Occupy Wall Street

[Kulindahr]

Of course you have to break the law to get charged, don't you?

This is a put-on, right? You can't really believe that.

 

[Kulindahr]

No. It says that, thanks to the unions, it makes it virtually impossible to fire bad police officers. For a police officer to get fired in any major city in the US, they'd have to shoot someone in the face and kill them in cold blood, caught on video, and with multiple witnesses. Anything short of that, and they get a slap on the wrist and transferred.

Take, for example, this police officer in Chicago. He is over 6 ft tall, 240 pounds, and he beat a 110 pound female bartender for no reason whatsoever. The only reason he got fired was because the story ran on the national news for a week. The Union did its best to protect him, fighting tooth and nail against the firing.

Or rapists that were allowed to stay on the job.

Rahm Emanuel, love him or hate him, was probably one of the best things to happen to Chicago. The police union doesn't even bother fighting if the accusations are serious enough any more, because they know Rahm will beat them into the ground.

It doesn't take a union. Around here, agencies swap corrupt officers all the time -- the people in charge come drooling to make offers.

We've got a guy here who was a city cop until he was caught fabricating evidence, so they made him a parole officer, where he got caught lying on the stand, so now he's a county sheriff deputy. There's another who's been a deputy in three neighboring counties now, because he's been caught taking bribes and falsifying evidence.

As long as they keep getting points for making arrests, this will go on.

 

[Kulindahr]

There, fixed it for you. Your original isn't true.

If it's the unions, why is it the management in other agencies coming to offer these guys new positions?

Frak, the county commissioners nearly got the unions on line to get a deputy fired and black-balled!

 

[Kulindahr]

First of all, what youtube videos exist of the incident he was talking about?

Second of all, most courts wouldn't admit Youtube or other observer video since it often doesn't show the whole incident. Thats part of the reason why most PD cars have dash cams now. Unless it shows everything, from beginning to end, courts won't allow it in.

Doesn't have to show the whole incident -- just what's under examination. It may be of no use in showing why a particular officer threw a flash-bang grenade, but it would be perfectly admissible in establishing that it was one particular officer who threw it.

There was a trial here not too long ago where a YouTube vid was introduced to establish where something had taken place -- coupled with google Earth....

The juror I talked to afterward, a gal in her 70s, thought it was like magic.

 

[JB3]

Doesn't have to show the whole incident -- just what's under examination. It may be of no use in showing why a particular officer threw a flash-bang grenade, but it would be perfectly admissible in establishing that it was one particular officer who threw it.

There was a trial here not too long ago where a YouTube vid was introduced to establish where something had taken place -- coupled with google Earth....

The juror I talked to afterward, a gal in her 70s, thought it was like magic.

Except you're ignoring the glaring, impossible to ignore fact that, sometimes, officers do things like that in reaction to something that a citizen does. (shocking I know )
Unless a video shows the context, prosecutors (or defense for that matter) would find it very difficult to get the court to accept it into evidence. (in other words: Context matters)

 

[JB3]

It doesn't take a union. Around here, agencies swap corrupt officers all the time -- the people in charge come drooling to make offers.

We've got a guy here who was a city cop until he was caught fabricating evidence, so they made him a parole officer, where he got caught lying on the stand, so now he's a county sheriff deputy. There's another who's been a deputy in three neighboring counties now, because he's been caught taking bribes and falsifying evidence.

As long as they keep getting points for making arrests, this will go on.

We're talking about two different things. You're talking about someone that's being shuffled around purposely. The rest of us are talking about officers that the city or municipality tries to fire, but can't, because the Unions prevent it. There's a difference.

 

[Kulindahr]

Except you're ignoring the glaring, impossible to ignore fact that, sometimes, officers do things like that in reaction to something that a citizen does. (shocking I know )
Unless a video shows the context, prosecutors (or defense for that matter) would find it very difficult to get the court to accept it into evidence. (in other words: Context matters)

No one piece of evidence ever does all that. If courts really held to this rule, no still photos, or even witnesses who didn't see the whole thing would be inadmissible.

 

[JB3]

No one piece of evidence ever does all that. If courts really held to this rule, no still photos, or even witnesses who didn't see the whole thing would be inadmissible.

Sure they can. In this case, a video could show an officer getting pelted with rocks or bricks, which then caused them to fire a rubber bullet or a flash grenade, etc.. Without that first part, a judge or court would only get the officer's action. They'd literally be missing half of the story.

Context matters Kuli. Even though it doesn't fit your neat little tirade about police, you know its the truth.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sure they can. In this case, a video could show an officer getting pelted with rocks or bricks, which then caused them to fire a rubber bullet or a flash grenade, etc.. Without that first part, a judge or court would only get the officer's action. They'd literally be missing half of the story.

Context matters Kuli. Even though it doesn't fit your neat little tirade about police, you know its the truth.

I've been on two juries and sat in on two trials. Never did they dismiss or exclude evidence for this reason. We got lots of pieces and had to put it together.

By the rule you're claiming, there wouldn't have been any valid evidence for those trials -- not a single piece. It would have boiled down to the prosecutor saying "He's guilty" and the defense saying "No he isn't". Nothing that was presented gave the whole picture, from police video to witnesses to officer testimony, so by what you're saying, it all would have been excluded.

What actually happened was that a piece of evidence was brought, and the prosecutor explained where it fit in the puzzle. Then another piece was brought, and he did the same. In one we had almost ten minutes of police video -- but it was "just half of the story", so according to you it should have been excluded. In one we had some still photos -- but they didn't tell the whole story, so according to you they should have been excluded. And none of the witnesses came close to having the full story; they testified things like, "Yes, at ten-forty-five that care went by my place", and gave the address, or "the gravel on the shoulder was replaced last month, so it was still soft", and "a Buick Electra can go from thirty to sixty in under four seconds".

Your claim would mean leaving juries with none of the story, almost all the time. Heck, it would exclude videos from convenience stores as evidence in robbery, because they don't show what happened before the accused came into view of the cam!

Your notion here doesn't pass a reality check.

 

[hotatlboi]

Wait I thought the TEA Party talking points were smaller government and that they are the focal point of that rejection. SO your not in their camp? So since the Republicans are all signing the tea party tune and the democrats you rip above... what are you voting for and what policy is the way out?

This really says it all.

 

[EastMed]

Thorben Albrecht has some pertinent things to say on the state we're in, and some suggestions on banking reform.
It's all very reasonable but I'm pessimistic about any real change.

http://www.social-europe.eu/2011/10/democracy-in-danger-has-anybody-learned-anything/

 

[White Eagle]

The records in question are personnel records. Criminal charges are public records. Of course you have to break the law to get charged, don't you? Gonzales was criminally cleared in every instance. The police in Oakland aren't somehow endowed by the uber liberal California Supreme Court with the ability to murder people who "are in their way" as you've claimed. That isn't what the Copley decision was about and you know it. It's offensive that you even make such a ridiculous claim.

You've chosen to accuse a man considered by many a hero of being a murderer, without any proof at all. How sad.

No! Once again you are showing your colors. Proving you are on the side of rogue police. You have read the Copley wrong. They make all police records hidden from public view. You are right about Gonzales being criminally cleared in every instance. That is what is wrong with this.
You go on with your beliefs, that is what is sad.

 

[jackoroe]

No! Once again you are showing your colors. Proving you are on the side of rogue police. You have read the Copley wrong. They make all police records hidden from public view. You are right about Gonzales being criminally cleared in every instance. That is what is wrong with this.
You go on with your beliefs, that is what is sad.

Wrong. Copley does not make all police records hidden from public view. That would mean that you couldn't get a copy of an accident report, since that is a police record. It makes police personnel files, which are different, not subject to open records statutes. Got it? If anybody gets criminally charged, Copley does not make those records secret. Got it? Good.

And once again, the extremely liberal California Supreme court is responsible for this decision. These aren't beliefs, but facts.

 

[White Eagle]

Ya got cites?

 

[White Eagle]

http://www.aclunc.org/issues/crimin...stions_about_copley_press_and_sb_1019.shtml#2

How has Copley Press affected agencies and the public’s right to know?

[Quote removed by moderator] Copyright ©2011

 

[White Eagle]

At the same link above the legislature are working on having the copley returned to before the supreme court ruling. No indication this has happened yet.

How does the proposed legislation solve this problem?
SB 1019 directly overturns Copley Press and will allow local jurisdictions and state agencies to provide greater transparency around police complaints. The bill effectively leaves the law as it was before Copley Press was decided. Local jurisdictions will be able to create open complaint review processes, like those that were in use before Copley Press. The bill also contains a provision that would allow certain information to be discussed in closed session if the chief officer certifies that the release of the information would jeopardize an officers’ safety or operational security.

 

[palemale]

He was represented by the Captain's Endowment Association which represents inspectors as well. Why, I don't know but they do.

Had this incident occurred in a jurisdiction without a union, you serve at the will of the chief law enforcement officer. You certainly would have seen him fired.

It's a pretty clear example of unions protecting those who shouldn't be doing the job they have. Happens all the time in the public sector.

I'm familiar with the grievance procedures in the police department. The commissioner has the final say. So, if Ray Kelly wanted this guy gone, he would be gone.

Interestingly, they are prosecuting 16 police officers right now, mostly for ticket fixing for friends and family, others for far more serious crimes. It seems to me to be a far more serious infraction to engage in police brutality than to fix some tickets. Just one more example of the warped priorities of Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly.

 

[JayHawk]

This really says it all.

Okay I had to go to your link because it was broken. SO I get what you are saying. I agree corporations have too much influential power in our government.

I would also agree in certain areas the government has more unnecessary power in our lives.

OWS attacks wall street but doesn't give real solutions that either party is heralding.

The tea party somewhat more successfully (due to time and tenacity) has put people in office but the only thing they are doing is offering up a blocking movement to Obama policy. A blocking movement the republican party is telling them is because they are like them. In reality when the republican party regains power the central part of the power base will cast the tea party aside like a broken toy.

Neither is putting out policy changes or planned program elimination of implementation that is gaining wide popular support EXCEPT when the wide public only hears part of the story. They madly support "LOWER TAXES" but do not understand it means no safety net or no streets to drive on. Likewise it is very popular to denounce the corporate influence and simply lay the blame squarely at the feet of greed. BUT this country is the worlds largest economy because we have banking institutions that can fund vast expensive enterprises. Smaller local banks could not make a 7B loan with any hope of guarantee.

So it is a weird place where we don't fully understand the consequences of that which we wish to destroy.

 

[T-Rexx]

OWS attacks wall street but doesn't give real solutions that either party is heralding.

*Sigh*

If you complain to your bank that their overdraft fees are outrageous, does your bank demand that you file with them an economic plan, pointing out how they may operate profitability without the high fees?

Is it the job of citizens to do the work of government representatives who are recalcitrant, or is it the job of citizens to point out that the work isn't getting done, and hold the representatives to account?

So it is a weird place where we don't fully understand the consequences of that which we wish to destroy.

No, we understand the consequences.

But, more importantly, we understand the vastly more ominous consequences of NOT reforming the system. FDR saved capitalism by reforming American banking and redistributing wealth to the middle class through dozens of federal programs and tax reform. Had he not done that, this would probably be a communist (or possibly a Fascist) country today.

We of the 99% are not out to destroy. We are demanding no less than the salvation of American democracy. Do you not understand the seriousness of this situation? Do you not understand why we are willing to freeze and go hungry and suffer attack from those who are supposed to be protecting us - and yet still come back again and again to make our point?

There are lots of people on this board who think that keeping parks beautiful and citizens orderly is more important than justice, fairness and the salvation of an American way of life.

We think those people are anti-patriotic. No, not un-patriotic. Anti-patriotic.

 

[White Eagle]

Thank you T-Rexx. Great post.