DC police murder a suspect while he's in jail.

Gangrel said:
So you're saying we don't have to incriminate ourselves.

Which is like private citizens.

Soooo, where's the double standard again?
Click to expand...
Citizens that refuse to answer questions during an internal investigation can face criminal charges of obstructing justice, AND they'll lose their job.

Officers that refuse to answer questions during an internal investigation CANNOT face criminal charges of obstructing justice, but they'll lose their job.


Citizens that do answer questions during an internal investigation can have that evidence used against them in criminal proceedings because they do NOT have a Garrity statement to save their asses.

Officers that do answer questions during an internal investigation CANNOT have that evidence used against them in criminal proceedings because they DO have a Garrity statement to save their asses.



I hope that helps you to understand the double-standard. :rolleyes:
 
Stilgar said:
Why do cops refer to the rest of us as civilians?
Are they subeject to the same civil laws?
Or are they under the MCJ?
Click to expand...

We are subject to the same criminal and civil laws, as well as professional codes of conduct. There are also some laws which only apply to our profession (as there are with many other professions out there).

Why do people say civilians? I don't know. Doctors, firefighters, EMTs, etc etc etc all say it as well. Civil service employees tend to refer to non civil service employees as civilians.

aka I don't know.
 
Gangrel said:
I'm sorry but, that "Constitution" you tend to harp about tends to disagree with you.

There is no "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself UNLESS HES A COP KEKEKEKE" in the bill of rights.
Click to expand...
You mean the interpretation of the Constitution made by 5/9 justices disagree with me. :rolleyes:
 
Gangrel said:
We are subject to the same criminal and civil laws, as well as professional codes of conduct. There are also some laws which only apply to our profession (as there are with many other professions out there).

Why do people say civilians? I don't know. Doctors, firefighters, EMTs, etc etc etc all say it as well. Civil service employees tend to refer to non civil service employees as civilians.

aka I don't know.
Click to expand...

I think, just as doctors and lawyers continue to speak Latin to differentiate themselves - professionals - it's just a way to be elitist.
Which is why I asked.

Btw, I like LEOs - they usually provide awesome escorts at 20+ over the speed limit.
 
Dumpy Dooby said:
Citizens that refuse to answer questions during an internal investigation can face criminal charges of obstructing justice, AND they'll lose their job.

Officers that refuse to answer questions during an internal investigation CANNOT face criminal charges of obstructing justice, but they'll lose their job.


Citizens that do answer questions during an internal investigation can have that evidence used against them in criminal proceedings because they do NOT have a Garrity statement to save their asses.

Officers that do answer questions during an internal investigation CANNOT have that evidence used against them in criminal proceedings because they DO have a Garrity statement to save their asses.



I hope that helps you to understand the double-standard. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You are assuming a new precedent has been set due to one situation which has yet to be resolved. That is a incorrectly presumptive of what the final result may be.

As has always been the case, civilians have far more rights when it comes to investigations than the police do. Garrity has more to do with the fact that it is cop vs cop, not cop v civilian or civilian vs civilian.

DID YOU KNOW YOU CAN SEARCH SOMEONES HOUSE WITHOUT A WARRANT AND TURN OVER THE CONTRABAND TO THE POLICE??? OMFG
 
Stilgar said:
I think, just as doctors and lawyers continue to speak Latin to differentiate themselves - professionals - it's just a way to be elitist.
Which is why I asked.

Btw, I like LEOs - they usually provide awesome escorts at 20+ over the speed limit.
Click to expand...
Had this discussion with KellyMonaco before. What would you suggest I refer to people as when they're not cops? KM suggested "citizen" and I thought that was pretty stupid considering everyone (including cops) are citizens. Do you find "civilian" derogatory by nature or something? Does it bother you when I refer to you as a "civilian?" I mean, if you dislike LEOs, you should be flattered that I'm calling you a "civilian." If you don't want to be separated from us, I can call you other things, like "pig, popo, 5-0, fatass, bacon, asshole, fuck, pussy, bitch" and all of the other colorful names I've been called throughout the years while working.... if it'll make you feel better.
 
I prefer to be called "real people".

I think this is a clear distinction from police.

Sorta like that line from Reservoir Dogs -


Mr. Pink: "You kill anybody?"

Mr. White: "Coupla cops..."

Mr. Pink: "No real people?"

Mr. White: "Just cops."
 
yes but that one that posted on the first page isn't the one we all know and love
 
Gangrel said:
there is no interpretation to a black and white statement.
Click to expand...
You mean when a statement applies to members of two different categories (the State, and the resident), one of which being the arbiter that affords immunities, privileges, and protections unto the other?

Right, no matter of interpretation right there at all, especially when we consider that the Bill of Rights were written to contrast the privileges afforded to the state in the Constitution. I'm sure everyone will agree that an officer here is both a member of the state and a residing citizen. I'm also sure that everyone will agree that the state does not have a right to remain silent when trying a citizen (example: if California is accusing me of speeding, the key witness - the officer - is not at liberty to "remain silent" when I ask him about the last time he had his RADAR gun calibrated). Ergo, we can interpret this to mean that the state must remain wholly transparent during these proceedings, even if the proceedings are against the state itself.

Completely black and white with no amount of interpretation whatsoever. That's why the ruling was unanimous, right? :rolleyes:
 
you have the right to confront your accusers, which is also explicitly stated

that is no way means that the state has to be wholly transparent.

we cannot force a defendant to take the stand in his own trial, which is what you expect we should have to do.
 
Hey Gangrel... come on... tell me the truth here....


Dumpy is the kind of guy that y'all beat the shit out of on the side of the road just cuz you can get away with it... am I right?
 
iNVAR said:
Had this discussion with KellyMonaco before. What would you suggest I refer to people as when they're not cops? KM suggested "citizen" and I thought that was pretty stupid considering everyone (including cops) are citizens. Do you find "civilian" derogatory by nature or something? Does it bother you when I refer to you as a "civilian?" I mean, if you dislike LEOs, you should be flattered that I'm calling you a "civilian." If you don't want to be separated from us, I can call you other things, like "pig, popo, 5-0, fatass, bacon, asshole, fuck, pussy, bitch" and all of the other colorful names I've been called throughout the years while working.... if it'll make you feel better.
Click to expand...

As I said I see it as a way to separate us into "us" and "them."
You call me Mr. Page and I'll refer to you as Officer (Insert Name Here).
 
SuicideTaxi said:
Hey Gangrel... come on... tell me the truth here....


Dumpy is the kind of guy that y'all beat the shit out of on the side of the road just cuz you can get away with it... am I right?
Click to expand...

He's the kind of guy whose book-in tape includes him screaming and crying about his rights as we take his property and give him a pretty orange suit.


Ed: btw, Miranda v Arizona was a 5-4 decision, I guess it's a BS rule as well!
 
Well I would beat the shit out of him.


Not because I disagreed with what he was saying, really... just because his delivery is so goddamned gay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top