5 ms·

It's not a reward. /u/thatsnotmynamesir details exactly why that's the policy. https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/1s01lr/most_common_myth/cdslv

It's not a reward. /u/thatsnotmynamesir details exactly why that's the policy. https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/1s01lr/most_common_myth/cdslvma/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/1s01lr/mos... Sub-quote: >Even then, the Administrative Leave isn't fun. The take your badge and gun and you are basically on house arrest between the hours of 8am and 5pm on weekdays. You cannot leave your home without permission of your superiors, even it its just to go down the street to the bank or grocery store. You must be available to come into the office immediately at any time for questioning, polygraphs, or anything else involved in the investigation. Drink a beer? That's consuming alcohol on duty, you're fired. So even when officers are cleared of the charges and put back on the street, Admin. Leave still isn't "paid vacation." I encourage anyone to read the entire comment, as it explains much more about the process. Given that the review process can reasonably multiple to many weeks, it's not unreasonable for that time to be paid. If we're being honest, most people are not in a good enough financial position to pay 1 or 2 mortgage payments without any money coming in the door. If it were unpaid time, why would I as a police officer want to volunteer to serve in the parts of town which are more rough? If someone accused an officer of sexual harassment, the response would probably be the same - paid administrative leave. If 5 people came forward with completely untrue complaints against an officer sequentially, they could bankrupt the officer who literally did nothing wrong.

totalZero 9y ago
A regular person who commits a murder will be sent to jail, even if he is later exonerated. A cop goes home and continues to collect his income. How is that not a reward?
- froindt 9y ago
  For a regular person, the potential to need to kill somebody isn't part of their job duties. Of course there are very limited times where it's appropriate to do so.
  - totalZero 9y ago
    > the potential to need to kill somebody isn't part of their job duties This is true. However, I interpret it as yet another reason why police should be systemically held to a stricter standard for unjustified killings: they know they are far more likely to get away with it, so the process of investigation should be a deterrent in itself to counteract the low likelihood of punishment. Think about this case for a second. The chief gave no information about whether the victim was carrying a weapon or threatened the officers. The victim was surrounded by cops and yet there is no immediate clarity about precisely what happened. Cops are a fraternity, and they deal extensively with the justice system. There are systemic benefits that they enjoy due to this. Many cops have gotten away with murders that were documented on video, and witnessed by other cops. To counter this, you have to construct parts of the system as a deterrent to killing nonthreatening people. That may make the job more dangerous, but it's better to put a trained officer in danger of being attacked, than to put an innocent and clueless civilian in danger of being gunned down by a careless SWAT team.
  - sean_anandale 9y ago
    That is bullshit. The police do not have a "job duty" of killing someone. They are entitled to employ lethal force in self defense when their lives are in danger, which is exactly the same legal standard as for civilians.
- sp332 9y ago
  Any time a cop shoots someone for any reason, they are automatically put on administrative leave. (This varies by department but it seems to be how it works in Wichita.) After the investigation, it will be determined whether they should be punished.
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  For the record, a regular American sent to jail will typically be afforded the opportunity to post bail and continue to conduct their life as an innocent person, pending the outcome of their trial.
  - Zombieball 9y ago
    Unless the regular American is from a low income household and can not afford bail. For example: Kalief Browder.
    - cookiecaper 9y ago
      It's true that sometimes people can't make bail. Just a few quick notes about that. 1. Bail is refundable collateral. It's supposed to be priced within attainability, but it needs to be an amount sufficient to motivate compliance with the court. And when you're looking at criminal charges, that amount generally has to be quite significant, since compliance may result in incarceration or other seriously adverse outcomes. Also, bail will be set based upon the totality of the circumstances including the severity of the crime; the amounts you hear are frequently high because the crime must be serious and/or noteworthy to grab attention on the news. 2. There is a whole industry built up around helping people make bail. "I can't make bail" is not a novel problem and there is a lot of infrastructure in place to assist with this. 3. Excessive bail is not allowed and motions can be filed to get bail reduced. 4. No matter what, in every large system with rules that get enforced, there will be anomalies and anecdotes about the rules going awry. Isolated heart-wrenching stories of breakage should be addressed, but are not grounds for condemning the system as a whole.
jessaustin 9y ago
Many humans manage to avoid alcohol consumption between 8am and 5pm on weekdays. Is this difficult for police? What could that imply about their sobriety when they're not on administrative leave?
lmm 9y ago
I agree that you should keep being paid, but spending your work hours in your own home does seem unusually generous. Compare the "rubber rooms" teachers are sent to under very similar circumstances.

totalZero 9y ago

A regular person who commits a murder will be sent to jail, even if he is later exonerated. A cop goes home and continues to collect his income. How is that not a reward?

froindt 9y ago
For a regular person, the potential to need to kill somebody isn't part of their job duties. Of course there are very limited times where it's appropriate to do so.
- totalZero 9y ago
  > the potential to need to kill somebody isn't part of their job duties This is true. However, I interpret it as yet another reason why police should be systemically held to a stricter standard for unjustified killings: they know they are far more likely to get away with it, so the process of investigation should be a deterrent in itself to counteract the low likelihood of punishment. Think about this case for a second. The chief gave no information about whether the victim was carrying a weapon or threatened the officers. The victim was surrounded by cops and yet there is no immediate clarity about precisely what happened. Cops are a fraternity, and they deal extensively with the justice system. There are systemic benefits that they enjoy due to this. Many cops have gotten away with murders that were documented on video, and witnessed by other cops. To counter this, you have to construct parts of the system as a deterrent to killing nonthreatening people. That may make the job more dangerous, but it's better to put a trained officer in danger of being attacked, than to put an innocent and clueless civilian in danger of being gunned down by a careless SWAT team.
- sean_anandale 9y ago
  That is bullshit. The police do not have a "job duty" of killing someone. They are entitled to employ lethal force in self defense when their lives are in danger, which is exactly the same legal standard as for civilians.
sp332 9y ago
Any time a cop shoots someone for any reason, they are automatically put on administrative leave. (This varies by department but it seems to be how it works in Wichita.) After the investigation, it will be determined whether they should be punished.
cookiecaper 9y ago
For the record, a regular American sent to jail will typically be afforded the opportunity to post bail and continue to conduct their life as an innocent person, pending the outcome of their trial.
- Zombieball 9y ago
  Unless the regular American is from a low income household and can not afford bail. For example: Kalief Browder.
  - cookiecaper 9y ago
    It's true that sometimes people can't make bail. Just a few quick notes about that. 1. Bail is refundable collateral. It's supposed to be priced within attainability, but it needs to be an amount sufficient to motivate compliance with the court. And when you're looking at criminal charges, that amount generally has to be quite significant, since compliance may result in incarceration or other seriously adverse outcomes. Also, bail will be set based upon the totality of the circumstances including the severity of the crime; the amounts you hear are frequently high because the crime must be serious and/or noteworthy to grab attention on the news. 2. There is a whole industry built up around helping people make bail. "I can't make bail" is not a novel problem and there is a lot of infrastructure in place to assist with this. 3. Excessive bail is not allowed and motions can be filed to get bail reduced. 4. No matter what, in every large system with rules that get enforced, there will be anomalies and anecdotes about the rules going awry. Isolated heart-wrenching stories of breakage should be addressed, but are not grounds for condemning the system as a whole.

jessaustin 9y ago

Many humans manage to avoid alcohol consumption between 8am and 5pm on weekdays. Is this difficult for police? What could that imply about their sobriety when they're not on administrative leave?

lmm 9y ago

I agree that you should keep being paid, but spending your work hours in your own home does seem unusually generous. Compare the "rubber rooms" teachers are sent to under very similar circumstances.