Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill Of Rights

Buck111

VIP Member
Nov 4, 2016
781
76
70
On the big blue marble
Cops don't have extra rights? Cops are held to a high standard? Cops are the good guys? Fuck cops.


Take A Look At The Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill Of Rights


  • he officer must be informed of the complainants, and their testimony against him, before he is questioned.

  • During questioning, investigators may not harass, threaten, or promise rewards to the officer, as interrogators not infrequently do to civilian suspects.

  • Bathroom breaks are assured during questioning.

  • In Maryland, the officer may appeal his case to a “hearing board,” whose decision is binding, before a final decision has been made by his superiors about his discipline. The hearing board consists of three of the suspected offender’s fellow officers.

  • In some jurisdictions, the officer may not be disciplined if more than a certain number of days (often 100) have passed since his alleged misconduct, which limits the time for investigation.

  • Even if the officer is suspended, the department must continue to pay salary and benefits, as well as the cost of the officer’s attorney.


    Read it all Take A Look At The Law Enforcement Officers' Bill Of Rights | HuffPost
 
Your bill of rights in similar circumstances:
You have the right to know why you are being questioned.

During questioning investigators may not harass, threaten, or promise rewards which infrequently happens now because it potentially violates your civil rights and often wins you the case if you have to go to trial.

Bathroom breaks are assured during questioning, or (if you're not under arrest) you can simply state the interview is over and leave, nothing they can do to stop you. If you are under arrest you can immediately ask for legal counsel and the interview is supposed to be immediately terminated.

As for anyone facing a "jury of their coworkers" coworkers often tend to be harder on their fellow workers than a jury of strangers especially with cops, they don't like bad apples in their midst any more than the rest of us do.
Besides as for cops, what you referenced is about inter-departmental disciplinary issues, not any court criminal ruling on guilt or innocence those rulings are binding by law.

There are statute of limitations for multiple offenses on the books for all of us.

If you are the suspect in a case and brought down for questioning you're often not suspended nor do you lose your salary however you will lose the pay you were absent from work if you are hourly.
 
Last edited:
Your bill of rights in similar circumstances:
You have the right to know why you are being questioned.

During questioning investigators may not harass, threaten, or promise rewards which infrequently happens now because it potentially violates your civil rights and often wins you the case if you have to go to trial.

Bathroom breaks are assured during questioning, or (if you're not under arrest) you can simply state the interview is over and leave, nothing they can do to stop you. If you are under arrest you can immediately ask for legal counsel and the interview is supposed to be immediately terminated.

As for anyone facing a "jury of their coworkers" coworkers often tend to be harder on their fellow workers than a jury of strangers especially with cops, they don't like bad apples in their midst any more than the rest of us do.
Besides as for cops, what you referenced is about inter-departmental disciplinary issues, not any court criminal ruling on guilt or innocence those rulings are binding by law.

There are statute of limitations for multiple offenses on the books for all of us.

If you are the suspect in a case and brought down for questioning you're often not suspended nor do you lose your salary however you will lose the pay you were absent from work if you are hourly.

Paragraph 1) No, you don't.
Para. 2) You have to prove civil rights violations in order to win.
3) Bathroom breaks are not "assured" during questioning.
a) Even if not under arrest, a detainment can continue for x amount of time dependent upon state law.
b) You do not have to be under arrest in order to end an interview by refusing to talk without an attorney present.
4) Co-workers tend to be friends of, or at least know, the person well enough to have judged them before they have been accused of anything.
a) Ever heard of the 'thin blue line'? Cops stick together, just like all gang members do.
5) No. It is not just interdepartmental issues. It is in all circumstances.
6) Not relevant.
7) Cops do get their pay while suspended during an investigation.
 
Your bill of rights in similar circumstances:
You have the right to know why you are being questioned.

During questioning investigators may not harass, threaten, or promise rewards which infrequently happens now because it potentially violates your civil rights and often wins you the case if you have to go to trial.

Bathroom breaks are assured during questioning, or (if you're not under arrest) you can simply state the interview is over and leave, nothing they can do to stop you. If you are under arrest you can immediately ask for legal counsel and the interview is supposed to be immediately terminated.

As for anyone facing a "jury of their coworkers" coworkers often tend to be harder on their fellow workers than a jury of strangers especially with cops, they don't like bad apples in their midst any more than the rest of us do.
Besides as for cops, what you referenced is about inter-departmental disciplinary issues, not any court criminal ruling on guilt or innocence those rulings are binding by law.

There are statute of limitations for multiple offenses on the books for all of us.

If you are the suspect in a case and brought down for questioning you're often not suspended nor do you lose your salary however you will lose the pay you were absent from work if you are hourly.

Paragraph 1) No, you don't.
Para. 2) You have to prove civil rights violations in order to win.
3) Bathroom breaks are not "assured" during questioning.
a) Even if not under arrest, a detainment can continue for x amount of time dependent upon state law.
b) You do not have to be under arrest in order to end an interview by refusing to talk without an attorney present.
4) Co-workers tend to be friends of, or at least know, the person well enough to have judged them before they have been accused of anything.
a) Ever heard of the 'thin blue line'? Cops stick together, just like all gang members do.
5) No. It is not just interdepartmental issues. It is in all circumstances.
6) Not relevant.
7) Cops do get their pay while suspended during an investigation.

Looks like you have your mind made up and nothing, no matter how factual will change it....... Ride on Don Quixote! Ride on!!
 
Your bill of rights in similar circumstances:
You have the right to know why you are being questioned.

During questioning investigators may not harass, threaten, or promise rewards which infrequently happens now because it potentially violates your civil rights and often wins you the case if you have to go to trial.

Bathroom breaks are assured during questioning, or (if you're not under arrest) you can simply state the interview is over and leave, nothing they can do to stop you. If you are under arrest you can immediately ask for legal counsel and the interview is supposed to be immediately terminated.

As for anyone facing a "jury of their coworkers" coworkers often tend to be harder on their fellow workers than a jury of strangers especially with cops, they don't like bad apples in their midst any more than the rest of us do.
Besides as for cops, what you referenced is about inter-departmental disciplinary issues, not any court criminal ruling on guilt or innocence those rulings are binding by law.

There are statute of limitations for multiple offenses on the books for all of us.

If you are the suspect in a case and brought down for questioning you're often not suspended nor do you lose your salary however you will lose the pay you were absent from work if you are hourly.

Paragraph 1) No, you don't.
Para. 2) You have to prove civil rights violations in order to win.
3) Bathroom breaks are not "assured" during questioning.
a) Even if not under arrest, a detainment can continue for x amount of time dependent upon state law.
b) You do not have to be under arrest in order to end an interview by refusing to talk without an attorney present.
4) Co-workers tend to be friends of, or at least know, the person well enough to have judged them before they have been accused of anything.
a) Ever heard of the 'thin blue line'? Cops stick together, just like all gang members do.
5) No. It is not just interdepartmental issues. It is in all circumstances.
6) Not relevant.
7) Cops do get their pay while suspended during an investigation.

Looks like you have your mind made up and nothing, no matter how factual will change it....... Ride on Don Quixote! Ride on!!

Fact. You have the right to an attorney as a private citizen. but you have to ask for one, and the police are allowed to make comments like this. "You know that an attorney will make you look guilty."

A Police Officer being questioned must, not may, have an attorney present. Failing to provide one can in many states, destroy the case against the cop.

Your Defense Attorney is allowed to request all information and evidence against you. This will never be produced prior to you being questioned as a citizen. If you are a cop, then you are required to have this information presented to you prior to questioning.

If you shoot an intruder in your house this very night, your first stop is the police station to be questioned. A cop has suffered understandable emotional trauma, and has ten days to arrange a time to be questioned, and is allowed to go home to cool off.

You ain't going nowhere citizen except to the station to answer some questions.

Before being questioned, the cop is informed of the nature of the allegation, who is investigating, his rank, supervisors, and the division of the police department that he works for.

You citizen, may get a name, and a rank, perhaps.

Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

Many investigations into police misconduct are conducted as internal reviews. The results of these employment related investigations can not be used in a criminal trial. Any information gathered during the employment related investigation is inadmissible in many states with LEOBR's.

If your employer finds you have committed crimes during an employment related interview, then that is just fine for the criminal case Citizen.

Now, I can't understand how any of this is new to you. I can't figure out how and why you would believe these are just the same rights as I an any other citizen have. If an investigator lies to me during an interview, and tricks me into confessing, the confession is admissible. If an investigator lies to a cop, the entire case is down the toilet.

Award Winning San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer

So if lying to get a confession out of a suspect is such a normal, and even constitutional technique, why is it prohibited when questioning a cop?

So you claim that the other posters just won't learn. We wonder why you continue to deny the facts when many people have posted links to back up their claims and all you have is Nu Uh.
 
Your bill of rights in similar circumstances:
You have the right to know why you are being questioned.

During questioning investigators may not harass, threaten, or promise rewards which infrequently happens now because it potentially violates your civil rights and often wins you the case if you have to go to trial.

Bathroom breaks are assured during questioning, or (if you're not under arrest) you can simply state the interview is over and leave, nothing they can do to stop you. If you are under arrest you can immediately ask for legal counsel and the interview is supposed to be immediately terminated.

As for anyone facing a "jury of their coworkers" coworkers often tend to be harder on their fellow workers than a jury of strangers especially with cops, they don't like bad apples in their midst any more than the rest of us do.
Besides as for cops, what you referenced is about inter-departmental disciplinary issues, not any court criminal ruling on guilt or innocence those rulings are binding by law.

There are statute of limitations for multiple offenses on the books for all of us.

If you are the suspect in a case and brought down for questioning you're often not suspended nor do you lose your salary however you will lose the pay you were absent from work if you are hourly.

Paragraph 1) No, you don't.
Para. 2) You have to prove civil rights violations in order to win.
3) Bathroom breaks are not "assured" during questioning.
a) Even if not under arrest, a detainment can continue for x amount of time dependent upon state law.
b) You do not have to be under arrest in order to end an interview by refusing to talk without an attorney present.
4) Co-workers tend to be friends of, or at least know, the person well enough to have judged them before they have been accused of anything.
a) Ever heard of the 'thin blue line'? Cops stick together, just like all gang members do.
5) No. It is not just interdepartmental issues. It is in all circumstances.
6) Not relevant.
7) Cops do get their pay while suspended during an investigation.

Looks like you have your mind made up and nothing, no matter how factual will change it....... Ride on Don Quixote! Ride on!!

Fact. You have the right to an attorney as a private citizen. but you have to ask for one, and the police are allowed to make comments like this. "You know that an attorney will make you look guilty."

A Police Officer being questioned must, not may, have an attorney present. Failing to provide one can in many states, destroy the case against the cop.

Your Defense Attorney is allowed to request all information and evidence against you. This will never be produced prior to you being questioned as a citizen. If you are a cop, then you are required to have this information presented to you prior to questioning.

If you shoot an intruder in your house this very night, your first stop is the police station to be questioned. A cop has suffered understandable emotional trauma, and has ten days to arrange a time to be questioned, and is allowed to go home to cool off.

You ain't going nowhere citizen except to the station to answer some questions.

Before being questioned, the cop is informed of the nature of the allegation, who is investigating, his rank, supervisors, and the division of the police department that he works for.

You citizen, may get a name, and a rank, perhaps.

Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

Many investigations into police misconduct are conducted as internal reviews. The results of these employment related investigations can not be used in a criminal trial. Any information gathered during the employment related investigation is inadmissible in many states with LEOBR's.

If your employer finds you have committed crimes during an employment related interview, then that is just fine for the criminal case Citizen.

Now, I can't understand how any of this is new to you. I can't figure out how and why you would believe these are just the same rights as I an any other citizen have. If an investigator lies to me during an interview, and tricks me into confessing, the confession is admissible. If an investigator lies to a cop, the entire case is down the toilet.

Award Winning San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer

So if lying to get a confession out of a suspect is such a normal, and even constitutional technique, why is it prohibited when questioning a cop?

So you claim that the other posters just won't learn. We wonder why you continue to deny the facts when many people have posted links to back up their claims and all you have is Nu Uh.
Guess it comes down to a matter of jurisdiction and no, I'm not new to it, we had to play by more stringent (Federal and Commonwealth of Virginia) rules.
 
Your bill of rights in similar circumstances:
You have the right to know why you are being questioned.

During questioning investigators may not harass, threaten, or promise rewards which infrequently happens now because it potentially violates your civil rights and often wins you the case if you have to go to trial.

Bathroom breaks are assured during questioning, or (if you're not under arrest) you can simply state the interview is over and leave, nothing they can do to stop you. If you are under arrest you can immediately ask for legal counsel and the interview is supposed to be immediately terminated.

As for anyone facing a "jury of their coworkers" coworkers often tend to be harder on their fellow workers than a jury of strangers especially with cops, they don't like bad apples in their midst any more than the rest of us do.
Besides as for cops, what you referenced is about inter-departmental disciplinary issues, not any court criminal ruling on guilt or innocence those rulings are binding by law.

There are statute of limitations for multiple offenses on the books for all of us.

If you are the suspect in a case and brought down for questioning you're often not suspended nor do you lose your salary however you will lose the pay you were absent from work if you are hourly.

Paragraph 1) No, you don't.
Para. 2) You have to prove civil rights violations in order to win.
3) Bathroom breaks are not "assured" during questioning.
a) Even if not under arrest, a detainment can continue for x amount of time dependent upon state law.
b) You do not have to be under arrest in order to end an interview by refusing to talk without an attorney present.
4) Co-workers tend to be friends of, or at least know, the person well enough to have judged them before they have been accused of anything.
a) Ever heard of the 'thin blue line'? Cops stick together, just like all gang members do.
5) No. It is not just interdepartmental issues. It is in all circumstances.
6) Not relevant.
7) Cops do get their pay while suspended during an investigation.

Looks like you have your mind made up and nothing, no matter how factual will change it....... Ride on Don Quixote! Ride on!!

Fact. You have the right to an attorney as a private citizen. but you have to ask for one, and the police are allowed to make comments like this. "You know that an attorney will make you look guilty."

A Police Officer being questioned must, not may, have an attorney present. Failing to provide one can in many states, destroy the case against the cop.

Your Defense Attorney is allowed to request all information and evidence against you. This will never be produced prior to you being questioned as a citizen. If you are a cop, then you are required to have this information presented to you prior to questioning.

If you shoot an intruder in your house this very night, your first stop is the police station to be questioned. A cop has suffered understandable emotional trauma, and has ten days to arrange a time to be questioned, and is allowed to go home to cool off.

You ain't going nowhere citizen except to the station to answer some questions.

Before being questioned, the cop is informed of the nature of the allegation, who is investigating, his rank, supervisors, and the division of the police department that he works for.

You citizen, may get a name, and a rank, perhaps.

Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

Many investigations into police misconduct are conducted as internal reviews. The results of these employment related investigations can not be used in a criminal trial. Any information gathered during the employment related investigation is inadmissible in many states with LEOBR's.

If your employer finds you have committed crimes during an employment related interview, then that is just fine for the criminal case Citizen.

Now, I can't understand how any of this is new to you. I can't figure out how and why you would believe these are just the same rights as I an any other citizen have. If an investigator lies to me during an interview, and tricks me into confessing, the confession is admissible. If an investigator lies to a cop, the entire case is down the toilet.

Award Winning San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer

So if lying to get a confession out of a suspect is such a normal, and even constitutional technique, why is it prohibited when questioning a cop?

So you claim that the other posters just won't learn. We wonder why you continue to deny the facts when many people have posted links to back up their claims and all you have is Nu Uh.
Guess it comes down to a matter of jurisdiction and no, I'm not new to it, we had to play by more stringent (Federal and Commonwealth of Virginia) rules.

Personal experience is a wonderful thing. It is IMO, the key to wisdom. Yet, personal experience can also be a set of blinders, preventing you from seeing what is going on. The reality of the situation if you understand my meaning.

Virginia may have a very weak LEOBR set up. The Feds don't care about the LEOBR of the States since they are the Federal Government and are above all that sort of thing. This does not mean that other states have similarly weak, or limited LEOBR's. Louisiana passed a law making a cop killing a hate crime. No question of motivation, no question of situation, if a cop dies it is automatically a hate crime.

Why would it need to be? Because politicians on both sides remember Dukakis, and Willie Horton. They are terrified of being labeled as soft on crime, or even worse, anti-cop. So if the cops say "we're being targeted, war on cops" the politicians rush out to show how much they support the police.

I know, you think I'm joking, or I'm wrong. I'm used to that. But look at Troy New York. I posted an OP about it a few days ago. The Drug and Firearms task force of the Troy Police Department were faking crime reports to conduct illegal search and seizures. They would show up at the target house, and then would bust a window for example. Oh, a Burglary must be going on, we have to go in to try and catch the burglars, and to make sure that none of the owners property is missing.

The entire squad was found out, and suspended. Here we go to the political angle. The Republican Chair of the City Commission who detests the Democratic Mayor of the city immediately released a statement saying it was dangerous and irresponsible to remove so many cops from the front line of the war on crime. A knee jerk response, but the normal one, not just for Democrats, but from everyone. If an investigation catches a dozen corrupt cops, the first question a lot of people ask is how short handed the police will be now.

My first question is usually how many more were involved?

Look at the message board here. You have a user posting every cop who dies in the line of duty, and he's expanded to corrections officers, in other words jailers, to show the war on cops is real. It isn't, but it is a nice talking point.

If the war on cops was real, cops would be dying by the dozens every week. There are more than three hundred million people in this nation. There are including federal, state, county, and local cops, about three million cops. If there was a war on cops, being outnumbered by 100 to one seems like long odds to fight against. Even if only two percent of the population was in on it, the cops would still be outnumbered. Cops would be dying every day.

Conservatives rightly reject the claim that guns are the problem when one nutter shoots up a school. They argue correctly that the gun didn't do the shooting, the nut did. Yet, when one nutter shoots at a cop, well that is a war on cops to the same conservative folks.

I try very hard to reject propaganda from the left, and right. I look for patterns, I look for commonalities. I think I am reasonably successful, and I hope you will consider what we've talked about in this thread. Things are not as simple as many would wish.
 
Your bill of rights in similar circumstances:
You have the right to know why you are being questioned.

During questioning investigators may not harass, threaten, or promise rewards which infrequently happens now because it potentially violates your civil rights and often wins you the case if you have to go to trial.

Bathroom breaks are assured during questioning, or (if you're not under arrest) you can simply state the interview is over and leave, nothing they can do to stop you. If you are under arrest you can immediately ask for legal counsel and the interview is supposed to be immediately terminated.

As for anyone facing a "jury of their coworkers" coworkers often tend to be harder on their fellow workers than a jury of strangers especially with cops, they don't like bad apples in their midst any more than the rest of us do.
Besides as for cops, what you referenced is about inter-departmental disciplinary issues, not any court criminal ruling on guilt or innocence those rulings are binding by law.

There are statute of limitations for multiple offenses on the books for all of us.

If you are the suspect in a case and brought down for questioning you're often not suspended nor do you lose your salary however you will lose the pay you were absent from work if you are hourly.

Paragraph 1) No, you don't.
Para. 2) You have to prove civil rights violations in order to win.
3) Bathroom breaks are not "assured" during questioning.
a) Even if not under arrest, a detainment can continue for x amount of time dependent upon state law.
b) You do not have to be under arrest in order to end an interview by refusing to talk without an attorney present.
4) Co-workers tend to be friends of, or at least know, the person well enough to have judged them before they have been accused of anything.
a) Ever heard of the 'thin blue line'? Cops stick together, just like all gang members do.
5) No. It is not just interdepartmental issues. It is in all circumstances.
6) Not relevant.
7) Cops do get their pay while suspended during an investigation.

Looks like you have your mind made up and nothing, no matter how factual will change it....... Ride on Don Quixote! Ride on!!

Fact. You have the right to an attorney as a private citizen. but you have to ask for one, and the police are allowed to make comments like this. "You know that an attorney will make you look guilty."

A Police Officer being questioned must, not may, have an attorney present. Failing to provide one can in many states, destroy the case against the cop.

Your Defense Attorney is allowed to request all information and evidence against you. This will never be produced prior to you being questioned as a citizen. If you are a cop, then you are required to have this information presented to you prior to questioning.

If you shoot an intruder in your house this very night, your first stop is the police station to be questioned. A cop has suffered understandable emotional trauma, and has ten days to arrange a time to be questioned, and is allowed to go home to cool off.

You ain't going nowhere citizen except to the station to answer some questions.

Before being questioned, the cop is informed of the nature of the allegation, who is investigating, his rank, supervisors, and the division of the police department that he works for.

You citizen, may get a name, and a rank, perhaps.

Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

Many investigations into police misconduct are conducted as internal reviews. The results of these employment related investigations can not be used in a criminal trial. Any information gathered during the employment related investigation is inadmissible in many states with LEOBR's.

If your employer finds you have committed crimes during an employment related interview, then that is just fine for the criminal case Citizen.

Now, I can't understand how any of this is new to you. I can't figure out how and why you would believe these are just the same rights as I an any other citizen have. If an investigator lies to me during an interview, and tricks me into confessing, the confession is admissible. If an investigator lies to a cop, the entire case is down the toilet.

Award Winning San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer

So if lying to get a confession out of a suspect is such a normal, and even constitutional technique, why is it prohibited when questioning a cop?

So you claim that the other posters just won't learn. We wonder why you continue to deny the facts when many people have posted links to back up their claims and all you have is Nu Uh.
Guess it comes down to a matter of jurisdiction and no, I'm not new to it, we had to play by more stringent (Federal and Commonwealth of Virginia) rules.

Personal experience is a wonderful thing. It is IMO, the key to wisdom. Yet, personal experience can also be a set of blinders, preventing you from seeing what is going on. The reality of the situation if you understand my meaning.

Virginia may have a very weak LEOBR set up. The Feds don't care about the LEOBR of the States since they are the Federal Government and are above all that sort of thing. This does not mean that other states have similarly weak, or limited LEOBR's. Louisiana passed a law making a cop killing a hate crime. No question of motivation, no question of situation, if a cop dies it is automatically a hate crime.

Why would it need to be? Because politicians on both sides remember Dukakis, and Willie Horton. They are terrified of being labeled as soft on crime, or even worse, anti-cop. So if the cops say "we're being targeted, war on cops" the politicians rush out to show how much they support the police.

I know, you think I'm joking, or I'm wrong. I'm used to that. But look at Troy New York. I posted an OP about it a few days ago. The Drug and Firearms task force of the Troy Police Department were faking crime reports to conduct illegal search and seizures. They would show up at the target house, and then would bust a window for example. Oh, a Burglary must be going on, we have to go in to try and catch the burglars, and to make sure that none of the owners property is missing.

The entire squad was found out, and suspended. Here we go to the political angle. The Republican Chair of the City Commission who detests the Democratic Mayor of the city immediately released a statement saying it was dangerous and irresponsible to remove so many cops from the front line of the war on crime. A knee jerk response, but the normal one, not just for Democrats, but from everyone. If an investigation catches a dozen corrupt cops, the first question a lot of people ask is how short handed the police will be now.

My first question is usually how many more were involved?

Look at the message board here. You have a user posting every cop who dies in the line of duty, and he's expanded to corrections officers, in other words jailers, to show the war on cops is real. It isn't, but it is a nice talking point.

If the war on cops was real, cops would be dying by the dozens every week. There are more than three hundred million people in this nation. There are including federal, state, county, and local cops, about three million cops. If there was a war on cops, being outnumbered by 100 to one seems like long odds to fight against. Even if only two percent of the population was in on it, the cops would still be outnumbered. Cops would be dying every day.

Conservatives rightly reject the claim that guns are the problem when one nutter shoots up a school. They argue correctly that the gun didn't do the shooting, the nut did. Yet, when one nutter shoots at a cop, well that is a war on cops to the same conservative folks.

I try very hard to reject propaganda from the left, and right. I look for patterns, I look for commonalities. I think I am reasonably successful, and I hope you will consider what we've talked about in this thread. Things are not as simple as many would wish.
I also work hard at rejecting all propaganda and haven't been personally politically motivated in at least a decade. It's not just the Feds and Virginia, in most states I've found cops have to play by more stringent rules and while some do violate those rules most adhere to them fairly well. I also know that many of the big cities, New York, Chicago, LA, New Orleans, etc play by their own rules. From my experience what I initially stated is closer to the truth nationwide, with what you are claiming more confined to many (but not all) of the nations big cities. I'm not talking an all or nothing conclusion but relying somewhat on generalities because there's always exceptions.
 
Paragraph 1) No, you don't.
Para. 2) You have to prove civil rights violations in order to win.
3) Bathroom breaks are not "assured" during questioning.
a) Even if not under arrest, a detainment can continue for x amount of time dependent upon state law.
b) You do not have to be under arrest in order to end an interview by refusing to talk without an attorney present.
4) Co-workers tend to be friends of, or at least know, the person well enough to have judged them before they have been accused of anything.
a) Ever heard of the 'thin blue line'? Cops stick together, just like all gang members do.
5) No. It is not just interdepartmental issues. It is in all circumstances.
6) Not relevant.
7) Cops do get their pay while suspended during an investigation.

Looks like you have your mind made up and nothing, no matter how factual will change it....... Ride on Don Quixote! Ride on!!

Fact. You have the right to an attorney as a private citizen. but you have to ask for one, and the police are allowed to make comments like this. "You know that an attorney will make you look guilty."

A Police Officer being questioned must, not may, have an attorney present. Failing to provide one can in many states, destroy the case against the cop.

Your Defense Attorney is allowed to request all information and evidence against you. This will never be produced prior to you being questioned as a citizen. If you are a cop, then you are required to have this information presented to you prior to questioning.

If you shoot an intruder in your house this very night, your first stop is the police station to be questioned. A cop has suffered understandable emotional trauma, and has ten days to arrange a time to be questioned, and is allowed to go home to cool off.

You ain't going nowhere citizen except to the station to answer some questions.

Before being questioned, the cop is informed of the nature of the allegation, who is investigating, his rank, supervisors, and the division of the police department that he works for.

You citizen, may get a name, and a rank, perhaps.

Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

Many investigations into police misconduct are conducted as internal reviews. The results of these employment related investigations can not be used in a criminal trial. Any information gathered during the employment related investigation is inadmissible in many states with LEOBR's.

If your employer finds you have committed crimes during an employment related interview, then that is just fine for the criminal case Citizen.

Now, I can't understand how any of this is new to you. I can't figure out how and why you would believe these are just the same rights as I an any other citizen have. If an investigator lies to me during an interview, and tricks me into confessing, the confession is admissible. If an investigator lies to a cop, the entire case is down the toilet.

Award Winning San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer

So if lying to get a confession out of a suspect is such a normal, and even constitutional technique, why is it prohibited when questioning a cop?

So you claim that the other posters just won't learn. We wonder why you continue to deny the facts when many people have posted links to back up their claims and all you have is Nu Uh.
Guess it comes down to a matter of jurisdiction and no, I'm not new to it, we had to play by more stringent (Federal and Commonwealth of Virginia) rules.

Personal experience is a wonderful thing. It is IMO, the key to wisdom. Yet, personal experience can also be a set of blinders, preventing you from seeing what is going on. The reality of the situation if you understand my meaning.

Virginia may have a very weak LEOBR set up. The Feds don't care about the LEOBR of the States since they are the Federal Government and are above all that sort of thing. This does not mean that other states have similarly weak, or limited LEOBR's. Louisiana passed a law making a cop killing a hate crime. No question of motivation, no question of situation, if a cop dies it is automatically a hate crime.

Why would it need to be? Because politicians on both sides remember Dukakis, and Willie Horton. They are terrified of being labeled as soft on crime, or even worse, anti-cop. So if the cops say "we're being targeted, war on cops" the politicians rush out to show how much they support the police.

I know, you think I'm joking, or I'm wrong. I'm used to that. But look at Troy New York. I posted an OP about it a few days ago. The Drug and Firearms task force of the Troy Police Department were faking crime reports to conduct illegal search and seizures. They would show up at the target house, and then would bust a window for example. Oh, a Burglary must be going on, we have to go in to try and catch the burglars, and to make sure that none of the owners property is missing.

The entire squad was found out, and suspended. Here we go to the political angle. The Republican Chair of the City Commission who detests the Democratic Mayor of the city immediately released a statement saying it was dangerous and irresponsible to remove so many cops from the front line of the war on crime. A knee jerk response, but the normal one, not just for Democrats, but from everyone. If an investigation catches a dozen corrupt cops, the first question a lot of people ask is how short handed the police will be now.

My first question is usually how many more were involved?

Look at the message board here. You have a user posting every cop who dies in the line of duty, and he's expanded to corrections officers, in other words jailers, to show the war on cops is real. It isn't, but it is a nice talking point.

If the war on cops was real, cops would be dying by the dozens every week. There are more than three hundred million people in this nation. There are including federal, state, county, and local cops, about three million cops. If there was a war on cops, being outnumbered by 100 to one seems like long odds to fight against. Even if only two percent of the population was in on it, the cops would still be outnumbered. Cops would be dying every day.

Conservatives rightly reject the claim that guns are the problem when one nutter shoots up a school. They argue correctly that the gun didn't do the shooting, the nut did. Yet, when one nutter shoots at a cop, well that is a war on cops to the same conservative folks.

I try very hard to reject propaganda from the left, and right. I look for patterns, I look for commonalities. I think I am reasonably successful, and I hope you will consider what we've talked about in this thread. Things are not as simple as many would wish.
I also work hard at rejecting all propaganda and haven't been personally politically motivated in at least a decade. It's not just the Feds and Virginia, in most states I've found cops have to play by more stringent rules and while some do violate those rules most adhere to them fairly well. I also know that many of the big cities, New York, Chicago, LA, New Orleans, etc play by their own rules. From my experience what I initially stated is closer to the truth nationwide, with what you are claiming more confined to many (but not all) of the nations big cities. I'm not talking an all or nothing conclusion but relying somewhat on generalities because there's always exceptions.

There are many many exceptions. Rural areas have had corrupt sheriffs since time began. Robin Hood was a story with a corrupt Sheriff.

Medium sized cities have a lot of issues too. Corruption exists everywhere. It is easier to find in larger cities, but it is not absent in the smallest Three man police department in a One horse town before the horse left.

Then there is the traditional behaviors. The things the cops have always done. Things that just are that way. Things that have been accepted for generations. Those things are "right" until suddenly they aren't.

Civil Asset Forfeiture is one of those. Due Process of law was never intended to be the cops taking your stuff and you have to sue to get it back.

Cops in small town plant evidence. Cops in medium cities throw a beating on unresisting suspects. Cops on the highway pull their pistols and threaten people. Sometimes they even shoot. But they were afeared for their lives so it's OK.

Mostly it is small things. Things that don't seem to matter in the grand scheme of things.
 
Looks like you have your mind made up and nothing, no matter how factual will change it....... Ride on Don Quixote! Ride on!!

Fact. You have the right to an attorney as a private citizen. but you have to ask for one, and the police are allowed to make comments like this. "You know that an attorney will make you look guilty."

A Police Officer being questioned must, not may, have an attorney present. Failing to provide one can in many states, destroy the case against the cop.

Your Defense Attorney is allowed to request all information and evidence against you. This will never be produced prior to you being questioned as a citizen. If you are a cop, then you are required to have this information presented to you prior to questioning.

If you shoot an intruder in your house this very night, your first stop is the police station to be questioned. A cop has suffered understandable emotional trauma, and has ten days to arrange a time to be questioned, and is allowed to go home to cool off.

You ain't going nowhere citizen except to the station to answer some questions.

Before being questioned, the cop is informed of the nature of the allegation, who is investigating, his rank, supervisors, and the division of the police department that he works for.

You citizen, may get a name, and a rank, perhaps.

Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

Many investigations into police misconduct are conducted as internal reviews. The results of these employment related investigations can not be used in a criminal trial. Any information gathered during the employment related investigation is inadmissible in many states with LEOBR's.

If your employer finds you have committed crimes during an employment related interview, then that is just fine for the criminal case Citizen.

Now, I can't understand how any of this is new to you. I can't figure out how and why you would believe these are just the same rights as I an any other citizen have. If an investigator lies to me during an interview, and tricks me into confessing, the confession is admissible. If an investigator lies to a cop, the entire case is down the toilet.

Award Winning San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer

So if lying to get a confession out of a suspect is such a normal, and even constitutional technique, why is it prohibited when questioning a cop?

So you claim that the other posters just won't learn. We wonder why you continue to deny the facts when many people have posted links to back up their claims and all you have is Nu Uh.
Guess it comes down to a matter of jurisdiction and no, I'm not new to it, we had to play by more stringent (Federal and Commonwealth of Virginia) rules.

Personal experience is a wonderful thing. It is IMO, the key to wisdom. Yet, personal experience can also be a set of blinders, preventing you from seeing what is going on. The reality of the situation if you understand my meaning.

Virginia may have a very weak LEOBR set up. The Feds don't care about the LEOBR of the States since they are the Federal Government and are above all that sort of thing. This does not mean that other states have similarly weak, or limited LEOBR's. Louisiana passed a law making a cop killing a hate crime. No question of motivation, no question of situation, if a cop dies it is automatically a hate crime.

Why would it need to be? Because politicians on both sides remember Dukakis, and Willie Horton. They are terrified of being labeled as soft on crime, or even worse, anti-cop. So if the cops say "we're being targeted, war on cops" the politicians rush out to show how much they support the police.

I know, you think I'm joking, or I'm wrong. I'm used to that. But look at Troy New York. I posted an OP about it a few days ago. The Drug and Firearms task force of the Troy Police Department were faking crime reports to conduct illegal search and seizures. They would show up at the target house, and then would bust a window for example. Oh, a Burglary must be going on, we have to go in to try and catch the burglars, and to make sure that none of the owners property is missing.

The entire squad was found out, and suspended. Here we go to the political angle. The Republican Chair of the City Commission who detests the Democratic Mayor of the city immediately released a statement saying it was dangerous and irresponsible to remove so many cops from the front line of the war on crime. A knee jerk response, but the normal one, not just for Democrats, but from everyone. If an investigation catches a dozen corrupt cops, the first question a lot of people ask is how short handed the police will be now.

My first question is usually how many more were involved?

Look at the message board here. You have a user posting every cop who dies in the line of duty, and he's expanded to corrections officers, in other words jailers, to show the war on cops is real. It isn't, but it is a nice talking point.

If the war on cops was real, cops would be dying by the dozens every week. There are more than three hundred million people in this nation. There are including federal, state, county, and local cops, about three million cops. If there was a war on cops, being outnumbered by 100 to one seems like long odds to fight against. Even if only two percent of the population was in on it, the cops would still be outnumbered. Cops would be dying every day.

Conservatives rightly reject the claim that guns are the problem when one nutter shoots up a school. They argue correctly that the gun didn't do the shooting, the nut did. Yet, when one nutter shoots at a cop, well that is a war on cops to the same conservative folks.

I try very hard to reject propaganda from the left, and right. I look for patterns, I look for commonalities. I think I am reasonably successful, and I hope you will consider what we've talked about in this thread. Things are not as simple as many would wish.
I also work hard at rejecting all propaganda and haven't been personally politically motivated in at least a decade. It's not just the Feds and Virginia, in most states I've found cops have to play by more stringent rules and while some do violate those rules most adhere to them fairly well. I also know that many of the big cities, New York, Chicago, LA, New Orleans, etc play by their own rules. From my experience what I initially stated is closer to the truth nationwide, with what you are claiming more confined to many (but not all) of the nations big cities. I'm not talking an all or nothing conclusion but relying somewhat on generalities because there's always exceptions.

There are many many exceptions. Rural areas have had corrupt sheriffs since time began. Robin Hood was a story with a corrupt Sheriff.

Medium sized cities have a lot of issues too. Corruption exists everywhere. It is easier to find in larger cities, but it is not absent in the smallest Three man police department in a One horse town before the horse left.

Then there is the traditional behaviors. The things the cops have always done. Things that just are that way. Things that have been accepted for generations. Those things are "right" until suddenly they aren't.

Civil Asset Forfeiture is one of those. Due Process of law was never intended to be the cops taking your stuff and you have to sue to get it back.

Cops in small town plant evidence. Cops in medium cities throw a beating on unresisting suspects. Cops on the highway pull their pistols and threaten people. Sometimes they even shoot. But they were afeared for their lives so it's OK.

Mostly it is small things. Things that don't seem to matter in the grand scheme of things.
The difference between us is I don't think it's as prevalent as you appear to, yes there are abuses everywhere and some things change slowly. Why do cops on the highway sometimes approach with weapons drawn? Traffic stops are the most dangerous part of a cops job, more cops die and are wounded in traffic stops and with more cops being killed you'd probably be a little jumpy too.
Honestly, it looks to me that you're relying on old, 30s, 40s and 50s movies and applying those police "tactics" across the board in today's world.
 
Fact. You have the right to an attorney as a private citizen. but you have to ask for one, and the police are allowed to make comments like this. "You know that an attorney will make you look guilty."

A Police Officer being questioned must, not may, have an attorney present. Failing to provide one can in many states, destroy the case against the cop.

Your Defense Attorney is allowed to request all information and evidence against you. This will never be produced prior to you being questioned as a citizen. If you are a cop, then you are required to have this information presented to you prior to questioning.

If you shoot an intruder in your house this very night, your first stop is the police station to be questioned. A cop has suffered understandable emotional trauma, and has ten days to arrange a time to be questioned, and is allowed to go home to cool off.

You ain't going nowhere citizen except to the station to answer some questions.

Before being questioned, the cop is informed of the nature of the allegation, who is investigating, his rank, supervisors, and the division of the police department that he works for.

You citizen, may get a name, and a rank, perhaps.

Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

Many investigations into police misconduct are conducted as internal reviews. The results of these employment related investigations can not be used in a criminal trial. Any information gathered during the employment related investigation is inadmissible in many states with LEOBR's.

If your employer finds you have committed crimes during an employment related interview, then that is just fine for the criminal case Citizen.

Now, I can't understand how any of this is new to you. I can't figure out how and why you would believe these are just the same rights as I an any other citizen have. If an investigator lies to me during an interview, and tricks me into confessing, the confession is admissible. If an investigator lies to a cop, the entire case is down the toilet.

Award Winning San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer

So if lying to get a confession out of a suspect is such a normal, and even constitutional technique, why is it prohibited when questioning a cop?

So you claim that the other posters just won't learn. We wonder why you continue to deny the facts when many people have posted links to back up their claims and all you have is Nu Uh.
Guess it comes down to a matter of jurisdiction and no, I'm not new to it, we had to play by more stringent (Federal and Commonwealth of Virginia) rules.

Personal experience is a wonderful thing. It is IMO, the key to wisdom. Yet, personal experience can also be a set of blinders, preventing you from seeing what is going on. The reality of the situation if you understand my meaning.

Virginia may have a very weak LEOBR set up. The Feds don't care about the LEOBR of the States since they are the Federal Government and are above all that sort of thing. This does not mean that other states have similarly weak, or limited LEOBR's. Louisiana passed a law making a cop killing a hate crime. No question of motivation, no question of situation, if a cop dies it is automatically a hate crime.

Why would it need to be? Because politicians on both sides remember Dukakis, and Willie Horton. They are terrified of being labeled as soft on crime, or even worse, anti-cop. So if the cops say "we're being targeted, war on cops" the politicians rush out to show how much they support the police.

I know, you think I'm joking, or I'm wrong. I'm used to that. But look at Troy New York. I posted an OP about it a few days ago. The Drug and Firearms task force of the Troy Police Department were faking crime reports to conduct illegal search and seizures. They would show up at the target house, and then would bust a window for example. Oh, a Burglary must be going on, we have to go in to try and catch the burglars, and to make sure that none of the owners property is missing.

The entire squad was found out, and suspended. Here we go to the political angle. The Republican Chair of the City Commission who detests the Democratic Mayor of the city immediately released a statement saying it was dangerous and irresponsible to remove so many cops from the front line of the war on crime. A knee jerk response, but the normal one, not just for Democrats, but from everyone. If an investigation catches a dozen corrupt cops, the first question a lot of people ask is how short handed the police will be now.

My first question is usually how many more were involved?

Look at the message board here. You have a user posting every cop who dies in the line of duty, and he's expanded to corrections officers, in other words jailers, to show the war on cops is real. It isn't, but it is a nice talking point.

If the war on cops was real, cops would be dying by the dozens every week. There are more than three hundred million people in this nation. There are including federal, state, county, and local cops, about three million cops. If there was a war on cops, being outnumbered by 100 to one seems like long odds to fight against. Even if only two percent of the population was in on it, the cops would still be outnumbered. Cops would be dying every day.

Conservatives rightly reject the claim that guns are the problem when one nutter shoots up a school. They argue correctly that the gun didn't do the shooting, the nut did. Yet, when one nutter shoots at a cop, well that is a war on cops to the same conservative folks.

I try very hard to reject propaganda from the left, and right. I look for patterns, I look for commonalities. I think I am reasonably successful, and I hope you will consider what we've talked about in this thread. Things are not as simple as many would wish.
I also work hard at rejecting all propaganda and haven't been personally politically motivated in at least a decade. It's not just the Feds and Virginia, in most states I've found cops have to play by more stringent rules and while some do violate those rules most adhere to them fairly well. I also know that many of the big cities, New York, Chicago, LA, New Orleans, etc play by their own rules. From my experience what I initially stated is closer to the truth nationwide, with what you are claiming more confined to many (but not all) of the nations big cities. I'm not talking an all or nothing conclusion but relying somewhat on generalities because there's always exceptions.

There are many many exceptions. Rural areas have had corrupt sheriffs since time began. Robin Hood was a story with a corrupt Sheriff.

Medium sized cities have a lot of issues too. Corruption exists everywhere. It is easier to find in larger cities, but it is not absent in the smallest Three man police department in a One horse town before the horse left.

Then there is the traditional behaviors. The things the cops have always done. Things that just are that way. Things that have been accepted for generations. Those things are "right" until suddenly they aren't.

Civil Asset Forfeiture is one of those. Due Process of law was never intended to be the cops taking your stuff and you have to sue to get it back.

Cops in small town plant evidence. Cops in medium cities throw a beating on unresisting suspects. Cops on the highway pull their pistols and threaten people. Sometimes they even shoot. But they were afeared for their lives so it's OK.

Mostly it is small things. Things that don't seem to matter in the grand scheme of things.
The difference between us is I don't think it's as prevalent as you appear to, yes there are abuses everywhere and some things change slowly. Why do cops on the highway sometimes approach with weapons drawn? Traffic stops are the most dangerous part of a cops job, more cops die and are wounded in traffic stops and with more cops being killed you'd probably be a little jumpy too.
Honestly, it looks to me that you're relying on old, 30s, 40s and 50s movies and applying those police "tactics" across the board in today's world.

The rub is that more cops aren't dying. You hear about them in our 24 hour news hungry society, but there aren't more. About half of the cops who do die, according to Police Officer Down website, are not gunfire. They are dying in automobile accidents, struck by cars, usually by accident. A couple each year die from drowning, usually by accident.

Gunfire may be the largest single cause of death, but it is not even half the deaths. Construction workers are more likely to die, or be injured, than cops are.

When I was a boy, the cops swore that Domestic Disturbance calls were the most dangerous. That explained why they needed new laws to take people to jail. Running in and breaking up an argument would seem to be reasonably dangerous.

The problem is that cops are trained and briefed incessantly to be afraid of gunfire. How many cops do you see driving without a seatbelt? The excuse I've been told is the cop has to get out of the car fast, and the belt gets caught on their equipment. Yet Auto Accidents kill a lot of cops every year.

The uniform colors. Dark blue, even black. This is to help them blend into the shadows and avoid getting shot. Yet a driver passing by can't see them until it's too late and runs over the bugger. The bullet proof vest doesn't stop a Honda Accord from squashing them flat.

Other folks who work on highways have high visibility vests, or other don't hit me clothes to be seen. They don't get hit as often as cops do. But cops have to worry about being shot, or something. So they can't wear high visibility clothing, instead relying on people slowing down because of flashing lights nearby. The flashing lights at night mean that you can't see into the shadows, and you probably won't see the black uniform in time.

The problems are more prevalent than you think IMO. They are less prevalent than I believe in your opinion. The one thing we can agree on is there are problems.
 
"You have the right to kill anyone you like, and then claim you were scared and face no consequences"

End of line.
 
Your bill of rights in similar circumstances:
You have the right to know why you are being questioned.

During questioning investigators may not harass, threaten, or promise rewards which infrequently happens now because it potentially violates your civil rights and often wins you the case if you have to go to trial.

Bathroom breaks are assured during questioning, or (if you're not under arrest) you can simply state the interview is over and leave, nothing they can do to stop you. If you are under arrest you can immediately ask for legal counsel and the interview is supposed to be immediately terminated.

As for anyone facing a "jury of their coworkers" coworkers often tend to be harder on their fellow workers than a jury of strangers especially with cops, they don't like bad apples in their midst any more than the rest of us do.
Besides as for cops, what you referenced is about inter-departmental disciplinary issues, not any court criminal ruling on guilt or innocence those rulings are binding by law.

There are statute of limitations for multiple offenses on the books for all of us.

If you are the suspect in a case and brought down for questioning you're often not suspended nor do you lose your salary however you will lose the pay you were absent from work if you are hourly.

Paragraph 1) No, you don't.
Para. 2) You have to prove civil rights violations in order to win.
3) Bathroom breaks are not "assured" during questioning.
a) Even if not under arrest, a detainment can continue for x amount of time dependent upon state law.
b) You do not have to be under arrest in order to end an interview by refusing to talk without an attorney present.
4) Co-workers tend to be friends of, or at least know, the person well enough to have judged them before they have been accused of anything.
a) Ever heard of the 'thin blue line'? Cops stick together, just like all gang members do.
5) No. It is not just interdepartmental issues. It is in all circumstances.
6) Not relevant.
7) Cops do get their pay while suspended during an investigation.
Here is the Police Bill of Rights.

Law enforcement officers, except when on duty or acting in an official capacity, have the right to engage in political activity or run for elective office.
Law enforcement officers shall, if disciplinary action is expected, be notified of the investigation, the nature of the alleged violation, and be notified of the outcome of the investigation and the recommendations made to superiors by the investigators.
Questioning of a law enforcement officer should be conducted for a reasonable length of time and preferably while the officer is on duty unless exigent circumstances apply.
Questioning of the law enforcement officer should take place at the offices of those conducting the investigation or at the place where the officer reports to work, unless the officer consents to another location.
Law enforcement officers will be questioned by a single investigator, and he or she shall be informed of the name, rank, and command of the officer conducting the investigation.
Law enforcement officers under investigation are entitled to have counsel or any other individual of their choice present at the interrogation.
Law enforcement officers cannot be threatened, harassed, or promised rewards to induce the answering of any question.
Law enforcement officers are entitled to a hearing, with notification in advance of the date, access to transcripts, and other relevant documents and evidence generated by the hearing and to representation by counsel or another non-attorney representative at the hearing.
Law enforcement officers shall have the opportunity to comment in writing on any adverse materials placed in his or her personnel file.
Law enforcement officers cannot be subject to retaliation for the exercise of these or any other rights under Federal, or State.
 
Cops don't have extra rights? Cops are held to a high standard? Cops are the good guys? Fuck cops.


Take A Look At The Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill Of Rights


  • he officer must be informed of the complainants, and their testimony against him, before he is questioned.

  • During questioning, investigators may not harass, threaten, or promise rewards to the officer, as interrogators not infrequently do to civilian suspects.

  • Bathroom breaks are assured during questioning.

  • In Maryland, the officer may appeal his case to a “hearing board,” whose decision is binding, before a final decision has been made by his superiors about his discipline. The hearing board consists of three of the suspected offender’s fellow officers.

  • In some jurisdictions, the officer may not be disciplined if more than a certain number of days (often 100) have passed since his alleged misconduct, which limits the time for investigation.

  • Even if the officer is suspended, the department must continue to pay salary and benefits, as well as the cost of the officer’s attorney.


    Read it all Take A Look At The Law Enforcement Officers' Bill Of Rights | HuffPost
I don't know where you got the Bill of Rights but someone sold you a bill of goods. I got my post from the FBI and they are suppose to be the Federal, yours could be a Union one but try and see which one looks even half right.
 
Guess it comes down to a matter of jurisdiction and no, I'm not new to it, we had to play by more stringent (Federal and Commonwealth of Virginia) rules.

Personal experience is a wonderful thing. It is IMO, the key to wisdom. Yet, personal experience can also be a set of blinders, preventing you from seeing what is going on. The reality of the situation if you understand my meaning.

Virginia may have a very weak LEOBR set up. The Feds don't care about the LEOBR of the States since they are the Federal Government and are above all that sort of thing. This does not mean that other states have similarly weak, or limited LEOBR's. Louisiana passed a law making a cop killing a hate crime. No question of motivation, no question of situation, if a cop dies it is automatically a hate crime.

Why would it need to be? Because politicians on both sides remember Dukakis, and Willie Horton. They are terrified of being labeled as soft on crime, or even worse, anti-cop. So if the cops say "we're being targeted, war on cops" the politicians rush out to show how much they support the police.

I know, you think I'm joking, or I'm wrong. I'm used to that. But look at Troy New York. I posted an OP about it a few days ago. The Drug and Firearms task force of the Troy Police Department were faking crime reports to conduct illegal search and seizures. They would show up at the target house, and then would bust a window for example. Oh, a Burglary must be going on, we have to go in to try and catch the burglars, and to make sure that none of the owners property is missing.

The entire squad was found out, and suspended. Here we go to the political angle. The Republican Chair of the City Commission who detests the Democratic Mayor of the city immediately released a statement saying it was dangerous and irresponsible to remove so many cops from the front line of the war on crime. A knee jerk response, but the normal one, not just for Democrats, but from everyone. If an investigation catches a dozen corrupt cops, the first question a lot of people ask is how short handed the police will be now.

My first question is usually how many more were involved?

Look at the message board here. You have a user posting every cop who dies in the line of duty, and he's expanded to corrections officers, in other words jailers, to show the war on cops is real. It isn't, but it is a nice talking point.

If the war on cops was real, cops would be dying by the dozens every week. There are more than three hundred million people in this nation. There are including federal, state, county, and local cops, about three million cops. If there was a war on cops, being outnumbered by 100 to one seems like long odds to fight against. Even if only two percent of the population was in on it, the cops would still be outnumbered. Cops would be dying every day.

Conservatives rightly reject the claim that guns are the problem when one nutter shoots up a school. They argue correctly that the gun didn't do the shooting, the nut did. Yet, when one nutter shoots at a cop, well that is a war on cops to the same conservative folks.

I try very hard to reject propaganda from the left, and right. I look for patterns, I look for commonalities. I think I am reasonably successful, and I hope you will consider what we've talked about in this thread. Things are not as simple as many would wish.
I also work hard at rejecting all propaganda and haven't been personally politically motivated in at least a decade. It's not just the Feds and Virginia, in most states I've found cops have to play by more stringent rules and while some do violate those rules most adhere to them fairly well. I also know that many of the big cities, New York, Chicago, LA, New Orleans, etc play by their own rules. From my experience what I initially stated is closer to the truth nationwide, with what you are claiming more confined to many (but not all) of the nations big cities. I'm not talking an all or nothing conclusion but relying somewhat on generalities because there's always exceptions.

There are many many exceptions. Rural areas have had corrupt sheriffs since time began. Robin Hood was a story with a corrupt Sheriff.

Medium sized cities have a lot of issues too. Corruption exists everywhere. It is easier to find in larger cities, but it is not absent in the smallest Three man police department in a One horse town before the horse left.

Then there is the traditional behaviors. The things the cops have always done. Things that just are that way. Things that have been accepted for generations. Those things are "right" until suddenly they aren't.

Civil Asset Forfeiture is one of those. Due Process of law was never intended to be the cops taking your stuff and you have to sue to get it back.

Cops in small town plant evidence. Cops in medium cities throw a beating on unresisting suspects. Cops on the highway pull their pistols and threaten people. Sometimes they even shoot. But they were afeared for their lives so it's OK.

Mostly it is small things. Things that don't seem to matter in the grand scheme of things.
The difference between us is I don't think it's as prevalent as you appear to, yes there are abuses everywhere and some things change slowly. Why do cops on the highway sometimes approach with weapons drawn? Traffic stops are the most dangerous part of a cops job, more cops die and are wounded in traffic stops and with more cops being killed you'd probably be a little jumpy too.
Honestly, it looks to me that you're relying on old, 30s, 40s and 50s movies and applying those police "tactics" across the board in today's world.

The rub is that more cops aren't dying. You hear about them in our 24 hour news hungry society, but there aren't more. About half of the cops who do die, according to Police Officer Down website, are not gunfire. They are dying in automobile accidents, struck by cars, usually by accident. A couple each year die from drowning, usually by accident.

Gunfire may be the largest single cause of death, but it is not even half the deaths. Construction workers are more likely to die, or be injured, than cops are.

When I was a boy, the cops swore that Domestic Disturbance calls were the most dangerous. That explained why they needed new laws to take people to jail. Running in and breaking up an argument would seem to be reasonably dangerous.

The problem is that cops are trained and briefed incessantly to be afraid of gunfire. How many cops do you see driving without a seatbelt? The excuse I've been told is the cop has to get out of the car fast, and the belt gets caught on their equipment. Yet Auto Accidents kill a lot of cops every year.

The uniform colors. Dark blue, even black. This is to help them blend into the shadows and avoid getting shot. Yet a driver passing by can't see them until it's too late and runs over the bugger. The bullet proof vest doesn't stop a Honda Accord from squashing them flat.

Other folks who work on highways have high visibility vests, or other don't hit me clothes to be seen. They don't get hit as often as cops do. But cops have to worry about being shot, or something. So they can't wear high visibility clothing, instead relying on people slowing down because of flashing lights nearby. The flashing lights at night mean that you can't see into the shadows, and you probably won't see the black uniform in time.

The problems are more prevalent than you think IMO. They are less prevalent than I believe in your opinion. The one thing we can agree on is there are problems.
My old Dept when from Gray to White Shirts....Great target for night shootings.
 
Your bill of rights in similar circumstances:
You have the right to know why you are being questioned.

During questioning investigators may not harass, threaten, or promise rewards which infrequently happens now because it potentially violates your civil rights and often wins you the case if you have to go to trial.

Bathroom breaks are assured during questioning, or (if you're not under arrest) you can simply state the interview is over and leave, nothing they can do to stop you. If you are under arrest you can immediately ask for legal counsel and the interview is supposed to be immediately terminated.
I think the Rights are a local type the Federal rules are a little differnt I post them down the list.
As for anyone facing a "jury of their coworkers" coworkers often tend to be harder on their fellow workers than a jury of strangers especially with cops, they don't like bad apples in their midst any more than the rest of us do.
Besides as for cops, what you referenced is about inter-departmental disciplinary issues, not any court criminal ruling on guilt or innocence those rulings are binding by law.

There are statute of limitations for multiple offenses on the books for all of us.

If you are the suspect in a case and brought down for questioning you're often not suspended nor do you lose your salary however you will lose the pay you were absent from work if you are hourly.

Paragraph 1) No, you don't.
Para. 2) You have to prove civil rights violations in order to win.
3) Bathroom breaks are not "assured" during questioning.
a) Even if not under arrest, a detainment can continue for x amount of time dependent upon state law.
b) You do not have to be under arrest in order to end an interview by refusing to talk without an attorney present.
4) Co-workers tend to be friends of, or at least know, the person well enough to have judged them before they have been accused of anything.
a) Ever heard of the 'thin blue line'? Cops stick together, just like all gang members do.
5) No. It is not just interdepartmental issues. It is in all circumstances.
6) Not relevant.
7) Cops do get their pay while suspended during an investigation.

Looks like you have your mind made up and nothing, no matter how factual will change it....... Ride on Don Quixote! Ride on!!
 
Your bill of rights in similar circumstances:
You have the right to know why you are being questioned.

During questioning investigators may not harass, threaten, or promise rewards which infrequently happens now because it potentially violates your civil rights and often wins you the case if you have to go to trial.

Bathroom breaks are assured during questioning, or (if you're not under arrest) you can simply state the interview is over and leave, nothing they can do to stop you. If you are under arrest you can immediately ask for legal counsel and the interview is supposed to be immediately terminated.
I think the Rights are a local type the Federal rules are a little differnt I post them down the list.
As for anyone facing a "jury of their coworkers" coworkers often tend to be harder on their fellow workers than a jury of strangers especially with cops, they don't like bad apples in their midst any more than the rest of us do.
Besides as for cops, what you referenced is about inter-departmental disciplinary issues, not any court criminal ruling on guilt or innocence those rulings are binding by law.

There are statute of limitations for multiple offenses on the books for all of us.

If you are the suspect in a case and brought down for questioning you're often not suspended nor do you lose your salary however you will lose the pay you were absent from work if you are hourly.

Paragraph 1) No, you don't.
Para. 2) You have to prove civil rights violations in order to win.
3) Bathroom breaks are not "assured" during questioning.
a) Even if not under arrest, a detainment can continue for x amount of time dependent upon state law.
b) You do not have to be under arrest in order to end an interview by refusing to talk without an attorney present.
4) Co-workers tend to be friends of, or at least know, the person well enough to have judged them before they have been accused of anything.
a) Ever heard of the 'thin blue line'? Cops stick together, just like all gang members do.
5) No. It is not just interdepartmental issues. It is in all circumstances.
6) Not relevant.
7) Cops do get their pay while suspended during an investigation.

Looks like you have your mind made up and nothing, no matter how factual will change it....... Ride on Don Quixote! Ride on!!
Was that directed at me or Smuck111? :eusa_eh:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top