|
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. |
I think we keep forgetting the police haven't just not wanted to tell the whole truth, they have been shown to be lying just from the little information we have and have been leaking shit through shadow interviews.
It's quite disingenuous to act as if there isn't already a lot of problems with how the police behaved. Freddie Gray suffered fatal injuries while in police custody. They are responsible. Their behavior afterwords has only made them look worse.
On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
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.
Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers.
|
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).
If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired.
Edit:
On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers.
Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently.
|
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.
Sure seems to me that big government wouldn't want to respect people's innocence until proven guilt.
I think it's cute that you keep making discussions about me, and not about the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person
"The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated:
Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege."
|
On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote: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:
[quote]
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). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently.
I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody.
On May 04 2015 02:46 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +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. Sure seems to me that big government wouldn't want to respect people's innocence until proven guilt. I think it's cute that you keep making discussions about me, and not about the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person"The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated: Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege."
Have you looked at situations where cops have invoked the 5th?
|
On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody.
Well, clearly not on-one... there's at least two of us!
It really feels to me like it's the same issue. Yes, many teachers and cops, probably far moreso than the general population, are passionate, committed people who are good at their jobs. The problem is that there are very few mechanisms that reward this or punish the lazy rent-seekers.
And I say lazy because that's ultimately what a lot of this is. Some of it is fear. Perhaps a little is hate. But it seems to me that most of these problems are not some cops saying "Imma go kill some fuckers" but rather somebody not taking the time or effort to actually do a job properly.
|
On May 04 2015 02:26 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I'm on a ferry, so my internet is very spotty - this is probably going to be my last reply for now.
Try and imagine that one of the six cops is innocent of any wrongdoing (he drove the van, had no idea what was going on in the back, the others didn't inform him - this is a purely theoretical scenario and as such unimportant for the argument). He is accused of committing manslaughter along with the other 5. Now, he knows something has gone terribly wrong in the back of that van, but he also knows that anything he says will be cross-examined with the intention of finding any minuscule hole (and any explanation has a hole) to make sure he is convicted - precisely because we have lynch mobs who have already made up their minds about all 6 cops before the court case has even begun.
The entire situation is a lose:lose situation for such a cop and him pleading the fifth in an attempt to give himself a fair trial is not antithetical to being a cop - just like not taking a bullet for a citizen when on duty isn't.
Everyone (heck, here on TL you can even find me arguing that Bin Laden deserved a trial instead of being shot by the US special forces) is deserving of a fair trial - and that also goes for police officers.
|
On May 04 2015 03:03 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Well, clearly not on-one... there's at least two of us! It really feels to me like it's the same issue. Yes, many teachers and cops, probably far moreso than the general population, are passionate, committed people who are good at their jobs. The problem is that there are very few mechanisms that reward this or punish the lazy rent-seekers. And I say lazy because that's ultimately what a lot of this is. Some of it is fear. Perhaps a little is hate. But it seems to me that most of these problems are not some cops saying "Imma go kill some fuckers" but rather somebody not taking the time or effort to actually do a job properly.
Yeah, agreed. I don't think anyone but the racebait accusors have ever suggested that anyone even thinks it's a situation of "Imma go kill some fuckers". It comes almost exclusively from those who are marginalizing the issue in general. There is more than laziness at play when 6 officers witness something like what happened and report "Suspect was taken into custody without incident or force" though
No idea who can watch the Gray arrest video that surfaced after those reports and think "nope there was no force or incident in the arrest."
On May 04 2015 03:06 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 02:26 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I'm on a ferry, so my internet is very spotty - this is probably going to be my last reply for now. Try and imagine that one of the six cops is innocent of any wrongdoing (he drove the van, had no idea what was going on in the back, the others didn't inform him - this is a purely theoretical scenario and as such unimportant for the argument). He is accused of committing manslaughter along with the other 5. Now, he knows something has gone terribly wrong in the back of that van, but he also knows that anything he says will be cross-examined with the intention of finding any minuscule hole (and any explanation has a hole) to make sure he is convicted - precisely because we have lynch mobs who have already made up their minds about all 6 cops before the court case has even begun. The entire situation is a lose:lose situation for such a cop and him pleading the fifth in an attempt to give himself a fair trial is not antithetical to being a cop - just like not taking a bullet for a citizen when on duty isn't. Everyone (heck, here on TL you can even find me arguing that Bin Laden deserved a trial instead of being shot by the US special forces) is deserving of a fair trial - and that also goes for police officers.
Sounds like something he should of put in his report.
Seriously have the people defending the cops "innocent until proven guilty" even read the police's arrest report?
Charging Documents
|
On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote: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:
[quote]
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). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 02:46 Millitron wrote: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. Sure seems to me that big government wouldn't want to respect people's innocence until proven guilt. I think it's cute that you keep making discussions about me, and not about the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person"The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated: Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege." Have you looked at situations where cops have invoked the 5th?
I can only find one other than this, and it doesn't lead me to believe police should have any less rights than you or I.
I'm ok with punishing any of them that did not follow standard procedures, but I'm not ok with punishing them for using their constitutional rights. I think it's ironic you're so quick to abuse the justice system when it's in your favor after spending so many pages of this thread railing against how rigged the system is.
|
On May 04 2015 03:10 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote: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:
[quote]
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). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. On May 04 2015 02:46 Millitron wrote: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. Sure seems to me that big government wouldn't want to respect people's innocence until proven guilt. I think it's cute that you keep making discussions about me, and not about the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person"The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated: Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege." Have you looked at situations where cops have invoked the 5th? I can only find one other than this, and it doesn't lead me to believe police should have any less rights than you or I. I'm ok with punishing any of them that did not follow standard procedures, but I'm not ok with punishing them for using their constitutional rights. I think it's ironic you're so quick to abuse the justice system when it's in your favor after spending so many pages of this thread railing against how rigged the system is.
It's your constitutional right to give a sieg heil to random people on the street while wearing slippers and a tutu, but I don't want my police officers doing it.
It's not anyone's constitutional right to be a police officer, it's a responsibility and a privilege which we need to start taking more seriously.
A public servant should never need to plead the 5th in questions regarding the conduct of other public servants. Just tell the truth, or find a job that, you know, doesn't ask you to actually care the general public more than your coworkers.
It's not about punishment at all, you're just adamant to look at it that way. It's simply a question of whether a cop who is loyal to cops more than he's loyal to the public should actually be a cop. I don't think he should.
|
On May 04 2015 03:10 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote: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:
[quote]
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). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. On May 04 2015 02:46 Millitron wrote: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. Sure seems to me that big government wouldn't want to respect people's innocence until proven guilt. I think it's cute that you keep making discussions about me, and not about the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person"The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated: Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege." Have you looked at situations where cops have invoked the 5th? I can only find one other than this, and it doesn't lead me to believe police should have any less rights than you or I. I'm ok with punishing any of them that did not follow standard procedures, but I'm not ok with punishing them for using their constitutional rights. I think it's ironic you're so quick to abuse the justice system when it's in your favor after spending so many pages of this thread railing against how rigged the system is.
What's funny is that you think that's what is happening. I never said they shouldn't be able to take the 5th. I just said they shouldn't be cops if they do. But the reason they shouldn't be cops isn't because they plead the 5th it's because they lied and deceived and are refusing to own up to it. The criminal proceeding are independent of whether they have done (or not done) enough to warrant being terminated from government employ.
What is curious is how an American getting snatched off the street by the government without so much as probable cause, and then suffering fatal injuries while in government custody, leaves conservatives worried about the government's right not to testify against itself.
I don't remember such advocacy and deference to the 5th when it was Lois Lerner claiming it? I remember people without evidence of wrong doing calling it a scandal and worse. Claiming coverups and the like. Calling for her job and more. I don't remember the people defending cops now speaking up for her 5th amendment rights and arguing that her refusing to testify wasn't a sign of anything...
Also have you asked yourself why you can only find one case of the police pleading the 5th? Or what it has in common with this situation?
|
On May 04 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 03:10 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote: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:
[quote]
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). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. On May 04 2015 02:46 Millitron wrote: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. Sure seems to me that big government wouldn't want to respect people's innocence until proven guilt. I think it's cute that you keep making discussions about me, and not about the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person"The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated: Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege." Have you looked at situations where cops have invoked the 5th? I can only find one other than this, and it doesn't lead me to believe police should have any less rights than you or I. I'm ok with punishing any of them that did not follow standard procedures, but I'm not ok with punishing them for using their constitutional rights. I think it's ironic you're so quick to abuse the justice system when it's in your favor after spending so many pages of this thread railing against how rigged the system is. What's funny is that you think that's what is happening. I never said they shouldn't be able to take the 5th. I just said they shouldn't be cops if they do. But the reason they shouldn't be cops isn't because they plead the 5th it's because they lied and deceived and are refusing to own up to it. The criminal proceeding are independent of whether they have done (or not done) enough to warrant being terminated from government employ. What is curious is how an American getting snatched off the street by the government without so much as probable cause, and then suffering fatal injuries while in government custody, and conservatives are worried about the government's right not to testify against itself. I don't remember such advocacy and deference to the 5th when it was Lois Lerner claiming it? I remember people without evidence of wrong doing calling it a scandal and worse. Claiming coverups and the like. Calling for her job and more. I don't remember the people defending cops now speaking up for her 5th amendment rights and arguing that her refusing to testify wasn't a sign of anything... Also have you asked yourself why you can only find one case of the police pleading the 5th? Or what it has in common with this situation?
You know the trial is supposed to figure out their guilt right? Not the media's presentation of the case. The supposed lie is one of the things that trial will examine. Like I said, if they broke SOP, go ahead and punish them for that. But pleading the Fifth is a constitutional right. Saying you're ok with firing them for doing so is like saying you want them fired for free speech, or not wanting soldiers quartered in their homes.
I think I can only find one case of police pleading the Fifth because it doesn't happen much.
|
On May 04 2015 03:33 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 03:10 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote: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:
[quote]
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). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. On May 04 2015 02:46 Millitron wrote: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. Sure seems to me that big government wouldn't want to respect people's innocence until proven guilt. I think it's cute that you keep making discussions about me, and not about the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person"The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated: Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege." Have you looked at situations where cops have invoked the 5th? I can only find one other than this, and it doesn't lead me to believe police should have any less rights than you or I. I'm ok with punishing any of them that did not follow standard procedures, but I'm not ok with punishing them for using their constitutional rights. I think it's ironic you're so quick to abuse the justice system when it's in your favor after spending so many pages of this thread railing against how rigged the system is. What's funny is that you think that's what is happening. I never said they shouldn't be able to take the 5th. I just said they shouldn't be cops if they do. But the reason they shouldn't be cops isn't because they plead the 5th it's because they lied and deceived and are refusing to own up to it. The criminal proceeding are independent of whether they have done (or not done) enough to warrant being terminated from government employ. What is curious is how an American getting snatched off the street by the government without so much as probable cause, and then suffering fatal injuries while in government custody, and conservatives are worried about the government's right not to testify against itself. I don't remember such advocacy and deference to the 5th when it was Lois Lerner claiming it? I remember people without evidence of wrong doing calling it a scandal and worse. Claiming coverups and the like. Calling for her job and more. I don't remember the people defending cops now speaking up for her 5th amendment rights and arguing that her refusing to testify wasn't a sign of anything... Also have you asked yourself why you can only find one case of the police pleading the 5th? Or what it has in common with this situation? You know the trial is supposed to figure out their guilt right? Not the media's presentation of the case. The supposed lie is one of the things that trial will examine. Like I said, if they broke SOP, go ahead and punish them for that. But pleading the Fifth is a constitutional right. Saying you're ok with firing them for doing so is like saying you want them fired for free speech, or not wanting soldiers quartered in their homes. I think I can only find one case of police pleading the Fifth because it doesn't happen much.
uhh ok... You seem to be skipping the part where I say they wouldn't be fired simply for pleading the fifth. But we don't need a trial to look at what we have and notice they have lied. Did you read the arrest report/Charging documents? Your analogy is way off base.
Just to be clear though you feel/felt the same way about Lois Lerner pleading the 5th?
Have you asked yourself why it doesn't happen much?
|
On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote: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:
[quote]
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). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody.
Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution.
Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket.
|
On May 04 2015 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 03:33 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 03:10 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 01:54 puerk wrote:
[quote]
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). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. On May 04 2015 02:46 Millitron wrote: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. Sure seems to me that big government wouldn't want to respect people's innocence until proven guilt. I think it's cute that you keep making discussions about me, and not about the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person"The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated: Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege." Have you looked at situations where cops have invoked the 5th? I can only find one other than this, and it doesn't lead me to believe police should have any less rights than you or I. I'm ok with punishing any of them that did not follow standard procedures, but I'm not ok with punishing them for using their constitutional rights. I think it's ironic you're so quick to abuse the justice system when it's in your favor after spending so many pages of this thread railing against how rigged the system is. What's funny is that you think that's what is happening. I never said they shouldn't be able to take the 5th. I just said they shouldn't be cops if they do. But the reason they shouldn't be cops isn't because they plead the 5th it's because they lied and deceived and are refusing to own up to it. The criminal proceeding are independent of whether they have done (or not done) enough to warrant being terminated from government employ. What is curious is how an American getting snatched off the street by the government without so much as probable cause, and then suffering fatal injuries while in government custody, and conservatives are worried about the government's right not to testify against itself. I don't remember such advocacy and deference to the 5th when it was Lois Lerner claiming it? I remember people without evidence of wrong doing calling it a scandal and worse. Claiming coverups and the like. Calling for her job and more. I don't remember the people defending cops now speaking up for her 5th amendment rights and arguing that her refusing to testify wasn't a sign of anything... Also have you asked yourself why you can only find one case of the police pleading the 5th? Or what it has in common with this situation? You know the trial is supposed to figure out their guilt right? Not the media's presentation of the case. The supposed lie is one of the things that trial will examine. Like I said, if they broke SOP, go ahead and punish them for that. But pleading the Fifth is a constitutional right. Saying you're ok with firing them for doing so is like saying you want them fired for free speech, or not wanting soldiers quartered in their homes. I think I can only find one case of police pleading the Fifth because it doesn't happen much. uhh ok... You seem to be skipping the part where I say they wouldn't be fired simply for pleading the fifth. But we don't need a trial to look at what we have and notice they have lied. Did you read the arrest report? Your analogy is way off base. Just to be clear though you feel/felt the same way about Lois Lerner pleading the 5th? Have you asked yourself why it doesn't happen much?
I do. I have my suspicions about her, but I'm mature enough to know I could be wrong and should wait for all the facts. Which seems justified now, because data recovery experts have managed to save most of the missing emails.
I read the arrest report. That they lied is part of the trial, because some of the charges depend on it.
I know your opinion on why it doesn't happen much is that cops are never brought to trial. That doesn't really have any bearing though on this, because this is going to trial.
|
On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote: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:
[quote]
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). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket.
Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them.
|
On May 04 2015 03:57 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 03:33 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 03:10 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote:On May 04 2015 02:11 puerk wrote:On May 04 2015 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
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). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. On May 04 2015 02:46 Millitron wrote: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. Sure seems to me that big government wouldn't want to respect people's innocence until proven guilt. I think it's cute that you keep making discussions about me, and not about the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Truthful_statements_by_an_innocent_person"The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated: Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege." Have you looked at situations where cops have invoked the 5th? I can only find one other than this, and it doesn't lead me to believe police should have any less rights than you or I. I'm ok with punishing any of them that did not follow standard procedures, but I'm not ok with punishing them for using their constitutional rights. I think it's ironic you're so quick to abuse the justice system when it's in your favor after spending so many pages of this thread railing against how rigged the system is. What's funny is that you think that's what is happening. I never said they shouldn't be able to take the 5th. I just said they shouldn't be cops if they do. But the reason they shouldn't be cops isn't because they plead the 5th it's because they lied and deceived and are refusing to own up to it. The criminal proceeding are independent of whether they have done (or not done) enough to warrant being terminated from government employ. What is curious is how an American getting snatched off the street by the government without so much as probable cause, and then suffering fatal injuries while in government custody, and conservatives are worried about the government's right not to testify against itself. I don't remember such advocacy and deference to the 5th when it was Lois Lerner claiming it? I remember people without evidence of wrong doing calling it a scandal and worse. Claiming coverups and the like. Calling for her job and more. I don't remember the people defending cops now speaking up for her 5th amendment rights and arguing that her refusing to testify wasn't a sign of anything... Also have you asked yourself why you can only find one case of the police pleading the 5th? Or what it has in common with this situation? You know the trial is supposed to figure out their guilt right? Not the media's presentation of the case. The supposed lie is one of the things that trial will examine. Like I said, if they broke SOP, go ahead and punish them for that. But pleading the Fifth is a constitutional right. Saying you're ok with firing them for doing so is like saying you want them fired for free speech, or not wanting soldiers quartered in their homes. I think I can only find one case of police pleading the Fifth because it doesn't happen much. uhh ok... You seem to be skipping the part where I say they wouldn't be fired simply for pleading the fifth. But we don't need a trial to look at what we have and notice they have lied. Did you read the arrest report? Your analogy is way off base. Just to be clear though you feel/felt the same way about Lois Lerner pleading the 5th? Have you asked yourself why it doesn't happen much? I do. I have my suspicions about her, but I'm mature enough to know I could be wrong and should wait for all the facts. Which seems justified now, because data recovery experts have managed to save most of the missing emails. I read the arrest report. That they lied is part of the trial, because some of the charges depend on it. I know your opinion on why it doesn't happen much is that cops are never brought to trial. That doesn't really have any bearing though on this, because this is going to trial.
So is 'scandal' an appropriate term to use for both situations or inappropriate for both?
Yes lying is part of the trial but we don't need a trial to see some of the known lies/omissions.
Based on your assumption you don't know why I think it doesn't happen much.
You don't think the extremely rare circumstances of police pleading the fifth has anything to do with this situation or the way pleading the 5th is portrayed? Simply because it not coincidentally bypassed a grand jury and is going straight to trial?
So we got the 5th issues, can we agree that the government snatching people off the street without probable cause and then allowing them to suffer fatal injuries in government custody, then claiming to have no knowledge of what happened is a problem right in conservative wheelhouses? Because I do find the silence curious.
|
On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote: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:
[quote]
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). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket.
"This is unions being unions."
"Don't throw everyone into the same bucket."
lol
|
Unions are not the problem. American Unions are.
The difference in culture between unions in the US and those in the EU is simply massive. And for whatever reason it is stopping them from properly working in the US.
Over here (in Europe) in this situation a police union would ofc strive to have the trial be fair but they would also recognize that public trust is a big deal for the police to have and getting to the bottom of what happened is the most important thing.
edit.
and before people comment. Yes we have bad unions aswell. In general tho the situation is a lot better.
|
On May 04 2015 04:03 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote: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:
[quote]
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). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. Are you sure that you have any clue about unions? maybe there is an other, more political issue at work in the american class struggle that makes employer employee relations this awkward? Or would you honestly defend the statment that unions are a broken institutions when you look at other countries that have them for many decades and are doing great with them.
Since this is a US Politics thread I didn't see the need to specify that I was referring to unions in the US.
On May 04 2015 04:17 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 04 2015 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:44 Yoav wrote:On May 04 2015 02:23 Ghostcom wrote: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:
[quote]
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). If somebody in my care, or in the care of one of my coworkers in my presence, and I refused to tell my boss what happened, my ass would be ultra-fired. Edit: On May 04 2015 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:
And cops just can't be fired expediently. Their contracts afford them significant process before discipline can be taken. Yeah that seems to bother some when it's cops and others when it's teachers. Yeah. Which is why some of us are in favor of accountability across the board. It would be nice to live in a world where bad teachers and cops were fired expediently. I am too. It seems that many though get outraged when a teacher doesn't get immediately fired but seem far more understanding of process and not view it as a problem when it is cops. The same goes for their union. None of those that get angry at teachers unions for defending questionable teachers seem angry that the police union for so fiercely defending the people who let Freddie Gray suffer fatal injuries in their custody. Personally I think the police unions' behavior in these situations is just one more example of unions being a broken institution. Maybe you shouldn't throw everyone into the same bucket. "This is unions being unions." "Don't throw everyone into the same bucket." lol
My statement didn't throw everyone into the same bucket, so I don't see what your point is. Are you trying to show that you are a poor reader? If so, well played.
|
On May 04 2015 04:18 Gorsameth wrote:
Unions are not the problem. American Unions are.
The difference in culture between unions in the US and those in the EU is simply massive. And for whatever reason it is stopping them from properly working in the US.
Over here (in Europe) in this situation a police union would ofc strive to have the trial be fair but they would also recognize that public trust is a big deal for the police to have and getting to the bottom of what happened is the most important thing.
Lol. European unions are great. That's why neverending strikes for all kinds of important services, and governments going broke trying to accommodate pension demands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
