3 ms·

> 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 qui

> 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.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  I don't know anyone who got fired who actually committed a crime leading to their firing. Well, one guy. He got a starring role in the SEC's annual report that year. Needless hands-on with a person who poses no danger should be a swift firing.

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.
Zigurd 12y ago
I don't know anyone who got fired who actually committed a crime leading to their firing. Well, one guy. He got a starring role in the SEC's annual report that year. Needless hands-on with a person who poses no danger should be a swift firing.