Louisiana ‘Blue Lives Matter’ law: How big a shift in police brutality debate?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

ATLANTA — Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, is expected to sign into law the nation’s first so-called “Blue Lives Matter” law, extending hate crime protections to men and women wearing a police badge.

The bill, passed by the legislature in Baton Rouge this week, is controversial, coming amid a national debate over the shooting of unarmed black people by police officers. Expanding hate crime protections to all active and non-active police officers is seen by some as an attempt to muzzle law enforcement critics and to undermine efforts to curb the use of excessive force by police.

Moreover, extending hate crime protection to a professional class for the first time, critics argue, may weaken protections for those who have to endure ethnic, racial, and gender-based violence because of who they are.

“Hate crime legislation was created because certain crimes – beating someone for being openly gay or wearing a turban … – are meant to strike fear in the heart of a community,” Anna Merlan writes for Jezebel. “[But] being a law enforcement officer is a job, not a fixed, immutable iden y like race, gender or sexual orientation: the things at the center of actual hate crimes.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...utality-debate

As if LEOBoR wasn't enough. Police unions need to be busted.

For a refresher:

The rights created by these bills differ from state to state, but here's how a typical police misconduct investigation works in states that have a law enforcement bill of rights in place:

A complaint is filed against an officer by a member of the public or a fellow officer. Police department leadership reviews the complaint and decides whether to investigate. If the department decides to pursue the complaint, it must inform the officer and his union. That's where the special treatment begins, but it doesn't end there.

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.

Because of these special due process privileges, there's little incentive for police departments to discipline officers. In most cases, it's more financially prudent to let a District Attorney or outside law enforcement agency do the heavy lifting, and then fire the officer if he's convicted. This is the only "easy" way, under police bills of rights, for departments to get rid of bad cops--which essentially means the only way to get rid of bad cops is if some other law enforcement agency can make a felony charge stick. This is the biggest problem with law enforcement bills of rights--they encourage police departments to let external forces determine what behavior is unacceptable. That's eventually why Rhode Island's Krawetz resigned his post.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/1...-enforcement-m

[spurraider21]

this has absolutely nothing to do with police misconduct... merely violence TOWARDS officers

[FuzzyLumpkins]

this has absolutely nothing to do with police misconduct... merely violence TOWARDS officers

So granting extra protections and rights via legislation is not similar? I get you dream of being a prosecutor but gmfb.

[TDMVPDPOY]

isnt a cop/police occupation just another job? why so protective?

[spurraider21]

So granting extra protections and rights via legislation is not similar?

This law would do nothing to protect wrongdoing cops

I get you dream of being a prosecutor but gmfb.

Apparently not since I've said numerous times on this board that I prefer defense

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This law would do nothing to protect wrongdoing cops


Apparently not since I've said numerous times on this board that I prefer defense

It's all related to civil rights. You can reductio ad absurdum and demand your paradigm all you like but they both serve to make cops a protected class as opposed to the rest of society. It's never been safer to be a cop.

You can claim whatever you like. TSA and CC make arguments all one way and then say the socially --in the forums context-- preferred position all the time. You seem to be the same.

[Th'Pusher]

This law would do nothing to protect wrongdoing cops


Apparently not since I've said numerous times on this board that I prefer defense

You're going to be a horrible defense attorney considering you refuse to keep big blue s out of your mouth.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

isnt a cop/police occupation just another job? why so protective?

Police unions. They need be abolished particularly the national ones.

[spurraider21]

You're going to be a horrible defense attorney considering you refuse to keep big blue s out of your mouth.

I never even said I supported the proposed law ... I just pointed out that it's unrelated to police brutality

[spurraider21]

It's all related to civil rights. You can reductio ad absurdum and demand your paradigm all you like but they both serve to make cops a protected class as opposed to the rest of society. It's never been safer to be a cop.

You can claim whatever you like. TSA and CC make arguments all one way and then say the socially --in the forums context-- preferred position all the time. You seem to be the same.

Just a lot of drivel. I couldn't give less of a if you don't believe me

I say what I mean and mean what I say. What you take from it is your issue alone


and reductio ad absurdum? ... either you misspoke or that doesn't mean what you think it means

[Winehole23]

this has absolutely nothing to do with police misconduct... merely violence TOWARDS officers

making a mountain out of a molehill. it's never been safer to be an LEO in the USA.

[boutons_deux]

making the POs a protected class as victims of hate crimes is just another way of ridiculing, minimizing BlackLivesMatter (it's not a safe time to be a black in USA)

[spurraider21]

making a mountain out of a molehill. it's never been safer to be an LEO in the USA.

im not arguing the numbers or anything like that. and again, i never even said i supported the initiate in the OP .. the only thing i pointed out is that this kind of law has no bearing on police brutality or excessive use of force

[Wilt Chamberlain]

huh?

[ducks]

interesting considering the cop killing there sunday

[CosmicCowboy]

bunch of ing cop haters in here. Sad.

[FromWayDowntown]

bunch of ing cop haters in here. Sad.

I don't think there's any intellectually honest inconsistency in believing that one problem with the perception of LEO is that they get a pass in the criminal justice system when they are accused of misconduct and also believing that the killing of cops is unconscionable.

I don't have to hate cops to believe that some of the tension that has likely led to the tragic killings of brave public servants could be resolved by revisiting the way the law views officers' use of deadly force and reconsiders the extent of the immunity that officers are afforded in those situations. (it also likely doesn't help matters when cops are subjected to prosecution and the right erupts with joy when they're acquitted of killing unarmed black men -- the optics there aren't good).

The overwhelming majority of cops -- all but a very, very small minority -- are good people who dutifully perform the task of protecting the public and do that with bravery and humility that is foreign to most of us. But its problematic to allow that very, very small minority to bask in the well-won respect given to the good cops by allowing deadly force protocols to be as lax as they have become and then to afford them broad immunity from meaningful prosecution and civil liability for their bad acts.

I'm convinced that a large part of the crisis we're in is simply a matter of the perception -- a justifiably accepted one in the black community, in my view -- that when white cops shoot black guys, no matter the cir stances, the system is disinclined to even seriously consider punishment unless there is no other choice.

Adding further protections to cops' lives, while a political winner in Kneejerk America, 2016 (and a symbolic tip of the societal cap to the bravery of so many good cops), certainly won't fix that perception. That's particularly when many of the people who are supporting these "cop-killing as hate crime" laws long resisted using that term to characterize heinous crimes visited on blacks or gays.

I can think all of that and not hate cops.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't think there's any intellectually honest inconsistency in believing that one problem with the perception of LEO is that they get a pass in the criminal justice system when they are accused of misconduct and also believing that the killing of cops is unconscionable.

I don't have to hate cops to believe that some of the tension that has likely led to the tragic killings of brave public servants could be resolved by revisiting the way the law views officers' use of deadly force and reconsiders the extent of the immunity that officers are afforded in those situations. (it also likely doesn't help matters when cops are subjected to prosecution and the right erupts with joy when they're acquitted of killing unarmed black men -- the optics there aren't good).

The overwhelming majority of cops -- all but a very, very small minority -- are good people who dutifully perform the task of protecting the public and do that with bravery and humility that is foreign to most of us. But its problematic to allow that very, very small minority to bask in the well-won respect given to the good cops by allowing deadly force protocols to be as lax as they have become and then to afford them broad immunity from meaningful prosecution and civil liability for their bad acts.

I'm convinced that a large part of the crisis we're in is simply a matter of the perception -- a justifiably accepted one in the black community, in my view -- that when white cops shoot black guys, no matter the cir stances, the system is disinclined to even seriously consider punishment unless there is no other choice.

Adding further protections to cops' lives, while a political winner in Kneejerk America, 2016 (and a symbolic tip of the societal cap to the bravery of so many good cops), certainly won't fix that perception. That's particularly when many of the people who are supporting these "cop-killing as hate crime" laws long resisted using that term to characterize heinous crimes visited on blacks or gays.

I can think all of that and not hate cops.

I appreciate the well thought out response.

At the same time, I think the job we ask cops to do IS different and they deserve every benefit of the doubt in questionable calls. Cops have a right to protect their lives with deadly force and they have to make snap decisions based on their perception of the situation. Mistakes can happen but they shouldn't go to jail over honest mistakes.

As an attorney you are somewhat protected by the same system. If you make an error it sucks to be your client but you aren't gonna go to jail for it and the chances of even having a malpractice suit brought are extremely slim. Attorneys just don't like to go after other attorneys. You would have to do something absolutely outrageous to be disciplined.

You as an attorney are protected in similar ways by the system.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Just a lot of drivel. I couldn't give less of a if you don't believe me

I say what I mean and mean what I say. What you take from it is your issue alone


and reductio ad absurdum? ... either you misspoke or that doesn't mean what you think it means

I missed this back in the day. Reductio ad absurdum means you try and reduce it down to a singular simple thing in an attempt to discredit the entire argument when the issue is far more complicated. That is what you're doing with your 'it would do nothing to protect wrong doing cops' as if that invalidates the point that it is never been safer to be a cop and they are already afforded extra protections.

Also if I am a bad cop and I now can pin crimes on other people using the new cop protections then it would in fact facilitate bad cops by giving them extra leverage for coercion. Assault on a police officer would now be a hate crime after all.

[spurraider21]

Assault on a police officer would now be a hate crime after all.

not every assault on a cop would be a hate crime just like not every assault on a gay person is a hate crime

[vy65]

I missed this back in the day. Reductio ad absurdum means you try and reduce it down to a singular simple thing in an attempt to discredit the entire argument when the issue is far more complicated.

That's not what reductio ad absurdum means. Unless you think "singular simple thing" means the same as absurd logical conclusion. Which doesn't appear to be the case since those aren't the words you used.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's not what reductio ad absurdum means. Unless you think "singular simple thing" means the same as absurd logical conclusion. Which doesn't appear to be the case since those aren't the words you used.

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: "argument to absurdity", pl.: argumenta ad absurdum), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

The law doesn't reduce X therefor it isn't bad. Thanks for demonstrating your inep ude, Counselor Crayola.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

not every assault on a cop would be a hate crime just like not every assault on a gay person is a hate crime

Framing is as framing does.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I means the latin literally translates to reduce to absurdity.

[vy65]

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: "argument to absurdity", pl.: argumenta ad absurdum), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

The law doesn't reduce X therefor it isn't bad. Thanks for demonstrating your inep ude, Counselor Crayola.

None of which is what you originally said. The Latin literally translates to argue to absurdity, as you posted. It's the tactic of taking arguments to their "logical" conclusions to show an absurd result -- to show the argument is incorrect. Again, not what you said. Quoting wiki isn't going to cover up your boo-boo, no matter how much you say counselor crayola.