4 ms·

> Unless the board were anonymous, which wouldn't be very fair to the officers What? How so?

jedberg 2y ago
There is a reason our justice system is set up so that you must know who your accusers are. If the board were able to discipline or fire officers, it would not be fair to them to not know their accusers.
- CWuestefeld 2y ago
  Our justice system is completely distinct from employment hiring/firing decisions. The latter isn't considered at all in the right to confront your accuser, nor right to an attorney, nor freedom from self-incrimination.
  - lal 2y ago
    Not speaking as a lawyer, not legal advice, etc., I would love it if this weren't the case, at least for cops, but your reply and the several siblings to your reply suggesting this are all unfortunately at least a bit wrong. I disagree with parent and think the more ability we have to discipline police the better it will be for society, but courts have other ideas. When it comes to many public employees, including and especially police, courts including the Supreme Court have regularly held a variety of due process and other constitutional rights, including some of the ones you listed, to exist for internal disciplinary matters. Many states also have their own stricter codified procedural protections for disciplining public employees, and of course that's before you get into cop union shit, though obviously the whole premise of the argument here is that we would be changing those state/local rules. But that stuff is a whole other can of worms. I'm just saying that even if you change state/local law/rules, even if you abolish cop unions, any police disciplinary body trying to operate this way they would definitely lose a lawsuit from the first cop they disciplined. I've personally seen multiple fucking volunteer firemen win constitutional due process challenges over getting demoted (like, from assistant chief to secondary assistant chief of what is mostly a social club) because they were disciplined without a formal hearing that afforded them procedural due process. Unlike parent I'm not saying this is good or that to change it would be "unfair", just that what we're describing here -- that is, making it practically possible to discipline cops -- is disallowed under our current system of laws as we understand it. It would take a variety of substantive changes in how we legislatively and judicially structure procedural rights at every level of government from the top down.
- mjhay 2y ago
  The justice system and workplace discipline are two entirely different things. This false equivalence is similar to how people say getting banned on Reddit for posting racist stuff violates their 1st Amendment rights.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  The accuser is the person making the accusation. They can't be anonymous because otherwise you wouldn't be able to investigate their motive or uncover their bias and undermine their credibility if they're making a false accusation. The review board would be acting as the judge or jury.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- digging 2y ago
  Ignoring issues that others have pointed out, I have to ask: Why would we need to bend over backwards to be "fair" to police who abuse their power to commit crimes? They're already immune to prosecution, this is just about removing them from positions of power after they've abused it. There's no need for any sense of "fairness".

There is a reason our justice system is set up so that you must know who your accusers are. If the board were able to discipline or fire officers, it would not be fair to them to not know their accusers.

CWuestefeld 2y ago
Our justice system is completely distinct from employment hiring/firing decisions. The latter isn't considered at all in the right to confront your accuser, nor right to an attorney, nor freedom from self-incrimination.
- lal 2y ago
  Not speaking as a lawyer, not legal advice, etc., I would love it if this weren't the case, at least for cops, but your reply and the several siblings to your reply suggesting this are all unfortunately at least a bit wrong. I disagree with parent and think the more ability we have to discipline police the better it will be for society, but courts have other ideas. When it comes to many public employees, including and especially police, courts including the Supreme Court have regularly held a variety of due process and other constitutional rights, including some of the ones you listed, to exist for internal disciplinary matters. Many states also have their own stricter codified procedural protections for disciplining public employees, and of course that's before you get into cop union shit, though obviously the whole premise of the argument here is that we would be changing those state/local rules. But that stuff is a whole other can of worms. I'm just saying that even if you change state/local law/rules, even if you abolish cop unions, any police disciplinary body trying to operate this way they would definitely lose a lawsuit from the first cop they disciplined. I've personally seen multiple fucking volunteer firemen win constitutional due process challenges over getting demoted (like, from assistant chief to secondary assistant chief of what is mostly a social club) because they were disciplined without a formal hearing that afforded them procedural due process. Unlike parent I'm not saying this is good or that to change it would be "unfair", just that what we're describing here -- that is, making it practically possible to discipline cops -- is disallowed under our current system of laws as we understand it. It would take a variety of substantive changes in how we legislatively and judicially structure procedural rights at every level of government from the top down.
mjhay 2y ago
The justice system and workplace discipline are two entirely different things. This false equivalence is similar to how people say getting banned on Reddit for posting racist stuff violates their 1st Amendment rights.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
The accuser is the person making the accusation. They can't be anonymous because otherwise you wouldn't be able to investigate their motive or uncover their bias and undermine their credibility if they're making a false accusation. The review board would be acting as the judge or jury.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
digging 2y ago
Ignoring issues that others have pointed out, I have to ask: Why would we need to bend over backwards to be "fair" to police who abuse their power to commit crimes? They're already immune to prosecution, this is just about removing them from positions of power after they've abused it. There's no need for any sense of "fairness".