Seventh officer refuses to testify in trial of Cleveland police officer Michael Brelo

http://www.cleveland.com ^ | 04/16/2015 | Ida Lieszkovszky

[redreno]

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A seventh police officer invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination Thursday in the voluntary manslaughter trial of fellow Cleveland officer Michael Brelo.

Officer Erin O'Donnell, who participated in the Nov. 29, 2012 police chase and shootings that resulted in charges against Brelo, entered the courtroom with her attorney, Mark Stanton. Prosecutors asked her if she had told investigators the "whole story" of what happened on the night of Nov. 29, 2012, at which point O'Donnell invoked her Fifth Amendment right.

After brief discussion, Judge John P. O'Donnell agreed that since the officer was present and fired her gun, she is in a "similar position to Brelo" before he was indicted, and therefore answering could potentially incriminate her

[2ndDivisionVet]

Don’t Talk to the Police
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Looks like the Thin Blue Line ain’t so thin after all.

[MeganC]

Taking the Fifth like the criminals they are.

[Figment]

Doing the proper thing. Let the prosecutors produce the evidence

[Cboldt]

Whether or not she fired her gun, the question was "did you tell investigators the whole story?" The potential charge in that question is one of giving false or misleading evidence, and has play on that basis alone.

[eyeamok]

Public Servants, Public Officials ,and Public Employees Should NEVER BE ALLOWED to claim the 5th, under any circumstances. And If they do they should be immediately FIRED and LOSE ALL Pension and Retirement benefits.

[Scoutmaster]

My initial reaction was to agree. On second thought, the Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination is a individual's Constitutional Right ~ a protection against the government no less important than the First Amendment rights of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association, and the Second Amendment right to bear arms (and all four of those, in my opinion, given the broad interpretation I give them and not as they've been nibbled away at by federal courts and Congress).

Do I want US citizens and legal US residents to be required to give up their Constitutional protections for the right to gain employment by the US government? Are my rights as a taxpayer so much greater than the rights of the to-be-employed citizen or legal resident that I can demand him or her give up his or her Constitional rights to serve me as a government employee?

When I view the issue in that light, my response is, in the name of the Federalist Papers, yes, yes, yes, public servants, public official, and public employees should be allowed to assert their Fifth Amendment protections, just as I can't defend the work of pornographers and trash journalist, but I'll defend their right to produce their work under the freedoms of free speech.

You may not agree, which is another freedom we have ~ and I am not belittling your position in the least.

[eyeamok]

Well reasoned, and I am torn on this issue, however let me ask you this.
Every court in America REQUIRES Citizens to Give Up Certain “Inalienable Rights” protected by the US Constitution every single day in America as part of an “agreement” to accept some term of Probation or Parole and participate in “Regular Society”.

Is it not within the Rights of the Citizenry to DEMAND the Same of our “Public Servants” as a condition for the “Privilege” of being a “Public Servant”?? To give up Certain Inalienable Rights??

[Scoutmaster]

In the case of probation and parole, an individual has been found guilty of a crime (frequently, but not always, by a jury of his or her peers) and has been sentenced to some period of incarceration. The probation or parole is in lieu of continued incarceration or any incarceration. It is an agreement for the individual to re-enter society sooner than she or he would otherwise have been able to re-enter society.

Probation and parole are an 'agreement,' but the person accepting the terms isn't required to accept the terms. He or she may instead simple serve out the terms of the original penalty or may decline to accept the probation or parole.

As a result, courts require citizens to give up rights only in the same way that the government requires an individual citizen who is a automobile dealer to give up his or her personal property [automobiles] when the government and the citizen enter into an agreement for the government to purchase automobiles from the citizen/automobile dealer.

In the instance of probation/parole, the government lower-case 'r' requires an individual [who is not always a citizen] to 'give up' rights otherwise protected by the U.S. Constitution when the government and the individual enter into an agreement for the individual to enter society earlier that he or she would otherwise have been able to do so.

That's my view. Then again, I bought a Beta-Max. True story.