Freddie Gray/Charges

[Gilligan]

As tight as you hug your boyfriends schlong?

Your third grade education is showing, loser boy.

 

[seven]

Your third grade education is showing, loser boy.

so that's a yes. gotcha

 

[littlelady]

so that's a yes. gotcha

I wouldn’t know about your education, but Gilligan is married to a female. That’s all.

 

[tom88]

Is there an "Airline pilot's bill of rights"? A "Firefighters bill of rights?" An "Engineer's bill of rights?" To my knowledge, no other profession is awarded a special bill of rights. Feel free to point to other cases where this is true instead of telling me I'm wrong.

There is legislation which outlines how attorney's are to be punished and law makers are to be punished. As previously mentioned, there is the Uniformed Code of Military Justice which outlines a service members rights and obligations. Some of the other area's you are wrong. A law enforcement officer only has five days in which to obtain counsel. An officer is NOT entitled to the name of his accuser when served with his charges, nor is he able to have their testimony prior to giving a statement. He is entitled to know what he's charged with.

You fail to see the FACT that any administrative charge against a police officer could result in a criminal charge against that police officer Other than the military, what other profession is subject to the same scrutiny?

 

[tom88]

Is there an "Airline pilot's bill of rights"? A "Firefighters bill of rights?" An "Engineer's bill of rights?" To my knowledge, no other profession is awarded a special bill of rights. Feel free to point to other cases where this is true instead of telling me I'm wrong.

Not surprised that you chose not to respond to my answer. It doesn't fit your disdain for law enforcement and proves your points are wrong.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Not surprised that you chose not to respond to my answer. It doesn't fit your disdain for law enforcement and proves your points are wrong.

I chose not to answer becuase I don't have the time, nor care that much.

You keep harping on the idea that I'm wrong while you completely ignore the link I provided which says:

(2) (i) The interrogation shall be suspended for a period not exceeding 10 days until representation is obtained.

Don't be an ass and try and point out that I'm wrong while you continue to peddle incorrect information yourself.

A law enforcement officer only has five days in which to obtain counsel.

I don't have distain for law enforcement. I have distain for a system that allows bad officers to not be fired by their superiors or a system that allows bad officers to continue to remain in law enforcement.

 

[tom88]

I chose not to answer becuase I don't have the time, nor care that much.

You keep harping on the idea that I'm wrong while you completely ignore the link I provided which says:


Don't be an ass and try and point out that I'm wrong while you continue to peddle incorrect information yourself.



I don't have distain for law enforcement. I have distain for a system that allows bad officers to not be fired by their superiors or a system that allows bad officers to continue to remain in law enforcement.

Your article is dated 2010. The law was changed in 2016 to give the officers five days rather than ten. Of course, that's not the only thing you got wrong. Nowhere in the officers bill of rights does it say they get the testimony from their accuser, or do they even know who their accuser is before they are interviewed.

Funny how you gloss over the other people who have statutory protections when doing their job.

You ignore the difference between police officers and any other civilian. ANYTIME a police officer is investigated, internally or externally, they are subject to arrest.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Your article is dated 2010. The law was changed in 2016 to give the officers five days rather than ten. Of course, that's not the only thing you got wrong. Nowhere in the officers bill of rights does it say they get the testimony from their accuser, or do they even know who their accuser is before they are interviewed.

Funny how you gloss over the other people who have statutory protections when doing their job.

You ignore the difference between police officers and any other civilian. ANYTIME a police officer is investigated, internally or externally, they are subject to arrest.

My apologies.

I was not aware of the 2016 change. Thank you for pointing that out. I was also incorrect in stating the thing about the accuser in the MD bill of Rights. Other states have that requirement, but MD is not one of them.

I'm not glossing over it. The UCMJ was established by Congress and is more concerned about failure of military personnel to obey orders and applies to everyone. This can't really be compared to the LEOBoRs, which was set up via collective bargaining by their union to give them a special layer of employee protections when being investigated internally and not consistent across the profession. I'll say it again, no other public sector employee is granted special legislation and protections as police.

I certianly never ignored the idea that police are subject to arrest. That's how it should be. Police have the responsibility to maintain professionalism solely because of the power we, the people, have granted them and should be subject to scrutiny if accused of misconduct. There should be independent review of these cases because you cannot argue an investigation is independent if the MD LEOBoR stipulate that the interviewer must be another officer. If the argument is that the system protects the innocent civilians, it should also protect police. If we argue that employers should have the right to hire and fire a bad employee at will, there shouldn't be a special, union-lobbied, set of rules that often times hinder the chief's ability to fire a bad officer.

I'm certainly not going to change your mind, or anyone elses, on this subject. I appeciate the discussion though.

 

[tom88]

My apologies.

I was not aware of the 2016 change. Thank you for pointing that out. I was also incorrect in stating the thing about the accuser in the MD bill of Rights. Other states have that requirement, but MD is not one of them.

I'm not glossing over it. The UCMJ was established by Congress and is more concerned about failure of military personnel to obey orders and applies to everyone. This can't really be compared to the LEOBoRs, which was set up via collective bargaining by their union to give them a special layer of employee protections when being investigated internally and not consistent across the profession. I'll say it again, no other public sector employee is granted special legislation and protections as police.

I certianly never ignored the idea that police are subject to arrest. That's how it should be. (But you protest the fact that they should have the ability to get counsel or have rights to be fairly treated) Police have the responsibility to maintain professionalism solely because of the power we, the people, have granted them and should be subject to scrutiny if accused of misconduct. There should be independent review of these cases because you cannot argue an investigation is independent if the MD LEOBoR stipulate that the interviewer must be another officer. (There is an independent review. The prosecutor) If the argument is that the system protects the innocent civilians, it should also protect police. If we argue that employers should have the right to hire and fire a bad employee at will, there shouldn't be a special, union-lobbied, set of rules that often times hinder the chief's ability to fire a bad officer.

I'm certainly not going to change your mind, or anyone elses, on this subject. I appeciate the discussion though.

What are you advocating? The police should have no rights? Who would be the "independent" investigator? Another jurisdiction. A non-police entity?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

What are you advocating? The police should have no rights? Who would be the "independent" investigator? Another jurisdiction. A non-police entity?

I'm not protesting their right to counsel. Everyone has that right.

The prosecutor? The same one that routinely works with the department and likely the officer their are interviewing? Yea. Super independent.

I'm advocating the police have the same rights as everyone else and not have a special set of rules and procedures largely out of the view fo the public eye. A civilian review board would be a start, but MD's LEOBoR prohibits that.

 

[tom88]

I'm not protesting their right to counsel. Everyone has that right.

The prosecutor? The same one that routinely works with the department and likely the officer their are interviewing? Yea. Super independent. (Yea, like Marilyn Mosbey)

I'm advocating the police have the same rights as everyone else and not have a special set of rules and procedures largely out of the view fo the public eye. A civilian review board would be a start, but MD's LEOBoR prohibits that.

So tell me who does the investigation when someone is doing something out of policy at the place you work? Do they get an independent person to come from somewhere else? If not, why not? If so, why is it you believe your employer can be fair but for some reason you believe police officers are incapable of being unbiased?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So tell me who does the investigation when someone is doing something out of policy at the place you work? Do they get an independent person to come from somewhere else? If not, why not? If so, why is it you believe your employer can be fair but for some reason you believe police officers are incapable of being unbiased?

Yes, an independent person does an investigation at my job if there is a complaint against me.

If police officers are unbiased, why the need for a special bill of rights dictating how internal investigations with other officers go?

 

[tom88]

Yes, an independent person does an investigation at my job if there is a complaint against me.

If police officers are unbiased, why the need for a special bill of rights dictating how internal investigations with other officers go?

Is the independent person from another entity?

 

[tom88]

If police officers are unbiased, why the need for a special bill of rights dictating how internal investigations with other officers go?

Because police work is unique in that any time they are interrogated by their employer they may be subject to arrest depending on the findings of that investigation.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Is the independent person from another entity?

No.

Because police work is unique in that any time they are interrogated by their employer they may be subject to arrest depending on the findings of that investigation.

And if I beat up one of my fellow employees, am I not subject to arrest after our internal investigation? That's not unique to police.

 

[tom88]

No.

Why is it good for the cops but not you?
And if I beat up one of my fellow employees, am I not subject to arrest after our internal investigation? That's not unique to police.

No. If you are accused by your employer for beating someone up, unless you are a police officer nobody can arrest you as a result of your employers investigation. If your employer believes you are lying to him, you can't be criminally charged for that unless you are a police officer.