3 ms·

I think much of the fault lie with the DA's and Police Unions. They're elected to do some job, which is to prosecute criminals, yet fail to do so when it is a p

by Moral_ 12y ago

I think much of the fault lie with the DA's and Police Unions. They're elected to do some job, which is to prosecute criminals, yet fail to do so when it is a police officer. The Unions are out of control in some instances making it so the police force cannot fire a crooked cop until he has been found guilty, in a criminal case. If the DA will not prosecute an officer he remains on the force, a liability to the citizens and their money, when ultimately he or she is sued in civil court. On the issue of suing police, I find it interesting that most of thee civil cases are settled before a verdict. The police admit no wrong-doing yet fork over 2 million dollars. I'm not entirely sure what should be done about the situation.

jdmichal 12y ago
I am fine with police not being able to be fired until found guilty. I personally think it should be that way everywhere for everyone. For instance, the cases of a student being ejected from a university due to unsubstantiated rape claims that never hit court because there's nothing to prosecute with. Now, whether they are active officers is a completely different matter, and they should not be permitted to active duty until pending cases are resolved. Finally, settlements are not a legal judgement of guilt nor acquittal. The only thing that can decide that is a court case. Often, they are a pure risk vs reward decision. If the downside of losing a case is $50+ million and they estimate their chances of losing at equal to or more than 5% -- in other words, still very confident of winning -- then it makes financial sense to settle for $2 million instead.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  > I am fine with police not being able to be fired until found guilty. I don't understand this at all. There are all sorts of terrible things that are not quite illegal. You killed that drunk guy that took a swing at you? Not guilty, but still not good behavior. You were a real jerk to a bunch of citizens, but you didn't actually assault them? Not guilty, but still not good behavior.
  - soneil 12y ago
    On the other hand, "innocent until proven guilty" is one of the cornerstones of modern society. If an accusation can lose you your job, I can probably dodge my next speeding ticket by threatening to make a false accusation against them. Obviously, this isn't what we're looking for. But at the other end of the scale, if you're put behind a desk for something that'd have you or I sat in cells awaiting trial, this isn't what we're looking for either.
    - anonbanker 12y ago
      When's the last time you've seen someone plead "innocent" in court? From what I've seen, the only two choices have "guilty" in them. Seriously, if you're ever up on charges, see if you can plead innocent without the judge counter-offering to put in a plea of Not Guilty instead.
  - jdmichal 12y ago
    If the officer did not do anything illegal, then what right do we (as a society) have to fire them? Are they somehow supposed to be more "moral" (for some definition thereof) than the rest of the populace? Because there won't be anything but disappointment with that attitude. There's no reason to romanticize cops as somehow being better than every other person in their society. Also, these statements are purely as applies to pending court cases, because cops sometimes do have to do things that would otherwise be illegal for anyone else. And it can take a court case to decide if one particular occasion met those necessary criteria. However, if it's deemed that a cop is not meeting some other performance criteria of their job, then that's a different matter altogether.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      There are 2 different issues here, whether or not an action constitutes a crime and burden of proof. We might agree on the first issue. >However, if it's deemed that a cop is not meeting some other performance criteria of their job, then that's a different matter altogether. Would you consider a police officer unnecessarily killing a violent drunk to be "not meeting some other performance criteria"? On the issue of burned of proof we disagree. Employment is a voluntary agreement. If I am your employer and I no longer want to employ you because I am convinced you are a criminal, then that is my call. If I want to lock you in a cage because I am convinced you are a criminal, that is not my call.

by Moral_ 12y ago

jdmichal 12y ago

I am fine with police not being able to be fired until found guilty. I personally think it should be that way everywhere for everyone. For instance, the cases of a student being ejected from a university due to unsubstantiated rape claims that never hit court because there's nothing to prosecute with. Now, whether they are active officers is a completely different matter, and they should not be permitted to active duty until pending cases are resolved. Finally, settlements are not a legal judgement of guilt nor acquittal. The only thing that can decide that is a court case. Often, they are a pure risk vs reward decision. If the downside of losing a case is $50+ million and they estimate their chances of losing at equal to or more than 5% -- in other words, still very confident of winning -- then it makes financial sense to settle for $2 million instead.

seanflyon 12y ago
> I am fine with police not being able to be fired until found guilty. I don't understand this at all. There are all sorts of terrible things that are not quite illegal. You killed that drunk guy that took a swing at you? Not guilty, but still not good behavior. You were a real jerk to a bunch of citizens, but you didn't actually assault them? Not guilty, but still not good behavior.
- soneil 12y ago
  On the other hand, "innocent until proven guilty" is one of the cornerstones of modern society. If an accusation can lose you your job, I can probably dodge my next speeding ticket by threatening to make a false accusation against them. Obviously, this isn't what we're looking for. But at the other end of the scale, if you're put behind a desk for something that'd have you or I sat in cells awaiting trial, this isn't what we're looking for either.
  - anonbanker 12y ago
    When's the last time you've seen someone plead "innocent" in court? From what I've seen, the only two choices have "guilty" in them. Seriously, if you're ever up on charges, see if you can plead innocent without the judge counter-offering to put in a plea of Not Guilty instead.
- jdmichal 12y ago
  If the officer did not do anything illegal, then what right do we (as a society) have to fire them? Are they somehow supposed to be more "moral" (for some definition thereof) than the rest of the populace? Because there won't be anything but disappointment with that attitude. There's no reason to romanticize cops as somehow being better than every other person in their society. Also, these statements are purely as applies to pending court cases, because cops sometimes do have to do things that would otherwise be illegal for anyone else. And it can take a court case to decide if one particular occasion met those necessary criteria. However, if it's deemed that a cop is not meeting some other performance criteria of their job, then that's a different matter altogether.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    There are 2 different issues here, whether or not an action constitutes a crime and burden of proof. We might agree on the first issue. >However, if it's deemed that a cop is not meeting some other performance criteria of their job, then that's a different matter altogether. Would you consider a police officer unnecessarily killing a violent drunk to be "not meeting some other performance criteria"? On the issue of burned of proof we disagree. Employment is a voluntary agreement. If I am your employer and I no longer want to employ you because I am convinced you are a criminal, then that is my call. If I want to lock you in a cage because I am convinced you are a criminal, that is not my call.