whether it’s a “problem” with garrity is a subjective matter. i merely am saying it’s *a* thing

however, you are full of it. you said this: “Of course, it should be noted that they waited far, far too long to threaten to Garrity-question Mehserle (should have been done the night of the shooting and with Mehserle held incommunicado (including no lawyer) until Garrity questioning had taken place”

which is why you are full of it. you said that they waited far too long to garrity, and i am saying how do you know? they MAY have been procedurally and/or legally proscribed from garrity questioning UNTIL a certain point of time. you are saying it was an error, and i am saying that depends on what the relevant law/contract says about how long they are required to wait

i find the idea that garrity questioning be conducted by the public defender as about as ridiculous as it being conducted by the prosecutor office

the POINT of garrity questioning relates to – was there a violation of dept. policy, etc. why the hell would you want a public defender, whose job is to defend people accused of crimes, to engage in an administrative internal investigation of a PD. it doesn’t even make sense

defense attorneys are NOT police management. they are not the enemy either. they are merely people hired to defend suspects, and ensure their rights are respected in trial, and ultimately their goal is to get a client freed, whether or not they did the offense. that’s a job completely unreleated to the purpose of garrity

GENERALLY SPEAKING, when it appears criminal law violations may have occurred by an officer you do NOT WANT to do garrity questioning AT ALL. it is almost always preferable to wait for the criminal side to play out, for a # of reasons

personally, i could not care less about the exclusionary rule. it excludes evidence, unlawfully obtained. my job is not to prosecute, nor to gather evidence of guilt. a cop’s job is to investigate and gather evidence, whether exculpatory or incriminatory. exclusionary rule doesn’t hurt me (a cop)… it hurts the victim of the crime, and society, but not me.

yes. I know. This is a problem related to Garrity. I terefore term it a Garrity-related-problem.

It is not the worst Garrity-related-problem, but it is a Garrity-related problems.

My previous post was not to give a comprehensive list of all Garrity-related problems. My point was to show that bad, and unrecognized-as-problems, Garrity problems do exist and that means that Garrity is bad and not good, as it has worked out in practice.

Frankly, everything I said in this-here post should have gone without saying. This ain’t roket science, Dunphy. Not going to address the rest of your points. Not bringing the debate at a high enuf level. Hate to sound elitist, but you really do need to pik it up.

there were exceptions, but the youtube videos are all over the place, there were scores of thousands of protesters, lots of cops, tons of confrontations, a metric assload of cell phone cameras, and few examples of excessive police force

the UC davis episode, that LOOKED horrible turned out to be anything but, ONCE the entire video was released.

in fact, it was completely justified.

the most egregious thing i saw vis a vis OWS were certain politicians (e.g. the mayor of oakland) facilitating criminal behavior BECAUSE they agreed with the MESSAGE of OWS.

that is the grossest injustice – giving special treatment to CERTAIN protesters because you agree with their messages. it incentivized lawlessnes, etc. which was what the oakland OWS responded with, in great #’s, and massive vandalism, barricades erected after lawful orders were given to disperse etc. with plenty o’ warning.

compare and contrast OWS with tea party protests. the latter CLEANED up after themselves, sought permits, and generally acted lawfully

and were criticized for god forbid, carrying guns (legally) etc.

OWS covered up sex assaults, had TONS of crimes associated with their actions, and whined when (largely) justified force was used.

Case #2: Liberals see Rand Paul get hassled by the TSA, and laugh and tell him to stop bitching, because they don’t like his politics.

What’s the difference between these two cases? Seems to me both cases involve people convincing themselves to love the boot on their own neck, so long as they’re pretty sure the boot on their enemies’ necks is pressing down harder.

As it stands now though, the mainstream anti-abortion crowd is a spiritual movement – and spiritual arguments are a dime a dozen.

The closest thing I’ve been able to come up with as a “compromise” between the two halves of the abortion argument is to apply the standard of death to the fetus to determine if it is “alive” and a person.

That is, does it have a brain wave and a heartbeat? The standard used to determine death could also determine when life begins. That seems completely NON-”spiritual”, as best I can tell.

Just for the record, that time would be pretty close to the end of the first trimester.

Omar, if that’s not enough to convince you it’s not a spiritual issue, then you are arguing in bad faith.

generally speaking, i wouldn’t support a firing of an officer based on some sort of threat, said in the heat of anger. most agencies, mine included, work on a progressive discipline basis. if this was the first incident of this sort, certainly not a firing, but if the behavior continued progressive discipline could result in firing.

people say shit in anger. cops aint perfect, nor do i think we should require perfection such that a cop losing his temper and makign threats should automatically result in firing, without knowign further facts regarding past history, etc.

i work with a guy who got 5 days for slapping a kid in the face (no injuries, but definitely a solid slap deserving punishment) about 10 yrs ago. since then, i’m aware of no instances of misconduct, and it would have been ridiculous imo to fire him for that incident. the kid was being a punk and trying everything possible to goad the officer , but the officer had the duty to be a professional, he failed, he was justly punished, and he never did anything else of the sort again, not even a single allegation of anything like that.

maybe i differ from some people here, but i don’t think you cancel a good cop’s career for a transgression like that. punish? yes. and if he did it again, i could guarantee he’d be fired.

under “true threat” standards, etc. not every threat IS a crime, and many are either so de minimus and/;or don’t meet true threat standards, that they would never be prosecuted, cop or not

i have gone to literally scores of neighbor type disturbances, for example, where one neighbor threatens to beat the shit out of the other neighbor etc. usually over some stupid property dispute or something equally stupid like overgrowth of brush or whatever

VERY rarely , in fact, probably less than 1/50 would somebody ever get charged for these “threats” despite the fact that they were threats of bodily harm, said in anger, etc.

it’s a much more grey area, and much more of a burden than many other crimes, to prove.

i’ve personally testified in a case of witness intimadation/threats that got a scumbag a solid 5 yr sentence, too. it’s very dependant on case facts.

but it’s reality that whether it’s a criminal threat, or just smack talk, is dependant on a host of factors and just because somebody (whether he’;s a cop or not) says “i’m going to kick your ass” or some such, that does not mean it’s criminally actionable

that may be true in that case, but if you are implying that it takes video of an incident to get a cop fired, that’s simply laughable. i work for a decent sized agency, and i know several officers who have been fired, and only one case in the last few years involved video (to support a firing). i also know of two cases where video helped exonerate officers accused of wrongdoing.

i support as much videoing as possible, because it helps protect good officers from false complaints, it helps the truth come out, it helps punish those who make false complaints, and it incentivizes people (and espeically cops) to behave better

win/win/win/win

just as some examples, one officer was fired for repeatedly not turning in reports, another was fired for coming to work and repeatedly driving with a suspended license (he had been arrested for DUI, pled guilty and not advised the dept. he was not obligated to inform the dept of the arrest, but he was obligated not to drive iwht the suspended license), three got fired for excessive force (one was rehired after an arbitrator, correctly imo based onthe arbitrator report i read – determined that it was an unjust firing w/o due process), etc.

feel free to go to your local decent sized PD and request via FOIA sustained complaint info. you will see tons of cases of officers being disciplined and/or fired w/o the need for video

in some jurisdictions (by law) and/or dept’s (by contract), they CANNOT question the officer (garrity him) within X hours of the incident, or at least not unless he consents.

so, you don’t know if they waited too long or not, since you don’t know (nor do i) how long they were or weren’t mandated to wait. remember, this is an administrative/internal thing that is subject to collective bargaining agreements and/or laws relevant to it

You can watch the video and see what you think. These situations are always a matter of degree, and this was farr from the worst verbal abuse I have seen given the totality of the circumstances (eg, threat to kill sounded semi-serious at best). Even I, Burgers Allday, did not want to see the policeman arrested or jailed (at least not if the police had responded by quickly terminating the guy after they saw the video, but long before I did (as they should have). And I pretty much always want to see the policeman arrested at the scene (see Johannes Mehserle rant above). Not to excuse Canton. Their oversight was lax (in the pre-video-release period). They also should have fired the officer’s partner for some stuf he did in the video. Still, quibbles are these. Basically all is well that ends well. But this was due to the release of the video to the public (specifically a gun rights organization) and had nothing to do with Garrity — Garrity questioning simply didn’t enter into it because no one in the Canton PD cared until the vid got youtubed. Then suddenly they did and moved relatively quickly after that to fire him.

How effing hard is that to understand? Nothing ‘spiritual’ about it.

The time-honored tactic of reducing your victims to sub or non human status facilitates mass murder in war – and abortion.

I thought it was in response to them.

I don’t get where the self-righteous satisfaction came from on Gawker’s part.

Self-righteous Gawker is self-righteous. There are a few articles/writers that aren’t, but the vast majority (IMO) are.

One got fired in Canton Ohio last week, basically for threatening, in inappropriate anger, to kill a suspect.

What if it had been “appropriate” anger? So infuriating. These are criminal acts. Not just something that gets you terminated. In almost every one of these cases lengthy reviews are conducted with the union (and badge-lickers in tow) attack the city to get re-instated or a check. What a sweet, sweet ride.

You may disagree with us on the nature of what is developing in a woman’s womb, but if you are completely incapable of seeing that we have a legitimate disagreement that just means you are solipsistic in your thinking

When the anti-abortion crowd stops listening to barely educated professional speakers (bible college, wtf?!?) and starts listening to actual developmental biologists about the differences between eggs, sperm, a fetus, and a human, i’ll take your legitimate disagreement seriously.

As it stands now though, the mainstream anti-abortion crowd is a spiritual movement – and spiritual arguments are a dime a dozen.

–he will never be fired in situations where people would tend to feel that criminal prosecution is not warranted [b]absent some really, really good video and audio[/b]–

Policemen do get fired for misconduct. One got fired in Canton Ohio last week, basically for threatening, in inappropriate anger, to kill a suspect. But it wasn’t Garrity that made this firing happen (the firing ocurred way too late in the day to have been a product Garrity questioning and/or threatened Garrity questioning). Rather, it was video and audio recordings that got released to the public somehow.

Garrity sort of worked in cases like Johannes Mehserle. He hadn’t thought of the I-thought-it-was-my-taser defense yet (and was running around saying he thought Grant had a gun until the vids started surfacing). Because Mehserle hadn’t thought of his over story yet, he had to resign from his department. Of course, it should be noted that they waited far, far too long to threaten to Garrity-question Mehserle (should have been done the night of the shooting and with Mehserle held incommunicado (including no lawyer) until Garrity questioning had taken place. Despite these Garrity abues in the Mehserle case, this is how the system “works” — he did have to resign (and his cock and bull story told informally by him to other policemen after the shooting was inadmissible in his trial despite the fat that it was glaringly inconsistent with his mistaken-Taser defense).

My point:

Garrity barely works in a case where a police officer shoots a face down, hands behind back guy on video. Who even needs Garrity i a situation like this? Mehserle simply should have been arrested on the morning of 1 Jan 2009 and told that he had the right to remain silent whilst sitting in his jail cell. Plenty of probable cause for that arrest. No Garrity violation in proceeding in that manner in the Mehserle case, but they didn’t do it. Because of conflict of interest reasons, of course.

There are “less guilty” situations where it is appealing to think that Garrity would work and that the policeman will be fired, but not face criminal charges. For example, Lt. Pike comes to mind as someone who should be fired, but (perhaps) not prosecuted for gratuitous assault above and beyond the call of duty. He won’t be. Garrity never, ever works in these situations. The policeman may or may not be prosecuted criminally, but he will never be fired, and he will never be fired in situations where people would tend to feel that criminal prosecution is not warranted.

Garrity could be fixed. Garrity questioning could be handed to the public defender’s office (by law, the police won’t do that voluntarily). Simple fix. Perfect solution. Probably ain’t gonna happen politically, but one never knows. The publi defender’s office would do the Garrity questioning in a manner adverse to the popo, WITHOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Of course this is exactly why police would resist my proposal if they ever caught wind of it.

As things stand, Garrity is te problem not the solution. It is spiritually akin to the exclusionary rule. Cops love to piss and moan about these things, but in reality they are the policemen’s good friends and the overwhelming majority of police know this secretly.

I’ve never had a relative murdered, but it seems odd to me when families say that they can’t have closure until the state murders another person.

To be fair, one of the reasons Gawker and others were being snarky about Rand Paul is that the Senator was on his way to endorse a movement that calls for a massive government intervention into the uteri of women.

If you believe a fetus is a child, it’s no more about freedom and autonomy than it is about property rights and privacy when a husband wants to murder his wife for any reason in the “privacy of his own home.” You may disagree with us on the nature of what is developing in a woman’s womb, but if you are completely incapable of seeing that we have a legitimate disagreement that just means you are solipsistic in your thinking.

i’m pro choice, but this argument is not a winner for me. abortion isn’t merely about the privacy of a woman’s uterus (roe v wade aside). there is a third entity present – the fetus

iow, if one believes that the fetus’ “right to live” overrides a woman’s right to abort it, then it’s not about the invasion into the uteri of women, unless there is a third party there (granted, not a personhood party, but still A party with unique DNA and a unique, albeit … dependant life)

imo, libertarians should accept that pro-life is not inconsistent with libertarianism. it’s a balancing test

i am prochoice ON DEMAND abortions in first trimester

i certainly don’t agree with on demand abortion in third trimester, or for the “health” (iow mental health) of the mother, but certainly if her physical safety was endangered

pro-choicers tend to frame it as solely about the woman’s body. it’s not. it’s about HER body, and the dependant organism within

drug use, otoh, should be legal for libertarians because the state clearly has no authority to tell people what they can or can’t put in their bloodstream (or uterus if they were inventive)

if rand paul was for restriction of birth control, or premarital sex, or something like that, clearly that would be inconsistent with libertarianism, but as long as there is a third party in the uterus, unable to speak for itself, trying to protect that party IS consistent with libertarianism. i can respect it, despite being solidly pro-choice