Posted on 05/08/2015 7:10:44 PM PDT by TurboZamboni
http://www.vibe.com/2015/05/county-sheriff-in-georgia-claims-to-have-accidentally-shot-woman/ Special rules for special folk
Surprisingly, when Gov Walker dumped the unions here in Wisconsin, he left the police and fire unions alone. Now with the “right to work” recently passed, I foresee changes in the police and fire unions power in Wisconsin
from the posted article:
Unlike a member of the public, the officer gets a “cooling off” period before he has to respond to any questions. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is privy to the names of his complainants and their testimony against him before he is ever interrogated. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is to be interrogated “at a reasonable hour,” with a union member present. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can only be questioned by one person during his interrogation. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can be interrogated only “for reasonable periods,” which “shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary.” Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation cannot be “threatened with disciplinary action” at any point during his interrogation. If he is threatened with punishment, whatever he says following the threat cannot be used against him.
What happens after the interrogation again varies from state to state. But under nearly every law enforcement bill of rights, the following additional privileges are granted to officers: Their departments cannot publicly acknowledge that the officer is under investigation; if the officer is cleared of wrongdoing or the charges are dropped, the department may not publicly acknowledge that the investigation ever took place, or reveal the nature of the complaint. The officer cannot be questioned or investigated by “non-government agents,” which means no civilian review boards. If the officer is suspended as a result of the investigation, he must continue to receive full pay and benefits until his case is resolved. In most states, the charging department must subsidize the accused officer’s legal defense.
A violation of any of the above rights can result in dismissal—not of the officer, but of the charges against him.
Because of these special due process privileges, there’s little incentive for police departments to discipline officers. In most cases, it’s more financially prudent to let a District Attorney or outside law enforcement agency do the heavy lifting, and then fire the officer if he’s convicted. This is the only “easy” way, under police bills of rights, for departments to get rid of bad cops—which essentially means the only way to get rid of bad cops is if some other law enforcement agency can make a felony charge stick. This is the biggest problem with law enforcement bills of rights—they encourage police departments to let external forces determine what behavior is unacceptable. That’s eventually why Rhode Island’s Krawetz resigned his post.
Here in CA, all LEO- owned vehicles registrations are secret, so when a cop’s wife is stopped for some traffic law violation, the cop making the stop knows instantly that the vehicle is owned by someone who “is on the job.” There was a major expose in Southern California several years ago where the agency that operates the FasTrak electronic toll collection process found manifold instances of people driving “cop-owned” cars repeatedly failing to pay tolls. The bigger thing that was learned was that the list of “cop-owned” vehicles had been expanded to cover anyone working for a police agency right down to the women who were clerks, etc. The worst violator was found to be a “white hat” who worked at LAX and the second worst was a phone operator for the Corona PD. The law was supposed to protect cops and their family from criminals learning where they lived, but just look at how it was subverted to steal from the taxpayers. Oh, and the “white hat” had run up a $21,000 tab of stolen tolls.
Much of the expansion of the massive corrections industry is a colossal government shake down racket and con-game.
They create all these prison camps which must be filled. This requires hiring more cops, more arrests, then they have to raise taxes, grow government more and more. They’ve become so large and bloated they bring in government unions for protection and on and on. This is big dollar big industry which dramatically inflates the size of government. 100% win win for government.
Are you suggesting a cop is forced to provide a statement or submit to an interview immediately after an incident and are not afforded the right to meet with their attorney's and union protection representatives before being interviewed?
It isn’t a political or philosophical problem/debate, it is mathematics. But the Left is stuck on remedial math.
No.....I am saying that if an officer is accused of a criminal act...the employer can force them to give a statement in an administrative hearing for employment purposes. They cannot refuse to give that statement and submit to the interview or they can be fired. They are not required to submit to a criminal interview.
The only thing a union representative is there for is to make sure their due process rights are not violated in that in administrative interview.
If they are giving a voluntary statement to criminal investigators the union representative is not present. Only a lawyer if they wish to have one like anyone else.
and yes, in some jurisdictions they have to provide the statement immediately after the incident to the administrative interviewers unless they have to go to the hospital because they are injured.
Some jurisdictions are different than others, some people have no union and they are at will employees other people have week uno n and other agencies have a stronger Union and have better rules for help people are treated.
An employer cannot force anyone to give a statement. The employer can request one, but that can be denied. Same in the private sector.
You understand in an officer involved shooting for example, a statement can be a single sentence or less.
BTW in regards to cops and interviews, what is a criminal interview if a crime has yet to be established? You also understand cops still retains the right to not provide a statement if the investigation focuses on potential criminal conduct.
So you support government employees being unionized?
Not true...in police work the employer (city/county) has a right rning invretigate what their employee did to see if the followed policy and training etc.
The employer can order “by the authority of the Chief of Police I am ordering you to answer my questions fully and truthfully. Failure to do so can result in discipline, up to and including termination.”
The employee can refuse and be fired. But since it is a compelled (I.e. not voluntary) the statements cannnot be used against the officer in a criminal investogation or trial.
It is a Supreme Court Case and is referred t as “Garitty.”
What normally happens is if they think an officer committed a crime they don’t do the admin investigation questioning of the suspect officer.
Yes.....for police and fire for sure.
Yes, discipline, of course, anyone can be fired. But no cop is “forced”, to do anything.
So you support unionized government employees. Based on your comments I’m not overly surprised.
bookmark
Not exactly a new blazing insight...
As succinctly explained by none other than...
Franklin Delano Roosevelt!
In a little-known letter he wrote to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937, Roosevelt reasoned:
"... Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations ...
The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ...
"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people ... This obligation is paramount ...
A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent ... to prevent or obstruct ... Government ... Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government ... is unthinkable and intolerable."
Actually, no.
The villains are the perfect storm, the combination of an ignorant, no information electorate and criminal politicians elected with knowledge, judgment, ethics and qualifications even worse than those of the sub-60 IQ electorate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.