“When citizens are accused of a crime, they are given the presumption of innocence as afforded by due process. When there is an incident involving law enforcement, politicians and activists immediately condemn those involved and are scrambling for sound bits. They do not afford them the same due process but rather convict them in a public court of opinion while an investigation is barely beginning”
Well, that’s an absurd claim. Simply being arrested for a crime is often enough for the public to believe that a private citizen is guilty, and they can lose employment, business deals, a marriage or relationship long before any “due process” occurs. When police are accused of a crime, often they face no consequences at all, and if they are charged, they get the exact same due process as any other citizen.
The ruling in Harlow v Fitzgerald was actually illegal according to the full text of the law as written and passed. SCOTUS was given an illegally amended copy of the law.
no that can’t be true, obviously a just and honorable institution like the supreme court would have caught a mistake in the time since and corrected it. are you trying to besmirch the supreme court’s honor? you know theyre the SUPREME court, right? how dare you
They’re not completely immune. If the action is egregious enough or unpopular enough with the public (which seems to be what they’re complaining about), police can be convicted of crimes. Derek Chauvin, for example.
Also ironic since in this case the President and Secretary of Homeland Security immediately came out stating that the victim was a domestic terrorist and tried to murder the ICE agent with her car before any investigation was conducted, and both of which turned out to be false.
Yeah, I feel like that’s a rather large thing to have overlooked. How the fuck do you release a statement saying citizens have a presumption of innocence when the guy literally judged and executed a citizen on the spot?
In the “we’re going to investigate ourselves” phase, yes, of course. However sometimes police are charged with crimes for their actions. Clearly far, far less often then anyone else would be prosecuted in court for the same crimes.
When its public enough and visible enough that it can’t be avoided, sure.
And then once things die down, they get pardons, or a win on appeal by a friendly judge, whatever, and back on the street in anither district. From DUIs to manslaughter and more, and fully reinstated. Some aren’t as lucky and just end up with a suspended sentence and probation.
The number who actually go to prison for their crimes is miniscule.
There are also two glaring problematic assertions with that part that imo should bear removal of those involved in this statement from law enforcement:
'Citizens are afforded… ’ categorically false. All people in the USA are afforded due process, regardless of citizenship.
Becoming a politician does not lessen ones right to free speech. The very fact they have the balls to make this statement about their bosses (the state and local governments) shows an inherent insubordinatio and lack of respect for the structure from which they derive their authority: the states laws and governance.
Fire these fucks, and threaten a Regan style retaliation against any cops striking or protesting their dismissal (ie any cop protesting or striking over the decision is bamned from seeking LE employment in the state, for life)
Good point that per the constitution, it’s everyone, not just citizens. I had a discussion with a deluded conservative coworker about that recently and he couldn’t accept that’s what the constitution says.
I agree that it’s really inappropriate for them to be making these claims and discussing politics at all. Not surprising as the police union has been a problem in general for decades.
Well, that’s an absurd claim. Simply being arrested for a crime is often enough for the public to believe that a private citizen is guilty, and they can lose employment, business deals, a marriage or relationship long before any “due process” occurs. When police are accused of a crime, often they face no consequences at all, and if they are charged, they get the exact same due process as any other citizen.
also, cops are immune to prosecution, so the court of public opinion is like, all they have
The ruling in Harlow v Fitzgerald was actually illegal according to the full text of the law as written and passed. SCOTUS was given an illegally amended copy of the law.
http://web.archive.org/web/20230520080201/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html
Qualified Immunity is illegal.
no that can’t be true, obviously a just and honorable institution like the supreme court would have caught a mistake in the time since and corrected it. are you trying to besmirch the supreme court’s honor? you know theyre the SUPREME court, right? how dare you
Sorry Sque
They’re not completely immune. If the action is egregious enough or unpopular enough with the public (which seems to be what they’re complaining about), police can be convicted of crimes. Derek Chauvin, for example.
It took me way too long to realise it’s the immunity that’s qualified, not the officer.
Also ironic since in this case the President and Secretary of Homeland Security immediately came out stating that the victim was a domestic terrorist and tried to murder the ICE agent with her car before any investigation was conducted, and both of which turned out to be false.
Also ironic because they executed her on the spot by shooting her in the face.
Yeah, I feel like that’s a rather large thing to have overlooked. How the fuck do you release a statement saying citizens have a presumption of innocence when the guy literally judged and executed a citizen on the spot?
Sounds about right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusation_in_a_mirror
In the “we’re going to investigate ourselves” phase, yes, of course. However sometimes police are charged with crimes for their actions. Clearly far, far less often then anyone else would be prosecuted in court for the same crimes.
When its public enough and visible enough that it can’t be avoided, sure.
And then once things die down, they get pardons, or a win on appeal by a friendly judge, whatever, and back on the street in anither district. From DUIs to manslaughter and more, and fully reinstated. Some aren’t as lucky and just end up with a suspended sentence and probation.
The number who actually go to prison for their crimes is miniscule.
I’m curious about the due process of getting shot in the face…
If you live there you’ll find out first hand soon enough, I guess.
But yeah it’s a valid question.
There are also two glaring problematic assertions with that part that imo should bear removal of those involved in this statement from law enforcement:
'Citizens are afforded… ’ categorically false. All people in the USA are afforded due process, regardless of citizenship.
Becoming a politician does not lessen ones right to free speech. The very fact they have the balls to make this statement about their bosses (the state and local governments) shows an inherent insubordinatio and lack of respect for the structure from which they derive their authority: the states laws and governance.
Fire these fucks, and threaten a Regan style retaliation against any cops striking or protesting their dismissal (ie any cop protesting or striking over the decision is bamned from seeking LE employment in the state, for life)
Good point that per the constitution, it’s everyone, not just citizens. I had a discussion with a deluded conservative coworker about that recently and he couldn’t accept that’s what the constitution says.
I agree that it’s really inappropriate for them to be making these claims and discussing politics at all. Not surprising as the police union has been a problem in general for decades.
But people say mean things about them online :(