Michigan; Don't Shield Those With Shields

Grand Rapids Press ^ | Monday, October 31, 2005 | Grand Rapids Press

[cougar_mccxxi]

Some bad ideas look even worse at second glance.

That's true of legislation that would potentially protect rogue police officers from scrutiny. The measure has been reintroduced in the Legislature, where it died last year. It deserves the same quick burial this time.

Under the bill, statements made by law enforcement officials in internal investigations would no longer be subject to the state's Freedom of Information Act. The statements could be disclosed only if the individual responsible for them gave written consent or if a court subpoenaed them. The first is highly unlikely, the latter an unnecessary obstacle to the public's right to know.

[cougar_mccxxi]

Very scary legislation. Where else government would try to utilize this secrecy is even scarier.

[ECM]

So the author of this article expects sympathy/outrage? Is that what I'm supposed to feel?

[jonascord]

So, do we have a LEO who doesn't like transparency in his actions? Another badge heavy thug who does not appreciate "civilians" telling the Almighty POLICE that they are not judge, jury, and God, striding the Earth, issueing $300 traffic fines, because "it's for your own good!"? 50 years and counting in a "drug war" that won't be won as long as both side are profiting from it?

I would love to pass a very simple law. Any person who gets a paycheck from a government entity has one chance to break the law. If they do, whether it's accecpting a donut or a bribe to grease a building permit, or like this guy buying a hooker, the person will spend the rest of his life in a Supermax prison, without the possibilty of parole. We will either get more honest officials, or smarter crooks.