Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cop Forced Teen To Perform Oral Sex On Himself And His Partner, Keeps Law Enforcement Certification
Just don't fight it right? Go with it?
Omaha, Nebraska (TFC) – A cop took a deal in relation to charges of sexually assaulting a teenage girl and will not receive a felony conviction, will not have to register as a sex offender, will only serve a year in jail, and still currently has his law enforcement certification.
He should be in prison for years and how in the hell does he get to keep his certificate? We are suppose to support a group that would do and allow this?
She was 19; over the age of consent. And there is no indication from the article that she was "forced". She gave him a BJ for him to overlook the drugs she had. Abuse of his position? Absolutely. Sexual "assault"? No, it was consensual.
She was 19; over the age of consent. And there is no indication from the article that she was "forced". She gave him a BJ for him to overlook the drugs she had. Abuse of his position? Absolutely. Sexual "assault"? No, it was consensual.
Holy cow.........this was one I never thought anyone would attempt to defend and yet..........sheesh. A guy holding your freedom in one hand and a gun on his side is never consensual.
The best way to prevent police brutality is to obey laws and don't be a rude obnoxious smart ass when dealing with police. Be polite and in return, police will be polite right back at you. I know this is a radical idea for the left.
I'm sure you are aware of Officer Daniel Holtzclaw. The cop that was pulling over black women and raping them. He received 263 years in prison for it. All this happened because these women had bad attitudes?
Also. Just like to point out to everyone. One bad cop got arrested, charged, and sentenced and the world didn't collapse. It's that easy to hold them accountable. You don't have to make excuses, life will go on.
If enough of us make complaints, then there will be change. We can also use those complaints to build a class action suit against the local PD via one of our Civil Rights organizations legal wing like LDF. Nothing causes institutions to change more than paying out legal fees. But they need to be HUGE fees and combined with demands for reform.
Realize though that the most likely reforms from these actions are ones that vastly contract the role of police in the community.
Beats are cut. Officers are ordered to stay in their cars. Calls are respond and report only with no proactive policing whatsoever. Even emergency response is cut back. You reduce police brutality, but you increase crime in a much greater proportion, especially property crime.
Violence won't do it, start garnishing money from the police pension fund every time a cop gets sued, this will also be more of an incentive for good cops to turn in bad cops.
Would also require a constitutional amendment to implement. Pension funds are considered individual property of the each person who contributes to them, so it would be a violation of the takings clause and due process clause of the 5th amendment.
in court. you dont fight the cop at the side of the road, they have all the power there. you fight the cop in court with every weapon you can muster. court is where a good lawyer can work, and the advantage is severely diminished. you can also fight police brutality in the legislature, and in city hall. you demand that the government set up review boards that have not only cops on them, but civilians as well. you demand that cops be held to a higher standard in order to wield the power the badge gives them. some cops fall down on the job, but get back up and do it right again. others constantly fail at the job, and those are the ones that we need to get rid of.
Considering that resisting the officer justifies more force and even if you complain about it, they still keep their jobs.
Hmmm, interesting question. I believe the answer is change the composition of departments (particularly in urban areas) to reflect the demographic profile of that area. In addition, I would mandate residency requirements. Police officers must live in the areas they police, this would prevent the disassociative (occupying force) attitude that's endemic within certain departments.
Would also require a constitutional amendment to implement. Pension funds are considered individual property of the each person who contributes to them, so it would be a violation of the takings clause and due process clause of the 5th amendment.
It may not be this simple. If you get fired you lose them. You don't have a right to keep them. Perhaps you mean a personal 401k which would be different.
What it comes down to is people speaking up. If there was a $6 million dollar settlement something wrong happened even if no one in power to do so wants to place blame. As taxpayers we can cut the funding off but unfortunately there are too many willing to allow our rights to be trampled on.
It may not be this simple. If you get fired you lose them. You don't have a right to keep them. Perhaps you mean a personal 401k which would be different.
Only if you are not vested. If you are vested, getting fired, even for cause, does not forfeit your pension because the contributions are considered a property right. That property can be removed through due process, but it must be through due process like any other property. As mentioned below, the pension benefits could be reduced or denied, but then normally the entire value of the pension contributions has to be refunded.
(Police officers, like other state and local employees, cannot have a 401k.)
But the post is talking about police officers other than the fired officer losing their pension benefits, and without any due process for those other individual officers.
The actual rules on pension property rights are wildly varying from state to state (see State and Local Government Pensions: In What Circumstances Can Governments Reduce Pension Benefits?), but still all break down to following due process to reduce or deny benefits. There is also a big difference between future benefits and vested contributions. The article I referenced is about benefits. The post I was responding to is talking about vested contributions (the pension fund itself). Vested contributions, deducted out of paychecks or contributed in lieu of compensation, have much stronger property rights attached to them than future benefits; even unvested contributions have stronger rights attached to them than future benefits. You see this in the few "no vested rights" states, in which there is no such thing as pension contributions (public employees receive full pay with no pension deductions and the employer bears the full cost of pension funding).
Supporting body cams would be one that is proven to help reduce bad actions.
Not a big shocker that some of the US police forces with the worst reputations and strong unions have fought them with some degree of success.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
