|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 04 2015 01:40 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 01:31 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 01:13 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 00:40 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 16:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2015 12:22 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2015 10:54 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2015 06:37 killa_robot wrote:
Wonder why all of them are being charged. I only recall around 3 of them really being involved. The typical prosecutor does something like this to try to get someone to flip. You tell the defendants the worst charges you might be able to prove in order to get them to testify. I imagine she is especially doing this since officers in a recent shooting refused to testify (how that doesn't take away ones ability to be a cop is beyond me). I feel bad for Geraldo's security though. You can't be forced to testify against yourself. Nothing wrong with them refusing to testify. Except they are paid public protectors. I don't have a problem with them not testifying (legally) my problem is that they could refuse to testify an then get their gun and badge handed back. There is 0 reason for a public protector not to testify unless it is protecting the public which there is no chance of that here. So sure don't testify, just don't expect to have a job as a cop. + Show Spoiler +Just a quick fyi there are about to be a lot of arrests tonight. They are going to be white people refusing their 3rd/4th personal warning from police. 4th warning with a show of force was enough. So weird to see the constant reference to some of the police officers being black (like it was some sort of "AHA! moment") when universally every Baltimore resident has said it doesn't matter. So you want to punish them for using their constitutional rights? The reason you don't testify against yourself is that you can accidentally say incriminating things. And I don't mean some bullshit like in A Few Good Men. I mean things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person Well if they grant one immunity they wouldn't have that protection. They would be compelled to testify. Does seem like a convenient time to care about constitutional rights though. Didn't seem to matter much for Freddie? So lets not give anyone a fair trial. I mean, they didn't consider their victims rights, why should we consider theirs? Lets just start hanging people as soon as they're accused. I'm surprised you're following this train of logic. You're the one with a deep-seated distrust of the justice system, and yet you want to restrict protections of the accused. No he wants their employer to hold them to the actual standard of employment. A person that is willingly keeping crimes committed by others a secret is per definition not fit to be police. That sounds like punishing someone for not testifying against himself to me. Sounds pretty standard if you believe in liberty and the free market. "Hey Jim what happened to the shipment on Tuesday?" "I plead the 5th" "You're fired" The moment they make their job as a PUBLIC servant private in the court of law, they cease to be a public servant, no?
Your example isn't a criminal charge, this is. The fact that it's a court of law is precisely why they have the right to not testify.
|
On May 04 2015 01:40 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 01:31 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 01:13 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 00:40 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 16:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2015 12:22 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2015 10:54 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2015 06:37 killa_robot wrote:
Wonder why all of them are being charged. I only recall around 3 of them really being involved. The typical prosecutor does something like this to try to get someone to flip. You tell the defendants the worst charges you might be able to prove in order to get them to testify. I imagine she is especially doing this since officers in a recent shooting refused to testify (how that doesn't take away ones ability to be a cop is beyond me). I feel bad for Geraldo's security though. You can't be forced to testify against yourself. Nothing wrong with them refusing to testify. Except they are paid public protectors. I don't have a problem with them not testifying (legally) my problem is that they could refuse to testify an then get their gun and badge handed back. There is 0 reason for a public protector not to testify unless it is protecting the public which there is no chance of that here. So sure don't testify, just don't expect to have a job as a cop. + Show Spoiler +Just a quick fyi there are about to be a lot of arrests tonight. They are going to be white people refusing their 3rd/4th personal warning from police. 4th warning with a show of force was enough. So weird to see the constant reference to some of the police officers being black (like it was some sort of "AHA! moment") when universally every Baltimore resident has said it doesn't matter. So you want to punish them for using their constitutional rights? The reason you don't testify against yourself is that you can accidentally say incriminating things. And I don't mean some bullshit like in A Few Good Men. I mean things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person Well if they grant one immunity they wouldn't have that protection. They would be compelled to testify. Does seem like a convenient time to care about constitutional rights though. Didn't seem to matter much for Freddie? So lets not give anyone a fair trial. I mean, they didn't consider their victims rights, why should we consider theirs? Lets just start hanging people as soon as they're accused. I'm surprised you're following this train of logic. You're the one with a deep-seated distrust of the justice system, and yet you want to restrict protections of the accused. No he wants their employer to hold them to the actual standard of employment. A person that is willingly keeping crimes committed by others a secret is per definition not fit to be police. That sounds like punishing someone for not testifying against himself to me. Sounds pretty standard if you believe in liberty and the free market. "Hey Jim what happened to the shipment on Tuesday?" "I plead the 5th" "You're fired" The moment they make their job as a PUBLIC servant private in the court of law, they cease to be a public servant, no?
Just like doctors employed at public hospitals also have their employment terminated when they refuse to witness about patients in a court of law...
I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that we currently have posters in TL arguing against the very foundation of the rule of law.
|
On May 04 2015 01:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 01:40 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:31 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 01:13 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 00:40 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 16:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2015 12:22 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2015 10:54 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The typical prosecutor does something like this to try to get someone to flip. You tell the defendants the worst charges you might be able to prove in order to get them to testify. I imagine she is especially doing this since officers in a recent shooting refused to testify (how that doesn't take away ones ability to be a cop is beyond me).
I feel bad for Geraldo's security though. You can't be forced to testify against yourself. Nothing wrong with them refusing to testify. Except they are paid public protectors. I don't have a problem with them not testifying (legally) my problem is that they could refuse to testify an then get their gun and badge handed back. There is 0 reason for a public protector not to testify unless it is protecting the public which there is no chance of that here. So sure don't testify, just don't expect to have a job as a cop. + Show Spoiler +Just a quick fyi there are about to be a lot of arrests tonight. They are going to be white people refusing their 3rd/4th personal warning from police. 4th warning with a show of force was enough. So weird to see the constant reference to some of the police officers being black (like it was some sort of "AHA! moment") when universally every Baltimore resident has said it doesn't matter. So you want to punish them for using their constitutional rights? The reason you don't testify against yourself is that you can accidentally say incriminating things. And I don't mean some bullshit like in A Few Good Men. I mean things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person Well if they grant one immunity they wouldn't have that protection. They would be compelled to testify. Does seem like a convenient time to care about constitutional rights though. Didn't seem to matter much for Freddie? So lets not give anyone a fair trial. I mean, they didn't consider their victims rights, why should we consider theirs? Lets just start hanging people as soon as they're accused. I'm surprised you're following this train of logic. You're the one with a deep-seated distrust of the justice system, and yet you want to restrict protections of the accused. No he wants their employer to hold them to the actual standard of employment. A person that is willingly keeping crimes committed by others a secret is per definition not fit to be police. That sounds like punishing someone for not testifying against himself to me. Sounds pretty standard if you believe in liberty and the free market. "Hey Jim what happened to the shipment on Tuesday?" "I plead the 5th" "You're fired" The moment they make their job as a PUBLIC servant private in the court of law, they cease to be a public servant, no? Your example isn't a criminal charge, this is. The fact that it's a court of law is precisely why they have the right to not testify.
If a cop refuses a criminal background check they won't be hired. This is analagous.
|
On May 04 2015 01:47 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 01:40 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:31 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 01:13 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 00:40 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 16:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2015 12:22 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2015 10:54 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The typical prosecutor does something like this to try to get someone to flip. You tell the defendants the worst charges you might be able to prove in order to get them to testify. I imagine she is especially doing this since officers in a recent shooting refused to testify (how that doesn't take away ones ability to be a cop is beyond me).
I feel bad for Geraldo's security though. You can't be forced to testify against yourself. Nothing wrong with them refusing to testify. Except they are paid public protectors. I don't have a problem with them not testifying (legally) my problem is that they could refuse to testify an then get their gun and badge handed back. There is 0 reason for a public protector not to testify unless it is protecting the public which there is no chance of that here. So sure don't testify, just don't expect to have a job as a cop. + Show Spoiler +Just a quick fyi there are about to be a lot of arrests tonight. They are going to be white people refusing their 3rd/4th personal warning from police. 4th warning with a show of force was enough. So weird to see the constant reference to some of the police officers being black (like it was some sort of "AHA! moment") when universally every Baltimore resident has said it doesn't matter. So you want to punish them for using their constitutional rights? The reason you don't testify against yourself is that you can accidentally say incriminating things. And I don't mean some bullshit like in A Few Good Men. I mean things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person Well if they grant one immunity they wouldn't have that protection. They would be compelled to testify. Does seem like a convenient time to care about constitutional rights though. Didn't seem to matter much for Freddie? So lets not give anyone a fair trial. I mean, they didn't consider their victims rights, why should we consider theirs? Lets just start hanging people as soon as they're accused. I'm surprised you're following this train of logic. You're the one with a deep-seated distrust of the justice system, and yet you want to restrict protections of the accused. No he wants their employer to hold them to the actual standard of employment. A person that is willingly keeping crimes committed by others a secret is per definition not fit to be police. That sounds like punishing someone for not testifying against himself to me. Sounds pretty standard if you believe in liberty and the free market. "Hey Jim what happened to the shipment on Tuesday?" "I plead the 5th" "You're fired" The moment they make their job as a PUBLIC servant private in the court of law, they cease to be a public servant, no? Just like doctors employed at public hospitals also have their employment terminated when they refuse to witness about patients in a court of law... I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that we currently have posters in TL arguing against the very foundation of the rule of law.
I highly doubt the foundation of the rule of law is freedom from consequences.
|
|
|
On May 04 2015 01:50 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 01:47 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:40 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:31 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 01:13 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 00:40 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 16:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2015 12:22 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2015 10:54 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
You can't be forced to testify against yourself. Nothing wrong with them refusing to testify. Except they are paid public protectors. I don't have a problem with them not testifying (legally) my problem is that they could refuse to testify an then get their gun and badge handed back. There is 0 reason for a public protector not to testify unless it is protecting the public which there is no chance of that here. So sure don't testify, just don't expect to have a job as a cop. + Show Spoiler +Just a quick fyi there are about to be a lot of arrests tonight. They are going to be white people refusing their 3rd/4th personal warning from police. 4th warning with a show of force was enough. So weird to see the constant reference to some of the police officers being black (like it was some sort of "AHA! moment") when universally every Baltimore resident has said it doesn't matter. So you want to punish them for using their constitutional rights? The reason you don't testify against yourself is that you can accidentally say incriminating things. And I don't mean some bullshit like in A Few Good Men. I mean things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person Well if they grant one immunity they wouldn't have that protection. They would be compelled to testify. Does seem like a convenient time to care about constitutional rights though. Didn't seem to matter much for Freddie? So lets not give anyone a fair trial. I mean, they didn't consider their victims rights, why should we consider theirs? Lets just start hanging people as soon as they're accused. I'm surprised you're following this train of logic. You're the one with a deep-seated distrust of the justice system, and yet you want to restrict protections of the accused. No he wants their employer to hold them to the actual standard of employment. A person that is willingly keeping crimes committed by others a secret is per definition not fit to be police. That sounds like punishing someone for not testifying against himself to me. Sounds pretty standard if you believe in liberty and the free market. "Hey Jim what happened to the shipment on Tuesday?" "I plead the 5th" "You're fired" The moment they make their job as a PUBLIC servant private in the court of law, they cease to be a public servant, no? Just like doctors employed at public hospitals also have their employment terminated when they refuse to witness about patients in a court of law... I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that we currently have posters in TL arguing against the very foundation of the rule of law. I highly doubt the foundation of the rule of law is freedom from consequences.
And no one is arguing that - stop trolling.
|
Jesus, I thought conservatives were about individualism, self responsibility, and putting limits on big government. Turns out that I was wrong.
|
On May 04 2015 01:52 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 01:50 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:47 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:40 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:31 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 01:13 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 00:40 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 16:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2015 12:22 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Except they are paid public protectors. I don't have a problem with them not testifying (legally) my problem is that they could refuse to testify an then get their gun and badge handed back. There is 0 reason for a public protector not to testify unless it is protecting the public which there is no chance of that here. So sure don't testify, just don't expect to have a job as a cop. + Show Spoiler +Just a quick fyi there are about to be a lot of arrests tonight. They are going to be white people refusing their 3rd/4th personal warning from police. 4th warning with a show of force was enough. So weird to see the constant reference to some of the police officers being black (like it was some sort of "AHA! moment") when universally every Baltimore resident has said it doesn't matter. So you want to punish them for using their constitutional rights? The reason you don't testify against yourself is that you can accidentally say incriminating things. And I don't mean some bullshit like in A Few Good Men. I mean things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person Well if they grant one immunity they wouldn't have that protection. They would be compelled to testify. Does seem like a convenient time to care about constitutional rights though. Didn't seem to matter much for Freddie? So lets not give anyone a fair trial. I mean, they didn't consider their victims rights, why should we consider theirs? Lets just start hanging people as soon as they're accused. I'm surprised you're following this train of logic. You're the one with a deep-seated distrust of the justice system, and yet you want to restrict protections of the accused. No he wants their employer to hold them to the actual standard of employment. A person that is willingly keeping crimes committed by others a secret is per definition not fit to be police. That sounds like punishing someone for not testifying against himself to me. Sounds pretty standard if you believe in liberty and the free market. "Hey Jim what happened to the shipment on Tuesday?" "I plead the 5th" "You're fired" The moment they make their job as a PUBLIC servant private in the court of law, they cease to be a public servant, no? Just like doctors employed at public hospitals also have their employment terminated when they refuse to witness about patients in a court of law... I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that we currently have posters in TL arguing against the very foundation of the rule of law. I highly doubt the foundation of the rule of law is freedom from consequences. And no one is arguing that - stop trolling.
some of those police officers saw someone perfom actions to kill an other human being, and they can reconcile that action with their understanding of being cops
and you think people that find that problematic are trolling.
|
On May 04 2015 01:53 Jormundr wrote:
Jesus, I thought conservatives were about individualism, self responsibility, and putting limits on big government. Turns out that I was wrong.
Conservatives want all those things when it comes to economics, but anything social they want to regulate your balls off so you conform to what they believe is the best way to live and conduct yourself.
|
It's like you guys think someone has to be guilty to be a liability.
Go get charged with a DWI and see if your employer will believe your "innocent until proven guilty" reasoning when you don't show up to work.
Now, if a judge refuses to testify against himself then he should not be fired, because he is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. Unfortunately non-bailiffs do not work for a court of law so the same rules do not apply to cops.
|
On May 04 2015 01:54 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 01:52 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:50 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:47 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:40 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:31 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 01:13 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 00:40 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 16:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Well if they grant one immunity they wouldn't have that protection. They would be compelled to testify. Does seem like a convenient time to care about constitutional rights though. Didn't seem to matter much for Freddie? So lets not give anyone a fair trial. I mean, they didn't consider their victims rights, why should we consider theirs? Lets just start hanging people as soon as they're accused. I'm surprised you're following this train of logic. You're the one with a deep-seated distrust of the justice system, and yet you want to restrict protections of the accused. No he wants their employer to hold them to the actual standard of employment. A person that is willingly keeping crimes committed by others a secret is per definition not fit to be police. That sounds like punishing someone for not testifying against himself to me. Sounds pretty standard if you believe in liberty and the free market. "Hey Jim what happened to the shipment on Tuesday?" "I plead the 5th" "You're fired" The moment they make their job as a PUBLIC servant private in the court of law, they cease to be a public servant, no? Just like doctors employed at public hospitals also have their employment terminated when they refuse to witness about patients in a court of law... I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that we currently have posters in TL arguing against the very foundation of the rule of law. I highly doubt the foundation of the rule of law is freedom from consequences. And no one is arguing that - stop trolling. some of those police officers saw someone perfom actions to kill an other human being, and they can reconcile that action with their understanding of being cops and you think people that find that problematic are trolling.
See, you have already decided that they are guilty... Arguing against the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial is hopefully trolling - the alternative is terrifying!
|
On May 04 2015 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 01:54 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 01:52 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:50 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:47 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:40 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:31 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 01:13 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 00:40 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 16:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Well if they grant one immunity they wouldn't have that protection. They would be compelled to testify. Does seem like a convenient time to care about constitutional rights though. Didn't seem to matter much for Freddie? So lets not give anyone a fair trial. I mean, they didn't consider their victims rights, why should we consider theirs? Lets just start hanging people as soon as they're accused. I'm surprised you're following this train of logic. You're the one with a deep-seated distrust of the justice system, and yet you want to restrict protections of the accused. No he wants their employer to hold them to the actual standard of employment. A person that is willingly keeping crimes committed by others a secret is per definition not fit to be police. That sounds like punishing someone for not testifying against himself to me. Sounds pretty standard if you believe in liberty and the free market. "Hey Jim what happened to the shipment on Tuesday?" "I plead the 5th" "You're fired" The moment they make their job as a PUBLIC servant private in the court of law, they cease to be a public servant, no? Just like doctors employed at public hospitals also have their employment terminated when they refuse to witness about patients in a court of law... I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that we currently have posters in TL arguing against the very foundation of the rule of law. I highly doubt the foundation of the rule of law is freedom from consequences. And no one is arguing that - stop trolling. some of those police officers saw someone perfom actions to kill an other human being, and they can reconcile that action with their understanding of being cops and you think people that find that problematic are trolling. See, you have already decided that they are guilty... Arguing against the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial is hopefully trolling - the alternative is terrifying!
You don't have to establish criminal guilt to fire someone. You just have to establish that they are a liability, and a worker who goes off and does their own thing and won't tell you what they are doing is definitely a liability.
|
On May 04 2015 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 01:54 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 01:52 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:50 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:47 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:40 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:31 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 01:13 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 00:40 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 16:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Well if they grant one immunity they wouldn't have that protection. They would be compelled to testify. Does seem like a convenient time to care about constitutional rights though. Didn't seem to matter much for Freddie? So lets not give anyone a fair trial. I mean, they didn't consider their victims rights, why should we consider theirs? Lets just start hanging people as soon as they're accused. I'm surprised you're following this train of logic. You're the one with a deep-seated distrust of the justice system, and yet you want to restrict protections of the accused. No he wants their employer to hold them to the actual standard of employment. A person that is willingly keeping crimes committed by others a secret is per definition not fit to be police. That sounds like punishing someone for not testifying against himself to me. Sounds pretty standard if you believe in liberty and the free market. "Hey Jim what happened to the shipment on Tuesday?" "I plead the 5th" "You're fired" The moment they make their job as a PUBLIC servant private in the court of law, they cease to be a public servant, no? Just like doctors employed at public hospitals also have their employment terminated when they refuse to witness about patients in a court of law... I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that we currently have posters in TL arguing against the very foundation of the rule of law. I highly doubt the foundation of the rule of law is freedom from consequences. And no one is arguing that - stop trolling. some of those police officers saw someone perfom actions to kill an other human being, and they can reconcile that action with their understanding of being cops and you think people that find that problematic are trolling. See, you have already decided that they are guilty... Arguing against the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial is hopefully trolling - the alternative is terrifying!
I dont entirely agree with the argument that they cant hold their testimony but look at it this way.
They were either responsible for a mans death = they shouldn't be cops.
They know someone else is responsible for a mans death but wont testify against them = they shouldn't be cops
They don't know any incriminating things and still refuse to testify = they arguably shouldn't be cops
|
On May 04 2015 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 01:54 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 01:52 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:50 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:47 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:40 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:31 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 01:13 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 00:40 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 16:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Well if they grant one immunity they wouldn't have that protection. They would be compelled to testify. Does seem like a convenient time to care about constitutional rights though. Didn't seem to matter much for Freddie? So lets not give anyone a fair trial. I mean, they didn't consider their victims rights, why should we consider theirs? Lets just start hanging people as soon as they're accused. I'm surprised you're following this train of logic. You're the one with a deep-seated distrust of the justice system, and yet you want to restrict protections of the accused. No he wants their employer to hold them to the actual standard of employment. A person that is willingly keeping crimes committed by others a secret is per definition not fit to be police. That sounds like punishing someone for not testifying against himself to me. Sounds pretty standard if you believe in liberty and the free market. "Hey Jim what happened to the shipment on Tuesday?" "I plead the 5th" "You're fired" The moment they make their job as a PUBLIC servant private in the court of law, they cease to be a public servant, no? Just like doctors employed at public hospitals also have their employment terminated when they refuse to witness about patients in a court of law... I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that we currently have posters in TL arguing against the very foundation of the rule of law. I highly doubt the foundation of the rule of law is freedom from consequences. And no one is arguing that - stop trolling. some of those police officers saw someone perfom actions to kill an other human being, and they can reconcile that action with their understanding of being cops and you think people that find that problematic are trolling. See, you have already decided that they are guilty... Arguing against the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial is hopefully trolling - the alternative is terrifying!
i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge.
criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force
someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened.
|
On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:54 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 01:52 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:50 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:47 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:40 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:31 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 01:13 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 00:40 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
So lets not give anyone a fair trial. I mean, they didn't consider their victims rights, why should we consider theirs? Lets just start hanging people as soon as they're accused.
I'm surprised you're following this train of logic. You're the one with a deep-seated distrust of the justice system, and yet you want to restrict protections of the accused. No he wants their employer to hold them to the actual standard of employment. A person that is willingly keeping crimes committed by others a secret is per definition not fit to be police. That sounds like punishing someone for not testifying against himself to me. Sounds pretty standard if you believe in liberty and the free market. "Hey Jim what happened to the shipment on Tuesday?" "I plead the 5th" "You're fired" The moment they make their job as a PUBLIC servant private in the court of law, they cease to be a public servant, no? Just like doctors employed at public hospitals also have their employment terminated when they refuse to witness about patients in a court of law... I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that we currently have posters in TL arguing against the very foundation of the rule of law. I highly doubt the foundation of the rule of law is freedom from consequences. And no one is arguing that - stop trolling. some of those police officers saw someone perfom actions to kill an other human being, and they can reconcile that action with their understanding of being cops and you think people that find that problematic are trolling. See, you have already decided that they are guilty... Arguing against the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial is hopefully trolling - the alternative is terrifying! i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge. criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened.
Were all 6 present during the entire time? I don't know all the details but if any of them were merely called in to help with an arrest and left once he was in the van (and assuming he was unharmed at that point) then they may well be truly innocent. Other then that I agree.
|
On May 04 2015 02:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:54 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 01:52 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:50 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:47 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:40 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:31 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 01:13 puerk wrote:
[quote]
No he wants their employer to hold them to the actual standard of employment. A person that is willingly keeping crimes committed by others a secret is per definition not fit to be police.
That sounds like punishing someone for not testifying against himself to me. Sounds pretty standard if you believe in liberty and the free market. "Hey Jim what happened to the shipment on Tuesday?" "I plead the 5th" "You're fired" The moment they make their job as a PUBLIC servant private in the court of law, they cease to be a public servant, no? Just like doctors employed at public hospitals also have their employment terminated when they refuse to witness about patients in a court of law... I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that we currently have posters in TL arguing against the very foundation of the rule of law. I highly doubt the foundation of the rule of law is freedom from consequences. And no one is arguing that - stop trolling. some of those police officers saw someone perfom actions to kill an other human being, and they can reconcile that action with their understanding of being cops and you think people that find that problematic are trolling. See, you have already decided that they are guilty... Arguing against the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial is hopefully trolling - the alternative is terrifying! i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge. criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened. Were all 6 present during the entire time? I don't know all the details but if any of them were merely called in to help with an arrest and left once he was in the van (and assuming he was unharmed at that point) then they may well be truly innocent. Other then that I agree.
then they can testify that? in the spirit of helping law enforcment?
|
On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:54 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 01:52 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:50 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:47 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:40 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:31 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 01:13 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 00:40 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
So lets not give anyone a fair trial. I mean, they didn't consider their victims rights, why should we consider theirs? Lets just start hanging people as soon as they're accused.
I'm surprised you're following this train of logic. You're the one with a deep-seated distrust of the justice system, and yet you want to restrict protections of the accused. No he wants their employer to hold them to the actual standard of employment. A person that is willingly keeping crimes committed by others a secret is per definition not fit to be police. That sounds like punishing someone for not testifying against himself to me. Sounds pretty standard if you believe in liberty and the free market. "Hey Jim what happened to the shipment on Tuesday?" "I plead the 5th" "You're fired" The moment they make their job as a PUBLIC servant private in the court of law, they cease to be a public servant, no? Just like doctors employed at public hospitals also have their employment terminated when they refuse to witness about patients in a court of law... I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that we currently have posters in TL arguing against the very foundation of the rule of law. I highly doubt the foundation of the rule of law is freedom from consequences. And no one is arguing that - stop trolling. some of those police officers saw someone perfom actions to kill an other human being, and they can reconcile that action with their understanding of being cops and you think people that find that problematic are trolling. See, you have already decided that they are guilty... Arguing against the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial is hopefully trolling - the alternative is terrifying! i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge. criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened.
That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing).
|
On May 04 2015 01:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 01:40 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:31 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 01:13 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 00:40 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 16:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2015 12:22 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2015 10:54 Millitron wrote:On May 03 2015 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The typical prosecutor does something like this to try to get someone to flip. You tell the defendants the worst charges you might be able to prove in order to get them to testify. I imagine she is especially doing this since officers in a recent shooting refused to testify (how that doesn't take away ones ability to be a cop is beyond me).
I feel bad for Geraldo's security though. You can't be forced to testify against yourself. Nothing wrong with them refusing to testify. Except they are paid public protectors. I don't have a problem with them not testifying (legally) my problem is that they could refuse to testify an then get their gun and badge handed back. There is 0 reason for a public protector not to testify unless it is protecting the public which there is no chance of that here. So sure don't testify, just don't expect to have a job as a cop. + Show Spoiler +Just a quick fyi there are about to be a lot of arrests tonight. They are going to be white people refusing their 3rd/4th personal warning from police. 4th warning with a show of force was enough. So weird to see the constant reference to some of the police officers being black (like it was some sort of "AHA! moment") when universally every Baltimore resident has said it doesn't matter. So you want to punish them for using their constitutional rights? The reason you don't testify against yourself is that you can accidentally say incriminating things. And I don't mean some bullshit like in A Few Good Men. I mean things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person Well if they grant one immunity they wouldn't have that protection. They would be compelled to testify. Does seem like a convenient time to care about constitutional rights though. Didn't seem to matter much for Freddie? So lets not give anyone a fair trial. I mean, they didn't consider their victims rights, why should we consider theirs? Lets just start hanging people as soon as they're accused. I'm surprised you're following this train of logic. You're the one with a deep-seated distrust of the justice system, and yet you want to restrict protections of the accused. No he wants their employer to hold them to the actual standard of employment. A person that is willingly keeping crimes committed by others a secret is per definition not fit to be police. That sounds like punishing someone for not testifying against himself to me. Sounds pretty standard if you believe in liberty and the free market. "Hey Jim what happened to the shipment on Tuesday?" "I plead the 5th" "You're fired" The moment they make their job as a PUBLIC servant private in the court of law, they cease to be a public servant, no? Your example isn't a criminal charge, this is. The fact that it's a court of law is precisely why they have the right to not testify.
I'll skip the question of whether cops should be held to a higher standard than common criminals and instead ask this:
Are we then agreed that cops have normal legal rights, but should be held to higher workplace standards? Presumably this would mean mandatory cooperation in the internal investigation, with the employer having the right to fire the employee if they fail to cooperate or are found guilty under a "preponderance of evidence" standard?
Don't get me wrong, I think pushes to expand "preponderance" to ordinary criminals, or even college students, are very dangerous. But it's a common rule in workplaces, and seems fair in as important a workplace as a police station.
|
On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:54 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 01:52 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:50 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:47 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:40 Jormundr wrote:On May 04 2015 01:31 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 01:13 puerk wrote:
[quote]
No he wants their employer to hold them to the actual standard of employment. A person that is willingly keeping crimes committed by others a secret is per definition not fit to be police.
That sounds like punishing someone for not testifying against himself to me. Sounds pretty standard if you believe in liberty and the free market. "Hey Jim what happened to the shipment on Tuesday?" "I plead the 5th" "You're fired" The moment they make their job as a PUBLIC servant private in the court of law, they cease to be a public servant, no? Just like doctors employed at public hospitals also have their employment terminated when they refuse to witness about patients in a court of law... I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that we currently have posters in TL arguing against the very foundation of the rule of law. I highly doubt the foundation of the rule of law is freedom from consequences. And no one is arguing that - stop trolling. some of those police officers saw someone perfom actions to kill an other human being, and they can reconcile that action with their understanding of being cops and you think people that find that problematic are trolling. See, you have already decided that they are guilty... Arguing against the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial is hopefully trolling - the alternative is terrifying! i never once said that they have to be found guilty by a court of law, i am arguing that they behaved in a way that makes them unacceptable for their place of work. their employer already stated that they violated several procedures (seatbelt, calling medical need when necessary), that is enough for a discharge. criminal justice is independent of the integrity of the workplace of a public service of such big importance as a police force someone who covers up a serious crime is not fit to be police, no matter who of them performed the criminal action, they all have enough information to know who did what and are not disclosing what they no to cover the crime that happened. That they do not wish to testify does not equate to them covering up a serious crime. The group of 6 officers have together violated procedures however blaming all 6 of them of that (which is what you are currently doing by saying "testify or fired") is in no way in accordance with social practices, rule of law, and would if anything completely undermine the integrity of the workplace (as you could randomly be fired for what your colleagues are doing).
how is the part of covering up and impeding the solving of a crime conductive for being a police officer? its antithetical.
|
Lynch mob is out in force today.
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
