bill of rights, the following additional privileges are granted to officers: Their departments cannot publicly acknowledge that the officer is under investigation; if the officer is cleared of wrongdoing or the charges are dropped, the department may not publicly acknowledge that the investigation ever took place, or reveal the nature of the complaint. The officer cannot be questioned or investigated by “non-government agents,” which means no civilian review boards. If the officer is suspended as a result of the investigation, he must continue to receive full pay and benefits until his case is resolved. In most states, the charging department must subsidize the accused officer’s legal defense.

A violation of any of the above rights can result in dismissal—not of the officer, but of the charges against him.

You've abandoned begging your question but talking about cop shooting statistics you need to look into how the reporting is done. If you think it is comprehensive in any meaningful sense that is amusing.

Even the USA Today story the National Urban League linked us to highlighted many of the inadequacies of the data. Other news outlets have noted the limitations of the FBI statistics as well.

Here’s the biggest problem: There is no mandate that local law enforcement agencies report officer involved shootings to the FBI. While 18,000 city, university, county, state, tribal and federal law enforcement agencies voluntarily participate in the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Report, just a small fraction of them willingly provide data on deadly force and justifiable homicides within their departments.

Robert Worden, professor at the University of Albany School of Criminal Justice, said "the actual number of such homicides may be as high as double the FBI’s counts."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...hest-20-years/

[Clipper Nation]

The statistics I posted were from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, not the FBI. So an article bringing up inaccuracies in the FBI's data is completely irrelevant to my point.

Secondly, the article you linked to actually debunks a claim made by the CEO of the National Urban League that the amount of deaths from police shootings is the highest it's been in 20 years by pointing out that the data he was basing his claim on was inconclusive at best. Of course, you've left out the entire context of that article because it actually contradicts your narrative.

[spurraider21]

The statistics I posted were from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, not the FBI. So an article bringing up inaccuracies in the FBI's data is completely irrelevant to my point.

Secondly, the article you linked to actually debunks a claim made by the CEO of the National Urban League that the amount of deaths from police shootings is the highest it's been in 20 years by pointing out that the data he was basing his claim on was inconclusive at best. Of course, you've left out the entire context of that article because it actually contradicts your narrative.

fuzzy currently asking reddit how to counter your argument

[TheSanityAnnex]

Just here to post this so Fuzzy isn't accused of the rare quadruple spam.

Unlike a member of the public, the officer gets a “cooling off” period before he has to respond to any questions. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is privy to the names of his complainants and their testimony against him before he is ever interrogated. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is to be interrogated “at a reasonable hour,” with a union member present. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can only be questioned by one person during his interrogation. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can be interrogated only “for reasonable periods,” which “shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary.” Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation cannot be “threatened with disciplinary action” at any point during his interrogation. If he is threatened with punishment, whatever he says following the threat cannot be used against him.

What happens after the interrogation again varies from state to state. But under nearly every law enforcement bill of rights, the following additional privileges are granted to officers: Their departments cannot publicly acknowledge that the officer is under investigation; if the officer is cleared of wrongdoing or the charges are dropped, the department may not publicly acknowledge that the investigation ever took place, or reveal the nature of the complaint. The officer cannot be questioned or investigated by “non-government agents,” which means no civilian review boards. If the officer is suspended as a result of the investigation, he must continue to receive full pay and benefits until his case is resolved. In most states, the charging department must subsidize the accused officer’s legal defense.

A violation of any of the above rights can result in dismissal—not of the officer, but of the charges against him.

i got your back got

[Clipper Nation]

Begging the Question, No True Scotsman, Appeal to Spite, Ad Hoc, Poisoning the Well, Bandwagon! There, I win the argument!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The statistics I posted were from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, not the FBI. So an article bringing up inaccuracies in the FBI's data is completely irrelevant to my point.

Secondly, the article you linked to actually debunks a claim made by the CEO of the National Urban League that the amount of deaths from police shootings is the highest it's been in 20 years by pointing out that the data he was basing his claim on was inconclusive at best. Of course, you've left out the entire context of that article because it actually contradicts your narrative.

So?

The police are not required to report to the CDC either. I never made the claim that they were the highest as politifact argued. Point is that the statistics are unreliable. What I should have done is just posted the sophist angle instead of trying to prove my point.