courtesy-fox4kc-com

By Michael W Loos [via ammoland.com] Ever heard the phrase “law enforcement is held to a higher standard”? I’d be happy if they were held to the same standard as the average citizen. Most citizens believe that if an police officer commits a crime, they should be charged. Apparently, the police disagree. Can you say Officer Daniel Andrews? And what of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights?

Wikipedia.org informs us that the LEOBR is in effect in 14 U.S. States. It’s designed to

protect American law enforcement personnel from investigation and prosecution arising from conduct during official performance of their duties, and provides them with privileges based on due process additional to those normally provided to other citizens. It was first set forth in 1974, following Supreme Court rulings in the cases of Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) and Gardner v. Broderick (1968).

Sergeant Barry E. Roy of the University of Arkansas’s Criminal Justice Institute uses the LEOBR as a basis for his pdf Management of Officer-involved Shootings. Here are some of his suggested protocols for a police investigation of an officer involved shooting, with my comments (in parenthesis) comparing the treatment afforded non-LEOs after a defensive gun uses.

Under the heading The Crime Scene Investigation:

2. We need to see that the investigator is able to get certain immediate information without compromising personal, legal protection. In many instances the officer(s) is the only witness to the event. As on [scene] supervisors, we should get a short, basic description of the event; it needs to be the least amount of information to communicate the nature of what happened. It is important for the officer(s) to identify the scope of the scene. The initial information should be given orally with as little detail required to get the investigation started. – (The Police will not care about your personal legal protections. They will want as much information as they can get from you.)

3. We should make sure that the involved officer(s) is made aware of what will be taking place from the beginning of the investigation. It is important to keep him informed and updated throughout the process to reduce the probability of unnecessary anxiety. – (Your anxiety is none of their concern. Only pressing you for more information.)

4. We should require our investigators to inspect the weapons of all the involved officer(s), even if the involved officer(s) does not believe he fired the weapon. “It is possible for an officer to discharge a weapon during a critical incident and not be aware of it” (Artwohl, 2002, pg. 19). – (Even though they know you may be so messed up in the head as to believe you didn’t fire your gun, they will still ask more questions. Can you imagine the D.A’s feeding frenzy if he hears you didn’t even realize you fired your sidearm?)

5. Unless it is absolutely necessary or required by department policy, we should not seize the officer’s weapon at the scene. – (Your gun is gone. Kiss it goodbye.)

7. Ensure that the involved officer(s) is not isolated and that he has access to a family member or support team member. The officer(s) should be ordered not to discuss the specific details of the incident with his support member. “Be prepared for a wide range of emotional reactions from on-scene personnel” (Artwohl, 2002, pg. 19). – (I don’t even have a response for this. Do you think an Officer is going to whisper in your ear “Shut up, man, don’t say a word till you’ve talked with an attorney!” Yeah, right.)

9. If at all possible, we should establish a quiet area where the affected officer(s) can be isolated from the general commotion, on-lookers, and media. – (Since you will be in the back seat of the cruiser, I don’t think this will be a problem.)

11. We should not allow the affected officer(s) to drive from the scene to another location. A driver should be made available to transport the officer(s) when the need arises to relocate. The involved officer(s) could be promptly transported to the hospital which would provide a safe refuge and appropriate medical attention.

12. We should encourage the affected officer(s) to go home and get some rest before giving an official statement. It is suggested that an officer(s) wait 24 to 48 hours before giving a statement. (Artwohl, 2002). – (This is why we stop answering questions. We need time to process the situation.)

Who in their right mind believes LEOs should be afforded special protections during an investigation into the aftermath of an officer involved shooting? Something is wrong in this country when the our Constitutional rights take a back seat to the rights of those we employ to protect us.

Recommended For You

89 Responses to The Truth About the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights and Officer Involved Shootings

  1. I dunno about that last one. Isn’t it harder to remember what happened accurately the longer you go after a stressful situation? I am not advocating giving a statement on scene, but wouldn’t you want to issue a statement via your attorney relatively quickly so you get the real story out first? I would think if you hear anything the police have to say it might color your remembrance of events, because that is how our brains work under stress.

    • There have been documented instances where an officer didn’t recall that there were 2 suspects at the scene until the next day. So yes, in the heat of the moment, details may be difficult to remember due to adrenaline and stress. That’s why you shouldn’t make a full statement/go through questioning immediately afterwards either.

      • Ya I agree do not undergo questioning and DEFINITELY do not give a statement without consulting an attorney other than the boilerplate feared for my life etc.

    • +1 Seems like defense attorneys and cops agree, the police are out to get you. Where the LEO bill of rights is in effect, ALL citizens should get the same rights or the policy thrown out.

  2. Oh! I agree were heading fast down the road of no- return…Welcome to the new East Germany Stasi operated paramilitarizied state…Where you roll the dice taking a drive to the store, or a walk down to the post office….Where the possibility of an aggressive traffic stop, or a “stop and frisk ” can lead to loss of liberty…Or injury or death….We the people need to act now! Or as others have said…”A Liberty lost , is gone forever…!”

    • Agree with you but what can people do in the face of powerful and almost untouchable police unions? Also, Let’s not forget that there are many fine officers who don’t abuse power.

      • Any cop who looks the other way while fellow officers do shady shit, even if they themselves don’t abuse the power entrusted to them, is not a “fine officer”. Sadly, this is a description that applies to all but a very small number of police officers. The Blue Wall is a real thing, and until the “good cops” take a stand and root out the corruption in their ranks, Americans will continue to lose faith in the police.

        People like to use the term “bad apples” to talk about corrupt cops. That’s a good metaphor, since we all know what happens when you leave a few bad apples in a barrel of good ones – eventually they’re all ruined by the bad ones.

  3. It’s nice to see that Patrick Feaster has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter. They sure tried to protect him from accountability for his crime in the beginning.

  4. You will be outed by name and prosecuted in the press. You’re getting booked and DNA sampled as well. Your firearms will most likely be taken away in many locale and you might lose your job.

    Compare that to the LEO situation.

      • Really- Police being exposed to public scrutiny has only penetrated the pre-Alzheimers brain pans of the average white baby boomer in the past five years due to personal video devices.

        Here in Illinois it was a FELONY to record a cop in public until about five years ago or so, because the police unions have good old boy legislators like state Rep. Brandon Phelps in their pocket, along with backstabbing rats like NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde to write the bills for him and all the other racist Klansmen from southern Illinois who are actually stupid enough to believe that “the police are on our side.” Phelps is the racist hick coward who put Duty to Inform in his “NRA backed” 2013 concealed carry bill, and Vandermyde is the lobbyist who cut the deal with the police unions to set up their own NRA members to be killed.

  5. Officer Daniel Andrews was not charged but forced to resign after three years on the force as a condition of the 1.5 million dollar settlement the state paid. So in the course of his duties protecting both Marlene and citizens from striking her while walking ON THE FREEWAY and after she attacked him, the state chucked LEO Andrews under the bus and offered cash to the perpetrator, which lawyers secured 60%.

    “Months later Marlene Pinnock was arrested again about 2:30 a.m. on the same stretch of 10 Freeway for walking in traffic lanes. Her attorney said after Pinnock’s arrest that her family was seeking to arrange long-term care for her.”

    Cold day in hell before I sign up for a job that not only will get you killed, but recieve no support from your employer and fire you for the convience of optics.

    • A job that is extremely unlikely to get you killed you mean. Most likely not from homicide either. Around 1 in 24,000 police are killed by homicide each year. Drivers, fishermen, roofers, loggers, factory workers among others all have more dangerous jobs.

      • Action is correct. When I studied in the field some years back, there was a time that police work was maybe number eight in fatalities in federal Labor Dept. stats. Now police work is not even in the top ten dangerous jobs in America. Cops have rifles, radios, swarms of backup from outside their jurisdictions (look at all the out of state police and Blackwater mercenaries in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina) bulletproof vests, etc. and so on. Their job is much less dangerous than it used to be when they patrolled alone with car radios in the 1950’s.

        You don’t hear all the fishermen, lumberjacks and farmers whining about how tough their job is all the time either. Police as a group test vastly higher for frequency of suicide, drug use, alcohol abuse, divorce, domestic violence, and every other indicator of social deviancy, but the police unions have corrupted the state legislatures with the help of the NRA to implement and promote a criminal police state.

        Cops have been able to influence the passage of laws that make them above the law. Meaning they can kill almost anyone they want at any time with no legal review.

    • You forgot the part where most of the blows landed by Pig Andrews on the victim were dished out while Andrews was pinning the victim on the ground, away from the highway, while the victim was lying prostrate.

      I’m sure this can be explained by bootlickers with “totality of circumstances”.

    • In the end I wouldn’t be a cop for the same reason I wouldn’t be a politician. John Acton put it best “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I suspect I’d slowly go bad just like most others. I know I left off the second and as important line “Great men are almost always bad men.” even though it may even be relevant to a small fraction of police as well as politicians and magnates.

    • Beat me to it!

      And ironically enough it was the Pigs who were “More Equal” than the other animals.

  6. Under number (4) about verifying who discharged their firearms:

    (Even though they know you may be so messed up in the head as to believe you didn’t fire your gun, they will still ask more questions hoping to get an incorrect statement from you that the State can use to charge you with “providing a false statement to a law enforcement officer”.) There. Fixed that for you.

  7. I’ve often said, if you want to see what the constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants are supposed to look like, watch what happens when a cop gets charged. We’re talking minimal use of force, immediate and effective assistance of counsel, reasonable bail, proportionate charges, etc.

    • Constitution protections guarantee a pliant prosecutor trying their hardest not to return indictments by actually calling forth testimony on behalf of the accused in front of grand juries?

      • Well, Grand Juries originally had an investigative function, rather than serving as mere rubber stamps for prosecutors, so there is that. Note that I never said those protections would be all you see when a cop is charged.

        • Should have used sarcasm tags.

          The collusion between the legal system (represented by the prosecution machine) and the police system guarantees conflict of interest in their own favor, hence the police unions fighting tooth and nail against any sort of external civilian oversight.

        • DaveL- It’s been my experience that police shootings almost never go to Grand Jury, but citizen shootings many times do. The key with the Grand Jury room is that you cannot bring your lawyer inside, and of course you know that prosecutors can slant Grand Juries more than 90% of the time to the desired outcome. Most prosecutors I know of cover up for cops, most of the time. Usually any justice for police criminals has to come from outside their structure, meaning state agencies or feds to investigate local police. Or public scrutiny as mentioned previously.

  8. So I’m curious, how many people here think regular folks after a shooting deserve to be treated the way police are now, compared to how many think police should be treated the way everyone else is now?

    I’ve been in a shooting once, it was pretty clear (suspect had just killed four people) that it was justified. From where I’m at, I’d like to see everyone get the same kind of treatment and consideration that I got. Some of it might not be practical, like waiting until you get back to the station and being offered a replacement gun when you turn in the one you used, but the provision of legal counsel prior to detailed questioning and such would be great.

    Now here’s the real question- how many here want the same treatment for gang members, or anyone else where it’s obvious that a thug was shooting at another thug? My take is that you can generally see pretty quickly if you’re investigating a DGU or a felonious assault, and I’m comfortable treating people differently based on that.

    • “I’m comfortable treating people differently based on that.”

      So much for the blindfolded lady justice.

    • Makes sense to me. I treat criminals like criminals, victims like victims, and unknowns like unknowns. Bear in mind that the vast majority of TTAG tacticians have never been in a shooting or critical incident. Most haven’t even been punched in the face.

      With that said, it would be good to see more policy out there that protects innocent civilians in a shooting with the Cadillac treatment that cops get.

      That’s why I oppose big government and vote and support politicians like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker and Donald Trump. A lot of people here will bitch about police getting preferential treatment but can’t get off their asses to actually support pro-rights, pro-taxpayer politicians.

      So I guess I don’t have the time to go on a cop bashing parade when I’m more politically active and supportive of government accountability than most people here. And, as a supervisor, I do hold my subordinates accountable. That includes write ups, administration interrogations, and suspensions. It will include terminations if appropriate.

      Officer Andrews got pushed out of his job, and received a whole slew of death threats. The dirtbag lady he punched, who attacked him first, didn’t receive injuries. That’s not exactly the epic example of favoritism.

      Here’s a bigger issue: police don’t want to engage dirtbags because of all the armchair quarterbacking. It’s easier and more safe to take it easy and let criminals do their thing. If we as a society create such a mountain of liability and backlash for policing criminals of the wrong race then crime will get even worse. Black Lives Matter and their riots are a prime example.

      Sure, police brutality is an issue. But it’s not nearly as important as the 2016 election and what will happen if Hillary gets into office.

      • “I treat criminals like criminals, victims like victims”

        Where is the presumption of innocence if your hunch can be used to assign guilt in order to determine your potentially violent actions.

        I do find it amusing that you threaten to “let criminals do their thing”, on a board full of armed civilians. 🙂

        • Well, there are things like “clues” and “evidence.” Things like punched ignitions, bloody hands, holding a bloody knife, video, holding a gun / blunt object / other weapon, independent witnesses, chemical test results, search warrants, and the like. I find it amusing that you presume to be so judgmental behind the safety of your keyboard. What is it that you do, again? At any rate, I ensure that good arrests are made by probable cause and that detentions are made by reasonable suspicion. If not, then I release the person for 849 B PC. If necessary the victim can file a complaint internally or externally, and may be entitled to financial compensation such as tow bills, vehicle repairs, etc.

          You’ll note that I don’t in fact assign innocence or guilt, that is the job of the judge or the jury. And I only use reasonable force. Anything above and beyond that wouldn’t be worth the risk. It’s just not financially worth it to let my anger get the best of me, although there are times I’ve been nasty online. Mea Culpa.

          I’m not “threatening to let criminals do their thing,” but simply acknowledging that the jury of public opinion has had an adverse effect on police work. A lot of cops don’t want to get into the mix for fear that they won’t be judged fairly be the media. That’s not something that roofers and delivery drivers need to deal with. This after acknowledging that police brutality does in fact exist, and that I have taken positive steps to mitigate it. Have you done anything other than complain online? Everyone here wants to harp about how police can “get away with murder” but are failing to mention that Black Lives Matter and their ilk will set cities on fire hours after a black man is shot. Even if it is totally justified.

          But what do I know? I just helped put a multiple felon away for a 5 year state prison sentence today, had 4 felony stops last weekend, helped with 4 felony pursuits, wrote a legitimate use of force report, and helped my other supervisor book evidence from the aforementioned felonies, a pursuit report, a stolen handgun, and video evidence. I’ve had about 60 felony stops / searches just in 2016.

          So maybe I sound arrogant when I say this, but I’ve actually been on the sharp end of the spear and I still am. Folks on TTAG have made some horrific comments about what they would or should do in an altercation that they see on YouTube or LiveLeak and there are times it’s apparent that they have no tactical experience. I guess I’m just not interested by being Monday morning QB’d by someone who has never been in an altercation.

          So yes, police do in fact have unequal rights. That isn’t right, and needs to be addressed. I’ve always voted for the most pro-gun, pro-limited government candidates that I can. And I’ve given them financial support – probably about $1500 this year, but I’ll have the final tally when I do my taxes. And I work for government. But as a white police sergeant, it’s pretty obvious that I could be in for some tough sledding if I shoot a black man. So could any of my crew, and it’s my job to protect them if they are doing the right thing and take the appropriate enforcement action if they are doing the wrong thing.

          I don’t need any thanks for that. I get a paycheck. It just does get a little tiring when everyone wants to complain and I’m not seeing many people take meaningful action. Unless you get a commission for how many times you use the word “bootlicker.” Have you written your police chief? Called your city council members? Called the mayors office? Stood on a picket line? Signed a petition? Donated money to pro-gun / pro-freedom politicians?

          If so, I say bravo, sir. If not, your time might be better spent going out and doing some of those things.

        • Look at all this backtracking. The terms “criminal” and “victim” is intimately tied with guilt and innocence, simply using those terms demonstrate inherent bias in your response to any encounter, making a mockery of the presumption of innocence.

          You rant about “reasonable force”, which is supposedly based on risk, such as holding a gun or knife (not a “clue” or “evidence”, get your terminology straight). A punched ignition does not apply, but I find it amusing that you included it, demonstrating your bias. Philando Castile was shot for supposedly being a criminal (in reality, matching a vague APB), so application of your good guy/bad guy false dichotomy has already gotten one person killed.

          The rest of your post is simple argumentum ad verecundiam garbage, and can be dismissed without discussion. Citizens pay your salary and pension and cops are allowed to dispense violence upon the citizenry on behalf of politicians, therefore so-called armchair quarterbacking is necessary and required.

          As an aside, check this out: http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/26/highly-decorated-field-training-officer

          Muh thin blue line… maybe I need to be punched in the face to see how that was totally justified! 🙂

        • It’s because he kept reaching for waistband. Are you really pretending you didn’t see that? He should have shot him. If one of his officers had been killed, it would be his fault. Stop mudering intelligence.

        • How are you supposed to get your ID in your wallet (i.e. following the pig’s orders) without reaching for your waistband?

          “mudering (sic) intelligence”

          Stop supporting murder. 🙂

        • Whatever More Dead. If you think cops are really in the business of arresting innocent people, believe whatever you want. You think I backtrack? Negative. I arrest guilty people. That’s treating them like a suspect. They get their day in court. I don’t arrest innocent people. That’s treating them like a victim. If they are unknowns, then more investigation is in order. The bad guy can’t always be caught. That’s why the 2nd Amendment is so important – because there are a whole lot more evil people in the world than there are cops.

          I still didn’t catch what you actually do, and what you’ve actually done that makes you such an “effective” social justice warrior. Go ahead and bitch online. I’ve got things to do. Maybe I should be sorry for you that you don’t take pride in whatever your job, or lack thereof, actually is. Or what you’d like it to be. There are plenty of cop haters that will happily take your side. I’m curious what they actually do that makes them such “experts.”

          I do find it curious why you are so opposed to a pro-gun cop. I’m not in the habit of capitulating to someone who doesn’t have much meaning to put forth into the conversation. Simply put, I’m a facts and evidence guy. I’ve already admitted that police brutality exists, and that it should be stopped. Heck, police can be terrible shots. Private citizens tend to do well, and I’ve certainly acknowledged that in the past.

          Still, you’ve done nothing to address my points regarding Black Lives Matter, Monday morning QB’s, a lack of tactical experience, or what you have actually done to address any of these issues. And frankly, I doubt you’re capable of doing so.

        • “I arrest guilty people”
          “You’ll note that I don’t in fact assign innocence or guilt, that is the job of the judge or the jury.”

          Pick one. 🙂

          “That’s why the 2nd Amendment is so important”

          Pro-tip: the 2nd amendment is for the people to defend themselves against you.

          “I’ve got things to do. Maybe I should be sorry for you that you don’t take pride in whatever your job, or lack thereof, actually is”

          Interesting dialectical technique. Instead of defending your own exposed contradictions, you use ad hominems, and speculate on motive. You bloviate at length on your supposed good deeds and experience when the topic at hand is purely a legal argument (i.e. everything you say is irrelevant).

          Your posts are like exhibit A for why the courts ruled that smart people cannot be cops. 🙂

          “I do find it curious why you are so opposed to a pro-gun cop”

          Nah, I’m opposed to entitled cops who terrorize the community at the behest of politicians then have the chutzpah to claim they are “good guys”.

          “Still, you’ve done nothing to address my points regarding Black Lives Matter,”

          You made no point regarding BLM, you merely stated a ludicrous false choice between cops and “riots”. Again, “interesting” dialectical technique. I did address so-called quarterbacking and “tactical experience”, there are required and irrelevant from a legal and moral standpoint, respectively.

        • Well More Dead, the defense attorney today convinced his client to plead guilty and accept a 5 year state prison sentence. I win the vast majority of my cases. Unless perhaps you’re a better defense attorney and could have gotten an innocent verdict.

          Real people with real jobs accept my work. If you don’t, it really doesn’t matter.

        • You know what “argumentum ad verecundiam” means, right? Obviously not.

          It amuses me that you refer to the legal system as “real people”, the issue of criminal justice reform and the dysfunction of the legal system being a significant topic of conversation and debate today. Naturally, a cop would be totally ignorant of any and all criticism, even if it is tangentially related. 🙂

      • Accur81- “So I guess I don’t have the time to go on a cop bashing parade when I’m more politically active and supportive of government accountability than most people here. And, as a supervisor, I do hold my subordinates accountable. That includes write ups, administration interrogations, and suspensions. It will include terminations if appropriate.”

        I’m sincerely glad that you claim to do all the above, but that’s your job. What I find interesting is that society flips out about possible criminal conduct by sitting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but you almost never hear the average person say something like, “well at least MOST judges (or politicians, aldermen, congressmen, etc.) are honest, so we should unquestioningly support ALL of them.” Why is anyone supposed to condone or not question criminal conduct by police, which happens every day in this country? We will either have the rule of law or we will not. Anyone who supports or condones police criminals is a criminal themselves.

        Are you telling us that you have never personally known or witnessed any police officer plant evidence on a suspect, lie in court, falsify an official report, or any other of the uncountable hundreds of different ways in which police break the law routinely?

        • I’ve seen cops F up and I’ve held them accountable for that. I’ve only said that about a dozen times. And I’ve said that I’ve written them up and suspended them. Some of you just have selective memories.

          There are those of us out there who are fully competent in our jobs. Yes, we make mistakes, and surely we should be held accountable for that. Ralph has seen and prosecuted dirty cops. Hell, Tamiekia Johnson flat out murdered her husband with her duty gun. She’s still in prison. Dan Andrews lost his job. I’ve seen people fired, and rightly so.

          Anyways, I haven’t seen any of you actually state what you’re jobs are that give you such an exceptional degree of competency. Since none of you have offered anything constructive for me, I’m out.

          If you all really are as good as you think you are, then I actually challenge you to make a difference. Maybe you want to bash me. Go for it. I’m actually making a difference and I happen to be proud of who I am.

        • “I haven’t seen any of you actually state what you’re jobs are that give you such an exceptional degree of competency… then I actually challenge you to make a difference”

          This would be “ignorantio elenchi”.

          Apparently “Abusing logical fallacies 101” was police academy curriculum. 🙂

        • More Dead,

          Oh, Latin! I must be so ignorant!

          The facts are that I use evidence. If you’ve got a better way to do police work, I’m all ears. I’m sure your experience at whatever job you’re too embarrassed to mention and whatever training you possess that you’ve neglected to reference gives you fascinating insights into police work.

          Also, you’ve failed to answer any of my challenges. Repeatedly. Such as: what do you do currently and what you’re actually doing to improve the situation of unequal treatment of cops vs. taxpayers in shootings?

          If your ideas are so good, and you’re experience so vast and beneficial, they’re certainly worth sharing, right?

          Please enlighten me to a better standard for arrests than probable cause based upon evidence and the totality of the circumstances. If you want to argue just to argue, go ahead and do so. You in fact are treating me as a guilty party without any evidence. I treat people on the side of the road better than that. That’s why I video record my stops for the court to see, and why I’m so effective out on the street.

          I’m also honest enough to know that there are cops out there who are a lot better than me. You know what they do? They give me useful specifics on how to train subordinates, investigate complicated scenes, and how to deal with people who have mental handicaps. Incidentally, that’s feels like dealing with some of the responses I’ve had here.

          If you’re so good at what you do, then you can join my agency, promote multiple times, and give me orders that I have to follow. If they’re legal and moral, that is. Have at it!

          But I’m betting that you can’t or won’t do any of that.

          Also, to all the happy cop haters here, there have been plenty of cases where cops actually have been punished, arrested, fired, and even imprisomed. Some of you are really enjoying the mental masterbation that police have zero accountability while simultaneously bashing those who legitimately do hold police accountable.

          Here I am, either a real live police sergeant or someone who’s spending a lot of unnecessary effort to claim I am one. And what have ruester, More Dead, and others offered me that is actually useful?

          Nothing. It’s not much wonder why many of you have had bad experiences with police. Your attitude certainly doesn’t help matters.

          Yes, police should be held to a higher standard. Yes, we need to shake up government, hold it accountable, and redouble our efforts to actually have government serve the population in a legitimate manner.

          Shockingly, insulting me will not accomplish that objective.

        • I would use pig latin, if that works better for you. 🙂

          “you’re too embarrassed to mention and whatever training you possess that you’ve neglected to reference”

          Conjecture, and irrelevant at the same time. Fantastic.

          “what do you do currently and what you’re actually doing to improve the situation of unequal treatment of cops vs. taxpayers in shootings?”

          That’s like saying anyone who is not a lawyer has no stand to criticize the legal system. A complete non-argument. I could be doing absolutely nothing, your contradictory statements regarding guilt vs innocence and your open contempt for presumption of innocence does not change a bit.

          “Please enlighten me to a better standard for arrests than probable cause based upon evidence and the totality of the circumstances.”

          Not even the point being argued on. The issue at hand is the standard used to assess justification for lethal violence for police versus taxpayers. The obvious solution is to treat cops the exact same way as civilians. But cops will never stand for that… some animals are more equal than others, amirite? 🙂

          “Also, to all the happy cop haters here, there have been plenty of cases where cops actually have been punished, arrested, fired, and even imprisomed.”

          Statistically, cops are basically immune from punishment. Grand juries average over 99% indictment rates for civilians, but for cops the rate falls below 50%. Now, you can bloviate about how cops are all innocent and persecuted under political pressure, but really, it takes an especially stupid cop to refuse to acknowledge the massive conflict of interest of having the prosecutorial system try to go after cops, considering their symbiotic relationship.

          Anyways, the rest of your post is the usual “in my shoes” garbage which can be discarded without discussion. You end your post calling for a higher standard when reality is that cops are held to a much lower standard, due to no small part to the cops themselves who constantly push for more power, less oversight, and looser legal restrictions.

          You can claim to want to reform the system, but at the end of the day the system you willfully serve, the system that feeds you, is immensely corrupt, and the vast majority of your fellows like it that way.

  9. I don’t know much about the Law Enforcement Officer’s bill of rights, but I do know that LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act) does not require or mention Duty to Inform for police. An off-duty Chicago cop driving up to the Wisconsin Dells does not have to tell a Wisconsin state trooper who gives him a ticket that he is a cop, much less that he is armed. So the “officer safety” argument is a lie.

    Here in Illinois we have criminal penalties of six months or one year for DTI, and the best part is that nothing in the statute requires the cop who questions you to be on duty or in uniform, so you could be dealing with a serial killer like John Gacy. The Duty to Inform was put in state Rep. Brandon Phelps 2013 concealed carry bill by NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde because the IL Chiefs of Police and other anti-gun police unions wanted it.

    If Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA/ILA pay money to traitors like Vandermyde so police can set up and kill armed citizens at will like Philando Castile in Minnesota, then you know that NRA, Inc. is a corrupt, rotten front filled with scum that feast on the blood of their own membership.

    • Demo Man,
      Here is a link to the Illinois concealed carry law. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3497
      Can you please tell me where the the duty to inform section you state is found? Also, can you please articulate your complaints about Cox, Cunninghan, et al are? And finally, what solutions do you offer?

      Additionally, Mr. Farago, you seem to have a running argument with the police in the United States. I’m not quite sure the connections your complaints have to guns, but I’m sure many would appreciate knowing the core of your beliefs in the matter.

  10. If anything, police should be held to a higher standard than that of the public…As it stands now, police can commit crimes with impunity because, in most situations, they investigate themselves…Behavior that would get an ordinary citizen charged, convicted and incarcerated is routinely ignored by “the powers that be” because police are considered to be “above the law” as the “law” is whatever they say it is, the Constitution be damned…
    Ever notice that police unions are “fraternal”? This should tell you something. The “thin-blue-line” is a gang, little different than street gangs–at least when it comes to “covering-up” their questionable and quite often, illegal and criminal behavior.
    In today’s day and age, “officer safety” trumps de-escalation of force. This, in part, is due to the militarization of the police along with training in Israeli police tactics. This becomes a problem, with the “us vs. them” attitude that is fosters, along with the fact that Israel is a very different place, being on a constant “war footing”, and by necessity, its police tactics are very different.
    There are too many instances of police being “given a pass”, even when incontrovertible video and audio evidence is presented. Grand juries, guided by police-friendly prosecutors, quite often refuse to charge those police officers who abuse their authority.
    Police officers, who want to do the right thing, are quite often marginalized and put into harms way, by their own brethren…When a police officer is beating on someone that is already restrained while yelling, “stop resisting” THAT is but one reason police have a “bad name” in many instances…this makes the “good cops” who are standing around, witnessing their “brethren in blue” beating on a restrained suspect, culpable as well…
    Here are changes that can help reduce police-induced violence:
    1. Get rid of police unions. Police unions (fraternities) protect the guilty, and are responsible for the massive whitewashing of questionable police behavior that is presently being committed.
    2. Eliminate both “absolute” and “qualified” immunity for all public officials. This includes, prosecutors and judges, police and firefighters, code enforcement and child protective services officials, and others who deal with the citizenry. The threat of being sued personally would encourage them to behave themselves. Require police officers to be “bonded” by an insurance company, with their own funds. No bond= no job.
    3. Any public funds disbursed to citizens as a result of police misconduct should come out of police pension funds–NOT from the taxpayers.
    4. Regular drug-testing of police officers as well as incident-based drug testing should take place whenever an officer is involved in a violent situation with a citizen–no exceptions.
    5. Testing for steroid use should be a part of the drug testing program. You know damn well, many police officers “bulk up” with the “help” of steroids. Steroids also affect users mentally as well, making them more aggressive. The potential for abuse of citizens increases greatly with steroid use.
    6. Internal affairs should only be used for disagreements between individual officers–NOT for investigations involving citizen abuse. State-level investigations should be mandatory for all suspected abuses involving citizens.
    7. Prosecutors should be charged with malfeasance IF any evidence implicating police officer misconduct is not presented to the grand jury.
    8. A national or state-by-state database of abusive individuals who should NEVER be allowed to perform police work should be established–a “blacklist” of abusive (former) police officers.
    9. Most people are unaware that police have special “rules” that prohibit them from being questioned for 48 hours. This allows them to “get their stories straight” and makes it easier to “cover up” bad police behavior. Police must be subject to the same laws as civilians.
    10. All police should be required to wear bodycams and utilize dashcams that cannot be turned off. Any police officers who causes a dash or body cam to be turned off should be summarily fired–no excuses. Today’s body and dash cams are reliable enough to withstand harsh treatment. Body and dashcam footage should be uploaded to a public channel “on the cloud” for public perusal.
    11. All interrogations must be video and audio recorded. Police should be prohibited from lying or fabricating stories in order to get suspects to confess. False confessions ARE a problem in many departments. Unknown to most people, police can lie with impunity while civilians can be charged with lying to police…fair? I think not…
    12. Any legislation passed that restricts the rights of ordinary citizens, such as firearms magazine capacity limits, types of weapons allowed, or restrictive concealed-carry laws should apply equally to police. No special exemptions to be given to police. Laws must be equally applied.
    Police work is not inherently dangerous…there are many other professions that are much more dangerous.
    A little “Andy Taylor” could go a long way in allaying fears that citizens have of police.
    That being said, I have no problem with police officers who do their job in a fair, conscientious manner…however, it is time to call to task those police officers who only “protect and serve” themselves.

    • “3. Any public funds disbursed to citizens as a result of police misconduct should come out of police pension funds–NOT from the taxpayers.”

      You think cops cover for other cops *NOW*?

  11. There is much angst and consternation against prosecutors and grand juries who refuse to bring charges against police officers, even when incontrovertible evidence is presented. Even with incontrovertible audio and video evidence, prosecutors are loath to prosecute rogue law enforcement personnel.
    Let’s examine the reasons why it is so difficult to prosecute thug cops:
    Most prosecutors are former police officers or have extensive dealings with police departments and have ongoing relationships with police departments in their respective jurisdictions. They are friendly with the judges in their jurisdictions, as well. This, along with “absolute immunity” makes it easy for them to “cover up” police abuses and behavior. Prosecutors cannot be sued for malfeasance…it takes a judge (who prosecutors are friendly with) to bring charges on a rogue prosecutor (which almost never happens).
    In addition, prosecutors guide the actions of grand juries. Prosecutors are not required to introduce any evidence to grand juries, (can and do) easily “whitewash” the actions of rogue cops. On the other hand, prosecutors can (and often do) go after honest citizens who seek justice outside official channels…prosecutors have ultimate power and are not afraid to use it…their immunity sees to that.
    Another aspect to a grand jury’s inability to prosecute bad cops is the fear of retribution…cops drive around all day, have nothing but time, have access to various databases, and can easily get the names and addresses of grand jurors…this, in itself can be a powerful deterrent against grand jurors who “want to do the right thing” and prosecute bad cops. There are many cases of cops parking in front of grand jurors’ residences, following them around, and threaten to issue citations to them, in order to “convince” them to “make the right decision”…the “thin blue line” at its worst…
    The whole system has to change.
    Eliminate absolute and qualified immunity for all public officials. The fear of personal lawsuits would be a powerful deterrent against abuses of the public.
    Any funds disbursed to civilians as a result of official misconduct must be taken from the police pension funds–NOT from the taxpayers.
    Grand juries must be superior to the prosecutor; ALL evidence must be presented to grand jurors. Failure to do so must be considered a felony and subject prosecutors to prosecution themselves.
    No police agency can be allowed to investigate itself. Internal affairs departments must be restricted to minor in-house investigations of behavior between cops. All investigations must be handled by outside agencies, preferably at the state level.
    Civilian police review boards must be free of police influence. Members of civilian review boards must have NO ties to police departments. Relatives of police would be prohibited from serving…Recently, the “supreme court” threw police another “bone”. The court ruled that police are not responsible for their actions if they are “ignorant of the law”…now, let’s get this straight–honest citizens cannot use “ignorance of the law” as an excuse, but cops can??
    Revolution is sorely needed…..

  12. I call BS.

    2: (Investigator getting event information) All persons are entitled to the 5th Amendment. This article of the LEOBR actually advocates for a breach of the right against self-incrimination in that the officer, in the immediate aftermath of a life-threatening event, is recommended to give a brief statement of events to the investigator stating what happened and why. Many departments actually state the officer MUST give a statement as to their actions leading up to the use of deadly force, without regard to the officer’s right against self-incrimination. You as Joe civilian can simply say “Thank you for advising me of my rights. I would like to speak with a lawyer before I say anything else”.

    3: (Progress of Investigation) The DA is required to pass information to your attorney as to the progress of the investigation. If you self-represent, the DA is required to inform you directly. There is no difference here except for the obvious thing you all seem to be missing: A defensive shooting is incredibly unlikely to ever happen to a civilian and yet for a cop, it is something that may happen multiple times throughout their career. I know many officers in rural MI who have never drawn a weapon, and I have friends in St Louis, Phoenix and Las Vegas who draw their weapon at least weekly. In most departments, drawing a weapon is considered a use of force and must be investigated.

    4: (Inspection of weapons) This 100% does not apply to anyone not a cop. Period. Consider this: As a cop, you are trained to provide back-up and support to officers. You may not be the first officer on-scene. You arrive a minute after the first car and see your fellow officer, who received the same training as you, with their firearm drawn and aimed. You would be a fool risking your own life if you did anything other than immediately draw your weapon and identify the threat perceived by the first officer. Should that officer fire, maybe even before you have identified the threat, history has proven that people with similar training and similar positions will do the same thing as those they see around them, oftentimes without actual awareness. Consider subconscious vs. thoughtful. It’s why when one person in an infantry unit opens fire, those around them will oftentimes do the same, even if they haven’t clearly identified a specific target. This specific article seeks to ensure that if sympathetic fire happens, it is identified as soon as possible, and not a month later when the support officer swaps magazines and realizes he’s three rounds short.

    5: (Seizure of weapon) Do we take a doctor’s stethoscope when a patient dies in the OR? A fireman’s coat when a building burns down? Your gun is gone until the state determines if you committed a crime. The state needs to examine it to verify the sequence of events. Who’s prints are on the gun? How many rounds were fired? Is it a stolen weapon? Does the weapon match the bullets recovered at the scene? In a LEO shooting, the state already has all the information that could come from a weapon examination.

    7: (Officer support) Until you daily risk your life for someone you’ve never met, you don’t get to be critical of a cop needing support. Think about it: If you ever use your weapon, it is in direct defense of your life or the life of someone you know and love. A cop doesn’t get that choice. All the keyboard warriors can brag about how tough they are, and how it wouldn’t affect them, and that makes them idiots who probably need to move out of mommy’s basement now. Killing someone, even someone who richly deserves it, is a life-changing event. It doesn’t matter if you wear a uniform. In fact, it’s more difficult if you do because you’re not doing it out of a sense of self-preservation, you’re doing it in support of some esoteric thing called “justice”. Joe civilian sees a carjacking and walks the other way. Maybe calls 911. Maybe. An officer puts his life in jeopardy to save the victim and their property, and may end someone else’s life to do so. Oh…and the whole officer whispering in your ear bullshit? They won’t whisper to you. They’ll clearly and intelligibly inform you of your right to remain silent, (that is to say nothing at all), and your right to an attorney. Save the theatrics (oh…I just can’t even) for an audience that still reads Twilight novels; it undermines any hint of non-bias you may actually have.

    9: (back of a cruiser) Again, all people are innocent until proven guilty. Can you imagine if they remove a doctor from the operating rotation because a patient dies? Yet they do so in every single officer-involved shooting. How in the hell are you ever going to get a person to want to do the job if they KNOW they’re going to be treated like a criminal simply for doing that job? Joe civilian who fires a weapon in self-defense could logically be suspected of having committed a crime until such time as evidence points otherwise. It’s called due process. They know that there’s a dead guy, you had a gun, and someone called 911. If you gave a brief synopsis (he charged me with a knife, I feared for my life and defended myself with my firearm), they still don’t know who you really are, what your background is, what, if any, relation you had to the dead guy, and a whole slew of other things that need answered before a preponderance of evidence indicates you likely acted in self-defense. An officer (who they know most everything about) was there because his job put him there, and it’s his job to use force as necessary to prevent crimes of violence against others. Due process is much quicker when you don’t have to determine ulterior motive.

    11, 12: Do the job often enough and you’ll have nightmares for the rest of your life. These people see and hear things that you cannot possibly fathom, and they see it and hear it every day. How do you expect them to cope? Of course they need support, they time to get their head straight, and they shouldn’t be abandoned.

    Robert, I’m really disappointed to see drivel like this here. If your intent is to highlight that there’s bad cops, you’re using the liberal tactic of smearing everyone for the crimes of the few. We don’t like it when they compare all AR-15 owners to Adam Lanza, so why are you perpetuating the casting of all cops in the image of the dirty few?

    • I detect the press of labium superius oris and labium inferius oris against police nates.

      Does it taste like bacon?

      • Nice Ralph.

        I never really took you for the ad-hominem type, but thanks for supporting that my facts are accurate and you have nothing additional to offer to the conversation.

        Stay classy.

    • Until you daily risk your life for someone you’ve never met, you don’t get to be critical of a cop needing support.

      Reality: Police risk their lives less than farmers, taxi drivers, convenience store clerks, and a slew of other ordinary jobs.

      In fact, it’s more difficult if you do because you’re not doing it out of a sense of self-preservation, you’re doing it in support of some esoteric thing called “justice”.

      Reality:Killing people in support of justice is the province of executioners, not police. Police are supposed to kill only to protect themselves or others. If you think police are supposed to dole out “justice” with high-speed lead, you’re part of the problem.

      • Nice avoidance of context. Let me expound:

        Police go to work every day knowing they are likely to face danger, and do so willingly. No farmer walks into the barn every morning expecting to get sucked into the combine. No logger walks out of the landing expecting to get crushed by a bad lay. No taxi drivers expects they will drive head-on into a drunk driver. They may anticipate that it might happen, but it’s actually NOT part of the job description. The same is not true for the cop. Additionally, it doesn’t matter the actual fatality rate; what matters is the willingness to risk injury so that others need not.

        Police don’t administer justice, and I never said they did. Justice comes from a jury or a judge, dependent upon jurisdiction and nature of crime. I also never said police shoot people to enact justice. Police use force to uphold the law (which supports the administration of justice) and in so doing, my have to use deadly force which actually results in a death. And everything I said still holds true: They didn’t shoot a bad guy breaking into their house to harm their family, they shot someone because that bad guy who just pointed a gun at the cashier at the 7/11 might do it again, with different results, if they get away. If you don’t think that weighs heavy, there’s really no point in further debate.

        • Additionally, it doesn’t matter the actual fatality rate; what matters is the willingness to risk injury so that others need not.

          Which still fails to distinguish police from other occupations, since they also willingly face the dangers of their professions (and yes, accepting those dangers is part of those professions) so that others don’t have to.

          Wow, talk about tunnel vision.

        • . I also never said police shoot people to enact justice. Police use force to uphold the law

          Not deadly force. The fleeing felon rule is not supposed to be about upholding the law, it’s supposed to be about protecting others from an imminent threat, which is very much like how private citizens are allowed to defend the lives of others.

    • # 9…a taxpayer-paid vacation is kind of nice…no other profession receives that. In fact, an ordinary citizen is likely to lose his job for defending himself…especially if he is detained by a power-hungry police department or prosecutor…

    • Oh! The poor babies! That’s some sad stories about those heroic cops and the horrors they face day-to-day. One of the guys who shared the job I had in Vietnam, which included firing 2.75 inch rockets loaded with white phosphorus at targets on the ground, was met after landing by an Army helicopter which drug him aboard, screeching and whooping, and headed off to the target area he had just finished bombing. They showed him where one of his rockets, purely by chance, had speared an enemy soldier, nailed him to a tree and detonated the white phosphorus, up close and personal. In the half-hour since, all flesh had been cooked off the bones, which were still smoking. The Army thought that was just so COOL, the AF guy did not stop puking for a week. And you are telling me how bad the Mayberry cops are overcome with the horror? Pardon me if I call bullshit. You’re talking nonsense.

  13. Police are political tools. They know they are political tools. So it isn’t surprising that they behave like political tools, and this is just a symptom of that.

  14. Many departments actually state the officer MUST give a statement as to their actions leading up to the use of deadly force, without regard to the officer’s right against self-incrimination. You as Joe civilian can simply say “Thank you for advising me of my rights. I would like to speak with a lawyer before I say anything else”

    Garrity give public employees, including police, the guarantee that any statement given under the threat of job discipline cannot be used against them in criminal proceedings. Private citizens get no such protections – their employer can compel them to make statements about alleged criminal activity, and fire them if they refuse. Those statements would still then be admissible as evidence against them in criminal proceedings.

    As a matter of fact, the Michigan Supreme Court recently ruled that a state law, meant to codify that protection, actually gives officers protection against criminal prosecution even for lying in such a compelled statement. In fact the ruling would seem to bar criminal prosecution of any kind for anything arising out of such compelled statements.

    So if you’re a cop, and you’ve ever wanted to know what it felt like to tell a judge, to his face in open court, that his mother was a filthy whore, Michigan is the place for you.

    • Good point Dave. Unfortunately, Garrity vs New Jersey is pretty much a joke nowadays. Despite the intent of the jurists, most city and state governments have managed to massage this ruling to mean when a public employee is suspected of a crime, they can’t be forced to testify against themselves under threat of losing their job, and can only be questioned after a rights advisement.

      Contrast these two statements:

      1) Bob, if you don’t tell us how your city credit card has $12,000 of Starbucks charges, we’re going to have to let you go. (Notice there’s no due process or actual investigation, just tell us or you’re fired)

      2) Bob, I need to know what you saw that made you feel using your service weapon was appropriate, so we have a way to get moving on this investigation. (This is very, very similar to the initial report for a civilian in that the response is oftentimes something like “I saw him threatening person X with deadly force, so I drew my weapon to counter his threat of force and to gain his compliance”. Note also that this is actually construed as a part of due process)

      A few workarounds I’ve seen include such things as having officers agree to departmental policy as a term of employment, and then making sure departmental policy says that you will be required to give an on-scene synopsis of the events which lead to a use of deadly force, whether that deadly force actually resulted in a fatality or not. Most state law also recognizes that these on-scene statements are useful only in administrative actions, and not in a court. Another common workaround is in post-incident leave status: If you give an on-scene account of the shooting that justifies use of deadly force, you could be placed on leave with pay status pending the conclusion of the investigation. If you refuse to give an account which in your mind justified the use of deadly force, you could be considered a suspect to a crime, and placed on leave without pay status until such time as innocence is proven and you are returned to duty. Sure, you’ll get your back pay, but can you really afford to go 6 weeks or more without a check?

      I’m not familiar with the MI court ruling with regard to compelled statements, so I’ll refrain from comment on that topic until I am.

      As far as the courtroom discussion goes, any disrespect to the court is still Contempt of Court, and will be adjudged accordingly. And while judges have broad latitude as to what they individually construe as contemptuous, I can confidently state any disparaging terms about the judge will qualify.

      • Nothing you have said obviates the fact that ANY employer can compel statements on possible criminal behavior from their employees, but only public employees like police get immunity from prosecution for such statements. That includes armed security who shoot someone in the course of their employment. Hell, you could work at Chuck-E-Cheeze and happen to defend yourself against a burglar in your home while off duty, and your employer can still demand an explanation if they see fit, and hand that statement over to police. Police definitely get the long end of the stick here.

        As for contempt of court, since it works be punitive in this case, that would make it criminal contempt, and the ruling bars any criminal consequences for statements made under compulsion. Now, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a judge, faced with the unintended consequences of this ruling, do some elaborate mental acrobatics to make an exception for criminal contempt, but I’m just stating what the ruling implies on its face.

  15. Something wrong with the figures quoted in the referenced PDF. It says in part: “According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), an estimated
    500,000 police officers in the United States fatally shoot 3,600 people each year.” That would mean that on average 139 LEO’s shoot each person killed. Not even possible.

    • You need to go back to high school English. I’m wondering how many of those 3600 dead are even recognizable as former humans, after being shot by 500,000 cops.

  16. Your statement can’t be used against you in a state proceeding. If it goes to fed ct all bets are off. They can use any statement you make

  17. Hey TTAG, what is with the photo showing a cop holding his face? Why not the video of cops giving each other high fives after killing Paul O’Neal, or the audio of Michael Slager laughing about shooting Walter Scott, or the bodycam footage of cops cursing and insulting Eric Harris when Harris mentioned that Robert Bates shot him in the back?

    • No kidding. Prepare to be called a boot licker again. Or maybe something really clever like a copsucker. Lots of bitching going on without a lot of action. It’s about as fruitful as arguing with anti-gunners.

      Ralph has actually helped prosecute dirty cops and I’ve held them accountable, too. Yet somehow I argue with “logical fallacies” like examples and personal experience. If they don’t find me credible it really doesn’t matter since lawyers and judges do.

      Anyways, thanks for stopping by, bud.

      • Do you even know what a logical fallacy is? Pro-tip: credibility and personal anecdotes have nothing to do with constructing a logical argument. For example, no amount of personal experience can change the fact that you directly contradicted yourself in two statements, as I showed in an earlier post.

        Logical reasoning is the lawyers’ job in court, not yours, for obvious reasons. 🙂

        • Pro tip: be a pro at something, and I might actually accept your pro tip advice.

          Also, I’ve asked you about a 1/2 dozen times to what you’ve done to address the issue of unequal police treatment and you haven’t responded.

          Further, personal experience does matter. Especially when I have personal experience with police shootings and holding police accountable, which is the topic at hand.

          Want another logical fallacy? Your whole schtick that all police are bad and corrupt all the time, and that police don’t have accountability. It’s easily defeated with examples and personal experience. My agency has fired almost 50 people in 2016. Many more have been suspended, written up, and counseled, and re-trained. That’s accountability, even if it isn’t perfect. I’ll freely admit that I can’t fully pull out the details of my examples because it violates confidentially. Guess what, you’re right that police should have more accountability, and you’ve listed numbers to support that. Bravo. If you look at what I’ve said, I agree with you on that point.

          In court, however, I can discuss confidential details and I do win, although not every time. That’s the reality of juries in LA. You may argue that lawyers will rip my testimony to shreds because of all of my “logical fallacies” that you imagine. Plenty of lawyers have tried to trap me in the fallacy of the false choice (an example! Oh, no!). Well Sergeant B, were you lying then or are you lying now? Neither one, sir.

          If you actually had a job, or any real world experience, you might come to the realization that all people are flawed. All businesses and jobs have flaws. Starbucks, LAPD, city council, roofers, delivery drivers, etc. When I worked in the Marine Corps as an infantry platoon sergeant there were flaws. When I worked as a crew chief for Dunbar Armored, there were flaws. The weapons training was also absolutely terrible. But, dear God! That’s off topic! Want to fix a flaw? Come up with something better. Support an actual solution.

          So here’s another open challenge for you to fail: find me a perfect job where there is zero corruption and favoritism. Again, I’m all ears. The reason I’m not fully respecting your arguments is simply because you don’t offer any solutions. For example, when an intelligent person like Dyspeptic Gunsmith goes on a rant, he has actual professional experience and solutions to back up what he says. That’s why he earns so much respect. Got a gun problem? He’s probably got a solution. The man has decades of experience fixing guns, and people pay for that experience and competence.

          In a similar vein, I have personal experience with police accountability. I’m part of the solution. You can not believe that as much as you want, and I’m afraid I can’t provide all the details of what I’ve done, but it still exists. Not all of us are like Hillary Clinton and will throw away confidentiality for the sake of convenience. And if you don’t believe me it really doesn’t matter. Nothing you can do affects my paycheck, promotional opportunities, or job evaluations. I’ve dealt with a lot of difficult and condescending people. Yesterday I helped put away someone like that for a 5 year state prison sentence. The most frustration you’ll get me is a few more reps on the bench press.

          Also, since you seem to want to be the TTAG police if I dare venture off topic on this issue, I’ll ask you yet again: what have you done to make it better? I’ll be giving briefing tonight, and the captain, 2 lieutenants, and a former judge will be there. Lots of professional experience. Got any improvements for me? Bring it on. I’m looking forward to your “wisdom” on this or any other police-related topic. Can you be part of the solution? Or will you just bitch about the problem?

        • Yep, you have no idea how logical reasoning works. Citing personal anecdotes is named logical fallacy, argument from authority (and in your case, emotion as well). This is debate 101.

          Feel free to not accept advice, your ignorance in debate is obvious for all to see. 🙂

        • “I’ve asked you about a 1/2 dozen times to what you’ve done to address the issue of unequal police treatment and you haven’t responded”

          Asking an irrelevant question a half dozen times does not make it relevant, dontcha know?

          “So here’s another open challenge for you to fail: find me a perfect job where there is zero corruption and favoritism”

          This would be the “no true scotsman” logical fallacy.

          It is as if you are trying to collect all the logical fallacies in a single thread. “Achievement” unlocked? 🙂

      • I’m not convinced that some of our professional level SJWs/trolls, like more dead soldiers, are pro gun and not anti. But if his kind are insulting me, I know I’m right.

        • “But if his kind are insulting me”

          Post an example from this thread. Really, don’t flatter yourself. 🙂

  18. “I’d be happy if they were held to the same standard as the average citizen. Most citizens believe that if an police officer commits a crime, they should be charged. Apparently, the police disagree…”

    Except, contrary to BLM and the ALCU, the laws cited above have nothing to do with not charging police with a crime. They do not, as some random Wikipedian claims, afford police extra privileges than other citizens. The laws involve the discipline of officers, i.e. their employers (the government) investigating and punishing them above and beyond the criminal matter. In other words, it involves an aspect of punishment that non-police do not have to contend with. It may look like it is providing cops with ‘extra’ benefits (being interrogated at reasonable times, etc) until you think about it a second and realize that regular citizens have the right to refuse questioning altogether. If a cop decides to remain silent he can be fired, something your average plumber doesn’t face.

    We can talk about the ways in which cops have things better in a shoot situation but this article is not only complete nonsense but smells a lot like purposeful deceit the way it tries to portray a false narrative of the law in question.

    I’m not that surprised to see it here.

  19. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. We became a Banana Republic a long time ago. It is now just becoming plainly obvious.

  20. this, is COMPLETELY unconstitutional. it creates 2 tier legal system of protection, as equally unconstitutional as “qualified immunity” a completely baseless legal alchemy.

    and in fact, something ENTIRELY prohibited: it’s a Bill of Attainder.

    while it came about to prevent “sins of the father/blood” ie, if your father was a convicted criminal, unlike days of yore, the state is prohibited from treating the rest of the family members like criminal, or should the father die before facing justice, the son could not be forced to face to answer for his father’s alleged crimes.

    but, the legal premise behind bill of attainder is a legislation in which people are grouped based on arbitrary characteristics or tribe: ie, blood, family name, race, gender, religion, etc.

    as such, while it is illegal to prosecute some and not others solely based on commonly shared traits when no crime has been committed, it is equally illegal to give different level of immunity to some, but not others.

    essentially a bill of attainder was prohibited, as doing so would create separate legal standards, and no equal protection under the law would be viable.

    also, if anything, as EMPLOYEES, frankly, govt terrorists, have NO rights beyond their own natural rights.

    in so far as the auspices of delegated privileges they are legally permitted to operate under, anything beyond what’s constitutionally enumerated, they have no power to enforce anything outside its scope.

    as such, in essence, govt terrorists are ALWAYS supposed to have LESS power than their citizen bosses.

    whomever heard of an employee having more protection or options or powers to affect the business than their employers? in what fucking universe?

    of course, how govt operates in reality, vs as advertised is wholly another matter: ie, the Communist Chinese as well as then USSR had bill of rights and freedom of speech too.

    xD

  21. This type of legislation is bogus in so many ways. I’m sorry, but a LEO who shoots someone should be treated exactly as a civilian is. No special consideration, no delays, etc. A couple of retired cops are my best friends and they will admit that there are many bad apples out there. Some are just lazy, some are incompetent, and some are just bad guys who do all the stuff seen on TV and movies. They shoot innocent people, shoot pet dogs, because they got barked at, or are a “bad” breed, or, as it seems in most cases, for kicks, plant “evidence”, etc, and most of them get away with all of it. They retire with their pension, a nice reward for ruining lives while the people and families they harm get screwed over in most cases. That’s changing and if a cop is bad, they should be fired, not allowed to stick around.

    Then there are the prosecutors who ignore evidence that clears defendants, hide it from the other side, and there are zero penalties for doing so.

    And some people wonder why there is so much anger towards law enforcement now? They used to be able to get away with shooting people without good cause, but now, most shootings have some sort of video shot of them and it’s hard to convince a jury you “feared for my life” when the video shows you’re lying.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *